BCC Minutes 12/03/2002 RDecember 3, 2002
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, December 3, 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
December 3, 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
1
December 3, 2002
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
e
e
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. November 4, 2002 - LDC Workshop
C. November 5, 2002 - Regular Meeting
SERVICE AWARDS
PROCLAMATIONS
Proclamation to recognize Mr. Fred Thomas, Jr., for his efforts on the
Immokalee Housing Issue. To be accepted by Mr. Fred Thomas, Jr.
Proclamation to recognize the week of December 2-8, 2002 as United Way
of Collier County Agency Awareness Week. To be accepted by Ernest
Bretzmann, United Way Executive Director.
PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of the Fifteenth Annual Survey of Registered Voters. The
complete survey is on display in the County Manager's Office, 2nd. Floor, W.
Harmon Turner Building, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL.
Presentation of Outstanding Agency of the Year Award for Collier County
Domestic Animal Services.
2
December 3, 2002
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Ae
Public Petition Request by Mr. Ken Drum to discuss overall plan for the
Santa Barbara Extension.
Be
Public Petition Request by Mr. Jim Kramer to discuss procedure for
ascendancy to the Chairmanship of the Board of Collier County
Commissioners.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Ae
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. This item has been continued from the
November 19, 2002 BCC Meeting: VA-2002-AR-2909, Craig J. Pajer, P.E.,
of AEC National Inc., representing Collier County Board of County
Commissioners Facilities Management Department, requesting approval of a
34-foot variance in the Public Use District (P) from the required 35-foot
maximum height limitation to 69-feet in order to construct a 5-story parking
garage on property located at the Collier County Government Center
adjacent to Building "J", 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Section 12, Township 50
South, Range 25, Collier County, Florida.
Be
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. This item has been continued from the
November 19, 2002 BCC Meeting: CU-2002-AR-2759, Craig J. Pajer, P.E.,
of AEC National Inc., representing Collier County Board of County
Commissioners Facilities Management Department, requesting approval of a
Conditional Use "3" (Detention Facilities and Jails) in the Public Use
District (P) in order to construct an addition to the existing Naples Jail
Center on property located at the Collier County Government Center,
Building "J", 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Section 12, Township 50 South,
Range 25, Collier County, Florida.
Ce
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. This item has been continued from the
November 19, 2002 BCC Meeting: VA-2002-AR-2908, Craig J. Pajer, P.E.,
of AEC National, Inc. representing Collier County Board of County
Commissioners Facilities Management Department, requesting approval of a
40-foot variance in the Public Use District (P) from the required 35-foot
maximum height limitation to 75-feet, in order to construct an addition to the
3
December 3, 2002
ge
existing Naples Jail Center on property located at the Collier County
Government Center, Building "J", 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Section 12,
Township 50 South, Range 25, Collier County, Florida.
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ae
Be
Ce
De
me
Fe
Adoption of an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code
of Law and Ordinances, as amended by Ordinance No. 2001-13, the Collier
County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, providing for annual mid-cycle
year indexing adjustments to Road Impact Fee Rates and Parks and
Recreational Facilities Impact Fee Rates. (Phil Tindall, Impact Fee
Coordinator)
This item has a Time Certain of 1:00 P.M. Adoption of an Ordinance
establishing the Conservation Collier Program providing for the Acquisition
of Environmentally Sensitive Lands in Collier County.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
Second Amendment to the Interlocal Government Agreement with the City
of Naples for the Development of the Hamilton Harbor Marina Project.
An Ordinance creating the Arnold/Mercantile Avenue Municipal Service
Taxing and Benefit Unit; providing the authority; providing for the creation;
providing a purpose and governing body; providing for annual estimates of
expenses, taxation not to exceed 1 MIL of Ad Valorem Taxes per year and
assessment rate; providing for the collection of taxes and assessments;
providing for conflict and severability; providing for inclusion in the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances; providing for an effective date.
An Ordinance creating the South 8th Street/Doak Avenue Municipal Service
Taxing and Benefit Unit; providing the authority; providing for the creation;
providing a purpose and governing body; providing for annual estimates of
expenses, taxation not to exceed .5 MILS of Ad Valorem Taxes per year and
assessment rate; providing for the collection of taxes and assessments;
providing for conflict and severability; providing for inclusion in the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances; providing for an effective date.
An Ordinance creating the Little League Road/Trafford Farm Road
Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit; providing the authority;
providing for the creation; providing a purpose and governing body;
4
December 3, 2002
providing for annual estimates of expenses; taxation not to exceed .5 MILS
of Ad Valorem Taxes per year and assessment rate; providing for the
collection of taxes and assessments; providing for conflict and severability;
providing for inclusion in the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances;
providing for an effective date.
Ge
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2002-AR-2200,
Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A.,
representing First Baptist Church of Naples Inc., requesting a rezone from
"C-1" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Mission Square PUD
located on the North side of Pine Ridge Road between Goodlette-Frank
Road (CR-851) and Jaeger Road for property located at 1595 Pine Ridge
Road, in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 10.5+ acres.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A®
Presentation of Aquifer Performance Test Report regarding the City of
Naples East Golden Gate Well Field. A copy of the report is on display in
the County Manager's Office, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, 3301
East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public
Utilities)
Recommendation of Final Candidate Selections for the position of Chief
Hearing Examiner by the Hearing Examiner Advisory Committee. (Jim
Mudd, County Manager)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
For the Collier County Board of County Commissioners to clarify their
intent related to Change Order Seven of the Contract between the Board and
Project Integration for the five million gallon per day expansion at the North
5
December 3, 2002
Regional Water Reclamation Facility.
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. Airport Authority Ordinance Update. (Jim Mudd, County Manager)
16.
CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Request to grant Final Acceptance of the Roadway, Drainage, Water
and Sewer Improvements for the Final Plat of "Collier's Reserve".
2)
Request to approve for recording the Final Plat of"Castlewood at
Imperial" and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Performance Security.
3)
Request to grant Final Acceptance of the Roadway, Drainage, Water
and Sewer Improvements for the Final Plat of "Pelican Marsh Unit
Eighteen".
4)
Final acceptance of Water Utility Facilities for the Pinnacle at The
Strand.
s)
Request to grant Final Acceptance of the Roadway, Drainage, Water
and Sewer Improvements for the Final Plat of "Coachmen Glen".
6)
Final acceptance of Water Utility Facilities for Bermuda Bay at Bay
Forest.
7) Request to approve for recording the Final Plat of "Camden Cove".
6
December 3, 2002
8)
Petition AVESMT2002-AR2766 to vacate, renounce and disclaim
easements recorded in separate instruments in the Public Records of
Collier County, Florida, located in Section 24, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
9)
Petition CARNY-2002-AR-3389, Sandra Ramos, Program Leader II,
Collier County Parks and Recreation Department, requesting a Permit
to conduct the annual "Christmas Around the World" Carnival on
December 13, 2002, on County owned property at the Immokalee
Sports Complex, located at 505 Escambia Street, Immokalee, Florida.
10)
Petition CARNY-2002-AR-3342, Peg Ruby, Special Events
Coordinator, Collier County Parks and Recreation Department,
requesting a Permit to conduct the annual "Snowfest" Carnival on
December 7, 2002, on County owned property at the Golden Gate
Community Park, located at 3300 Santa Barbara Boulevard.
11)
Approval of a Budget Amendment to purchase an additional vehicle
for the approved expanded evening Supervisor position and for the
purchase of additional workstations for the approved expanded
Investigator/Supervisor and Customer Service positions.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Approve an Easement Agreement and accept an Access Easement in
favor of Collier County and SFWMD-BCB for periodic maintenance
of the Golden Gate Main Canal under the bridge constructed at 13th
Street SW. (Project No. 60012) Fiscal Impact: $20,100.00
2)
Board approval to terminate a Lease Agreement with Volusia County
for the use of two trolley/buses.
3)
Approve Supplemental Agreement No. 6 to the Professional Services
Agreement with URS Corporation Southern, in the amount of
$99,715, for the design of County Barn Road from Davis Boulevard
to Rattlesnake Hammock Road, Project No. 60101.
4)
Request Board approval of an Agreement between Collier County and
the Collier Park of Commerce Owners' Association, Inc. (COPC) for
the purpose of constructing two connecting roads between South
7
December 3, 2002
Horseshoe Drive and Enterprise Avenue Extension (Transfer Station
Road) at no cost to Collier County.
5)
Execute a subordination of Utility Interests Agreement with Florida
Power and Light Company relative to Transfer Road at Naples
Airport.
6)
Approve Developer Contribution Agreement with Naples Lakes
Development for Road Impact Credits subject to developer complying
with all conditions of the Agreement imposed by the County. Due to
oversized package, complete back-up material is on display in the
County Manager's Office, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon Tumer Building,
Naples, FL.
7)
Approve Developer Contribution Agreement with Sierra Meadows
Development for Road Impact Credits subject to developer complying
with all conditions of the Agreement imposed by the County. Due to
oversized package, complete back-up material is on display in the
County Manager's Office, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building,
Naples, FL.
8)
Approve an Interfund Transfer for Davis Boulevard, Phase II,
Landscape Renovation in the amount of $4,024.50.
9)
Authorize Change Order No. 1 to the Immokalee Road/I-75
Interchange Construction Contract in the amount of $426,091.80,
which includes a portion of work to be paid for by Brentwood Land
Partners, LLC. (Project No. 66042A)
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Accept a Right of Entry, Utility Easement, and Access Easement from
the District School Board of Collier County, Florida, for the
installation of a monitoring well on the Lely High School Property,
the cost of which will not exceed $50.00.
2)
Recommendation to Award Bid #03-3434 - "Chemicals for Utilities"
in the estimated amount of $718,401.
8
December 3, 2002
3)
Approve Work Orders (2) to develop a master plan to investigate the
Golden Gate Canal for irrigation water in the aggregate amount of
$87,300, Project 74021.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Authorize a Budget Amendment recognizing revenue to fund three (3)
additional EMS positions as outlined in the Naples Community
Hospital Transportation Service Agreement.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
Award Contract/tO 1-3290 "Fixed Term Professional Engineering
Services" to Wilson Miller, Inc.
2)
Approval to Award Bid #02-3432 "On-Call Mechanical Contractor
Services" to United Mechanical Inc., B & I Contractors Inc., and Air
Mechanical and Service Corporation for Mechanical Engineering and
Contractor Services.
3)
Approval to Award Bid #02-3431 "On-Call Overhead Door and
Automatic Gate Contractor for Annual Service and Repairs" to Action
Automatic Door, Inc., and Overdoors of Florida Inc.
4)
Approve payment in the amount of $161,995 to the City of Naples for
Water System Development Fees for service at the Main Government
Complex.
5)
Approve a Budget Amendment to reappropriate carryforward funds in
several projects and to reopen purchase orders in FY03 that were
closed in error in FY02 in the amount of $177,245.
6)
Approve a Lease Agreement with East Naples United Methodist
Church Inc., for land to be used for additional Government Complex
Parking at an annual rent of $1,000.
7)
Approval of Group Health Third Party Administration Fees for
Calendar Year 2003.
9
December 3, 2002
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Acceptance of an Agreement between the State of Florida,
Department of Community Affairs and Collier County for funds to be
used for Shelter Enhancement for the Vineyards and Laurel Oaks
Elementary Schools and approve a Budget Amendment to recognize
and appropriate revenue in the amount of $48,750.
2)
Approve Isles of Capri Fire/Rescue Application for a matching
(50/50) Grant offered by the Florida Division of Forestry in the
amount of $2,230 and approve the necessary Budget Amendments.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Items to File for Record with Action as Directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of
whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the
Detailed Report of Open Purchase Orders serve a valid public purpose
and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said
purchases. Copy of Open Purchase Order Report is on display in the
County Manager's Office, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building,
3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Request by the Collier County Industrial Development Authority for
approval of a resolution authorizing the Authority to issue revenue
bonds to be used to finance educational facilities for Community
School of Naples Inc.
2)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and ratify the Collective Bargaining Agreement including the 2002
Reopener with the Professional Firefighters of the Everglades
10
December 3, 2002
International Association of Firefighters, Local 3670.
17.
SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. SHOULD ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
ITEMS BE MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA ALL PARTICIPANTS
MUST BE SWORN IN.
Ae
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2002-AR-2617
Marlo Valle, of Creative Homes of Southwest Florida, Inc., representing
Lloyd E. Wynn, requesting after-the-fact variances in the Estates (E) Zoning
District from the required: 1) 30-foot side yard setback (LDC Section
2.2.3.4.3.1.), to allow a 14.4 feet side yard setback (A Variance of 15.6
Feet); and 2) 75-foot front yard setback (LDC Section 2.2.3.4.3.2.), to allow
a 70.1 foot front yard setback (A Variance of 4.9 Feet), for property located
at 2231 14th Avenue NE, further described as Golden Gate Estates Unit 16,
Tract 99, Lot E-150, as recorded in Plat Book 7, Pages 3-4, Collier County
Records, in Section 36, Township 48 South, Range 27 East.
Be
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2002-AR-2431
Tina Levan requesting a 6.5 foot variance for a pool screen enclosure in the
RSF-1 Zoning District, from the 30-foot side yard setback requirement, to
allow a 23.5 foot setback, pursuant to Land Development Code Sections
2.2.4.4.4 and 2.6.2.1.4. on property located at 250 Carica Road further
described as Lot 4, Block 7, Unit 2, Pine Ridge 2nd Extension. Plat Book 10,
Page 86 as recorded in Collier County Public Records, Collier County,
Florida in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
11
December 3, 2002
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
12
December 3, 2002
December 3, 2002
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please rise for the Pledge of
Allegiance.
MR. MUDD: We have a prayer first.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The invocation first, but please rise.
Would -- let's see, the invocation here -- whoever's giving it.
MR. MUDD: It's Jim Mudd, sir. It's okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: If you'd bow your heads to pray.
Heavenly Father, we come to you today as a community
thanking you for the blessings that you have so generously provided.
especially thankful for the dedicated elected officials, staff and
members of the public who are here to help lead this county as it
makes the important decisions that will shape our community's
future.
We pray that you will guide, direct -- and direct us in the
decisions made here today so that your will for our county would
always be done.
These things we pray in your name, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It sounds like church, doesn't it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, any changes?
MR. MUDD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. We have a few
changes today.
Item 4(B), as listed in the agenda index, is correct, however, the
Page 2
December 3, 2002
backup material for 4(B), page one was inadvertently placed there
and is not correct, but the -- or excuse me, the proclamation is
correct, and that's the second page.
There's a request to continue item 6(A) to January 28th, 2003.
This was a public petition request by Mr. Ken Drum to discuss
overall plan for the Santa Barbara extension, and that was by the
petitioner's request.
There's a correction to item 8(E). The recommendation in the
executive summary of this item should read as follows: That the
board, who has determined it appropriate to create a roadway paving
and drainage improvement MSTBU for the South 8th Street/Oak
(sic) Avenue area review the attached ordinance as outlined above
and approve an enactment for creation of the South 8th Street/Doak
Avenue MSTBU, and that's at staff's request, and the staff will read
that again when they get up here for 8(E), but I thought I'd let you
know about it before we get to that item.
Next change item 8(G). That item is going to be heard
immediately following 8(B), which has a time certain of one p.m. So
we have a time certain on 8(B), immediately following will be 8(G),
and that's -- and that's because the petitioner is in court with us this
morning, with staff, as we talk the rural fringe issues in court right
now, so that gives them a little time to get back here this afternoon.
And one other item that was brought to my attention, 8(C), I'd
like to give that a time certain of 10 -- 10 p.m. this morning --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ten a.m.?
MR. MUDD: -- that's because --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ten a.m.
MR. MUDD: Ten a.m. I'm sorry. It was a Freudian slip.
That's 10 a.m., and that's because we've got city staff here to talk the
-- that particular item, and we'll get them back to work without
having them sit here all day with us, so 8(C), time certain, 10 a.m.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Page 3
December 3, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Mr. Weigel, do you have anything?
MR. WEIGEL: No, no changes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And we'll go down the line
here with the commissioners. We'll start with you, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No changes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I have one change. I'd like to
pull 17(B) of the summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: B what? Seventeen B what?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seventeen -- seventeen B, as in boy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of which --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The one that has to do with the pool.
Summary agenda.
MR. MUDD: And that would go to 8(H).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which number, 17(B) what?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seventeen--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just 17(B).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And it goes where, sir?
MR. MUDD: That would go to 8(H).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's quite all right.
And that's all the changes I have. And I have no declarations to
make about the other part of the summary agenda. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: None, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: None, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, do I hear of--
approval for the consent agenda and the summary agenda as
Page 4
December 3, 2002
amended?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any decision?
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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Page 5
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
December 3, 2002
Item 4(B) as listed on Agenda index is correct. The backup material for item 4B,
page #1, is not correct and is hereby deleted. (Staff request.)
Continue Item 6(A) to January 28, 2003 BCC Meeting: Public Petition request by
Mr. Ken Drum to discuss overall plan for the Santa Barbara Extension. (Petitioner
request.)
CORRECTION TO ITEM 8-E: The recommendation in the executive summary of
this item should read as follows: That the Board, who has determined it
appropriate to create a Roadway Paving and Drainage Improvement MSTBU for
the South 8th Street/Doak Avenue area, review the attached Ordinance as outlined
above and approve enactment for creation of the South 8th Street/Doak Avenue
MSTBU. (Staff request.)
ITEM 8(G) TO BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING ITEM 8(B) which has a tim~
certain of 1:00 p.m. PUDZ-2002-AR-2200, Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire,
representing First Baptist Church of Naples, Inc., requesting a rezone from "C-1"
to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Mission Square PUD located on the
north side of Pine Ridge Road between Goodlette-Frank Road (CR-851) and
Jaeger Road for property located at 1595 Pine Ridge Road, in Section 10,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 10.5+
acres. (Petitioner request.)
December 3, 2002
Item #2B
MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 4, 2002 LDC WORKSHOP AND
NOVEMBER 5, 2002 REGULAR MEETING- APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the
November 4, 2002, LDC workshop and November 5th, 2002, regular
meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning, a second from Commissioner Fiala for
approval of the workshops. 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.
Okay. The next item we're moving on to is service awards. Do
we have any service awards today? MS. FILSON: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have none, okay.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING MR. FRED THOMAS FOR
HIS EFFORTS ON THE IMMOKALEE HOUSING ISSUE-
ADOPTED
On to proclamations. We'll go right into it, and it's my honor to
Page 6
December 3, 2002
call Fred Thomas forward.
Mr. Thomas, where are you? And his lovely wife, Cheryl.
Would you please come up front here.
Whereas, Fred N. Thomas, Jr., has dedicated 35 years of his life
to public service in the field of affordable housing; and,
Whereas, Mr. Thomas came to Immokalee, Florida, in 1986 to
take the position of the executive director of Collier County Housing
Authority; and,
Whereas, through his outstanding leadership, Farm Workers'
Village continues to be a model of farm labor housing for the county,
state and nation; and,
Whereas, Mr. Thomas has unselfishly put in countless hours
over the course of the last 16 years actively advocating for affordable
housing; and,
Whereas, Mr. Thomas has also dedicated his time and energy in
providing invaluable public service to Collier County and all its
residents in a wide range of community needs; and,
Whereas, because of his perseverance and tenacity in getting
things done, Mr. Thomas has ensured that many residents of Collier
County now have the availability of safe, decent and sanitary
housing.
And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Fred N. Thomas, Jr.,
be recognized for his service to the people of Collier County and the
State of Florida.
Done and ordered this 3rd day of December 2002, Jim Coletta,
Chairman.
I make a motion that we accept this --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have many seconds. We'll
Page 7
December 3, 2002
take the one from Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And all those in favor, indicate by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thanks for being such a wonderful
person.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to shake your hand too.
My wife's name is Cheryl too, so twin Cheryls.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My wife's Maryanne, and we
still love you, Cheryl.
Fred, would you say a couple words? Or stand up here for a
picture first. This is the photo opportunity --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can stand together.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You'll always remember how young
we are.
Fine. Fred, would you say a couple words?
MR. THOMAS: Commissioners, thank you very, very much. I
truly do appreciate this.
I'm changing hats and I'm giving up my public service, but I'm
still going to be a part of the community of Collier County,
specifically the community of Immokalee.
I have a lot of friends -- because I'm from New York City, and
I'm still really a city boy -- don't understand, how can I love living
out here in the swamp. But I ask any of you to tell me where else in
this United States of America can you take a remote control car up
and down the street in front of your house and not worry about
Page 8
December 3, 2002
traffic, have a swimming pool you can use 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year and still be able to conveniently and easily walk to the Eckerd's
Drugstore and the Winn Dixie Plaza, 25 minutes from an
international airport, 45 minutes from a symphony hall, 45 min -- 30
minutes from a major mall, Edison, 45 minutes from the Gulf of
Mexico, Florida Bay, hour and 15 minutes from the Atlantic Ocean,
within a two-and-a-half hour drive to Tampa Bay Bucks, Orlando
Magic and the Miami Dolphins, and it never gets colder than 32
degrees for more than a day or warmer than 94.9 You know, this is
heaven.
And we just want to continue -- we're going to stay here for the
rest of my life and invite some more family members to come down
and join me hopefully, and be actively involved in helping to keep
this the community that people would want to come to and grow and
do well in.
I want to thank you very much, and I want to ask you-all to
support my successor, a very lovely young lady that was a junior in
high school living in public housing when I came here in 1986, came
on my staff in 1988. And 14 years later, she has a bachelor's degree
in business administration, two professional certifications that are
very hard to get, and 14 years of experience. She is the new
executive director of your housing authority, and she's going to be
concerned about work force housing all over the county.
And please continue to support her. And if you support her,
we'll do a job -- continue to do the job of the agency to make this a
wonderful place for everybody to live. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks, Fred.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Fred.
(Applause.)
Item #4 B
Page 9
December 3, 2002
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE WEEK OF DECEMBER
2-8, 2002, AS UNITED WAY OF COLLIER COUNTY AGENCY
AWARENESS WEEK- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This next proclamation is a
recognition of United Way of Collier County. And if I could call up
the executive director, Ernest Bretzmann, and any other
representative from the United Way of Collier County. Please join
US.
Whereas, since 1957, before I was born, the United Way of
Collier County has sponsored a funded -- qualified not-for-profit
community agency which provided essential social and health
services to our citizens; and,
Whereas, throughout 45 years of history of United Way of
Collier County, the organization has demonstrated continued growth
and has currently funded 28 community agents providing services to
all areas of the county; and,
Whereas, the board of commissioners gratefully acknowledge
and support the fine work that (sic) the United Way of Collier
County and its member-- member agents.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of
December 2nd through December 8th, 2002, be designated as United
Way of Collier County agency awareness week.
Done in this order, 3rd day of December, 2002, and signed by
our chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala for approval.
Page 10
December 3, 2002
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.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Much deserved, Ernie.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We need you to stand in front here
and face the camera.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Picture time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Picture time.
MR. BRETZMANN: May I say a few words?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do. See if you can convince
people of the importance of asking their payroll master to dedicate
some funds to the organization.
MR. BRETZMANN: I'll be standing outside the door all day.
Thank you.
Good morning and thank you so much. We're very appreciative
of this proclamation presented today by the Board of County
Commissioners recognizing the importance of United Way of Collier
County.
Unfortunately, I am a little older than United Way of Collier
County, but not by much. Forty-five years is very significant.
Our first campaign goal way back in 1957 was $22,000. This
year it's more than a hundred times that amount.
We see the sign, United We Stand. It's appropriate, I think,
because this year our campaign theme for United Way of Collier
Page 11
December 3, 2002
County is the way Collier gives the United Way.
We also want to thank the staff and employees of Collier
County Government for their personal support of our United Way
Campaign each year, and we're kicking off that campaign today
officially.
The money that the United Way raises comes a hundred percent
from personal, individual and corporate contributions. It's all public
-- or private sector money, contributions and donations.
We fund 27 not-for-profit health and human service agencies,
and many of those agencies will be placed outside today on the lawn.
There's a little agency fair going on from 11 to 1. So you're all
invited to visit the agencies and see for yourself how United Way of
Collier County and our member agencies are improving lives for all
of us in Collier County. Thank you so much. (Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, just a note point. Dan Rodriguez
will be the chair for the county staff, okay, for our United Way
campaign, so he's stepped up to the bar and took on that
responsibility.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Make sure that every single
commissioner has their name down on that payroll deduction plan,
bar none. I want to know if anyone's missing.
This is a voluntary program, by the way, ladies and gentlemen.
Do as you please, you know. We will be posting the results on
Channel 16.
Okay. How did that go over?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, it went well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great. You can be assured I won't
be elected as the chairperson next time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a feeling you're going to
miss that shot.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, yeah.
Page 12
December 3, 2002
Item #5A
FIFTEENTH ANNUAL SURVEY OF REGISTERED VOTERS -
PRESENTED; DISCUSSION OF FUTURE SURVEYS TO BE
PIJACF. D ON AN [ JPCOMING AGENDA (CONSF. NSI JS)
Okay. Next is a presentation of the 15th annual survey of
registered voters. Chuck.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Chuck Mohlke from Fraser,
Mohlke and Associates.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And also a noted person in this
community. I didn't say the B word, did I?
MR. MOHLKE: Good morning. My name is Chuck Mohlke,
and I appear today on behalf of the Institute of Government at
Florida Gulf Coast University and the League of Women Voters
represented here's today by Pat Clark, who is well known to all
commissioners.
And I would enjoy the privilege of asking Pat to stand at the end
of my brief comments so that she might be applauded for her efforts
on behalf of the league, and by reference, league members who
provide the staffing necessary in order to complete the interview
program for this event.
The league was rewarded, indeed, at its last meeting on
November 18th when the county manager mentioned, with some
earnestness, the usefulness of this annual survey in terms of
providing an assessment of community attitudes in regard to many of
the programs that are provided by Collier County Government.
I will, I assure you, be mercifully brief this morning. I think we
have, again, reinforcement from this year's survey of the one central
fact that has emerged over the space of approximately the last 11
years of the survey, which is that county government programs and
Page 13
December 3, 2002
departments enjoy a very substantial degree of support from county
residents.
If one were to look at the outcomes, which you have seen in the
full report, but those members of the public who may see the report
as provided in the summary that's included in commissioners'
packets, would only need to look at page 11 of the summary to note
the high level of regard for the library, parks and recreation and
emergency services.
The only concern here is that one of your important
departments, the health care provided by the county health unit, is
not well known or understood by persons who have not had the need
to or the privilege of using that fine facility. And trying to enhance
understanding of the role of the health unit is one that's shared by
many agencies in the private sector and a few agencies that are
responsible to this board.
You will remember that in the earlier years, emergency
management services had a similar problem, because not everybody
has the need to use an ambulance service. They expressed some
reluctance in trying to evaluate whether or not they were satisfied or
dissatisfied with that service. That concern has been overcome, and
the administration of that program is, again, among the highly
regarded services provided by Collier County Government.
I'm going to concluded with two remarks, if I may. We were so
pleased to have the opportunity to include in this last survey an
opportunity for those who were responding among the 251 registered
voters that were interviewed by telephone during the course of the
survey in the months of April and May, that they had an opportunity
to express an opinion about three revenue issues which were urged
upon the Institute of Government, the league and our company to
include in the current survey.
And those revenue issues, as you remember, are well described
on page 14 of the summary report, and they include asking the
Page 14
December 3, 2002
respondents whether or not they would approve a one quarter mill
property tax increase for purchasing conservation land, whether they
would include a similar levy for a tax increase to pay for health
services for uninsured people, and a similar levy to pay for additional
transportation enhancements like decorative streetlighting, bike paths
and landscaping.
The results, I thought, were pretty definitive, that clearly there
was support for the purchase of conservation land. And interestingly,
in the late spring, early summer when these interviews took place,
that level of support was 50 percent, the level of disagreement was 29
percent, and those who expressed an opinion that they didn't know
enough or were not willing to offer an opinion on that were at the 21
percent level.
If you took that no-opinion response and divided it equally, you
will get the results in the last election, 60-40. And I thought it was
indicative of the kind of predictive quality that surveys like this may
have in the early stages of consideration.
The one thing that I would urge commissioners and other
readers and users of this material not to do, and that is to develop a
view that some of the other revenue questions that were inquired
about were not deserving of support.
We're in the unusual position of reporting to you that this is a
classic example of, compared to what. Given the options of selecting
from among three alternatives, which is your first priority, your
second priority and your third priority, that opportunity, rarely given
to voters in past surveys, does seem to indicate that they are perfectly
willing, able, to evaluate these programs when compared one to the
other. But to then say definitively that people are not interested in
transportation enhancements would, I think, be an error.
If under different circumstances, when not provided with an
alternative which appeared attractive to those interviewed at the last
time, namely the purchase of conservation land, it may not rank as a
Page 15
December 3, 2002
first or a second priority, but could, under different circumstances,
with adequate public information over time, yield a somewhat
different result later on. But it appears to be a useful way of
evaluating the public's view of these matters. And the Institute of
Government, the league, and our firm would like to urge that you
give further consideration to such opportunities in the future.
I'm hopeful that the work of the league and institute and our
firm is of sufficient use to commissioners that you will find it
appropriate to continue this program in the future.
And on behalf of both the institute and the league, I'm here to
indicate our continuing support of whatever you direct us to do.
That's my report, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Is there any questions?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The-- Mr. Mohlke, thank you
for the survey, and especially to the League of Women Voters for
their time and devotion to this survey. It does help us out in the
decisions that I make.
There are issues in the county always changing, and I would
hope that we can get those issues in the survey for future surveys.
And we have seen historical information of the residents of Collier
County that really hasn't changed. I'm not sure if it's really worthy of
asking those questions if it's pretty much flat line. So I look forward
to working with you and county staff into developing the questions.
The one question, Mr. Mudd, maybe you can help me on, is
about enhanced landscaping in Collier County for medians.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we had a workshop and we talked
about landscaping, road landscaping, and you asked the staff to come
back with a typical landscape regime for arterials, collector roads.
And during that period of time you asked the staff to also go out and
survey the voters to determine if they would support a county-wide
Page 16
December 3, 2002
urban area MSTU in order to make that happen as far as that
standard.
Because right now, as you know, the roads that the
transportation division is putting in basically go in with a median that
has the sleeves for irrigation but the irrigation not put in, and it has
the topsoil with the Bahia grass that's on top, and that's it, because
that's -- that's what we're getting with the impact fees for roads.
We're getting -- you can't -- there's been a -- an opinion that's
been rendered that says you can't use impact fees for landscaping
because it doesn't increase your capacity of the road network. And
so we're -- we're working that particular issue.
The question I have for the commission is, do you still want us
to go based on the findings that we have here from Mr. Mohlke? Do
you want us to continue to go out there and survey the voters to see if
they'll support landscaping?
The only question I have, Mr. Mohlke, is the landscaping word
was the last word in the question that was asked, and the first word
was decorative streetlighting. And when I get to the decorative
streetlighting part, I go, not, okay? And I don't even wait to the
landscaping piece. So -- and that's just for me on the phone.
So I would say there were probably other people that heard that
question or didn't hear the entire question and they didn't get to the
landscape issue. So specifically I'm asking if we want to go out and
continue the survey and focus upon landscaping for those arterials
and collector roads so that we can get those done.
And the concern that I have as the county manager and one that
you're tackling in smart growth, Commissioner Henning, is the fact
that when you look at the Dover-Kohl study that was done, there isn't
a good -- you know, they've got the series of bad versus good
pictures in it. All the good pictures have trees on the roads, and so --
and all the bad pictures don't. So I'm -- and if we're trying to go that
way, then we definitely need to do something with landscaping.
Page 17
December 3, 2002
So the question I have before the board is, do you want us to
continue the survey to get at the landscape issue with the taxpayers?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I feel that we've already adequately
covered it with the survey that Mr. Mohlke has done. I feel totally
satisfied at the answers he's got.
You can word these surveys to the point where they no longer
are surveys, but they become an opinion poll where you're trying to
change opinion. And by doctoring the words around, I don't think
you'd see more than a point or two change in the survey, and we're
going to be wasting staff's time and money doing it. I'm willing to
accept the results that we have in front of us now. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we have a county
ordinance about MSTUs of a survey of some sort of finding out
whether the citizens of Collier County or in the area want to tax
themselves.
I feel that it would be an -- unjust without doing it properly and
askin.g just that question, instead of lumping it with a bunch of other
questions, Commissioner.
So I support the original concept of an independent survey of
the residents of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I, too, support that effort.
We're seeing today, in our agenda packet, three different areas
requesting an MSTU for one reason or another for road
enhancements.
We also find that landscaping does a lot as far as slowing traffic
down, surprisingly enough, by five miles an hour. Who would ever
think it's a traffic calming effort, but it has been proven that it is, as
well as a safety feature.
And we have found in East Naples, in lighted areas such as we
have right along U.S. 41, even though the blight hasn't stopped and
Page 18
December 3, 2002
there are buildings still boarded up, it softens the look and enhances
it to some degree.
Again, we in East Naples have had people requesting
landscaping as far as Rattlesnake Hammock over and over again,
repeatedly, and they're willing to tax themselves. The same with
people on U.S. 41 who would like to see the landscaping continue.
So I would like to see that effort to move forward, Commissioner
Henning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I, myself, have no problem with
MSTUs in locations. I have a problem with a -- I don't think we ever
agreed to a county-wide MSTU for the urban area. I thought it was
going to be the urban area for the urban area.
Well, in any case, whatever. Whatever the wish of this
commission is. We have two commissioners that are interested to go
out for another survey. I, myself, feel what we have in front of us is
adequate. But we need another commissioner either to direct -- to be
able to give direction to staff to go back for a second survey or put
this behind us and go on.
Commissioner Halas, do you have anything to add?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if everybody's satisfied with
the first survey, I think that's -- it should be adequate, the feedback
that everybody got from the first survey.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, then it comes down to
Commissioner Coyle to make the final decision.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- well, that's the way it should
be.
I'd like to hear a little more about why Commissioner Henning
would like to do this. I'd like to be absolutely certain I understand
the objective and where we're going with it. And perhaps the county
manager can help a little bit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we put this topic on
a future agenda; can we do that? Is there enough time to do that, so
Page 19
December 3, 2002
we can have a --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we can agree on that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll agree to that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's good, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
that we accept the annual survey conducted by Mohlke, Fraser and
Associates and the League of Women Voters. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
MR. MOHLKE: Commissioner, would you permit me to
introduce Pat Clark from the League of Women Voters --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Certainly.
MR. MOHLKE: -- to acknowledge the role of the league and
the exact--
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you and your membership for
the time and the effort you put into this community endeavor. We do
appreciate it. The best results that we ever get in this county come
from grass-roots movements such as yours. Thank you.
MR. MOHLKE: And I would be remiss, in conclusion, in not
mentioning the important role of my business partner, Alice Fraser,
in the development of this survey instrument and the final report.
Regrettably, because of another obligation, she couldn't be with us
this morning. And I thank the board for the opportunity to present
this material.
Page 20
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Item #5B
OUTSTANDING AGENCY OF THE YEAR AWARD FOR
COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES -
PRESENTED
Next is 5(B), a presentation of outstanding agency of the year
award for Collier County Domestic Animal Services, and I'm going
to call Dr. Kenny Mitchell up front.
MR. MITCHELL: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, sir.
DR. MITCHELL: Well, on behalf of the Florida Animal Patrol
Association, it's my privilege to be here to present this outstanding
agency award, and nothing happens without the support of the board.
And as you all know from all the phone calls that you receive
occasionally on animals, nothing's more important than our animals
here.
And we think your agency here is doing a fine job, and all the
improvements they've made over the years, both facility and
programs speak well for the board and for the community, so it's my
pleasure to present to you this award.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Doctor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can stay right there for a
second.
Jodi Walters. Is Jodi here? Come on up front, please.
This award should go to the person who deserves it the most,
who put the time and the effort in making it all possible, and I hope
Page 21
December 3, 2002
that you will accept this and place it in a place of importance in your
office or in the facility.
Jodi, would you stand there and hold that up to the camera,
please.
Thank you very much, Jodi. Good job.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hi, Jodi. Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I can interject for just a second.
We're done through -- we're done through 6, and I don't mean to --
this morning it's a little bit -- oh, I'm sorry, Jodi.
MS. WALTER: I would like to thank Dr. Mitchell for coming
down from Pinellas County to present this award. And as director for
animal services, I would like, on behalf of my staff and myself, to
thank the board for their support and also the citizens from Collier
County, because we couldn't be an outstanding agency without your
support.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. JIM KRAMER TO
DISCUSS PROCEDURE FOR ASCENDANCY TO THE
CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS - DISCI JSSED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, will-- with the board's
indulgence, we'll get through 6. We've got, in item 7, 7(B), 7(C), we
have a number of speakers, and it's going to take us past that 10
o'clock time certain.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So--
Page 22
December 3, 2002
MR. MUDD: So if we can-- we can try to get this as soon as
we're done. And Mr. Kramer has a public petition on 6(B). If we
could -- if we could get Hamilton Harbor and move that up, and then
follow it by -- or get Dwight for item number 13. He has -- he has
some pressing work that he has to get to, and mention that. If we can
get that process done, and then we can get into 7, 7(A), 7(B), 7(C).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And your suggestion is that
we skip 6(B) now?
MR. MUDD: No, we'll do 6(B) right now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then go right on ahead--
MR. MUDD: Then we'll go right to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I agree. That, I believe,
would be the best plan of action.
MR. MUDD: We'll go into 13, and then go right to Hamilton
Harbor.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Kramer?
MR. KRAMER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief.
I brought before you the issue of the ascendancy to the chairman
of the board by popular vote of the commissioners without any input
by the public.
The current candidates for ascendancy to the chairman of the
board come January, are Tom Henning, who is the vice chairman,
Donna Fiala, who has gone through the process of the voluntary
certification for county commissioners with the Florida County
Foundation, Fred Coyle, who was appointed by the governor and also
is a former mayoral candidate who lost by just a few votes. Frank
Halas is the new member here, and Jim Coletta, I believe, also can
remain as chairman.
My question is, is this the best way to choose? Might there be a
better way? For instance, is there a workshop or an open meeting
where you could discuss this prior to voting, or are there any other
ideas?
Page 23
December 3, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Kramer, what -- on the
17th, what is your petition going to be on December 17th? MR. KRAMER: I don't know, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, how can we vote on it now?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. This is something to decide
by the commission at that point in time. And we get tremendous
amount of public input all the time out there, but the decision belongs
with the commission. They're going to pick the person that they
think is best qualified to be able to run the meetings and be able to
conduct the business as their representative at times that they're not
there.
So all I can say to you, Mr. Kramer, is we appreciate you
coming here today, but I think we better leave the process as is.
MR. KRAMER: All right, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's my opinion.
Item #13A
CLARIFICATION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS 1NTENT RELATED TO CHANGE ORDER
SEVEN OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD AND
PROJECT INTEGRATION FOR THE FIVE MILLION GALLON
PER DAY EXPANSION AT THE NORTH REGIONAL WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY- COUNTY MANAGER'S
STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO INTENT OF CHANGE
ORDER APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if we could go to item number 13,
which is -- 13(A), for the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners to clarify their intent related to the change order 7 of
the contract between the board and project integration for the five
Page 24
December 3, 2002
million gallon per day expansion at the North Regional Water
Reclamation Facility.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's 13(A) you said?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll go to that next. Oh,
Mr. Dwight Brock, our clerk of courts. We're very happy to have you
here today.
MR. BROCK: Commissioners, I think this is going to be a brief
meeting. I've got a couple of documents I need to pass out.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Thank you.
MR. BROCK: Commissioners, the two documents that I have
given you, one is a packet containing four documents and the other
one is a-- one page, which is separate.
Back in April of 2001, the Board of County Commissioners
approved a change order. Three of the commissioners who are here
today and sitting today, were on the board at the time that this was
done, two were not.
I want to make it clear to everyone that I'm not asking the Board
of County Commissioners to change the changes that were made to
the contract. I simply need some clarification as to what was the
intent of the board so that the clerk and the county manager knows
how to respond based upon those changes, and I think we're going to
need some input from your county manager.
But if you will look at the change order which was adopted --
and both my office and the county administrator's office has been
through this in great detail in trying to determine what was intended
here. I mean, it's obvious from our reading of what took place that
the Board of County Commissioners authorized the expenditure of up
to $580,000 in addition to that which was originally contracted.
The question is, how do we determine what comprises that
$580,000? Therein comes the single page that I provided to you. In
Page 25
December 3, 2002
my conversations with both the county administrator and with the
vendor who was doing the work on the north water treatment facility,
they indicate to me that this was the guiding document. That
particular document is referenced nowhere in either the meeting or in
the change order packet which was provided to you.
What I'm looking for from the board today is clarification of
what the intent of the change order was. And in order to do that, I
think we're going to need some direction from your county manager
who was making the presentation at the time.
MR. MUDD: On 27 March and 30 March of which we
provided the tapes of those agenda items to the commissions so -- in
case you weren't on the board at the time, that you had the
opportunity to review those -- we were in negotiations with Project
Integration because we had a -- we had 13 sewer spills, okay, that the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, basically when
those happened, decided to put Collier County in a moratorium for
building, and we were in that moratorium for 45 days.
One of the requirements that they had because they had no faith
in the fact that Project Integration, who had been late for a series of
their particular pieces to be done at the north sewer plant, that they
would be done per the agreement of 6 November.
As we went into the negotiations trying to come up with a
consent order so that we could get our building industry, get
homeowners that have already had loans and whatnot for their homes
into their homes during that tumultuous period, there was a four-year
consent order that was agreed to by the board. But one of the items
was, we had to get the wet train at the north sewer plant up and
running by 1 December.
Originally, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
wanted it -- we asked for it to be February of 2002. They came back
with the 1 September, and we agreed upon a 1 December deadline.
They wanted some -- they wanted some guarantees that it would be
Page 26
December 3, 2002
done in time in order for them to continue letting Collier County
issue permits.
We -- and so I started negotiations with Project Integration.
Project Integration, first time out of the -- out of the shoot wanted all
the overtime paid and wanted a carte blanche kind of arrangement
with the board, and I relayed that to the board during the presentation
on the 30th when I went through a series of charts.
Project Integration basically had Collier County as hostage.
They knew the situation we were in. It was well publicized in the
paper.
With their first offer, I came back and said, we need to put a
ceiling on this. At the time staff had relayed to me that Project
Integration was 120 days behind schedule, of which 30 days were
wet train and 90 days were solid train.
With that knowledge, I started counting the number of
Saturdays between April and the end of September and came up with
30 in that period of time. I asked Project Integration for an estimate
of their overtime if they fully employed their staff for a particular
Saturday, in thinking Saturday would be a better option for them to
work because we were going through the summer season, and when
you start getting the heat of the day with outside work you get exh --
the workers start losing productivity, so to speak, by the end of the
day. So Saturday would be a new day out and we could get the
benefit of that.
They provided that estimate to us, and that's the sheet that Mr.
Brock showed you just a second ago and passed out to you. I used
that sheet, multiplied it by 30 and came up with the $580,000 ceiling,
and that was a not-to-exceed number, and went back to Project
Integration and said that you would have -- they would have to
voucher us for the overtime that was worked based on that estimate,
and it'd have to be appropriate as far as the invoices are concerned.
And Dwight's doing that audit to determine the appropriateness of
Page 27
December 3, 2002
those invoices.
And we also said that if they didn't get to the $580,000, the
difference between what was appropriately vouchered and the 580
would be split between the county and the contractor as an incentive,
and that was part of the information.
6 November was set for wet train for their completion date.
Any -- any lost time or change of condition days that Project
Integration was in the process of demanding back from the county to
get back we basically took off the table and said we're -- we're not
going to entertain that particular case, we're at a different date, you
need to finish by 6 November.
As we -- as we did that process on the 6th of November it was
supposed to be their completion date. I inspected with our engineers
and our project manager on the 7th of November to determine if that
second part of the contract -- because they only had vouchered us for
$485,000, so there was a difference of about $95,000 that was still on
the table, went out there and inventoried the site, looked at what was
done, and there was some serious issues, and the project was not
complete.
And we notified the contractor of that and let him know that we
would not entertain that 50/50 split on the remainder.
And so staff inadvertently didn't put that sheet in your packet. It
wasn't something that was done on purpose. And we did -- I did
explain that we multiplied the estimate by the 30 days during the
testimony.
I also told the board during that particular case, this is -- this
was not a good business decision, because we didn't have many
alternatives at that particular juncture. We were pretty much up
against a wall, and this was kind of a last resort kind of issue with the
things that were there. Dwight.
MR. BROCK: What I would ask the board to do is to give me
Page 28
December 3, 2002
direction as to the intent. If the board will notice down in the second
section of that one sheet, there are subtotal directs and underneath
that are markup on directs, okay?
From my discussions with the county manager, that was 10
percent that would be applicable to all categories, one through 22.
The same on the productivity loss on direct. As I understand from
the county manager, that would be 20 percent in addition to all of the
categories from -- that were salaried employees, which would be
from either six through 22 or four through 22, depending upon
whether four and five are salaried employees or supervisory
personnel.
Is that correct?
MR. MUDD: That's right.
MR. BROCK: And I would ask that you give me direction that
that was the intent of the board in the change order.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner, do we have
speakers that--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have public speakers on this?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do not, Commissioner Coyle.
Would you like to go ahead, please?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'd like to get a clarification.
It's my understanding, Dwight, the only thing you're asking us
to do is establish the baseline for the contract agreement. MR. BROCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the county commission -- or
county manager has stated that this, in fact, does represent the
baseline for the contract agreement at that time and that any
assessment of the appropriateness of the charges will be done by
your office through an audit of some kind; is that a fair statement?
MR. BROCK: That is correct. Basically what I'm asking you
for is, they're billing us, for an example, let's say 10 hours of a
Page 29
December 3, 2002
manager for overtime. Well, I mean, you know, 580 -- up to 580,000
doesn't give me any direction as to how much to pay him. Sixty
dollars per hour does.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. BROCK: That's what I'm asking you for is direction that
this was the intent of what you intended when you said up to
$580,000 based upon the parameters set forth in this document.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I would make a motion, Mr.
Chairman, that we accept the county manager's statement concerning
the contract understanding as of that time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion?
Hearing none, 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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. BROCK: Before we leave, let me answer the second part
of your question, Commissioner.
We are engaged in an audit as we speak. There are other issues
associated with that that we will deal with as time goes on. We're
working very closely with the county manager's office.
And, you know, I hate to do this, but I'm going to do it again. I
have worked in this county since 1993 and I have worked here with
one, two, three county managers, county administrators, whatever
you want to call them, and the cooperativeness we are receiving from
your current county manager is far surpassed -- far exceeds those of
Page 30
December 3, 2002
any of the other three that we have dealt with.
You know, we have a working relationship that's no longer
constantly adversarial. We have one that works together, you know,
and I'd like to thank you for that because you're the one that hired
him and give him direction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to say that --
and I think I speak for all the commissioners when I say, the great
level of comfort we have knowing that you keep watching over these
things.
And I want to tell the public out there, too, I call the clerk's
office into my office before I come to any commission meeting just
to converse with me to show me anything in here that I might not
notice, not being an accountant myself, and they keep me aware and
alert and constantly watch over the taxpayer dollars. So I just want
to let you know, you've got a great clerk there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Brock, would you tell us about
what you've implemented to be able to help us avoid problems like
this in the furore.
MR. BROCK: Well, I can't say that I've done it alone. We've
done it in conjunction with Mr. Mudd.
But what we have done is we have implemented a contract
management financial aspects team, which will, before we make a
payment on any contract in the furore, county administrator staff will
deal with ensuring that the work gets done the way that it should be
done, and my staff will ensure that the work is being done in
accordance with the contract that you have let before we'll make a
payment in the furore. So, you know, we're working hand in hand
with your county administrator's office to create more controls in the
process.
In addition to that something that's never happened before, in
the county manager-- because we have a tremendous amount of
Page 31
December 3, 2002
capital expenditures that are going to be coming through here in the
next few years for infrastructure. One of the things that we've
implemented is, right from the outset, my staff are involved from a
financial aspect in developing the contracts, in putting together
provisions -- one of the things that we dealt with with this particular
contract, if you will recall, was at some point in time some of the
subs for your direct vendor when we went to them and asked for
documents, refused to give us documents.
And, you know, refinements that we can put into the contract
that will eliminate that type of problem in the future will benefit all
of the taxpayers, and those are the types of things that we're working
collectively with the county administrator's office.
You know, something that probably very few people know, for
the first time in my tenure here, my staff sat in with Mr. Mudd and
his staff for the executive summary review that takes place on
Wednesday. We have someone there to go over the issues that we
have. You know, we're not going to agree all the time. I mean, you
know, it probably would not be beneficial that we agreed all the time.
But, you know, we either agree or we know what the issues are and
we agree to disagree.
You're the ultimate arbiter of the policy decisions associated
with Collier County, you know, from my perspective and, I think,
Mr. Mudd's perspective. You know, it benefits you to have both
sides of the coin.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'd like to commend my fellow
commissioners for taking an active role in guiding us along, and you
are to be commended for putting the parts together, very much so.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I want to thank Mr. Brock here for
coming forth today on this. And Dwight is basically the CFO of this
-- of this county. And it's a large corporation, and he's watching out
for the taxpayers' dollars, and that's what we've got Mr. Brock here
Page 32
December 3, 2002
for. And I want to thank you very much.
We were under a lot of problems here a couple years ago when
Mr. Mudd took on this task, and I felt that Mr. Mudd performed very
well under fire here into getting the county out of the problem that
they were in because we were facing $10,000 a day penalties. And
he should be commended for taking steps forward to getting this
mess straightened around.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think the both of you and your staff
deserve a round of applause. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you can smile, Kim. There
you go.
MR. BROCK: They haven't escaped total scrutiny. They will
get an audit report here before long that will probably blister them,
but they can deal with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you bring the cake?
MR. BROCK: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, Mr. Dwight
MR. BROCK: Thank you.
Item #8C
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 1NTERLOCAL
GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HAMILTON HARBOR
MARINA PRO.IF. CT- APPROVF,D AS AMENDF`D
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to move on to our time
certain at 10 o'clock. We're almost on time, too. Well, a little early,
good. That would be 7(C), Hamilton Harbor.
Page 33
December 3, 2002
MR. MUDD: 8(C).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I stand corrected, 8(C).
MR. SCHMITT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of community development and
environmental services.
Before you today is an interlocal government agreement
forwarded for your approval. It's actually a second amendment to the
interlocal government agreement between the City of Naples and
Collier County involving the review and approval processes for the
land use development for Hamilton Harbor Marina project.
I can go through the background, if you wish, but that's in front
of you. The bottom line here, the purpose of this amendment is to
change the development parameters which basically reduces the
intensities of the project on the impacts, and in the impacts on the
environment.
There's a long history on this project, but fundamentally it's an
agreement between the county and the city which is going to set the
parameters for the development and monitoring of this project.
We have a couple of amendments, and I'll defer to Mr.
Varnadoe since we forwarded the packages to you, but I'll just, a
little bit further, just from a standpoint, introduce the project or the
issues.
But since forwarding the project to you, we've ironed out a few
other issues that staff has been concerned about. One is definition of
impact fees, two were the -- some of the environmental review
procedures. And frankly, that's what the issues are.
This project increased in size only because of the environmental
protection that was involved. There's a reduction in the number of
dry boat slips on the county parcel from 450 to 325. There's a
reduction in the maximum building height from approximately 50
feet to 42 feet, a reduction in the mangrove impact of approximately
two and a half acres.
Page 34
December 3, 2002
And what we're proposing here in this interlocal agreement is
that the City of Naples has sole jurisdiction on the process and
development applications and the review process for the Hamilton
Harbor Marina project, but I've also asked that the county be
provided, as a courtesy, an opportunity to review the entire
parameters of the project, specifically the SDP, so that we can
enforce our county standards from an environmental protection
standpoint, so George -- I'll defer to George for further questions--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we do, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast question. In -- on page 3,
there were initials, DSEI, and I just didn't know what they were, so
I'm asking.
MR. VARNADOE: For the record, George Varnadoe. As we
have acronyms in the county in SDPs and so forth, so does the city.
That's a development of significant environmental impact. It's a
process that you have to go through, an application and questions you
have to answer, issues you have to address, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why would we give
jurisdiction on this application but not give total jurisdiction? What
you're asking for is environmental review, and I'm sure that the City
of Naples staff is fully capable of doing that for themselves, so it's
kind of like --
MR. VARNADOE: Commissioner Henning, if I could --
MR. SCHMITT: Well, Commissioner, and they are. The
county standards for environmental review are stricter than the city
standards, specifically when dealing with the gopher tortoise, and
also the county is responsible for the manatee protection program, so
those two areas we would be responsible for. This project, 88
percent of this project is within the city boundaries. That's why we're
deferring to the city.
Page 35
December 3, 2002
I know George had a comment.
MR. VARNADOE: That's fine. I'd like to go through, if I
could, Commissioners, four changes that have been requested by
staff or others since you've gotten your packet.
One is just a recital making it very clear that we are amending
this agreement for the second time.
The second one is, as Mr. Schmitt has alluded to, the city
providing the county with a copy of the general development and site
plan application for their review and comment so that they will have
the ability to review and comment as to any issues or questions they
see with that.
The third one is what Mr. Henning asked about, and that is the
county standards, I won't say they're more strict, but they are
somewhat different with regard to endangered species than the city's.
And the conservancy had brought that to our attention. We had no
intent of trying to get around anyone's standard with regard to that, so
we have agreed to put a sentence in there that basically says that the
county's endangered species protection, whether in the Land
Development Code or Growth Management Plan, will be applied to
that portion of the project lying within the county, not in the whole
project, but the project being within the county.
Commissioner Henning, the city will review that. It will review
under county standards, your staff will coordinate with them and
make recommendations to make sure that it is consistent with your
Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan.
The fourth one was, as Mr. Schmitt had mentioned, we had had
some language regarding transportation impact fees. Further
research revealed an interlocal agreement between the county and
city that covers such matters, and that was redundant and there was
no reason to have that in the agreement.
But I'd be glad to answer any questions regarding this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a question, sir. The only
Page 36
December 3, 2002
concern I got, and I didn't see it addressed anyplace in there, I want
somebody to be able to categorically state that all the lawsuits that
have been brought against the City of Naples are going to be
dropped. No, I'm serious. I'm not joking about it. I mean, they're
talking about millions of dollars, a lot of taxpayers' money being tied
up. And I'm not willing to go anyplace unless I can be assured that's
taken place.
MR. VARNADOE: I'm going to let the city attorney address
you on that, unless you have more questions for me, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't. Does anyone from this -- we
may call you back, sir.
MR. VARNADOE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, Mr. Hardt.
MR. HARDT: Good morning, Commissioners, good morning,
Mr. Chairman. I'm Fred Hardt with the law firm of Roetzel and
Andress, and we are the attorneys for the City of Naples.
I have been involved with Hamilton Harbor since June of 1999
when the various lawsuits commenced after the initial approvals of
this project, and Mr. Coyle, you certainly are very familiar with this,
having been on the council at that time.
There have been approximately 13 different lawsuits,
administrative proceedings, appeals, vested rights claims, et cetera,
arising out of Hamilton Harbor. Obviously the city is very concerned
about the expense in terms of all of the litigation.
In April of this year, the city directed the attorneys to enter into
negotiations with representatives of Collier Enterprises to see if we
could come to a settlement, and we did.
The settlement, we think, is one that's very favorable to the city.
It is a conditional settlement in that certain steps have to be followed
and approved before the settlement becomes final.
But once the settlement does become final, all of the lawsuits
are dismissed with prejudice. They are over with.
Page 37
December 3, 2002
The conditions that have to be satisfied are set forth in the
settlement agreement. One of those conditions is an amendment to
the interlocal government agreement, which is before you today. And
during the negotiation process, it was discovered that because there
were certain parameters defined in the original interlocal government
agreement, they would have to be changed to conform to the new
parameters of the new conditional settlement agreement, things such
as the number of boats, boat slips, whether it would be under the
subject of DRI review and those types of issues.
So we're really not changing anything that is substantive in
terms of the roles that the city and the county will play for purposes
of approval of this project. It really will be the same.
The other items that have to be approved as part of this
condition, conditional settlement agreement, are the reviews that
must be done through the public hearing process which would occur
with any application by a property owner, such as the DSCI approval
rezoning and so forth, and these will be coming forward to the city
council very shortly.
The approval of this interlocal government agreement is on the
agenda before city council tomorrow. So it would be important, from
the city's perspective, that you give your approval to this agreement
today.
The initial hearings before city council -- before the planning
advisory board, excuse me, will be on December 1 lth. The initial
hearings before city council on this proposed settlement will be on
January 20th, and a second hearing will be shortly thereafter.
So we're hopeful that by the time we get to February of next
year, the conditions in this settlement agreement will have been
achieved and we can go ahead with the resolution of all this
litigation.
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any public speakers?
Page 38
December 3, 2002
MS. FILSON: I had two, but they were Mr. Vamadoe and Mr.
Hardt.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Entertain a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
make a motion that we approve the interlocal agreement as amended.
I think this is -- despite the belief of other people, I believe this is
one of the best conservation programs that the City of Naples and
Collier County can approve for Naples Bay.
It substantially reduces traffic north and south on Naples Bay.
The only place boats can get fuel right now is in the City of Naples.
They come all the way north of the bay. They go all the way back
down south. What better place to have a refueling facility than down
at Hamilton Harbor?
It's a tremendous benefit for us all, and the ability to have
storage facilities at that particular location benefits the City of Naples
and Collier County tremendously, because otherwise, all those boats
would be stored in the City of Naples, and they would go up and
down the bay, so there is no good reason to oppose this process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'd like to wholeheartedly
second that and add a comment as well, seeing that it's -- I feel much
pride between the city and the conservancy and Collier Enterprises
for working together to -- to answer everybody's concerns and find
an amicable agreement, because Naples Bay is going to be the one
that is -- that reaps the benefits is what I want to say. Thank you.
I'm sorry about all those uh, uh, uhs.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's fine.
We have a motion by Commissioner Coyle, a second by
Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to make sure that when
we go into this agreement with the City of Naples, that we're going to
be -- take the utmost care in regards to wildlife management in that
Page 39
December 3, 2002
area, such as manatees and all this other stuff. I realize that we're
going to lose some of the mangroves but also realize that we have to
make sure that we have adequate facilities for the citizens of this
county in regards to using our -- one of our great resources, the
water.
So I'm hoping that when this project comes online, and from
what I see in this -- some of these summaries that have been
presented to us this morning, it looks like -- that we're going to look
at using the county standards as far as the protection of the manatees
and wildlife; is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: That is correct. And involving the gopher
tortoise as well and any relocation requirements.
And I'll also add that we've also worked with the developer and
Mr. Dunnuck in creating the -- at least resolving some of the issues
that may impact the Bayview Park, and so all those issues have been
worked out as well. So I think we'll have a partnership, at least from
the county perspective. The impact of Bayview Park, which is
immediately adjacent to the marina, and those issues have been
worked out as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, do you have a
closing comment on this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast question. We were
talking about the mangroves, and I didn't find anyplace in the written
material here where -- but I remembered from years back that Collier
Enterprises was going to be planting something like five acres of
mangroves to replace the ones that's going to be missing. Is that still
the case?
MR. HARDT: That's not part of the initial settlement
agreement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to know that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion. Do we
have a second?
Page 40
December 3, 2002
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, before you vote, just a point of
clarification. Does that motion include the errata sheet?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it better.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it does.
MR. SCHMITT: And we'll go amend the ordinance before
forwarding it for your signature.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And with those noted
comments, we'll call for the question.
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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. HARDT: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Hardt.
Item #7A
RESOLUTION 2002-486, RE PETITION VA-2002-AR-2909,
CRAIG J. PAJER, P.E., OF AEC NATIONAL INC.,
REPRESENTING COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, REQUESTING A 34-FOOT
VARIANCE IN THE PUBLIC USE DISTRICT (P) FROM THE
REQUIRED 35 FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITATION TO 69-
FEET IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A 5-STORY PARKING
GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE COLLIER
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, ADJACENT TO BUILDING
"J", 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL- ADOPTED WITH
Page 41
December 3, 2002
TEMPORARY PORK CHOP AT PAI,M DRIVE AND HARRISON
Okay. Now we go back to the regular part of our agenda, which
would be 7(A), and this will require those people that wish to
participate to stand at this time and be sworn in. (Witnesses were sworn in.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This will also require the
commissioners for their ex parte disclosures. We'll start with
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received, I believe it was a
couple emails from residents in East Naples opposed to this project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have talked with staff and
members of the community, in particular representatives of the East
Naples Civic Association concerning this issue, and I've also
received emails and correspondence concerning it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I have the same as
Commissioner Coyle, and I have my folder here for anyone that
wishes to see it.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have spoken with staff, and I
meant to call Skip back last night. I'm sorry I didn't. I didn't get
home till 10:30.
Anyway, and I've attended meetings in the Glades with the
Glades residents, spoken to the Glades' people on several occasions,
spoken with our staff and received emails.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've spoken with staff on this, I've
also spoken with residents in regards to this problem of traffic, and
also received emails and letters in regards to this, and it's also
available for public scrutiny.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Page 42
December 3, 2002
Please proceed.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Don
Schneider with Collier County planning services.
I bring before you this morning this petition, AR-2908. The
objective of this petition is to have this body approve a 34-foot
variance from the maximum allowable height of 35 feet to allow the
construction of a 69-foot high parking garage to accommodate 432
automobiles adjacent to the Naples Jail Center.
I'd like to point out on this aerial photo, the parking garage is in
this area right here, that's proposed. We're currently situated in the
building down here. I also have a more site-specific graphic.
The petitioner wishes to construct a five-stow parking garage
with future expansion to eight stories. The approved government
center master plan development of regional impact specifies the
construction of three separate parking garages, structures, to
accommodate the future parking for the required complex.
The proposed garage that you're dealing with today is the first of
the three structures to be built. And I would like to point out in this
instance that this garage has actually been moved from its origin
planned site. The origin site was over here on the eastern side of the
complex and it's being moved closer to the jail center and closer to
the health building, Building H. That actually takes it away from
that eastern side that's closer to our neighbors.
The Collier County Government site's developed with a variety
of government offices, as we all know, including the sheriffs jail
facility, which is located in Building J, this large building illustrated
here.
The property that we situate on here is zoned P, public use. And
again, it's also a development of regional impact.
The subject project is consistent with the future land use
element of the Growth Management Plan and land development
regulations.
Page 43
December 3, 2002
The petitioner did hold a public information meeting on July
9th, 2002, for the conditional use permit. A public meeting for a
variance is not required, however, the height of the parking garage
was discussed at that meeting.
Approval of this variance will have no impact, no physical
impact, on the county. And again, in relation to the growth
management impact, approval of this variance request will not affect
or change the project's consistency with the requirements of the
Growth Management Plan.
There are no environmental issues associated with this, and the
Environmental Advisory Council, EAC, does not normally hear
variance petitions.
The planning commission heard this petition on November 7th
of this year and unanimously recommended approval by a vote of
6-0. We did have some individuals that spoke in opposition to the
height of the buildings, and that brought us here to you folks today.
Staff has analyzed the guidelines associated with the variance
request and has determined that there are special conditions and
circumstances that warrant approval of this variance, therefore,
current planning staff recommended that the CCPC forward this
petition AR-2909 to the BZA with a recommendation of approval,
subject to the conditions outline in the attached resolution. That
concludes my presentation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you very much.
I'm going to preface this by making a few remarks, and then I'm
going to ask a question, if I may.
First of all, I've been very proud of the people in the Glades.
Never once have they opposed this project at all, and they've
accepted it. But what they've asked for is respect for their
neighborhood.
And let me tell you what's happened to them over the years.
Page 44
December 3, 2002
They've been there long before the jail was there. And as the jail
opened and then as the government center expanded and then
expanded and then expanded, they've -- their streets, which never
used to connect to Lakewood Boulevard but then were connected,
began to shoulder the responsibility of the traffic coming in and out.
They haven't complained. They've just asked us to work with
them. They've been great. I mean, you couldn't have better
neighbors than the Glades.
Then we put a homeless shelter at their entrance, and that was
quite a traumatic thing. They've shouldered that responsibility.
Then a Home Depot and all of the traffic that goes with the
Home Depot, and all they asked was to help them to direct the traffic
in other areas if we could.
And they've got a Wal-Mart, and then they've got the shopping
center at the other end. And you know, they've handled a lot of this
traffic, and they're getting to a point where they say, please, help us.
You know, respect our roads too.
They just have little roads. They don't even have sidewalks.
These people do a lot of walking within their community.
So I'm asking you now -- my question is -- I understand that
you've already gone through all this procedure where you want to put
the parking garage. I'm wondering if you can't put the parking
garage, instead of behind the jail, if you can't put it across where
people are parking right now behind the church there, you know,
there's that whole area that faces the jail.
And I know that you've planned a parking area for that in the
future anyway. My opinion is -- and I'm not being an engineer. This
is my thoughts -- are that if the parking lot was located over there on
the other side of the jail, it would then attract traffic from U.S. 41 and
Airport Road, which could better accommodate the additional traffic,
than where you've proposed to put it now.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala. Skip's
Page 45
December 3, 2002
going to help us out.
MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, your facilities
management director.
As you know, the approved master plan calls for three parking
decks. The largest one we were going to do in phase one. That is
over 800 cars. That is in the location-- will be in the location that
you're suggesting, behind the church.
We are now proposing, instead of doing that large one now, to
do the smallest one in your 15 or 20-year plan. This is the smallest
of the three decks.
The location originally, again, was right next to the Glades,
right on the property line. That was the one that was approved in the
DRI. That's the one you've seen over and over again.
The current plan, in order to have the least amount of impact on
our neighbors, is to bring it more internally. And I'll point to it on
the chart here.
This was the original, this is the one that was in the DRI next to
the Glades, and now we're bringing it interior, more internal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you haven't answered my
question.
MR. CAMP: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why can't it be moved over to the
other area, the larger garage area? Why can't you build that now,
which would then, I feel, bring the traffic from the major arterials
rather than from their neighborhood?
MR. CAMP: Again, it's because eventually we will build the
large deck there in that -- behind the church. And we want to keep
the footprints -- the size of the parking decks, the footprints are very,
very important.
Because of the size of the campus, we have to put the large
parking deck, which is going to be twice as expensive, in the front of
the campus, and then the small one where it is now.
Page 46
December 3, 2002
Again, this is going to have a lesser impact --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there's no reason why we can't
build this particular -- this particular parking lot first, okay, there's no
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now you're answering my
question. Thanks, Jim.
MR. MUDD: There's no reason we can't do this one first, okay?
But what you're going to do is -- you're postponing a decision on
where you're going to put that third parking garage as part of the
master plan. There's three parking garages that are part of this master
plan.
You have the very big one that's going out here. We called it
P2. That will come when we do the expansions to the courthouse
and do the expansions to a bigger building over -- C and D. Kind of
looks like a companion to Building F over here at our -- but we could
build this one first, and postpone this one till later, but sooner or later
the board's going to have to deal with that decision.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's great, as long as we
protect these people's neighborhoods somehow. You know, these are
retired people, you know, and they're there all day long, and it's not
like they're absent. They're there. And we need to protect their roads
from any further erosion.
They're accommodating what we've already dealt them, but we
have to protect them from any further erosion, and maybe in --
maybe by putting the deck in another area that will just protect them
for a few more years till we come up with a way of either, you know,
blocking off the street or whatever, to protect their neighborhood.
MR. CAMP: Well, I think there's a couple things we need to
remember also, that the proximity of the parking deck to the jail is
important. The entrance is on the other side, and that was one of the
reasons, too, that we have to remember. The funding source is
impact fees. That's very, very important. This parking deck is being
Page 47
December 3, 2002
paid for by impact fees.
There's also some things we can do internally to try to mitigate
that. We can do some internal signage to direct not only our
employees but our visitors to the Airport Road or to the U.S. 41
entrances also, and we're committed to do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there a way to block off the road
from Palm Avenue so that that parking garage is only accessed by,
say, Airport or U.S. 41 ?
MR. CAMP: I think there's a way to discourage the people
from using that entrance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That would help.
MR. CAMP: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'd like to hear what the
residents have to say before I go any further. MR. CAMP: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go any further though,
we've got Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just a quick -- couple of quick
questions. You're saying that this parking garage that we're presently
talking about here is going to be maxed out at five stories, or does it
have the potential of going up to eight stories? MR. CAMP: Eight stories, potentially.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so we're looking then
at 11 O-foot high structure eventually?
MR. CAMP: That's absolutely correct, eventually.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Is there any other way to --
can we put a cap on this at five stories?
MR. CAMP: Well, remember, you're only approving the five
stories, not the eight.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, yes, but the eight stories is
going to be coming up here in a couple years.
MR. CAMP: We don't foresee that for at least 10 years.
Page 48
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You didn't answer his question
either. Can you put a cap on it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can we put a cap on this?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you're asking questions about a
government complex that has a master plan that's been approved.
And I'm not -- Commissioner, you can do anything you want, but
what I'm going to say to you is, the master plan was developed for
the footprint of the government center for the future. There are no
other plans outside of satellite building for government complexes to
get out there to communities to hold down a lot of the traffic that
comes here.
You know, we're doing another one right now out by Orange
Blossom by the library. We're thinking about another satellite, and it
was brought up when we -- when we did the PUD area at 951 and
Immokalee Road, to the northeast. When we talked about that big
area in there, we talked about particular areas for a government
complex, a library and things like that, and that's an effort to get
people to come away from this government complex to do all their
business here.
What I will say to you is, you can limit anything with parking,
but I'm going to say something to you right now, you're also going to
have to find tax revenues to go to a different site, okay, to move
something off of this camp -- off of this complex.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But we also got another -- on this
agenda, we're also looking at increasing the height of the jail, and
we're going to go up a couple of stories. Now, is that going to also
go up a few more stories in a couple of years too?
MR. CAMP: That will not have the capability of going any
higher than it is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess where I'm going at is, I'm
trying to look at how we can limit the height of buildings throughout
the whole county, and if we're looking at the county looking at
Page 49
December 3, 2002
11 O-foot garage space, I got a problem with that, eventually.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas, we'll
come back to you in a little bit.
What we're going to do now is we're going to go to
Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Coyle, then we're going to
take a 1 O-minute break, because it's going to take a little while.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you could provide the master
plan to all the commissioners, give us an update in the near future, it
would be very helpful.
Commissioner Fiala's idea of building the larger parking garage
first, can we use jail impact fees for that?
MR. CAMP: Only for the portion of the garage that is
associated with growth. So you couldn't build the entire parking
deck, no. And it would be considerably more expensive.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But we could use the impact
fees for the associated growth of the jail? MR. CAMP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it going to be a financial
strain on the -- on our budget to use the remainder of the moneys out
of the general fund or whatever?
MR. MUDD: We're going to have to find those dollars from
someplace, and right now there's no magic reserve out there that
says, hey, there's a garage expansion envisioned. And it was
envisioned to be in future budgets, not this year's.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Commissioners, I'd like to point out one
important feature of this particular garage and its situation right now.
Being associated with the jail, the bottom floor, the main floor
of the garage, is set aside for impoundment of evidence for the
sheriff, and he wishes to have this in a place where he can guard it
24/7 and also have it available to be readily taken to the courthouse if
Page 50
December 3, 2002
necessary, so that's an integral part of this garage, which I think is
attendant to its current position as planned. So I wanted to make you
aware of that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you point that out, how
that's going to work out?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, the bottom floor of the garage in this
particular area is where the impoundment for evidence will take
place. And, of course, it will be secured, and that will allow the
sheriff, if, say, at the courthouse something is called for, that it can
be readily transported over there. So from a situation standpoint of
where it's placed, it's significant to the sheriff in that regard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHNEIDER: And also I'd like to point out that this
garage is -- because of the development of the jail itself, is displacing
some existing parking, so the garage is taking up that parking plus
some additional.
And again, to relate to traffic, when we get into the conditional
use permit, the planning commission attached some conditions on the
particular permit that do deal with traffic issues that we'll get into
later.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to save most of my
comments until after public input, but I do want to clarify one thing.
We're talking about an eight-story parking garage that's going to be
1 10 feet tall? How do you get a parking garage that's 1 10 feet tall
with eight stories?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Actually, sir, the one that we're dealing
with today is only five stories. It does have a future potential for
eight, but we're only looking at that as a future potential.
Today what we're essentially dealing with is a five-story garage.
Again, to answer your question in relation to the 1 10 feet, that would
Page 51
December 3, 2002
be the top of the elevator shafts that could go that high.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But even that, you're talking about
-- even if the first floor that's used for storage of property is 20 feet
tall, you're still talking about 1 O-foot high ceilings in a parking
garage for eight stories.
I've never seen a parking garage that has 1 O-foot high ceilings.
In fact, most of them can barely accommodate an SUV at seven feet
or seven and a half feet.
So what I don't understand is, how do you get to 110 feet on an
eight-story parking garage when the top floor doesn't even have to be
covered?
MR. SCHNEIDER: The first floor in this particular garage
design is much higher than orig -- normal, and that's to accommodate
some of the sheriff's containers that they put in there to actually
impound some of this material.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's what, 20 feet, if I
remember. Was that what the height was?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Here's a cross-section of the garage that we
have. Perhaps Mr. JeffNunner, who is the consultant in this instance
with AEC could help us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And this is not a big issue, it's just
that I -- well, yes, it is a big issue. But I just didn't want this to pass
without asking a question. I hope sometime during the presentation
we can investigate that thoroughly, because I, quite frankly, don't see
how you get there with an eight-story parking garage, but
nevertheless, we'll have plenty of time to talk about that. MR. SCHNEIDER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What we're going to do at this time
is take a 1 O-minute break to give our recorder a chance to stretch her
fingers.
(A recess was taken.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Everybody take your seats,
Page 52
December 3, 2002
please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have my button on, just in case
you need to know that, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, could you please take your
seats.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please proceed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Okay. I think Commissioner Fiala has some questions or
comments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Yes, I do. Just one fast
comment.
I was talking with Skip Camp, and I asked him what the place
even looked like, and he had a drawing. I wanted to see what this
parking garage that we're going to be looking at will look like, and so
I've asked him to come up here and tell us just a little bit about that.
MR. CAMP: What you're seeing on the visualizer is the
rendering of the addition to the sheriff's building, and the associated
parking deck is on the left. And you can see right there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, that's pretty.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are those windows?
MR. CAMP: They're just openings.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They don't open, Fred.
MR. CAMP: They're just openings.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: In the parking garage, not in the sheriff's
building.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
MR. MUDD: No problem.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
with
Thank you for that clarification.
A little levity there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Please proceed.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Commissioners, I'd like to share a diagram
you here, a map. This particular one points out the current
Page 53
December 3, 2002
heights that exist in the zoning districts that surround our government
complex.
The most restrictive adjoining one, the one that we're dealing
with here in this variance is the C-5 heavy commercial district down
here in this area, which is the Wal-Mart site.
The Glades area, excuse me, is -- 75 foot is allowed there for a
height. Across from us, the C-4 commercial district is 75 feet. The
C-3 commercial district here is 50 feet. And over here the C-3 is 50
feet, so we're surrounded, essentially, by much higher zoning district
allowances for height.
I just wanted that pointed out, that we're being penalized here, if
you wish, here in the public zone by the definition of height in our
public district, which holds us to the most restrictive adjoining
height. In this case, again, it's the C-5 district here, 35 feet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we want to go to speakers?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, are you through with your
presentation, sir?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, sir, I am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: We have seven speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you please call the first one,
and the second one to follow by, for standby.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Dale Fisher is your first speaker. He will be
followed by Nancy Slade.
MR. FISHER: I'm Dale Fisher. Good morning.
I want to address the -- basically the parking garage. Not so
much as -- its height, but for what it stands for.
Thirteen years ago I bought a property on Palm Drive behind
the county facility here. At that time it was a sleepy little place,
several hundred cars a day would go up and down the street.
Since that time, our street has been cut through to give access
from Palm Drive into the government facility here. We put up a
Page 54
December 3, 2002
Wal-Mart at one end, a Home Depot at the other end, and we now
have thousands of cars going up and down that street. It's difficult to
go get your mail, it's difficult to get out of your parking lot, and
particularly in a 25-mile-an-hour zone where most cars are doing at
least 40 miles an hour.
The possibility of the parking garages that we're talking about is
going to bring more cars into this facility. We have a real problem in
Collier County because of lack of roads now, and anything that we
do in our planning that congests or brings more cars into one vital
spot is going to increase that problem.
The parking garage has a space in it for the sheriff to store cars,
repossessed cars and those that have been committed in crimes.
That's nice for the sheriff, but I can't see that in a court of law that
during the trial the judge is going to say, bring that car in here right
now.
We have facilities that -- in the industrial -- I think it's called
Horseshoe, off of Airport Road, that would be a fine place for that.
We're talking about facilities for visitors to the jail that aren't
going to actually have contact with the people. It's going to be
through television. That could be done at another facility someplace
else.
As we build that parking garage, if we don't situate it properly at
the right time so that the access is to Airport Road, we're going to put
more traffic on Palm Drive.
What I'm asking you today, as progress is inevitably disruptive
to the community, but proper planning in progress can make it as
least disruptive as possible. And I would hope that the importance
that we give to the manatee, the spotted owl, the panther, and all the
rest, you could give to this community. Thank you. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good point.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nancy Slade, and she will be
Page 55
December 3, 2002
followed by Jim Whalen.
MS. SLADE: I'm coming to you this morning as a director of
the Glades. I'm here to speak about the traffic that will flow through
the Glades once the jail expansion and parking lot at the government
center has been completed.
As Commissioner Fiala noted, this is an old problem for us,
because Palm cuts through our golf course, we need to keep it a
slow-moving, two-lane road.
In addition, as you know, many of our residents use the
rights-of-way for walking, jogging and biking. But every time that a
major building goes in our Palm and Glades, my neighborhood
experiences an increase in traffic on these roads and we come to you
for relief.
Two years ago the crisis was Home Depot. You helped us then
by mandating the construction of a right turn only pork chop and
median on Glades Boulevard as well as a no U-turn sign where
Glades intersects the light at Airport-Pulling.
Your action has restricted traffic and made it possible for us to
maintain our quality of life.
Today the problems are the same. I don't need to tell you how
many employees and nonresidents currently use Palm and Glades to
reach their jobs or to transact business at the county buildings. You
have the most current figures and you know that the -- that the
percentages are substantial.
With a planned 60-percent increase in the size of the complex in
the first year alone, we fear that the traffic will overwhelm our ability
to use Palm Drive as a neighborhood road.
In June of 2000, as part of the Home Depot agreement, Tom
Olliff promised us that county vehicles would not use the Harrison
entrance at Palm. It was a promise he could not keep. For drivers
will go where it is most convenient.
Now we are asking you to make using Palm to reach and leave
Page 56
December 3, 2002
the government center less convenient. The best solution for us
would be to close Harrison off completely, but we recognize that you
are not likely to vote for that option.
By causing a pork chop to be built at the Harrison entrance,
traffic can only turn right into the complex and right again toward
U.S. 41 when leaving.
In addition, we would like to have the medians to the south
extended and no U-turn signs posted so that drivers cannot make
Florida (sic) turns onto Palm to go north.
We in the Glades have been your good neighbors for over 20
years, and we are asking that you allow us to maintain our lifestyle
by helping to redirect the government center traffic away from our
neighborhood. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jim Whalen. He will be
followed by Ruth Thiel.
MR. WHALEN: Commissioners, thank you for giving me time.
Commissioners, the Collier County Government Center and the
Glades are neighbors. But the Glades is not some abstraction, not
only buildings, some of which are located along Palm Drive, but a
community of 2500 people who take pride in their community. A
community which is active 12 months a year.
During the summer we have special events, dinners, barbecues,
weekly tennis and golf tournaments and card parties, et cetera, but
we're not blind to the reality of growth and increased vehicle traffic.
We welcome the improvement to the Town Center Shopping
Center. It will bring with it employment, increased tax revenues and,
yes, increased vehicle traffic, but we accept that.
But we have serious options -- serious questions about how
much planning went into the concept of the parking garage.
On September 27th, 2002, this year, the county asked for a
building of 110 feet, and a month later it was reduced to 69 feet, as
Page 57
December 3, 2002
we heard about this morning, without any hearings.
Perhaps that was an effort to placate us. But the planning board,
as we found out today, said it's -- at the planning board, it was going
to be 110 feet, and that was verified again this morning. That garage
will be 110 feet.
The legal height for a building in this area is 35 feet, as was
mentioned, so the variance was 75 feet. A variance of over 200
percent. I would guess a variance -- that if the private sector asked
for a variance of 200 percent, more than a few questions would be
asked by those in authority.
The ground floor of the garage will be 20 feet, 20 feet high, and
warehouse vehicles which have been involved in a crime. Can't that
prime space be reconfigured to make two 1 O-foot parking floors to be
used for staff and visitors and reduce the size of the garage, and
continue to warehouse the vehicles where they are now, those
vehicles involved in crime, where they're located now, right next to
the jail?
I ask the commissioners to ask the staff and consultants to
present to them what is needed and not what is wanted. I commend
the staff for recently relocating the garage so it will be less visible
from the residential areas. We thank them for that.
I'm not qualified to make a comment about the request for a new
75-foot jail center which involves a 40-foot variance. All that we ask
is that, is it really needed or is it wanted?
There's no questions that regardless of the size of the garage, the
jail traffic will increase on Palm Drive. I ask the commissioners to
consider two concrete ways to reduce traffic on Palm Drive. One,
close off Harrison Road at Palm Drive. There are multiple accesses
-- access roads off 41 and Airport Road which lead directly into the
government center, or right turn restraints as was discussed here,
right restrains (sic) for exiting traffic from Harrison to Palm and a
breakdown lane from-- off Palm to Harrison.
Page 58
December 3, 2002
But your traffic department engineers did an outstanding job
with the traffic controls at Glades and Airport Road, and perhaps
they can do the -- work their magic at Palm Drive and Harrison.
One last point. Please accelerate the transfer of county agencies
to other areas of Collier County to slow the growth in this
government center. The one thing that terrifies us in the Glades is
traffic increasing where Palm Drive would turn into a four-lane
divided highway.
All I ask is for you to think about your -- maybe your favorite
two-lane road with its easy access on and off, trees and grass, relative
peace and quiet, a road where you can walk across and talk to your
neighbor. Think about that turning into a residential raceway. It's an
ugly prospect.
Please take steps now before it's too late. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ruth Thiel, and she will be
followed by Ted Beisler.
MS. THIEL: I appreciate the time and effort it takes to think
about all the kinds of things that you folks have to think about. I've
done it, and I speak-- and I'm a full-time resident of the Glades.
I speak in opposition to giving variances to the county that
would not be given to commercial buildings in Collier County. I find
it ludicrous that the county would even seek such a variance to build
a parking garage and additions to the jail center.
I understand that there are facilities at Horseshoe -- at the
Horseshoe Drive complex, and it seems to me that many of the things
that supPosedly are going to be in the first floor of the garage could
be over at the Horseshoe Drive complex. It doesn't take that long to
get here, and we see that we took a 1 O-minute break here. They can
do that in courts too.
There's -- number two, there's already a need to control the
traffic on Palm Drive, as you've heard from the previous speakers.
Page 59
December 3, 2002
Palm Drive is a completely residential road from Glades Boulevard
until the drive into Wal-Mart.
More traffic could lead to the necessity of widening Palm Drive,
and that would seriously deteriorate the property values at the Glades
as well as have some safety issues.
And number three, if more building is done in the government
complex, Harrison Road should be closed. It would eliminate the
traffic problem that is caused by the complex now. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Ted Beisler, and he will be followed by Robert
Murray.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just one little note before you go on.
If we could, before -- state your name for the record, then continue.
MR. BEISLER: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner. For the
record, my name is Ted Beisler.
Thank you all for giving me the opportunity to speak to you this
morning. I'm a little bit out of breath. I ran up the stairs there to find
out that even though I've lost a little weight, I need to lose more. I
know it doesn't look like I lost weight, but I have.
I'm here speaking to you as a member of the board of directors
of the East Naples Civic Association. I'm also president of the
Coalition of Homeowners' Association, which is an East Naples
group. Members of that coalition represent the Glades, Kings Lake,
Lakewood, Lakewood Country Club, Foxfire, Naples Heritage, Lely,
Timber Lake and Glen Eagle. And yes, we are concerned with the
expansion of the government center.
We have a concern, number one, about the height of the jail. It's
going to be a very tall structure, and it's going to have an impact on
the neighbors and what the neighbors see.
You know, the view we have from our home is very important
to us, but we understand this building -- although I still can't get a
Page 60
December 3, 2002
grasp on how tall this building is going to get, because it seems like
who you talk to tells you a different number, and I'm sorry, but I
really don't know exactly how tall it's going to be, but that is a
concern. But it also is going to have an impact on what these people
look at from their homes today.
We're also concerned about the 20-foot ground floor and the fact
that that is an area that's going to be used by the sheriff to store
things. We understand the sheriff needs what he needs to -- for
evidence and all that. Our question is where you're putting it and
how tall it has to be, which, again, will have an effect on how tall the
parking garage is.
One of the things that I've looked at -- and, please, I'm a novice
on things like this. But when you look at the whole plan, there is an
area that says there's going to be a parking garage built at P-1, which
is farther west, which is closer to the church. It might be a thought to
think about building the parking garage in that area first and that
would have less impact on the neighborhood.
I know the parking garage has already been moved, but that one
is proposed. It might be a thought to put it there to begin with.
I know you-all are aware, but the initial phase of this has the
government complex going from 530,000 square feet to over 830,000
square feet according to the DRI. That's a 55 percent increase that
you-all are looking for in the government complex. We think that
will have a significant impact on the traffic in the area.
I know when faced with a traffic problem with Home Depot,
you put in a right-in, right-out on Glades Boulevard and that helped
the impact on the neighborhood. And we ask that you-all consider
doing something similar at the corner of Harrison and Palm Drive.
It would be nice to say, yeah, close the road. I don't know that
that is possible. But I think a right-in, right-out, which is something,
by the way, that the planning commission said possibly could be
done, and they would look at that and should look at that. So we
Page 61
December 3, 2002
think a right-in, right-out with no U-turns on Palm Drive might help
that problem.
We understand the need to expand the government center. We
just want the government center to be good neighbors, and we thank
you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Robert Murray, and your
final speaker will be Mr. Ken Drum.
MR. MURRAY: Good morning, Commissioners. Good
morning, members of the staff. Thank you for allowing us to speak.
My name is Bob Murray, and I'm speaking in behalf of the East
Naples Civic Association and specifically the Economic
Development Committee.
I think the people who have spoken before me have really said
all that they can in terms of their desires, and I won't try to presume
that I can say it better for them.
But the thing that I'd like to bring to your attention is that when
I first was brought into this issue, there was a great deal of confusion
as to what a DRI really represented and what rights and approval
rights there were for both the citizens and for the commission and for
the state.
In my mind that confusion still exists. I would hope that one of
the things you might look to do is help to educate the public more so
that it knows where it is in terms of its rights and the responsibilities
of this body, because there is a belief that this body doesn't have the
authority to modify this -- these heights and so forth.
Having said that, my key point is simple. It's a balancing act.
That's what you folks are there -- going to do. You're going to try to
find the balance between the good neighbors that you need to be as
government with the people who are adjacent.
But in a larger picture, you're also going to be responsible for
Page 62
December 3, 2002
what we see 25 years hence. And inasmuch as there is a master plan
which, according to members of the Glades, is not readily accessible
to them as information or plans that can be seen and understood, that
master plan is, as I visualize it, it's almost as one of those video
games where suddenly there are structures rising up.
And if they were to remain the only structures to have risen up
and could have been tolerated over the years, that would be fine, but
my fear is, especially with particularly corridor 41, as we grow, the
major consideration is, what example do we set to all the developers
who choose to put in 90-foot, 200-foot buildings and the like?
The community is clear that is doesn't want those structures in
East Naples. The community has spoken very clearly about that, I
assure you.
As we reach toward community character and increasing
intensity and density to allow for green space, we, nevertheless, must
find a way to balance out this incredible potential for growth.
And my worry is, as up in the states of New York and Illinois
and those big cities, what started out as a rise with green space is
inevitably filled with more concrete and brick. So it's a balancing act.
The traffic is the central issue, obviously. These people don't
deserve to have numerous cars running through a neighborhood that
serves them naught. They need to have the opportunity to have quiet
enjoyment. They bought their property believing that they would be
entitled to that and they would have that.
And so I ask you, with your balancing act decision this morning,
not too much blood on the sword, please. Thank you. (Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Ken Drum.
MR. DRUM: Good morning. My name is Ken Drum, for the
record, speaking for the East Naples Civic Association.
I'd start out by saying that there is a great irony here in that
you're asking yourself for a variance and you're also sitting in
Page 63
December 3, 2002
judgment of that. The issue is pertinent because, as I understand it,
there will be a few requests in the future, near future, for variances
on tall buildings. In fact, I know of one that's probably going to ask
for 20 stories, 22 stories. And so your stewardship, if you will, will
be reflected in how you handle some of these requests and how you
handle your own request.
As you can see, the neighborhood is impacted and that residents
eloquently stated what the problem was and also what the solution
would be.
The word variance suggests that something is not consistent
with the growth plan, because otherwise why would you ask for a
variance?
I'd like to deal with a more broad topic and that is the topic of
taxes and how we are so fortunate in living in a community where we
have a rising assessed valuation. We don't have to raise the tax rate
in order to bring in a lot of money. Although there was an attempt to
raise the sales tax, most of the community feels that the taxes are
reasonable as they are right now. And so we have -- we really have a
wonderful situation here.
The question though is how much is enough?
And these are some statistics that I and some of my colleagues
got from your human resources department that you might find
interesting. In 1997, Collier County had a population of 205,244,
and the projected population at end of this month is going to be
285,677. That's an increase of 39 percent in the population in five
years.
The number of government employees, excluding the
constitutional officers, in 1997, was 1,080. The present number of
employees is approximately 1,900. That's an increase of 76 percent.
So what you should delve into, I think, a little more is, here we
have the population increasing arithmetically while the number of
county employees is increasing exponentially.
Page 64
December 3, 2002
And there's a discussion that took place here this morning about
landscaping. And where do we get money for trees? Well, I can tell
you what the -- you don't have to take a survey to find out that most
of the public would rather have a tree than another employee.
So -- and I'm not advocating a layoff or anything like that, but I
just think that in your future deliberations, particularly in this
government center, you have to ask the question, where is this
government going? I mean, we have a good situation with taxes and
we don't have to increase the tax rate. But on the -- by the same
token, on the part of the community, we want to make sure that the
taxes are well spent and not spent on something that is maybe on a
wish list. Okay. Thank you. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Last speaker,
correct?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You know, I've listened to
everything everybody's had to say and I've made a lot of notes. And
while I was listening, I came up with a brainstorm, so you're all
going to be the first ones to hear this great idea.
What I heard all throughout the conversation was traffic, what
they're really concerned with. They're not opposed to the jail center
expanding, they're not opposed to the parking garage. What they
said was, protect our neighbors, protect our roads.
And I'm thinking, how do we do that? Especially because, as
Mr. Drum just mentioned, the government complex is going to
continue to expand. There's a lot more growth coming on the heels
of this jail center. On top of which we'll -- will raise more traffic and
more concerns.
And so what I thought was -- and please listen to this with an
open mind. What about one of these, like parking lot garage arms,
Page 65
December 3, 2002
you know, that they have, where you have to insert your card, and
what about issuing a traffic arm card to every employee who works
here, but yet nobody else would have one, and that traffic arm would
be right at Harrison Drive, the entrance off Glades?
That means we're not limiting the employees, they can still get
to work, if that's the way they come to work. They don't even have
to get the card, they don't need to come that way, and yet we won't
generate additional traffic from people who are using the government
complex. They'll have to use the main road. I think that's a
brainstorm. What do you think?
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
Good possibility.
Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're coming right to you,
Commissioner Henning. I'm not too sure if Commissioner Fiala -- I
thought that was an excellent idea --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- with the earlier comments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to -- and then, of course,
with landscaping, we can mask the appearance of the buildings a
little bit, we can certainly do that. But that was my brainstorm. I just
wanted to bounce that off.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure.
MR. SCHNEIDER: If I might summarize a little bit here on this
issue of this variance, I'd like to point out that we're dealing with
phase one of a 12-year expansion.
In the DRI there's many mitigating measures particularly
dealing with traffic that have been set aside and conditions as this
development goes forward. So what you're seeing is just the
beginning. And in this instance of this variance for the parking
Page 66
December 3, 2002
garage, it does not exacerbate traffic. In fact, it is a mitigating
measure. So with that regard, I'd like to summarize that for you as
we go forward with our deliberation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll go to Commissioner Henning
right now, and then we'll come back to more direct questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If-- Commissioner, thank you
for suggestions (sic). What I would like to do is -- separately, is
direct the county manager to direct his staff not to use Palm Drive to
get to the complex, to use the U.S. 41 and Airport Road, and this
would just emphasize the concerns of the residents in the Glades.
This is a mitigation factor, and anything that we can do to rest
the concerns about increased traffic, I think it's a valid concern. But
when we limit traffic, we are forcing more people onto the arterial
roadways.
Ted Beisler and I had a discussion long ago about the education
of respecting neighborhood roadways and encourage people to -- that
encourage people to use arterial roads instead of local roads.
But, Commissioner, I think that would be a little bit better, is to
give the county manager direction to tell his staff to use U.S. 41 and
Airport Road to get here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Since you directed the question to
Commissioner Fiala, I'll let her answer you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we tried to do that before,
and the employees really worked with it for weeks and -- but then
they -- you know, it falls by the wayside when you're in a hurry to
get to work. You mean well. There really isn't anybody watching
over. There's no accountability.
And I appreciate the idea, but I really -- I feel that the
employees could use this as long as it's not generating additional
traffic.
Page 67
December 3, 2002
I didn't even hear -- you know, as they were talking about the
height of the buildings, I think the reason they were talking about the
height of the buildings is how much more traffic it would generate.
But if we limited the traffic to just employees coming and going, and
then only those that would use it, then I don't think they would be
concerned about the height of the building so much as long as we
softened it with some type of landscaping trees or whatever.
You know, what we're looking for here is a compromise and a
win-win, and I think we can do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, then
I'm going to take a mm, and then we're going to go to Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, this proposal
places me personally in a very uncomfortable position. I have a long
history of opposing variances that are substantive. This is certainly a
substantive variance.
But there is a difference between granting a variance to a
developer and granting one for a public facility, because when we're
dealing with a public facility, we're dealing with the taxpayers'
money.
If we approve or fail to approve a variance and thereby result in
higher costs, I don't think we're serving the public interest. And by
way of example, I will say, too, that it is less expensive to build up
than it is to build out. We would have to acquire more property -- if
we make the assumption that this square footage is necessary, we
would have to acquire more property, we would have to build out, we
would have to take over more green space, we would have less space
for parking. There would be financial implications for us to do that.
But there are a number of things that concern me about this
process. Number one is that we're not dealing with the final project,
the final product. We are approving this thing or we are being asked
to approve it on an incremental basis. Sixty-nine feet now, 110 feet
Page 68
December 3, 2002
later. We have no idea what this whole project is going to look like
over time.
And I would -- I would much prefer a PUD process over this
incremental approval concept, that way we'd at least have a good
understanding of what the ultimate development is going to look like.
And I think we would have some additional information upon which
to base our conclusions.
The downside of that is that the sheriff needs space and he needs
it soon. He's been asking for it for a long time, and the Board of
County Commissioners has failed to provide it, and we have to
balance that issue.
But there's another concern I have, and this is a procedural
issue. This is the second issue that has come before us in the last
couple of weeks where it has gone through the CCPC hearings and
then there has been a substantive change to the proposal and it has
not gone back for review.
You can address in just a minute.
But I'm not aware that this modification reducing the height has
gone back to the CCP (sic) for consideration.
But bottom line is that if-- for me to come anywhere close to
approving a variance of this size, I would have to have clear are
convincing evidence that it was in the public's best interest.
And I think the only way we can hope to accomplish that goal is
to make sure the traffic problems are solved for this neighborhood. I
think that is an absolute bottom-line requirement, and I would -- I
would have some concern about even letting the employees use this
neighborhood street to get to and from the office. Because if we are
going to increase this square footage, we're going to increase traffic.
More people are going to come down this street than and coming
down the street now. I see no problems with a -- (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- right turn -- thank you, but
Page 69
December 3, 2002
you're not in my district, I don't think.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you could move.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, maybe you could relocate.
But I would very much like to see us seriously consider the right
mm, right-out solution that the neighborhood has proposed, because I
do believe that the employees will use it and will create additional
traffic. And quite frankly, we've got arterials that can serve this
purpose. We don't need to drive through a neighborhood to do that.
But bottom line is, I have to have absolutely clear and
convincing evidence that this is in the.public's best interest. I have to
be assured that if we don't approve these height variances that it will
cost the taxpayers more money. And I have to be assured that if we
do approve these variances, that it will not cause the kind of traffic
on these residential streets that the people are concerned about.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can you respond to that?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, sir, I'd like to. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Commissioner Coyle, the CCPC did deliberate this with the
height that you're deliberating on. The change came following the
public information meeting and prior to the planning commission's
deliberation.
It was noted that, by Commissioner Adelstein in the planning
commission, that during the public information meeting, we only
talked about five stories of the parking garage, but the variance
application did go to the ultimate. So it was a decision of Skip Camp
and his folks that, let's just go back to what we have to have right
now and not worry about the future at this juncture, and they dropped
the height back to the 69 feet, which the planning commission did
approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess then my other comment
becomes even more important. I don't like doing things in an
incremental fashion. I like to know where I'm going before I make
Page 70
December 3, 2002
the final decision. And if I'm going to 110 feet, I want to see a
drawing of the 11 O-foot tall building. I want to understand its
impact, I want to understand the traffic circulation problems, I want
to understand what level of employee population that is designed to
accommodate and how many years that will accommodate them and
what are our plans for going beyond that. And, again, are there any
alternatives to doing what we're doing right now?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. I understand. Skip?
MR. CAMP: Let me just -- let me just address one thing. I
think it's clear to staff that we're going to be looking at a PUD, so the
information that you want, we'll have for you.
I will tell you that we've had this space planned in front of the
commission since 1997. We've been -- we've given you the
information multiple times, both in -- as relates to the space plan and
the DRI process.
I would like to address your question about the need, and the
need, I think, can only be addressed by the sheriffs office, so I'm
going to ask the sheriffs representative to speak to you for just a
moment.
MR. SMITH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Greg Smith, chief of detention and judicial services for the sheriffs
office and representing Sheriff Hunter this morning.
I think that the need for the project has been thoroughly
explored. I think it's been thoroughly certified to not only this board
but previous boards as well.
We have just finished the third update of a strategic plan for
retention facilities for the county, which was initially done in 1989,
and the final certification in 1997, which ultimately led to the design
of this particular project.
Today the jail system of Collier County stands at about 1,000
inmates. Your jail system's facilities currently will -- has the
capacity of a little over 750. As you can see, we're out of time.
Page 71
December 3, 2002
We've made some alternatives to incarceration. We've even
employed the use of tents where they can be used with
accommodation to the public safety.
I think that everyone has done their due diligence in this regard.
And not just the sheriff, but also the county staff and you
commissioners as well. I think that we all understand the issue, we
all understand where we're at.
As far as the parking garage, let me just say a couple of things
about that. I think that it's important to understand that there are
service mechanisms that are going to be located in that garage that
are vital to the jail, emergency power generator, HVAC systems, as
well as the sheriff's storage of evidence and seized vehicles. Those
make it almost a necessity to locate it where staff has proposed
today.
The other thing that you have to consider is, if we were to move
that garage -- and this is something that the staff has done a
tremendous amount of planning on -- you're going to displace the
current parking for not only the sheriff's staff but a tremendous
segment of the public that accesses the campus on a daily basis.
That's a concern that has been the subject of many meetings, also one
of the things that was discussed at the public hearings on this project.
Bottom line and the conclusionary statement is we do need it,
we've certified it in the jail expansion documents that have been
provided to you. We stand ready to assist you in the understanding
of those documents further.
Let me also say that I'd be remiss if I didn't comment that
Sheriff Hunter also has a very vested interest in public safety of
pedestrians and motorist activities within the Palm River area, or
excuse me, I'm sorry, Palm Drive, and the Glades subdivision;
therefore, you know, we -- we also would like to see some measures
in place that make this a tenable solution, not only for them but for
us, because ultimately we are going to be the people who intercede
Page 72
December 3, 2002
on their behalf to ensure the safety of that community as well. So,
you know, we're not just up here advocating for an additional facility,
but we're also committing to keeping that neighborhood as safe as we
can as well. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Well, we'll come back to you, sir, and please don't go too far in
case there is some questions.
I'm going to be next, and then from myself we're going to go to
Commissioner Halas, then Fiala, then back to Commissioner Coyle.
I heard Bob Murray say that the traffic is the central issue. I
also heard him say that this is a balancing act. He's absolutely
correct. Where do we find the public good and how do we protect the
integrity of the neighborhood?
Ken Drum made the statement that was -- I took very much to
heart, our stewardship on how we handle this, handle our own
request, will reflect how we're going to handle other requests from
people on the outside.
And hearing all these items and what the needs of the county
are, I'm going to make a recommendation -- I'm going to make a
motion that we approve staffs recommendation with the addition that
they either provide a gate that Commissioner Fiala suggested or
right-in, right-out for entrance to be able to protect the integrity of
the community, the Glades community.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second if it's a -- if it's an arm, a
traffic arm, rather than -- because I think that would be more
restrictive and protect their neighborhood further.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Close the road.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could I make a suggestion,
Commissioner Fiala?
No, no discussion from the audience.
May I make a suggestion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
Page 73
December 3, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Leave it the way it is and have it
brought back to us so that we can hear the pluses to both. I'd like to
know what the least obtrusive would be. I'm don't -- I'm not
convinced the traffic arm would be the least obtrusive, because if
you've still got county employees as you're growing, you're still
going to have more and more access as time goes on.
If you've got right-in, right left (sic), you cut it down
considerably in the beginning, it will be cut down in the future.
But I'm not the person to make that judgment call. I would like
to leave that open for future consideration after we hear from Norm
and everyone else. I'm just not totally convinced that, you know, one
is better than the other.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I might interject at
this point. I personally feel, from a planning issue, it would be more
appropriate if we attach these conditions to the conditional use permit
for the jail rather than the variance itself, since the variance is dealing
strictly with a dimensional aspect. I personally feel that we would be
much better off--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me. I don't want to wait that
long. I'd like to see this put up tomorrow.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, you're hearing the conditional use
next.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know, I know. It's just that I don't
want this to drag out forever. I think we have to show good faith to
the community if we're going to move forward with the growth of
this center to meet the needs of the public.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Jim Mudd, county manager. Just
make a comment real quick. The arm thing, that's a difficult process
to put in, especially on a public road. What happens when you're
down that shoot and you can't get down because they don't --
somebody discovers they don't have a card and there's a car behind
them?
Page 74
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then they have to go the other
way.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, there's nowhere to mm, and so that's --
that's my issue. It would be -- it would be a logical sequence to make
a right mm, right mm out -- right mm in, right turn out from that
particular case and put the pork chop in, as one of the speakers
mentioned.
But I will tell you, Commissioner, you know, one of the things
that you're trying to do as far as consistency is concerned, you're
trying to encourage interconnects between communities to get to
roads in Collier County. And I understand this might be a different
or an isolated incidence because of the government community, but I
will tell you it goes counter to that particular policy that I've heard
the board talk about earlier.
I will also say, if somebody's making a right turn out, and they
get to -- and they get to that light, okay, and they make a left-hand
turn, the next left-hand turn is Lakewood, and they'll take that road,
and it will probably increase traffic on that particular community, so
I'm just telling you, when you're moving traffic around from one
place to the other, somebody's going to get impacted by it. It just
isn't a zero -- it's a zero sum game, and everybody's going to have an
issue with it. I just thought I'd bring those out for the Commissioner.
I would say, if we need to limit the traffic, a right turn in and a
right turn out is a whole lot better from a traffic standpoint than
making mechanical arms, especially when you don't have -- I'm
talking about going out, Commissioner. If you have the arm up there
to go out, you get one jammed in there, there's no place to go, and
then you've got the canal that sits there, so it's a bit of an issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, my motion still stands for the
moment.
Commissioner Fiala, either I get a second or I withdraw it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll check on my second,
Page 75
December 3, 2002
because -- and possibly I have pride in authorship. Sometimes, you
know, that stands in the way, so I'm trying to think very clearly.
The people would like the right road closed completely. I know
that that is not -- that will not allow a -- an interconnectivity. They
would like to see the buildings decreased. They would also like to
see less traffic on their street.
And what I'm trying to do is find a way to preserve the integrity
of their roads to some degree yet offer the efficiency of using that
road at least for the employees.
So what I'm doing is proposing a compromise. And I don't think
a pork chop is going to do it. I think a right turn -- right-in, right-out
-- you know, they're going to right-out and then they're going to U'ee
and do it anyway. I just think that it -- it still doesn't protect their
roads enough. And possibly I'm just speaking out of pride of
authorship, as I say.
But I believe that a traffic arm would protect their
neighborhood, because we're going to continue to expand and we
have to do this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas, I
apologize for taking you out of-- taking Commissioner Fiala out of
turn, but we had to finish my point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll let you get away with it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess it all hinges here on the
concerns of what the population here at the jail is. I heard a figure of
-- that was designed basically for 750 inmates. Maybe the gentleman
that's representing Sheriff Hunter could go into a little more detail.
I guess where I'm going with this is to find out if this is the
biggest cost-effective measure here. If the jail was designed for 750,
we presently have a population of 280,000 and we have an inmate
population of 1,000, and we're talking possibly of a build-out
somewheres between 500 and-- and 500,000 and 750,000, what is
Page 76
December 3, 2002
the prognosis of the jail population going to be at that point, and are
we going to continue to go up in height of the jail, or are we going to
be looking at -- possibly looking another facilities (sic)?
MR. SMITH: That's an excellent question. Let me try to answer
that.
Jail population is something that we constantly map and
maintain that data. Every county is required by law to have a
strategic plan that addresses correctional facilities and their needs
and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand that.
MR. SMITH: -- Collier County is a very good steward in that
regard.
We have tracked our inmate populations out currently through
the year 2015. This facility, this variance that's in front of you today
will almost certainly handle that capacity. Yes, as --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: With the growth that we've been
experiencing here in the last few years, going at 20 to 30 percent
increase?
MR. SMITH: Yes, that's part of the program. That's why there's
a third floor that's being added, but it's only being shelled at this
time. It will eventually be completed and inmates will be housed in
that as well. That will add another 250 to that capacity.
We've also just renovated an Immokalee site. We're doing the
ribbon cutting, as you well know, on that facility Friday morning.
That facility, once the old building is then razed, gives us the
capacity to expand on that site as well.
So we've made some plans to accommodate the inmate
population to the year 2015 and beyond, taking into consideration the
growth.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me help to redirect this before
we get too far off on -- could we possibly in the near future schedule
an informational workshop on what the county's planning to do in the
Page 77
December 3, 2002
future where we can bring all these elements into play? I think that
might be a good idea, because we're starting to get into the whole
complex and how it's going to be 20, 25 years out, and that's not
where we should be today.
MR. MUDD: We can do that, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that something the Commission
would like to see?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it's very important, because
in order for us to come up with a decision here, it's nice to put a
Band-Aid on something, but it also is nice to know exactly what your
growth plan is in here, you know. And I'm -- maybe I'm not up to
speed on some of these things, but I think it's very important that
everybody, not only just this neighborhood, but even we have an idea
of where we're going with this thing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, do we want to direct staff to
have a workshop on the remainder part of all this so that we know
what it's going to be in the future? We try to work it to death now,
we're not going to go anyplace except take a lot of time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there any way we can divide
this request in a way which will serve the needs of the sheriff's
department immediately and then permit us to bring the PUD back --
bring a PUD back to evaluate this entire complex throughout its
ultimate build out? Is there any reason we can't do that today?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's one that I know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHNEIDER: I would be interested in your suggestion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, when you do a PUD --
we just went through the process of sunsetting because it wasn't built
Page 78
December 3, 2002
out within the sunset provisions of PUDs.
This complex is a -- it's a long-term project. So the DRI process
is what the commissioners need to look at.
Commissioner Coyle, I don't remember whether he was here
when we went through that process of looking at it, the DRI.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Obviously Commissioner
Halas wasn't. So they need to be brought up to speed. And if we're
going to go in a different direction, then we need to find the facilities
within the county to do that, then we need to find the tax moneys to
provide that. And while we're doing that, let's move the landfill.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that part of the motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. If Commissioner Coyle
was finished.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'm not.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, no. We're coming back to
him. You're still on stage from center.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't believe that a PUD that is
in the process is going to get the sunsetting. I believe our sunsetting
provisions provided for sunsetting a PUD where substantive efforts
had not been undertaken to proceed.
And if our -- if our development in the government center is
going to be ongoing for a long period of time, it will be no different
than the Vineyards or other developments that have been ongoing for
a long time.
But -- in any event, I recognize I was not here when this process
was approved, and I'm not going to stand in the way of providing the
sheriff with adequate facilities to house inmates. And I would -- I
would be willing to proceed with a motion to provide those particular
services, but I am very reluctant to proceed beyond that under the
current circumstances until such time as I see an overall plan for this
government complex and where we're going.
Page 79
December 3, 2002
It seems to me that we are in substantial violation of the DRI
with respect to our future plans and where we're going with it as far
as square footage is concerned. We are in violation of the height
restrictions according to our Land Development Code. And I -- I
simply cannot deal with all of that given the current circumstances.
So if we can divide this in a way that will provide the sheriff
what he needs to house inmates over the foreseeable future and
provide some additional parking necessary to do that, I'm willing to
proceed on it.
But we have a huge lot on the southeast portion of our complex
here that can be used for parking. It's not paved, but people can park
there. And, yes, they have to walk, but that's the way things have to
be sometimes.
And -- but I am very much concerned that -- I don't have a good
handle on where we're going with this over the long-term. And until
I get a commitment from -- to deal with the traffic situation in a
neighborhood, I'm not going there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I believe the motion I made covers
all those things you just mentioned.
I can remember back in '96 1 -- with Leadership Collier, I toured
through the government complex. I seen the plans for what was
planned for the government center, so it hasn't been a mystery that
just came out of the ground. And as far as I know, they are in
compliance with their -- the order that they -- are we in compliance
or not?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, we are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What was the maximum square
footage approval in the DRI?
MR. SCHNEIDER: I don't have that figure before me right
now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's 999,000 square feet. You're
proposing 1.9 million -- you're proposing almost twice that much.
Page 80
December 3, 2002
MR. SCHNEIDER: At this juncture, Commissioner, I'm not
aware of that particular issue. I know as far as the positioning of the
parking garage and that issue, we are in compliance with the DRI.
We have notification from them to that regard.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. This is an issue that we can
get to in the workshop. I think we ought to stick with where we are
today with this particular one.
We addressed the present issue with the present needs, we
mentioned -- you just mentioned, Commissioner Coyle, plus we've
got two options open for consideration on handling the traffic that
will enter onto Palm Drive.
What I'm going to do is I'm going to go down the line one more
time, then I'd like to be able to call for this here, if you have one
more comment you want to make.
We'll go with Commissioner Fiala first, then Commissioner
Halas, then if Commissioner Henning or Commissioner Coyle would
like to jump in, just push your buttons.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I was going to make a
motion to bring this thing to a head because -- but did you want to
say something before I make this motion?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows, chief
planner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got a motion.
MR. BELLOWS: I was the planner who worked on the
development of regional impact. And the development of regional
impact is a process where we laid out the square footages of the
future development of the -- of the government center.
We have not submitted any plans that would show that we
would deviate from that approved DRI. Now, there may be
conceptual plans that you're referring to, but there's built-in
safeguards.
If the county does decide to go beyond that, we trigger a
Page 81
December 3, 2002
substantial deviation, have to go through the DRI process again. So
there is some assurance to the public that we are going to keep to our
promises. And if we find that we have to go beyond that, we go
through the process again.
And I think you have a very good idea about having a workshop
with the DRI. We have new commissioners, and they should be fully
aware of what the DRI process was that occurred a few years ago.
And traffic impacts that were addressed on the DRI could be either
accelerated or modified to meet current concerns with traffic,
especially on Palm Drive. But they are separate issues.
The petition before you today doesn't significantly increase the
intensity, it doesn't add employees, it doesn't create additional traffic.
The traffic is always going to remain here whether this variance is
approved or not. So I think those should be separated.
And staff is committed to come before you again with the
workshop, work with the residents of Palm Drive to come up with
better ways to improve traffic along that roadway. And that's all I
have for you now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Very good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, Commissioner. I'm sorry,
Commissioner Henning. I didn't see your light on. Did you have
some statement that you wish to complete?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just thanked Mr. Bellows for
coming up here, but, yeah, I'll wait my turn.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I understand-- I withdraw
my second, by the way, to your motion because-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So does anybody else want to
second your motion or shall I move forward with my own?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we hear a restatement of the
chairman's motion?
Page 82
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My motion is that we go forward
with this according to staffs direction and also direct staff to pick one
of two alternatives as far as traffic on -- to empty into Palm Drive,
and that would be, one, the gate that Commissioner Fiala suggested,
or, two, the right-in, right-out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can't -- we don't even know which
one. I wanted to address 7(A). I figure we go 7(A), 7(B), 7(C).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let me make it easy. My
motion failed for the lack of a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Number 7(A), which addresses just
the 34-foot variance for the jail center. This comes in three parts,
right? Just the 34-foot variance for the jail center.
MR. MUDD: The parking garage.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, the parking garage.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Parking garage, okay? I make a
motion that we accept the 34-foot variance for the parking garage
and we install a traffic arm at the entry to the government center on
Harrison Road. That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And your motion failed for the lack
of a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what we need to do is --
first of all, we needed to make sure that we take care of the inmates
in the jail. We need to come up with some type of additional
parking, but we also need to make sure that we take care of the traffic
that's going to be entering and leaving this government complex, and
I believe that we should leave that up to the traffic engineers to best
figure that out and not put in there what we want to -- what we think
Page 83
December 3, 2002
needs to be done.
But I also think that we need to, some way or another, assure
that before we continue on, that we come up with what the big
picture of this whole complex is going to be so we don't end up with
a 11 O-foot parking garage.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll go along with the two
additional floors or whatever's needed in this parking garage for this
particular variance, but I assure you that I'm not in favor of a
11 O-story parking garage.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Did you want to make that in
the form of a motion, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I'll make that in the form of a
motion, that we leave it up to the traffic engineers to figure out the
best way to figure out how they're going to accommodate the
neighborhood in this area and that there's input from the citizens in
regards to how we can best suit this traffic, and then to go forward
with a variance for this garage of up to 69 feet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They were only asking for 34.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thirty-four feet, excuse me, I'm
sorry, the variance -- the height, the total height of the structure is
going to be 69 feet, I believe.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're not doing very good here
today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I don't want to leave it up to
the traffic engineers, because--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hold it, Commissioner Fiala. I'm
going to ask you not to speak out of turn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: First, do I hear a second to
Commissioner Halas's motion? I do not, so that failed also. I think
you're getting closer though.
Page 84
December 3, 2002
Commissioner Coyle, we're going to you now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think you might be able to solve
this problem by committing to doing something about the traffic on
these streets.
The only reason I wouldn't support Commissioner Fiala's
recommendation about the traffic arm is the traffic arm doesn't keep
the employees from using this street, and those are largely the people
who are causing the traffic problems on that street.
And if, in fact, we increase the parking, we must be planning on
increasing public traffic here and employee traffic here, then even if
there's an arm there, they're still going to be coming in and out that
street. And what I would suggest is we do what the residents want to
do, put a right-in, right-out there, and let's make that commitment to
them and let's get this thing over with.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's not a motion.
Commissioner Halas had a motion that was very similar to that. I'll
permit him to proceed on that basis if he'd consider that it be
modified to make a commitment to the neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's where I was going, to leave
it to the traffic engineers. That's why, if it's a right-in, right-out --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm suggesting that we make that
commitment right now, that we make it right-in, right-out.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to the expert here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Yes. For the record, Norman Feder,
transportation administrator.
Hopefully we can lend some clarity to this. I know there was
some hesitation to let the traffic engineers look at this issue. I heard
that from the audience and from the board.
Page 85
December 3, 2002
So let me tell you that the recommendation is that, in fact, you
do go to a pork chop, right-in, right-out. What I'm going to tell you
is that you've got a number of issues you're having to deal with here.
First of all, we need to maintain, as we have done throughout
this community, the emphasis on interconnectivity, and the concept
of whether it is a gate or a closure of the roadway, I think, is wholly
unacceptable in any event.
The gate actually would only encourage more employees to use
the area as they find they have the exclusive access point in, and you
can't put a gate on a public road, so I hope you'll dispense with the
idea of a gate. With all due respect, Commissioner, that's not the
answer. Closure is not the answer.
Normally I'd tell you that the answer is that you improve the
arterial road system, which is what we're trying to do, so it serves its
function rather than that function, that demand being placed onto the
other road system, which is part of what we've been experiencing
here in Collier County for some time.
But having said that, you are at the intersection of two major
arterials, and with the level of growth and the demand here, you're
never going to have the arterial systems totally function well enough
not to have some of that spillover demand, so therefore we're
recommending that you do go to the pork chop, right-in, right-out,
with other caveats.
In the DRI, there were provisions for other improvements to the
road network that need to be done. You need to lOok at the addition
of a right turn lane northbound on Airport at Davis. Same, a right
turn lane eastbound on Davis at Airport. Other improvements in this
area to service this expansion of the government center need to be
done.
I hope that gives some clarification. I think that you do need to
attend to the impact on the community. We are sensitive to that as
well, but at the same time you can't take all that traffic away.
Page 86
December 3, 2002
And then in a negative sense, unfortunately, I do need to
acknowledge, as was pointed out previously, that that right-out is
going to have people finding their way around and going through the
neighborhoods. You're never going to totally stop that, but hopefully
it will improve the arterial system and address it as best we can.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I can add one more piece,
because there is another piece to the Glades, and it has to do with the
Teryl Road water distribution center. We have plans, and public
utilities right now is going through a design phase to get the
combination of the water distribution and the collection off of
Shirley, those two entities located together to the north part of the
landfill to get them out of the neighborhood, and then to turn that
particular land over to parks and recs or the neighborhood to figure
out if they want to use it as a meeting center or whatever it is that
they want to have there, maybe tennis courts or a playground for
grandkids or whatever, that that transpire. And that's going to
happen within the next couple of years.
And the other thing that was mentioned was Tom Olliff's
directive not to use the particular road. Tom Olliffs directives to the
employees are, no county government truck uses Palm Drive except
for the distribution center because it's located in the middle of it, and
they've got to be able to get the trucks in and out.
Now, I will tell you that distribution center is in the wrong
place, and I've said it to each one of these commissioners when ! was
the public utilities administrator and I took you through the place and
say, this is a bad place to have this, right in the middle of a golf
community, and we need to move it, and we've taken steps in order
to do our plans in order to do this, so that's another thing that we're
going to try to do to alleviate traffic in this particular neighborhood is
get that the heck out of there. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good show.
Page 87
December 3, 2002
Commissioner Henning, you're up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING. I could support the motion with
a pork chop, but I'd much rather wait until we do a workshop to take
a look at the traffic impacts on Glades. And if we do that, wait 'till
the workshop to address all those needs, I think if the Board of
Commissioners, individually and collectively, state for the record the
commitment for the residents the impacts of the Glades.
The action that we take here might cause some other reactions
that we're not going to be in favor of, so a pork chop might not be the
answer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are you asking for a continuance?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I want to approve this
except for the commitment to take a look at all the traffic impacts for
the Glades. But, again, to move this item I will be in favor of a pork
chop which, Commissioner Fiala, is right-out. You can only turn
right. But we need to move forward with this, the jail expansion, to
get this off center. So I will make a --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- motion to approve staffs
recommendations. And I am going to commit to the residents of
Glades through the workshop of the -- looking at the DRI that -- that
myself, and hopefully others, will commit to reducing the impacts on
the Glades community.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Clarify your motion one more time.
Did you include the pork chop in your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You did?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Listen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay? Motion to approve
staff's recommendations. My commitment to the residents of Glades
during the DRI workshop process for the government facility is to
Page 88
December 3, 2002
decrease the traffic impacts of the Glades community. So I have a
motion and then a statement of a commitment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. This has got to be a record.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've never seen so many --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, we're getting close. You
know, for the sake of discussion, I'm going to second Commissioner
Henning's motion. At least it's moving this thing to the point we can
bring some sort of conclusion and come forward to it, with a caveat,
you know, that it's an absolute commitment that we're going to have
this in a short period of time to be able to come up with a plan that
will be -- that everyone will know where they stand as far as traffic
patterns go in the future. And I'll tell you, I, for one, am committed
to look really hard at the pork chop, very committed to that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not sure if it's just a --
MR. SCHNEIDER: Mr. Chairman--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go in order. Go ahead first, and
then push your button please.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out that in
the conditional use permit, the planning commission did condition
that with a right-in, right-out at Palm Drive/Harrison, so that is in that
instrument.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That is already in there?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, sir, and you'll deliberate on that next.
MR. MUDD: 7(B).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then my second stands, and we're
coming back to the other part of it in a few minutes. Is there any
other comments from this commission? Okay.
Hearing none, I'm going to call the question. All those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
Page 89
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think it's restrictive enough.
I just wanted to qualify.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's fine.
Okay. So the motion failed.
If I'm not mistaken, we have two in favor and three opposed.
The two in favor is Commissioner Henning and Commissioner
Coletta.
Okay. Commissioner Coyle, I'll recognize you next.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I was just going to suggest
that we let Commissioner Fiala express her reservations about that
motion that was just voted on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Certainly, thank you.
I have no reservations with the jail center. I think it's okay. I
think they're doing a good job. I know it's needed.
I think it's important that we have this workshop, as you've all
mentioned, to discuss the future portions of this DRI. Today we're
just discussing this 7(A), (B), and (C), but I feel that we're not going
to the -- to the greatest extent that we can to protect the integrity of
the neighborhood traffic, and so that's why I voted against it.
I think a pork chop is nice and it will do some -- to some degree,
but I don't think it's restrictive enough. And quite frankly, I want it
to be as restrictive as can be.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Gentlemen, you're going to have to
present us some new information probably. Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm trying to avoid that. The
CCPC recommended that a pork chop be installed, but that happens
to be under 7(B).
Page 90
December 3, 2002
MR. SCHNEIDER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, we're not taking all these
together, 7(A), (B), and (C). We're taking them one at a time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's very confusing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, that makes it confusing.
So I have two observations that the board members might wish
to consider. One is, that if you want to make that particular
stipulation for 7(A), (B), and (C) to make it clearer that there's an
obligation in doing that, I guess we can do that, right? We can make
that a condition of approval of 7(A), (B), and (C), if we want to do
that?
Now, the other thing is that, I would ask Commissioner Fiala to
please listen to what the audience has to say about --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I would like to hear what
they have to say.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- about the arm versus the pork
chop.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think that, if I could, will
you raise your hand if you're in favor of the arm over the pork shop?
you
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
favorite the pork chop.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
Oh, okay.
And will you raise your hand if
Okay. Then I'm with you.
Okay. So hopefully that solves a
couple of the issues that are holding us up here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then I will vote for it, if that's --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Restate the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Okay.
He made the motion.
He made the --
Okay. Commissioner, we've got a
Page 91
December 3, 2002
motion from Commissioner Henning. No, we took a vote and it
failed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me restate --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: She's going to change her vote.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me restate it.
A pork chop -- Commissioner, let's -- I don't think this is the
time to discuss, but let's put some temporary measure in here until we
get the ultimate fix for the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is -- the pork shop, instead of
making it out of cement, we can do it out of those pogo sticks or flex
sticks, okay, and then when we get to the workshop, we could get
staff to maybe get us into even a better idea. So if we limit our
options, we might not get there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And, you know, I thought I
was being very protective. I didn't realize that they were just happy
with the pork chop, so I will reverse how I felt, and I'm so sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We were there a long time ago.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I was really -- I was going to
protect their whole neighborhood. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I will make a motion to
approve with a temporary pork chop at the intersection of-- what is
that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Palm Drive and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Palm and Harris (sic).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, then I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion, we have a
second. Any other discussion? All those--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, are we --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Halas.
Page 92
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, we're still working on the
parking garage; is that correct? Or are we -- and how we're going to
handle traffic, is this exactly where I'm at right now?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're not confused anymore,
because we've got about six different things --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- or three different things on this
whole series that we're going to be bringing --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 7(A).
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other questions or
comments before I call the question?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the opposed people would be
Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So the motion passed.
Next item.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'll have the flex stakes in next
week along with the signage so that people will know it's a right-in,
right-out.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Item #7B
Page 93
December 3, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-487, RE PETITION CU-2002-AR-2759,
CRAIG J. PAGER, P.E., OF AEC NATIONAL INC.,
REPRESENTING COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, REQUESTING
CONDITIONAL USE "3" (DETENTION FACILITIES AND
JAILS) IN THE PUBLIC USE DISTRICT (P) IN ORDER TO
CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING NAPLES JAIL
CENTER, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE COLLIER
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, BUILDING "J", 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIIJ- ADOPTED
7(B). Wait. Before we go on to 7(B), how many speakers do
you have on that?
MS. FILSON: We have no other speakers on item 7(B).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Please proceed.
With the commissioners' indulgence, what time is our time
certain, one o'clock?
MR. MUDD: One o'clock, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you want to break for lunch now
for 45 minutes, come back at one, or do you want to continue?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, let's get this over with
while the people are here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine.
Continue, please.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to suggest that we take AR-2759 and AR-2908 and operate those
-- and deliberate on those together since the conditional use, which is
petition AR-2759, is for the jail facility itself, and the variance,
AR-2908, is for the height variance that's necessary for that jail
facility. So as we deliberate, it would be wise in this issue, I think, to
take them together, if that's appropriate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please proceed.
Page 94
December 3, 2002
MR. SCHNEIDER: Okay. The objective here is to have the
Board of County Commissioners approve conditional use number 3
as it's described in detention facilities in jails of the public use zoning
district. The request is consistent with the Collier County Growth
Management Plan and development -- and Land Development Code.
And the petitioner wishes to construct a three-story, 140,079
foot -- square foot addition to the Naples Jail Center. And again, as
you've heard, the expansion is needed to facilitate inmate processing
and housing that will safely accommodate the proposed 512
additional inmates.
I'm trying to make this brief, if possible. The planning
commission heard the petition on November 7th, 2002, and
unanimously recommended approval, 6-0, with the condition of
providing a traffic mitigation measure of right-in, right-out
directional movements to the government center at the Harrison Road
and Palm Drive intersection. Again, we had--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me, a housekeeping note.
We forgot to swear in and have the disclosures on the part of the
commission, so we'll do that at this time.
Would all those that wish to participate in this stand at this time
to be sworn in.
(The witnesses were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll go for the part-- ex parte
disclosures on the part of the commissioners. We'll start with
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I've talked to both the people
in the Glades area and talked with people from the North Naples
Civic organization.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: East Naples.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: East Naples, excuse me. East
Naples, yep.
Page 95
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Same, I've talked to the residents,
East Naples Civic Association and staff members.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the same with myself.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Same with myself.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Same with 7(A), and I'll make
a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning for approval, and a second from Commissioner Coyle.
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: Did we forget something here, sir?
MR. BELLOWS: Point of clarification. I think you have to
vote on conditional use first and then the variance and state the
number so it is clear what the motion is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He did --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what I -- what'd you vote on,
Commissioner Henning, wasn't it 7(B)?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, but he wants --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You said 7(B), right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. We're taking them both
together, so the motion is -- you want the variance first? MR. MUDD: No, conditional use.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The conditional use is the next
one, CU-2002-AR-2759. The next one is -- do you need separate
Page 96
December 3, 2002
motions?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
the one we just voted on.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
MR. MUDD: Yes,
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
MR. MUDD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
Okay. That was the motion for
COYLE: That was for 7(B) only?
HENNING: Right.
sir.
COYLE: That's the conditional use?
HENNING: Correct.
COYLE: Okay. My second still stands.
HENNING: So it passed.
Item #7C
RESOLUTION 2002-488, RE PETITION VA-2002-AR-2908,
CRAIG J. PAJER, P.E., OF AEC NATIONAL, 1NC.
REPRESENTING COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, REQUESTING A 40-FOOT
VARIANCE IN THE PUBLIC USE DISTRICT (P) FROM THE
REQUIRED 35-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITATION TO 75-
FEET, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE
EXISTING NAPLES JAIL CENTER, ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, BUILDING
"J"_ 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIl.- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And it passed, so go to the next one,
7(c).
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve
VA-2002-AR-2908.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second.
We have a motion from Commissioner Henning, a second from
Page 97
December 3, 2002
myself, Commissioner Coletta.
Any question-- any discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle is the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And also Commissioner Halas in
opposition.
Moving on, we're going to take just a little bit more. I have
some people here from Immokalee that I'd really like to be able to
see if we can get to so that they can go on home.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have
to excuse myself. I've got to leave for going out of town.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I have a luncheon to go
to.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well -- what's that?
MR. KANT: They're not here, Commissioner. They had to
leave.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. In that case then, we are now
adjourned 'till one o'clock.
Commissioner Henning, before we adjourn, how much time do
you need for the lunch you're going to? Do you need a full hour?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, a half hour is fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll start again at one
o'clock.
(A lunch recess was taken.)
Item #8B
Page 98
December 3, 2002
ORDINANCE 2002-63, ESTABLISHING THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER PROGRAM PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS IN COLLIER
COl JNTY- A DOPTFD WITH CH ANGF, S
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Take your seas, please. Hold it
down to a roar.
MR. MUDD: You have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great. Okay, if we can begin.
The next item is 8(A).
MS. FILSON: Eight (B) is one o'clock, sir.
MR. MUDD: 8(B) is the time certain, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, you're right, sir.
MR. MUDD: And that's the adoption of an ordinance
establishing the Conservation Collier Program providing for the
acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands in Collier County.
Jacqueline?
MR. WEIGEL: Due to the fact that many of the development
services staff and some of mine are involved in a hearing, we'll go
forward with those whom we have here, so starting out will be Jackie
Robinson, assistant county attorney.
MS. ROBINSON: Yes, good afternoon, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good afternoon, Jackie.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning (sic), Jackie.
MS. ROBINSON: I am pleased to present to you the ordinance
that was discussed prior to the passing of the resolution and that has
been discussed since the passing of the resolution for the
conservation 2002 proposal.
There are a couple of proposed changes that I'd like to bring to
your attention. In section -- do you have a copy in front of you? In
section 14 -- not section 14.
Page 99
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you know what page that's on?
MS. ROBINSON: It's paragraph two, section 14.
Unfortunately my printer didn't print all of that out.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'll get it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Page 18.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Page 18.9
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MS. ROBINSON: It should say a final management plan with
review --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah.
MS. ROBINSON: -- with required review and updating every
five years instead of 10. That was requested by staff. And the only
other proposed change is just a typographical kind of scrivener's
thing, instead of using environmentally sensitive lands, it has been
suggested that we use the term Conservation Collier in section 7 in
the para -- in the initial paragraph.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jackie, can I ask you a question
about paragraph three of section 147 It makes reference to a 10-year
management plan. Should that be changed to a five-year management
plan?
MS. ROBINSON: Yes, that's what it's being change--
suggested that it be changed to five years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So in paragraph two and in
paragraph three--
MS. ROBINSON: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- there are numerous references
to 10 years. It should be five years.
Now it says that the management -- 10-year management plan
will be updated at least every five years, should the five-year plan be
updated every two and a half years or do we have any criteria with
respect to updates?
MS. ROBINSON: No, we don't have any criteria other than the
Page 100
December 3, 2002
one that you-- five years should be sufficient, I would think. And I
also would think that you would obviously have the option to do --
update it anytime you felt you should --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right.
MS. ROBINSON: -- as a county -- as county commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could clarify real quick on
your section three. It is a 1 O-year management plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, it is?
MR. MUDD: It is, okay, and we're just trying to get -- and so if
it's a 10 --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're updating it every five
years?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Making sure we're keeping it current,
even though it expands 10 years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So paragraph three remains
unchanged?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And paragraph two --
MR. MUDD: You're changing the first line --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- is the only change?
MR. MUDD: -- the final management plan, which --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- with required review and updating every five
years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I got it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What page are you on there?
MR. MUDD: I'm still on page 18, which is 14 on the ordinance.
. MS. ROBINSON:
MR. MUDD: No.
valid.
MS. ROBINSON:
So it's your desire to leave it at 107
The change for the five-year review is still
Okay.
Page 101
December 3, 2002
that.
MR. MUDD: But it is a 1 O-year plan. I just wanted to clarify
MS. ROBINSON: Right. Okay.
I think the board -- unless you have some other questions, I
would just present it to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you mean you want to make a
presentation?
MS. ROBINSON: No, I'm just presenting the ordinance for
approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I do have one thing, and I
sent it out to my fellow commissioners, and I'd like to read this into
the record, if I may.
Throughout the document, and it's a fairly well-written
document, it implies all of what I've got in this following paragraph,
and I'd like to give consideration to inserting this paragraph in the
whereas in the preamble parts of the whole thing -- MS. ROBINSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- so that we can make a statement to
the public where they stand on this, and I ran this by Brad Cornell
yesterday, and he could see no objections with it, and I'll read it to
you at this time.
That in recognition of the fact that the proposed
environmentally sensitive lands are to be purchased in whole or part
through a special ad valorem assessment, we hereby recognize the
rights of our citizens to have reasonable public access and for all our
citizens to partake and enjoy various outdoor activities in a
reasonable and environmentally friendly manner on these lands.
Jackie, could you tell me if, in any way, this statement would be
contradictive to the document itself in any form?
MS. ROBINSON: No, it would be very easy to add this
additional whereas clause.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I just had two questions, if I --
Page 102
December 3, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's just go to Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm so sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He was a little bit faster than you in
pushing the button.
Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Excuse me. There was another
problem or question that was raised by Mayor MacKenzie of Naples
concerning joint acquisition and/or management responsibilities. And
in reviewing the ordinance, it appeared to me that there -- there was
the possibility allowed for a -- for the green space committee or
Collier County to unilaterally acquire managed lands in
municipalities.
MS. ROBINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I don't think that was our
intent. I think what we wanted to do is develop an interlocal
agreement if we were going to purchase and manage lands within
municipalities, and I would request that the board consider the
addition of that language, too. David?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Commissioner Coyle and Mr.
Chairman.
With the City of Naples, we are looking to add a sentence to
take care of that exact clarification. The sentence would say that
properties for-- that this -- that pursuant to this ordinance would be
purchased, potentially purchased within the -- within the municipal
boundaries of any municipality would first have the approval of the
municipality for the purchase for the purposes of this ordinance.
It probably isn't necessary that it have to be by interlocal
agreement in the sense that any municipality, City of Naples
included, could conceivably merely have it as an agenda item for
approval which may simplify the process a little bit.
Page 103
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: But that is a sentence that we would be adding
to this to take care of that very good question. And I know that Mr.
Coyle has spoken with Mayor MacKenzie, and I have too, and she
indicated to me last evening that she was not here today particularly
because she was so satisfied with this type of response in addition to
this ordinance draft.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And the other question she
had that the staff reviewed and indicated that you were going to be
able to make an appropriate change to clarify that language.
MR. WEIGEL: That's exactly right. And I don't have the exact
language here, but the issue -- I've got it at my office, of course, and
don't have it with me at the moment. But it had to do concerning
matching funds, and it was a clarification that -- the purchase of
property within a municipality does not require that municipality or
other jurisdiction to have to put up matching funds for the purchase
to go forward, and that's the second clarification, again, brought to
our attention by -- in a joint question from Mayor MacKenzie.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Those are my only
comments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had two simple
housekeeping items that I had mentioned during the campaign as
well, but just for clarification. One is -- I know that it was stated
frequently that these would be purchased through willing sellers.
MS. ROBINSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I didn't see that in the material
here, and maybe I missed it, but I looked for it and I didn't find it.
And the second thing was, we are going to advance the program
money for the first year to fund the staff for this, and, of course, with
the objective of getting the money back once the taxes are collected,
but it doesn't actually say that. And so I just thought, just for
Page 104
December 3, 2002
clarification, we ought to say that. In case there are any issues raised
out in the community, we stated it up-front.
MS. ROBINSON: All right. And it is in the ordinance, and it
can certainly be restated up-front--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MS. ROBINSON: -- that it's a purely voluntary program.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: And she's addressing the willing -- pardon me
-- the willing seller aspect of it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: In regard to county taking on any fiscal position
in advancing funds, that is a budgetary matter. That is a policy
matter of this board, and it would not be actually appropriate to be
melded into the ordinance draft itself.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. But then when we do
that, we would say that it would be paid back, right?
MR. WEIGEL: That's exactly right. You can establish that
criteria when and if you consider taking that action, and that will
come in a rather specific setting as opposed to generically here at this
point in time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very well. Because I know it says
that we'll be carefully watching the dollars and spending them
carefully, frugally, I think those are the words that I would want to
say.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Stewardship.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, and paying for its own
expenses. I just wanted to make sure this was included, but that's
very good. Thank you, David.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we go with the-- we've
got one speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Ellin Goetz.
Page 105
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where's your green shirt?
MS. GOETZ: Hi, I'm Ellin Goetz, appearing on behalf of
Conservation Collier, and I just wanted to thank you very much for
reviewing this ordinance today and hopefully passing it. And I also
wanted to thank the citizens of Collier County. We were certainly
elated to see that kind of election result in November and we are very
eager to have the program go into effect, as you all can imagine, and
we look forward to seeing the committee be appointed and the
process begin so that this kind of program can be implemented in
Collier County. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. You want to stay there
for just one second, please. MS. GOETZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle first, then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, all I wanted to do
was make a motion for approval with the modifications that have
been discussed here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle for approval and a second by Commissioner Henning with the
modifications that we discussed, including mine and Commissioner
Fiala's.
Is there any other discussion?
I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala. I didn't mean to ignore you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to say, as you were
thanking the community for this, I've already been getting phone
calls from one end of the community saying, I've seen a nice piece of
property they should be buying, who do I call, and from the other
side of the community saying, I want to serve on the committee, how
can I be? So all positive things. I just wanted you to know that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very much so, very much so. And--
Page 106
December 3, 2002
well, let me first close the public hearing, and then we'll go ahead
and take a vote.
We thank you very much, Ms. Goetz.
MS. GOETZ: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0 with
Commissioner Halas absent.
Item #8G
ORDINANCE 2002-64, RE PETITION PUDZ-2002-AR-2200,
RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH, ESQUIRE, OF GOODLETTE,
COLEMAN AND JOHNSON, P.A., REPRESENTING FIRST
BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES INC., REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM "C-I" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS MISSION SQUARE PUD
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PINE RIDGE ROAD
BETWEEN GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD (CR-851) AND
JAEGER ROAD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1595 PINE
RIDGE ROAD, CONSISTING OF 10.5+ ACRES - ADOPTED
WITH CHANGES
Okay. Going back to --
MR. MUDD: This is 10(G). Excuse me, 8(G).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Eight?
MR. MUDD: G.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did we do 8(A) already?
Did we
Page 107
December 3, 2002
do 8(A)?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, we didn't do 8(A), but we agreed
to go to G next; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: It will follow right after this, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And this one requires those
that wish to participate to be sworn in. (The witnesses were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And will also require ex parte
disclosure on the part of the commissioners. Starting with you,
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I've spoken to Rich
Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I also have spoken to Rich
Yovanovich.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I haven't spoken to you about this,
have I? I didn't think so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did we speak about this, Rich?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Very briefly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No substance, but just concern.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, please
proceed.
MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Fred Reischl,
planning services.
This request for a rezone from the C-1 zoning district to PUD
for the Mission Square PUD, an approximately 10-and-a-half-acre
parcel that is right now occupied by the former -- by the building
formerly used by the First Baptist Church of Naples. They've since
relocated, and the idea behind this PUD was to convert it from the
current C-1 uses, which is basically office, to a mixture of office and
Page 108
December 3, 2002
retail in the form of a PUD.
This is consistent with the Growth Management Plan in the form
of the office and infill commercial subdistrict, and it meets all the
criteria for that. It was spelled out in the planning commission's staff
report. And the uses are compatible with the surrounding land uses.
The original PUD was for 140,000 square feet of retail,
restaurant and medical and professional office. Staff recommended
approval on that. The -- there were no objections received.
We brought that to the planning commission. The planning
commission had some concerns over the level of service on that
segment of Pine Ridge Road. The petitioner then reduced the
maximum square footage from 140,000 square feet to 100 square feet
maximum with 85,000 square feet of that in retail. And with that
change, the planning commission recommended approval, 6-0.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Growth Management Plan,
Mr. Reischl, one of the ones that I looked at, I have some concerns
about, possibly 1.3.1.3, and it's about arterial roads and collector
roads, the need to eliminate deficiencies. This road is -- a segment of
the road is deficient?
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Staff is working on some of the
closures of medians --
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to offset that deficiency. It
also states that the Board of Commissioners shall not approve any
rezone amendments to the future land use element that will generate
a volume of traffic equal to or greater than one percent of the
minimum level of service at peak hour volume and the impacts of the
road segments unless specified mitigated stipulations and
improvement in conjunction with the rezone.
Page 109
December 3, 2002
Now, this is what staff, or the planning commission -- one of the
things, why they recommended approval, is because of lowering the
square footage of retail office space in the C-1 district. But the part
that I don't get is, this property is zoned C-1. MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The uses in C-1, I guess the
most intense traffic uses would be medical office?
MR. REISCHL: In C-l, that's probably correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. When the planning
commission heard this, did they -- their considerations, was it built
out to the maximum of medical offices and with the other uses in --
out to the C-3 uses into this PUD, would offset that, correct?
MR. REISCHL: That's what the planning commission's
discussion was about, and the transportation planning department
agreed with the petitioner's analysis, that maximizing the site as it
currently exists with the most intense use, this PUD would have less
of a traffic impact than what could possibly be there today without a
rezoning change.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And what is possible
and what is probable is two different things, and that's the point that I
want to get at is, is it probable that the medical offices would be used
at this facility in total?
MR. REISCHL: That's conjecture. That wasn't part of my
analysis. It's probable. It's probably not highly -- it's possible. It's
probably not highly probable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, and then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. When you said that they were
going to convert, is that -- does that mean they'll let the building stay
there and they're just going to convert it to other uses?
MR. REISCHL: No. They are planning to redevelop the site as
Page 110
December 3, 2002
a retail and office complex.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tear down, in other words?
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm interested in understanding the
volume of traffic on a daily basis while the church was in operation
and the volume of traffic projected at the most intense use of the
property if it's rezoned. Can you tell me?
MR. REISCHL: Mr. Garcia? Oh, he's here, okay. I'll let Greg
Garcia of transportation planning address that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not Greg.
MR. REISCHL: Or Mr. Scott.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning.
For the church uses, it would be like a Wednesday evening and
a Sunday would be the highest use of it, and I defer to the applicant
from that standpoint of what they -- the comparison of the traffic is
from that standpoint.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we'll just wait for their
presentation.
MR. SCOTT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's no point in taking it out of
order.
But the other question I have is, can you describe the traffic
improvements that you are expecting along that segment and what
will be the net effect?
MR. SCOTT: Right. Well, we -- as was mentioned, we are
doing operational improvements more towards the west, but also with
the Goodlette-Frank widening project that just started. The
intersection of Pine Ridge, that is a bottleneck from a standpoint of
coming down to one lane. Those will be widened out, and that
intersection improvement will really substantially increase the -- or
Page 111
December 3, 2002
the operation of the facilities in that area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So it's your assessment that
with the improvements in that area, the highest traffic volume that
could be anticipated under this rezone will not result in a level of
deficiency on that road?
MR. SCOTT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So it meets the
requirements and there's no problem accommodating that volume of
traffic?
MR. SCOTT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll repeat a question that was
asked earlier by Commissioner Henning. Does that assume the most
intense use permitted on this property? MR. SCOTT: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So if the use is less intense,
we're not going to have as much of an impact? MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And I'll save my other
question about the difference between the traffic volumes when the
church was using it and the new traffic volumes for the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll go to Commissioner
Fiala, then we'll go to the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. When you were asking your
questions, they were excellent questions, were you referring to the
traffic generated by the suggestion from CCPC or by the one that
we're reading?
MR. SCOTT: We're talking about the reduction down, yeah --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. SCOTT: -- at that point.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would the petitioner like to make
their case?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For
Page 112
December 3, 2002
the record, Rich Yovanovich representing First Baptist Church of
Naples, Inc., the petitioner.
With me today I have Jeff Perry, who will answer all the hard
questions. I also have Dan Schallmo with the church, and I don't see
Steve Hovland, but -- and Anita Jenkins, who's also the planner on
the project, and you're both familiar with Anita and Jeff from Wilson
Miller.
I do want to make a correction to the agenda, because I know
you all are very concerned about knowing who the contract
purchasers are in situations. JED of Southwest Florida is not the
contract purchaser any longer. It is Mission Square, LLC, and the
members of that LLC are William Reiling, Gene Frye, Daniel
Commers and Steve Hovland, just in case you all -- so you all know
who they are and make sure you don't have any conflicts.
As Mr. Reischl has said, we went through a very extensive
review by the planning commission. I do want to update you that
before we even started into the process, we consulted with the Collier
County Public Schools regarding using their roadway, which is the
lighted intersection, and regarding the uses that they felt were
appropriate and consistent with Pine Ridge Middle School. So the
PUD document has been reviewed by the school board staff and the
school board and blessed, if you will, subject, obviously, to your
approval.
So -- and we have gone through that process, and we have an
irrevocable license to use their roadway as long as we're consistent
with the uses permitted within the PUD. So we -- that issue right
there is -- has been addressed.
Also, we committed that we would -- we have two current
access points on Pine Ridge Road, one is the light, and then there's a
right into the east. We are committed to emphasizing that right into
the east so that people would not have to go to the light to get to our
site so they would get off Pine Ridge Road quicker, so we believe
Page 113
December 3, 2002
that's an enhancement to the existing use of the property to get
additional traffic off Pine Ridge Road faster and not rely upon going
to the existing traffic light.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does that have a mm lane?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We will be required to. We will build--
and Jeff-- we will build a turn lane to access our property, and
whatever other site-related improvements we will have to make for
the site.
I just wanted to make it clear that when we did our analysis
originally, we assumed a split. When we did the 140,000 square feet,
we compared a split of regular offices, I'll call them, and medical
offices. And Mr. Perry can go through that analysis for you.
But the planning commissioners had many of the same concerns
that have been raised so far regarding how well Pine Ridge Road will
function, and we agreed to reduce the requested square footage to
100,000 square feet instead of 140,000 square feet, and we
committed that a minimum of 15,000 square feet of that 100,000
square feet had to be offices.
So when we did the analysis, we did a worst-case scenario of
85,000 square feet of retail and 15,000 square feet of offices. So
with that -- with that lead-in, I will let Jeff answer any other traffic
questions, unless you have questions of me.
We would obviously hope that you will follow your planning
commission's recommendation to approve this PUD and follow your
staffs recommendation as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning,
then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm not in there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead,
Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- you have retail uses here
Page 114
December 3, 2002
within the traffic analysis. Does that include restaurants, too?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, it does, and I told you I'd let Jeff
handle all the hard questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. I thought it was just
a use, so I thought you might know.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, I know the use. I don't know the
traffic numbers, but yes, it is a use that was included in the traffic
analysis.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What about -- is there
any fast food operations allowed?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No fast food.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe I should wait to talk to
Mr. Perry.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, Jeff can tell you the exact uses
and the exact numbers, but the PUD will not allow us to do fast food.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- I'll wait 'till Mr. Perry
comes up, thanks.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Great, thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My question's difficult, so I'm
going to have to have Mr. Perry answer it.
MR. PERRY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record my name is Jeff Perry with the firm of Wilson Miller.
The table one revised 11/18/02 that I've passed out to you, I
think, answers a lot of the questions or at least provides you some
information to the extent that your questions are related to the traffic.
The top portion of it is based on the Institute of Transportation
engineer's traffic trip generation estimates for a church. An earlier
assessment we did of this particular site indicated that there was a lot
more traffic being generated by this particular site due in part
because there is a school that was associated with the site.
But for the purposes of the analysis, we were asked by the
Page 115
December 3, 2002
county staff to produce the equivalent number of trips being
generated by an average-size church on about 10 and a half acres of
land, so that's what we've provided to you here.
The data obviously in the ADT is average daily trip, so that's
during a 24-hour period. The p.m. peak hour is routinely examined as
the worst hour of the day, the worst hour for your highways, it's also
the time at which traffic analysts like to examine traffic being
generated by a use to see how many trips during the peak hour of the
day this particular use is generating.
And I would point out that while this says 470, we know for a
fact that there was over 600 because of the amount of school and
employment activity that was related. So to kind of give you a feel
for -- this is a very conservative estimate of what the church was
actually generating on this particular site.
The next tier of data isn't a -- what we consider, again, a
reasonable estimate of the way the land could be used under its
current zoning. As Mr. Yovanovich pointed out, we estimated half of
it being medical facilities, half of it being general office.
We also estimated 140,000 square feet, although under the C-1
zoning, there is no limit. With the 35-foot height limit, we probably
could have -- I would estimate at least 15,000 square feet per acre,
and that would have been maybe 150,000 square feet.
But again, not to overestimate or overstate what could be built,
the reasonable estimate, we felt, was 140,000 square feet of a mix
between general office and medical/dental office, and that generated
3600 trips during the day and a peak hour of 377 during the evening.
The next tier is the modified Mission Square PUD limited to
85,000 square feet of retail, 100,000 square feet total. The total raw
traffic data indicates that on a daily basis it's 3855. But you have to
keep in mind that retail traffic, retail trip generation, takes traffic that
is already in the travel stream. It's called captured traffic.
There's people driving down the highway going to some retail
Page 116
December 3, 2002
establishment, which will now stop here instead of going further, let's
say, to the Carillon center or to some other place. So there is a
percentage of traffic that is already on the highway and is technically
not charged to the development in terms of its actual trip generation.
So where a project in-- may generate 100 trips in and out of the
driveway, only 80 of them, let's say, would actually be new cars on
the roadway being generated because that's a brand new use at that
location.
The others, 20 trips, were already going up and down the
highway to begin with. That's not the same for office. Office
typically is a 100-percent new trip generator. I would remind you
that that same kind of calculation is included in your impact fees,
because not all traffic being generated by a use is brand new traffic.
Some of it is captured traffic or traffic that is already on the highway.
So this is a very conservative estimate of 15 percent captured.
A heavy retail center might capture as much as 35 percent of its
traffic directly from the travel stream that is already out traveling in
front of the highway. We've only used 15 percent as another
conservative estimate.
But that does reduce the trip generated by the new proposed
project at 2938 on a daily basis, 197 during the peak hour. So we're
actually under a revised mix of commercial and office. We're
generating less traffic than if the site were generated at a reasonable
rate entirely in all brand new trips generated by general office and
medical/dental office.
So you see in -- that's where you see a negative number at the
bottom, because we've sort of throttled the project to the point where
we're actually generating fewer trips than we could otherwise
develop and generate under the current zoning of the project.
So that particular policy, Commissioner Henning, that you
referenced does not really apply because we're not generating any
new trips that would not already be on the current network because
Page 117
December 3, 2002
of the current zoning application.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think Commissioner Coyle
had his light on first.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll go with Commissioner
Coyle first.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jeff, I'm interested in
understanding what the traffic volume was or -- was when the church
was active and what the traffic volume is going to be under the
proposed zoning.
And let me see if I have interpreted this properly. The average
daily trips for the church property under its preceding use is actually
lower than the average daily trips that would occur under your
proposed zoning; however, the peak hour trips, the entering trips and
the exiting trips, are all substantially lower by at least a factor of 50
percent or more than what we experienced when the church was in
operation. Am I interpreting this correctly?
MR. PERRY: According to this table, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. PERRY: Now, The original analysis that we performed
which looked at this particular church that the county staff did not
accept because they -- typically they like to used the ITE general
rates because that's for the average conditions, and that's the fair way
to do it. But we looked at the existing operation that was out there
before they moved to their new facility.
The total that we came up with during a 24-hour period was
2950, and the peak hour was 875. Because of the combination, this
is a very active congregation. The school -- there was 380 students at
the school competing at the same time of day as the Pine Ridge
Middle School for access to that particular roadway.
Service being provided by the church, not church services, but
other services being provided by the church on a daily basis, we had
Page 118
December 3, 2002
100 employees and volunteers, 125 attendees coming in and out for
Bible studies and the different sort of things during the course of the
day, plus a worship service of 1100 parishioners that would arrive in
the evening service during the peak hour that we're talking about, so
-- for this particular church.
Now, another church on that site could have been substantially
less than the average. So in order to be fair, the county asked us to
give them what the ITE rates were, which is what we're showing you
on the table.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But I, quite frankly, am
more interested in what this particular church was doing because
what --
MR. PERRY: Right, that's why I wanted to explain that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm trying to get a handle
on how we're changing traffic on Pine Ridge Road. And I just want
to make sure I understand, if you use what this particular church was
generating as far as traffic is concerned, what you're proposing is
substantially less, particularly in the number of average daily trips or
the number of entering and exiting traffic and the peak hour traffic?
MR. PERRY: Than the original church operation?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Than the current --
MR. PERRY: Actually, they're very similar. The original
church operation we estimated to be 2950 at its sort of worst-case.
The net traffic being generated by the proposed commercial
development would be 2938. The peak hour numbers are
substantially less under the proposed use, because the retail peak
hour is different from what -- the operation that was out there. So in
the case of the peak hour numbers, yes, there is a substantial
reduction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But are the peak hour
measurements for the church taken on a Sunday?
MR. PERRY: In this particular instance, they were at evening,
Page 119
December 3, 2002
peak hour, p.m. peak hour.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: P.M. peak hour, evening,
workday?
MR. PERRY: Right. Which would be -- yes, evening --
evening worship service day, which would be the worst day of the
week. A Wednesday, for instance, might be an evening worship
service day where you would have -- the school children would have
gone -- left the site already. There might be some other activities
going on, but you would have an evening worship service that would
be generating traffic to and from that particular site during the peak
hour of the adjacent street is what it happens to be called.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And does the staff agree that the
use that is being requested, the rezone, will not generate more traffic
than we were already experiencing at that site before? MR. REISCHL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, with respect to the turn
lanes, you talked about constructing a right lane into the property
eastbound on Pine Ridge Road -- westbound on Pine Ridge Road; is
that right? Do I have that right?
MR. PERRY: No, westbound, westbound on Pine Ridge --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I meant.
MR. PERRY: Westbound on Pine Ridge, right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Westbound on Pine Ridge. Now,
what happens for the right out of that property? Do you have a lane
designed for merging there, or how is that going to work?
MR. PERRY: Typically the county does not endorse -- and
they can correct me if I'm wrong -- but does not endorse acceleration
lanes or merging lanes. They have an inherent engineering problem
or traffic expectation problem, so the county and most municipalities
sort of avoid those types of things.
It's much better for someone exiting a site to know exactly what
lane they're going into. When they leave the site, they wait for a gap,
Page 120
December 3, 2002
they mm in, and they're in the travel lane. Merging into or get into an
acceleration lane, you're now looking over your shoulder trying to
figure out if there's a gap of traffic, and it can often be a very unsafe
condition. So we would not expect that there would be any
acceleration lane.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. PERRY: The other problem is, that there is a right turn
decel, lane for the signalized intersection, and that would create a
problem with people trying to get into that. So it's not likely to be
something that the county would want to endorse.
We're not sure at this point that we would be permitted to have
an exit, a right-out. We believe that through the site development
plan process, that we will retain the right in because we think it's
operationally effective and safe. The county staff may feel different
about the right-out and may suggest that it not be done, that all
exiting traffic go out through the signal.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that would be a wonderful
idea.
MR. GARCIA: At the time of SDP -- Greg Garcia, for the
record, Collier County transportation planning. They would be
exiting at the traffic light. The right turn lane would only be for the
purpose of decelling and accessing the site.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's even better, yeah, good,
good.
MR. PERRY: We hadn't really gotten to that point yet because
we realized it's something that's decided at SDP when the final site
plan is submitted to them, so it's something that we understand. We
do believe the right in is a valuable feature to the site as well as to the
operation of the intersection that it's preceding. But if the county
decides that there's an operational problem there, they have --
obviously have the right to restrict some other movements and --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you.
Page 121
December 3, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Excuse me. Mrs. Filson, do we have
any speakers on this one?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Perry, did staff-- did you
provide this table to staff?.
MR. PERRY: Yes, this is the revised -- the first table was the
one that was in the traffic impact statement. The revised table that
you have here was presented to the planning commission and
reviewed by the planning commission as well as by staff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just in general, I do not-- and
have little knowledge and am nowhere near an expert to figure this
out. It's laid out very well. I understand it, but I don't agree with it,
and it's just probably lack of naiveness on my part. It takes a
specialty, and that's what we depend on our staff for.
You can't sell me on the idea that -- don't take offense to this --
that offices are less trip generators than retail. When you have a
specialty restaurant, that the Carillon does not have or it does not -- is
nowhere in Collier County, to me, a popular restaurant, well named
or whatever, is going to be a generator. So these traffic statements as
-- I can't agree with it just because of the nature of what we see out
there. It's not your fault.
MR. PERRY: Well, if I can just elaborate a little bit further.
Our -- general office is always less than retail. That's what this table
says, and that's generally the case in almost all cases. Medical and
dental offices, however, generate a substantial amount of traffic,
comparable, in fact, to retail centers.
So that if you did have -- let's say in the worst-case scenario, if
you had 150,000 square feet of medical facilities, a clinic and
associated medical offices or dental offices, theoretically you could
have as many as over 5,000 trips per day coming into that site under
its current zoning. We obviously didn't -- couldn't expect that that --
Page 122
December 3, 2002
although it may be a legal worst-case, it's not something that the
county staff would have accepted as being a reasonable expectation.
Now, we do believe that what we've shown here, 70,000 square
feet of general office, which would generate about a thousand trips a
day, 70,000 square feet of medical offices, which would generate
about 2600 trips a day, for a total of 3600 and change, compared to
the retail and the office mix that we've come up with, again, office is
substantially less than retail. There's no question about that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I misstated it. Medical offices
MR. PERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- versus retail.
MR. PERRY: It's -- because of the employment, the high
density of employees per square foot in medical facilities as well as
the associated comings and goings all day long at a medical facility,
whether it be an office or clinic, is oftentimes, I think, in some
instances, substantially higher than retail. Other times it might be
less.
The ITE rates sort of give you an average. You know, when I go
to my dentist's office, there may not be anybody else in the office all
day long, but if you start amassing sort of enough of this stuff
together, you begin to see fairly large traffic volumes being
generated by centers where a lot of people are coming and going.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What was the planning commission's
recommendation one more time?
MR. REISCHL: Approval of the 100-square-foot maximum
and the -- 85,000 square foot of that being retail, 6-0.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anything else from this --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I want to put one thing on the record
though. And in response to Commissioner Henning, we went back
and looked to verify that fast food was not allowed. We're not sure,
but we're going to add that it is prohibited, fast food is prohibited.
Page 123
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you just state again who
the new potential buyers are?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's called Mission Square, LLC,
and those four individuals are William Reiling, Gene Frye, Daniel
Commers and Steve Hovland.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No relations to me.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My button is on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala. Go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. I make a motion
that we accept this -- yes, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Commissioner, Mr. Chairman. I'd
like to assist you with your motion in that it may have a -- you may
wish to include a couple of slight revisions to the document.
The document that appears in the agenda package, the county
attorney in its review has a couple revisions, a couple places where
there's some typos that we wanted to have noted, and I'll walk you
through them. It will only take a couple moments.
And in your agenda package, looking at the agreement itself, on
page 39, which is, on the upper right comer, 2-1 of the agreement, on
page 39, and paragraph 2.3, entitled compliance with county
ordinances, paragraph A would start out reading as I read:
Development of the Mission Square PUD shall be in accordance with
the contents of this PUD ordinance.
And then there's an area that is marked out. The words, and to
the intent they are consistent with this PUD ordinance will be
removed, and it will continue with all the rest of the language starting
up with, and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth
Management Plan, and the rest will all be there. So that's a small
modification and a clarification that we would ask that you
Page 124
December 3, 2002
incorporate in your motion.
Moving over to page 41 of the agenda package numbering of the
document, I would ask that Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Reischl explain
so that we attorneys understand the second sentence of paragraph 2.9,
which starts with the word platting. That's 2.9 on page 41 of the
agenda packet.
And I had a brief moment to speak with Mr. Yovanovich about
it. But I wanted to make it clear on the record that they understand
and that this board understands what that second sentence means. So
Fred or Rich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll take a stab at it. What that is
intended to mean is that if we decide to condominiumize the building
and sell individual units, we would not have to plat it if we sold
individual units.
And in addition, there are some shopping centers where, in fact,
one of the anchors may, in fact, own the footprint and that would be a
separate tract from the adjoining in-line stores. For instance, I believe
the Target shopping center on Pine Ridge and Airport, Target, I
believe, owns the footprint, yet the original developer maintained
ownership of the other in-line stores, so that would allow that without
having to plat that situation and meet setbacks from the platted lot
lines.
MR. REISCHL: That's my understanding of it also, yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Now, my understanding of what they've just
said is that they said, not have to plat. I think for clarification,
platting is going to be required, as I read these two sentences, but
setbacks don't need to be provided for? That's my question.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's -- I'm sorry. That's what I was
intending to clarify. Right, we would not have to meet the setbacks
from the platted line for that individual store.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, that's what it says and that's what
it means. And I just want to make sure that neither staff nor
Page 125
December 3, 2002
petitioner nor the board has any problem with that concept, because it
wasn't as clear to me at first blush as it maybe is now. If there's no
problem with that--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I would like to make the motion
that we approve this --
MR. WEIGEL: I actually have one more comment. If there's
no problem with that element.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, go ahead, and we'll
come back to you in just one second, Commissioner Coyle (sic).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let him finish this.
MR. WEIGEL: On page 49 of the -- and carries over to 50, 49
of the document where it says number 13 at the bottom, soup
kitchens, and at the top of the next page it says -- pardon me --
homeless shelter and soup kitchens. It's on the bottom, number 12
and 13 of 49, my assistant county attorney would request that we
reference at least a number that would go with each of those two
classifications, as you'll see numbers indicated for all the other
classifications that are there, and it's also indicated, and when in
effect.
So, again, if you kind of incorporate that into your motion, you
might say the modifications that I have recommended without having
to go through them individually, you'll have covered it, I believe.
And last-- that's it. That's it. Thank you very much.
MR. YOVANOVICH: On that last comment, if we can find an
SIC code number, we'll be happy to add it, but I don't know that there
is one.
MR. WEIGEL: Yep.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So that was intended to make -- these
are prohibited uses and these are prohibited based on your definitions
in your LDC. But if there is an SIC code for those two things, we'll
insert it. If there's not--
Page 126
December 3, 2002
MR. WEIGEL: You can't do it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We won't be able to do it.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now I'd like to make the motion to
approve this PUD with the modifications and additions and also with
the recommendations from the CCPC.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll second your motion,
Commissioner Fiala. So we have a motion by Commissioner Fiala, a
second by myself, Commissioner Coletta. And Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a difficult question.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Should Jeff take it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's go back to that platting
thing. I'm not sure I understand it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're suggesting that you might
want to create condominiums for what might otherwise be connected
buildings; is that essentially what you're saying?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Either that or sell -- the best one is like
the Target center I'm telling -- giving you as an example, and I may
be wrong, but I think -- I know one of the buildings in there, the
actual footprint was sold to the store.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And the remainder of the shopping
center was retained by the original developer. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay? Technically -- that required
platting, so that lot is an individual lot from the two adjacent
buildings.
Page 127
December 3, 2002
Technically you would have to meet the setback requirements
from the lot lines. This situation is to recognize that in this type of
shopping center, it doesn't make sense to have separate setbacks from
a contiguous building.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me make sure -- we might
have to go through this a little bit.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You've got this building
and the footprint is platted.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's suppose you want to have
another building adjacent to this one. Is there some -- not some
minimum setback or maximum setback? In other words, should this
be a zero lot line construction?
MR. REISCHL: I think I can address that, and if Mr.
Yovanovich wants to correct me. But this would be more of a
condominium plat as opposed to a land plat; whereas, a land plat
would trigger the setbacks, a condominium plat would just designate
ownership, is that correct, more of a condominium plat rather than a
land plat?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, this will not result, I hope,
in buildings that are built with a two-foot gap between them. They're
either going to be zero lot line or they're going to meet the minimum
setback requirements.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
MR. REISCHL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, is this circumvented by this
particular statement here, where it says that they shall not require
setbacks and other requirements? I'm not sure what other
requirements are.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If it's a separate building, we have to
Page 128
December 3, 2002
meet the setbacks.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. That's what -- if they're separate,
physically separate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if you wish to build zero
setback buildings wall to wall --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
- you can do so?
But if you want to build adjacent
buildings that are not connected, they have to meet the setback
requirements?
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So we can't have a two-foot separation
as you're suggesting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then if you have these
buildings and we use this language here, does that mean that they
don't have to meet the setback requirements from the lot line of some
adjacent property? In other words, with this language, can you build
right up to the external lot line -- MR. REISCHL: No.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- of your property? You cannot
do that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right.
MR. REISCHL: And I was just told, if this helps with your
explanation, that at the center that Mr. Yovanovich is referring to, it's
Publix that owns the land underneath them, and it's a condominium
plat, basically. They are not required to have the setbacks from that.
Page 129
December 3, 2002
It's land ownership only.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So one inch beyond their
wall they don't own, right? Is that essentially what you're saying?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Pretty-- yeah, essentially.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion, and we have a
second. Is there any other discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Henning is the
opposition vote on that particular one. Okay -- MR. WEIGEL: It doesn't pass.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- I'm going to move into the
schedule just slightly different. The next item's going to deal -- are
we all through?
MR. WEIGEL: The motion fails. Oh, I'm sorry. It takes four.
Yeah, super majority.
So at this point in time, if there's no new motions, I guess the
item --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the -- my concern is -- it
really gets back down to the uses of the medical that -- we reduced it
from 140 to a 100,000, and it still looks to me like the traffic impacts
are going to be 145 trips more; is that correct? And what I would
like to see is, if we can have a neutral (sic) for the existing uses, C- 1,
the realistic existing uses that would take place.
MR. PERRY: I'm sorry, Commissioner. I need to understand
where you're coming up with 145 or 144.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The bottom line, the right-hand
Page 130
December 3, 2002
column.
MR. PERRY: Right. Our -- the new -- net new external trips
exiting the site, that's in one direction, those trips that are leaving
during the peak hour, is 145 less with our proposed use than it is with
the currently permitted zoning. That's why it's a negative number.
We're not adding new trips. We're actually producing 145 -- 145
trips exiting the site during the peak hour, 145 less than we would be
if it were developed as the office mix that we've proposed up at the
top. The office --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The office is permitted.
MR. PERRY: The office mix that is permitted under the current
zoning would generate 291 trips exiting the site at five o'clock in the
afternoon, okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. PERRY: I'm sorry. I know it's a very confusing table.
The 291 trips would leave the site at five o'clock in the afternoon.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. PERRY: Between five and six. If we build a different
mix, we would have, in essence, 107 leaving the site at five o'clock
in the afternoon, and so we're actually producing less traffic at five
o'clock in the afternoon exiting the site, and you can take those
numbers, you know, across to see the daily and--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just a small suggestion. We've got a
minus number. I think it might be a little bit more noticeable if we
put brackets.
MR. PERRY: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Indicating it's a minus number.
MR. PERRY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Put it in red.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My apologies. My concern is,
we all know that the impact's on Pine Ridge, and I just didn't want to
increase it, so--
Page 131
December 3, 2002
MR. PERRY: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I would change my vote in
this case since it is a negative, decrease in traffic trips. Mr. Weigel, how do we accomplish that?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Fortunately we're still on the same
agenda item. I would ask that the representative for the petitioner
make the request to the board for reconsideration by virtue of the fact
that matter was denied. I'm going to ask you both to do something
here.
On the record I would like the petitioner to ask for a petition --
or ask for a motion -- the board to entertain a motion to reconsider
the matter.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I guess I'm asking the board for-- to
reconsider the matter.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning for reconsideration, a second by Commissioner --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. That's fine, and then go ahead and take
your vote. Pardon me, I didn't mean to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So I'll restate my motion.
MR. WEIGEL: Now, just a minute. Who made the motion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did. Oh.
MR. WEIGEL: -- to reconsider here? It has to be a member of
Page 132
December 3, 2002
the majority. That's what I was trying to think before I spoke.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's only him.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Henning was a member of the minority
vote, so the motion on the record will need to be made by one of you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I make a motion for
reconsider-- reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion from
myself, Commissioner Coletta, a second from Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MR. WEIGEL: Fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
We're going to get this right yet, 4-0.
Okay. Now, Commissioner Fiala?
Any
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'd like to restate my motion.
MR. WEIGEL: You're fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'd like to restate my second.
discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Thank you.
The ayes have it, 4-0.
Page 133
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My apologies.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you were being conscientious.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. No, that's fine, Commissioner
Henning. Don't worry about it. It's an honest-
Item #8E
AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE SOUTH 8TM STREET/DOAK
AVENUE MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT
-CONT1NI IED TO DECEMBER 17, 2002
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, the county manager again. And
we've been bouncing around on this agenda a little bit, but if we
could -- there's a lot people from Immokalee here that --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate that.
MR. MUDD: -- wanted to hear 8(E) and 8(F), and we might
want to hear those right now and let those people get back before
dinner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's just what you were saying.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That might be a good idea. So why
don't we start right with 8(E).
MR. KANT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Edward Kant,
transportation operations director.
Item -- excuse me, 8(E) is a request to create an ordinance -- a
request for an ordinance to create an MSTBU for the South 8th
Street/Doak Avenue area.
I have an aerial. I can give you a rough idea where that is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pretty nice.
MR. KANT: This is 5th Street, 9th Street in South Immokalee.
This is Doak. Doak runs paved and under county maintenance to
about this point. It then ru -- there's a dirt road that runs through to
9th, and then 8th Street runs up, it's a short street here. Eighth is one
Page 134
December 3, 2002
of those streets that kind of is in bits and pieces all through
Immokalee.
We received a petition from the people in the area with better
than 50 percent plus one. As a matter of fact, about 80 percent of the
people in there. We have several out-of-town owners, and I suspect,
had they been able to be contacted, we might have gotten approval
from them as well.
The area does have a problem or an issue associated with it in
that it has a very low tax value, and so we're requesting an MSTBU
for several reasons; one, we have the representation by the people in
the area that they're willing to donate the right-of-way. And the
right-of-way typically is a very expensive component and is also one
of the most complicated components of doing any type of paving job.
We also recognize that because of the low tax value, we're going
to have to look for other sources of funding. Tomorrow morning
there's a meeting up in Immokalee of the enterprise zone and the --
it's the -- I can't remember the name. It's the people that do the
CDBG grants. We're planning to attend that meeting and to speak
with them about potential funding from that source.
We also looked at this when the request came in, and if we can
make this street completion happen, it's going to help serve a much
wider area because it will connect 5th and 9th and will help to
increase the circulation. We believe we can use that for one of our
reasons for trying to get outside funding.
We're not recommending any levy that this point because we
haven't been able to define the project well enough to put a handle on
the exact costs.
We plan to work with the residents and with the other funding
agencies and come back during the budget process so that we can
establish a budget for a project over the next roughly six months or
SO.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go to the speakers, I'd like
Page 135
December 3, 2002
to make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And--
MR. KANT: Okay. Before you take any action, I do want to
read into the record the fact that -- and I believe Mr. Mudd pointed
out a little earlier in the meeting, there was a scrivener's error in the
recommendation, so I'd like to restated our recommendation for the
record, if I may.
The recommendation is that the board, who has determined it
appropriate to create a roadway, paving and drainage improvement
MSTBU for the South 8th Street/Doak Avenue area, review the
attached ordinance as outlined above and approve enactment for
creation of the South 8th Street/Doak Avenue area MSTBU.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That -- I include all that in my
motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And with my second. I was so
impressed with all of the signatures that they got.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It was impressive.
Commissioner Henning, did you want to go first or should we
call the speakers up first?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What would you prefer?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would prefer to hear from the
speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you call the speakers, please.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Noe Leal.
MR. LEAL: I do not -- I live on Little League Road.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, we'll get back to you in
just a short --
MS. FILSON: Okay. These all say 8(E) and (F). Gene
Silguero.
MR. SILGUERO: Little League Road.
Page 136
December 3, 2002
MS. FILSON: Terrie Aviles. She says 8(F) too.
MS. AVILES: Hello. My name is Terrie Aviles, for the record,
and I represent the Immokalee Area Civic Association.
We have been working very closely with the residents on all
four of the streets. And we just wanted to come in and just make our
commitment as the civic association that we are willing to move
forward with this. Our residents need the roads paved, and we are
willing to work with any agency that needs our help and support.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much, Terrie.
Is that it for speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this a private road?
MR. KANT: No. There actually -- if I may go to the aerial
again.
Now, this portion of Doak Avenue from 5th to about two-thirds
of the way in is actually platted. This portion from 5th to 9th has
been sold out in metes and bounds parcels to the center of what will
be the road, and that's why we will have to require the right-of-way
donations.
But there has been no platting of that road, and so it would be
considered private under current conditions but only because we
don't own the right-of-way. Assuming we acquire the right-of-way,
then it would become the basis for the public road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have we maintained this road
before?
MR. KANT: Only the paved portion from 5th to in here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the request today has
nothing to do with the paved portion, correct? MR. KANT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So this has -- it's stating
no fiscal impacts to this, but by taking action, later on there will be a
Page 137
December 3, 2002
fiscal impact, correct?
MR. KANT: That's correct. What we'll do is, assuming that we
are able to bring the project forward, we will establish a fund, and
any tax moneys collected in that MSTU will go into that fund for the
benefit of those folks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Will any money come from the
general fund or transportation funds?
MR. KANT: The only potential for that-- that's an excellent
point, Commissioner. The only potential for that would be as we
may have done in other cases in order to get something started where
the general fund makes a loan to that other fund. It's an interfund
transfer. And then once that MSTU is fully funded, that money's
paid back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This MSTBU is forecast to
generate $172 per year. How does that revenue pay for the cost of
these improvements without having a fiscal impact?
MR. KANT: It's not a fiscal impact to the general fund. My
understanding of the fiscal impact statement in the executive
summaries is where we have an impact to the general fund or some
other fund which is not an enterprise fund.
This is going to be a very difficult project to implement, as I
pointed out, because of the low tax value. We're definitely going to
have to get some other source of funding.
The reason we set it up as an MSTBU is, under the municipal
services' taxing unit, that's the value -- that's what could be raised by
half a mill given the valuation. Under the benefit assessment
method, we could put an assessment in place that could be paid off
over time. So it would be similar to like a sewer water assessment,
that type of thing.
And we've done that on subrural road jobs out in the eastern part
Page 138
December 3, 2002
of the county off of U.S. 41 East. Of course, I'm going back a few
years. We did Greenway Road, Riggs Road, East Hamilton Road,
some of those you may be familiar with, back in the early -- late '70s,
early '80s.
It's going to be difficult, as I say, because no matter what is
done in that area, if only those folks in that particular neighborhood
wind up funding this, it's going to be probably a hardship. So we
think it's incumbent on us to try to find any other source of funding
we can, especially in light of the potential for the added circulation
by connecting 5th and 9th with this short stretch of road.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What other funding sources do
you think might exist to fund this?
MR. KANT: I don't know, Commissioner. That's part of what I
need to do is get myself educated so I can help them, and that's why
I'm going out to Immokalee tomorrow morning to talk with these
other groups.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, my concern is twofold.
One, where do we get the money, and secondly, I would prefer that
we make sure that we are honest with the people and we don't lead
them into a situation where we then make a $15,000 assessment
against their property to do this, because they should know that up
front before they get involved in this thing.
MR. KANT: We've had -- as Commissioner Coletta will attest,
we've had several meetings with the Immokalee Civic Association
and we're getting ready -- once we begin to get a better handle on
what the true magnitude of this project is, we'll begin to meet on a
neighborhood basis with those people that are affected.
We're also -- we're also going to look that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you very much.
MR. KANT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Your time is up.
MR. KANT: If I may just finish my thought, sir.
Page 139
December 3, 2002
We're also going to look that how the district is constituted,
because as I said, if we find that there is a rational nexus for
expanding the district on the basis of better circulation for all the
traffic and benefit to all the residents in Immokalee, we may have
other vehicles.
We also have an Immokalee beautification district which may
have as part of its purposes, or the purposes may be able to be
expanded to include roadway improvements. That includes a number
of areas in Immokalee with very similar problems, so we've got --
we've got kind of a menu of things that we can look that, and we felt
that at this point by following through with the people's desires to
that least get the MSTU in place, we're not -- as I say, that this point
we have no recommendation for funding and will not have until we
go through the budget process.
If it turns out that we cannot fund it through this methodology,
I'll be the first one to tell them, we're not going to go to the board and
recommend funding it that $150 or whatever a year. It just -- it
doesn't make any sense.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Kant, am I correct in that we're
not obligating any dollars from the general fund that this time? MR. KANT: That's correct, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That will be coming back to us for
consideration however this funding is going to take place.
MR. KANT: Yes. I would envision that if we find the need, for
example, maybe for some engineering or surveying or possibly title
searches, we may do, as I said, what we've done with some other
MSTUs where we come back, give you an exact number based on
what we feel is necessary and request a loan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, let me help the commissioners
out a little bit and give them a little more insight in what we're
looking that.
These are basically trailers that have a very low value, and when
Page 140
December 3, 2002
you take off the homestead exemption, in some cases they -- there's
no taxable value that all, and that's the reason why it's so low on this
particular street. That doesn't mean you can't come back and do a
special assessment on it, because they do have a value.
And when the streets are in place, the value will increase
dramatically on these. Not only will we be able to pick up money for
the MSTU, but we'd also be able to pick up additional tax money as
their property values go up.
So this is something that we're working towards for the future,
and if we don't get in that this point in time -- we have a window of
opportunity. We might be able to have something in place for
October 1 st when we go into the new budget, if we can get all the
numbers together. But if we don't do it now, then it will be another
whole year off, and these people have waited 40 years now for this
opportunity.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You mentioned something
about right-of-way and possibly donating the right-of-way. And I
was wondering if, indeed, each one of those lot owners would donate
the right-of-way to this road so that we don't have to buy it, which
will, of course, decrease -- what did they say -- 75 percent, the
amount of that -- of the cost of doing the road, then maybe that
money from the donations could even go toward like a credit or
something. Maybe we could work something like that out.
MR. KANT: It is -- and, again, was explained several times to
the folks that live there, that the first order of business would be to
acquire the right-of-way and that the right-of-way -- our first -- or
actually our only approach to the right-of-way is via donation.
Because if we have to go out and buy it, then that puts -- that
really basically -- they're taking money out of their own pocket to
buy their neighbor's land. And we believe that they understand that.
And as Ms. Aviles pointed out, they're willing to work with us and
Page 141
December 3, 2002
do what they feel is necessary.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel's trying to get a word in
edgewise.
MR. WEIGEL: I was just going to whisper in Ed's ear.
We'll be very careful in taking donations of land or land interest,
because if we take outright fee, that is total interest, then we have
outright liability for the condition of the premises.
So with the assistance of the county attorney office, we can
make sure by license, by agreement, by appropriate method, we'll
have the entree (sic), the ability to go forward using the property and
starting to take care of the issues that exist on it.
Secondly, I just wanted to note for the record that in each -- in
this agenda item and in the other ones in Immokalee, it references a
legal description as Exhibit A in those ordinances. The Exhibit A is
not in your agenda packets.
MR. KANT: I distributed it before the meeting.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I didn't know that.
MR. KANT: I'm sorry.
MR. WEIGEL: And I want to make sure that it's in the record
for the reporter and for the record. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What we're asking -- creating
the MSTU -- and of course we know that collecting the taxes is not
going to really pay for the repayment for this unless we find other
sources. So would we not be setting a precedence if we use general
funds to improve private land?
MR. KANT: We would if that's what we were asking for, but I
don't believe we're asking for that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not asking for it, but I
think we're setting ourselves up for doing that, and even
Page 142
December 3, 2002
Commissioner Coletta alluded to that in the '04 budget.
Don't you think it would be a better avenue to identify the
sources, the other sources, like CDBG money or through the
enterprise zone or through the state enterprise fund or something to
that, instead of getting on -- getting the residents on board and the
possible (sic) of letting them down, that we can't use general funds to
improve private property?
MR. KANT: Well, I don't believe we've ever represented to
them that we could use general funds, and -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Never.
MR. KANT: -- I don't disagree that, yes, we probably should
have a better idea of what other funding might be in our back pocket.
On the other hand, we are against a time crunch. If we don't put
this MSTU that least in place either this meeting or the next meeting,
then we have to wait an entire year to get them on the tax rolls.
If we don't fund it, if we find it's not viable, we can dissolve it as
easily as we created it, because we haven't -- we haven't basically
charged anybody. We've taken some staff time, but we're here, and
that's what we're for.
I understand your concern, but, again, it's not our intent to go
into the general fund to fund this project, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if I ever misrepresented the fact
that we were looking to do that, I apologize.
These people have never been told that it would come from the
general fund, and they understand that it's coming from their own
pockets. And I applaud them for the hard work they've put into it
and many, many hours. And all they're asking for is a chance to see
if this will bear fruit. They're not asking for one dime or dollar from
this commission that they -- that they won't raise themselves or that
will come from outside sources. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's something I don't really
Page 143
December 3, 2002
understand here. It's clear to anybody in this room that this MSTU is
not going to pay for this.
MR. KANT: It would not pay for it on the basis of taxable
value; however, as I said, there are several avenues that we need to
explore, one of which is the assessment method, and another would
be other outside funding sources through grants.
We do have a grants coordinator in the county manager's office
now, and we've just begun to work with her to begin to identify these
in some other projects. So I am very hopeful that we'll be able to
identify some grants that might be available for projects like these.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why is the existence of an MSTU
necessary for the purpose of pursuing a grant?
MR. KANT: It isn't, sir. As I said, the reason we wanted to put
the MSTU on the books that this point is to make sure that it was in
existence. If we do go up -- come up with an assessment
methodology that's acceptable to the residents, then we can
implement that. If we don't have it on the books, we can't do
anything until -- it would go into '05 now, I believe, because we're
already looking that '04 for the next complete year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I really don't understand it. I think
we're misleading the people here. I think we're leading them to
believe that by creating this MSTU, this thing's going to get done.
And I think what's going to -- what's finally going to happen is
that somebody's going to go back to them and say, well, each of you
have to pay $15,000 in order to get this done, and they're going to
say, forget it.
I don't see the necessity of creating an MSTBU. If we're going
to go after grant funding, I think we should have done that in the first
place. We should have looked for the alternatives in the first place.
We should -- we should have the funding mechanisms identified
before it comes to this commission for a decision. It's as simple as
that.
Page 144
December 3, 2002
The -- we're not -- we're not being fair to the people involved in
this process. And I have a great concern about creating an MSTBU
that's going to generate $172 a year and then saying, well, we're
going to find some other sources to fund it. Let's find other sources to
fund it and let's get on with it and forget about this MSTBU thing.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could just add one thing.
Sometimes grants don't come that you straight up, a hundred percent
fully, as a handout. They come that you with an 80/20 with a 20
percent cost share or a 40 percent cost share, sometimes a 50 percent
cost share. And when that comes that you, they basically say, here it
is and it's here for a year. You either accept it or not.
So if we don't have an MSTBU established, then we're going to
come to the board with that grant request saying we're getting 50
percent from the state or the federal government either on IST or
T-21 or whatever they call it right now, and it's going to be up to the
board at that particular juncture to accept. So you're accepting then
the 50 percent cost share out of general funds, and you have no other
entity to go to to get those dollars.
If the MSTBU is established, then the group that -- of
homeowners that go to the table and vote for that would vote on that
cost share if it would be prudent or not to accept, and it would not go
to the general fund or to the board as far as an acceptance or denial as
far as the grant is concerned.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why can't you do that with a
special assessment? Why do you have to go through the MSTBU
process to accomplish that?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, a special assessment, Commissioner, is
established through a benefit unit. In order to impose an assessment
on the tax bill or billed separately through the county mechanism,
you have to have a benefit -- municipal service benefit unit in place,
like water or sewer, as an example.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry, but I just -- just got one
Page 145
December 3, 2002
assessed on me because the neighborhood association wanted one
assessed, and--
MR. WEIGEL: Well, okay. That's outside of government. If
you're looking for an assessment outside of government, a
homeowners' association could be created and do something like that,
I believe.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so we have homeowners'
association representatives here, we have petitions signed by people
who want it. You know, that's the proper way to do this thing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If they want -- if they want to pay
for this thing, they can decide how much they're willing to pay for it.
But we're just playing games with $172 a year. You know that's not
going to pay for anything. You know it's not going to pay 50 percent
for a grant, not even 20 percent for a grant. It's not going to pay
anything. It is just an exercise in futility. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No--
MR. KANT: I just want to set the record straight,
Commissioner. The representative that spoke represented the
Immokalee Civic Association. There is no organized homeowners'
association in this particular case, or for that matter, in the area
you're going to hear next either.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if I may add to that, the
Immokalee Civic Association, I don't think they even filed with the
state yet to be a legal entity.
You're looking that a grass-roots movement on the part of the
people just asking for a chance to try to pull it together. If it fails, it
fails on its own initiative because they wouldn't be able to pull the
land together for the donations. They wouldn't be able to pull the
grants together. And you can refuse them at that point in time.
But you're going to cut them off and they're not going to be
allowed to proceed. And this is the exact same thing that's happened
Page 146
December 3, 2002
to them for the last 20 years.
They told me it was going to happen, and I said to them, no, we
have a commission that understands, that will give you the chance to
be able to raise the money to be able to go forward. I'm getting the
feeling I was wrong on that.
Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Fiala, then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not going to belabor the
point, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just for clarification. Without this
MSTBU, we wouldn't be able to go forward with the assessments; is
that correct? Is that what you're saying?
MR. WEIGEL: That's absolutely correct. One other--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, we would foil
their attempts to do this assessment, which they're readily saying
they wouldn't mind having in place. This is a mechanism in order to
do that?
MR. WEIGEL: I'll respond, if I may.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: And that is, there are various ways to do an
assessment. And Mr. Coyle indicated that the neighborhood or a
homeowners' association or a neighborhood association may have the
ability. And planned developments, gated communities, they can, in
fact, often, impose assessments through their own democratic
process, of course, that comes into being. But they can impose
assessments for the beautification or maintenance or rehabilitation of
properties that are affected in their community.
The county and local government has a similar mechanism to do
so. It is a different mechanism, it's the county mechanism. And as
Mr. Kant indicated, if an MSTU or BU, in this case it's a
combination, TBU, if they're not in place by December 31st of the
Page 147
December 3, 2002
year preceding the next tax year, then there's an inability to even go
forward in the budget process and come up with something, either
from an assessment or taxing decision for the next tax bill.
Another thing I wanted to mention is that this ordinance was
crafted with the half mill as kind of like a prototype. A half mill is
what most MSTUs typically have. I think that we might find that
based upon the demographics, just the location here, the half mill
clearly doesn't stand up and carry the fiscal freight.
The Bayshore MSTB -- MSTU early on, or even that initiation,
but it certainly was early on, went to three mills for a few years so
they could gear up and take the hard costs that they needed to, and
then they got into a maintenance mode afterwards that a reduced
millage.
So the adoption of the ordinance today, if it were to occur, or
the adoption of an MSTU ordinance that any time doesn't freeze the
millage that's in the ordinance as it was advertised. I expect that it
would be less than desirable to change that in the ordinance now to
three mills or five mills or what have you. And if the ordinance were
to be adopted, that the board, working with the local community,
could discuss the ramifications of potentially increasing the millage
as an ordinance amendment sometime in the new year. And maybe
that wouldn't be feasible, but that's something that could be looked
that a little bit later.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But this gives them -- to finish my
question then. This gives them the ability to move forward, yet it
doesn't -- it doesn't tax the taxpayers any; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, when we say taxpayers, the only
taxpayers that potentially could be affected by the adoption of this
ordinance is the property --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: -- owners within the MSTBU.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who have elected to do this
Page 148
December 3, 2002
themselves?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, that's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, okay. Just for clarification.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let's go through this
process to its logical outcome.
We approve the MSTBU. We authorize their property be taxed
that half a mill or even three mills. If it's three mills, they're only still
going to raise a thousand dollars a year.
So the -- then the people say, okay, I'm willing to pay that. It's
not sufficient to get any funding, or it's not sufficient to fund what we
want to do. We go after a grant of some kind and they're looking for
matching funds. The thousand dollars a year isn't sufficient to meet
the matching funds requirements. We have to loan money to them.
They have to pay it back somehow over a period of time. You get to
the same point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the assessment -- enter that
into your--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's what I'm saying. You
increase their taxes by three mills.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but that's MSTU. What
about the assessment that they to -- they might be able to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, okay, but that's where I'm
getting-- why go through this exercise? Why not just sit down with
the people and say, look, how much can you forward to do this thing,
how much are you willing to pay? Let's get the assessment
established, let's get the matching funds, let's go ahead and do it.
What you're going to do is go through an MSTU process, and then
you're essentially delaying the process to get this job done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because you know starting out,
and we know, and I think the people in this audience know, this
Page 149
December 3, 2002
MSTU is not going to do a single thing for you. It will not pay for
one foot of road to be repaired and/or maintained.
This is an exercise. And until we get to the point of saying to
you, how much are you willing to pay so that we can get some
matching funds or we can find some other funding to you, I can
assure you it's not going to go anywhere. And this commission can
hit -- play the games if they want to to make you feel better, but it's
not going to do the job for you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So, Commissioner Coyle, what
you're saying is, is that they're wasting their time?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm saying they're -- we are
leading them down the wrong path. We are diverting them from
getting this problem solved. And the way to solve the problem is to
say, right now we know that an MSTBU is not going to generate the
money to do the job you want to do, so we're not going to play games
with you.
What we want to do is to sit down with you, find out how many
people want to participate, how much money can you afford, how
much do you think it's going to be worth, have a special assessment,
and then identify the appropriate funding resources. I think it is -- it
is ridiculous to come before this commission asking for a project
when you haven't even taken the time to find the funding resources.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They're in the process of doing it.
Once again, this has been in the process for a year now. Many, many
meetings have taken place. We got to the point where we have
enough interest in it by the community to donate their land for the
right-of-way. If they fail along the way because they fail on their
own initiative, fine. But we're telling them that they shouldn't even
have the chance to proceed to square one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not what we're saying that
all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what we are saying,
Page 150
December 3, 2002
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You are guaranteeing they're
going to fail because you're not pulling them in the right direction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We are pointing them. We're guiding
them with every resource we've got.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll tell you what. You guide then,
and when it tums out that they fail and they don't get it, then you
stand up and tell them why.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm going to tell you what I'm
going to have to do. It's obvious that we only have four people up
here and that two of them are opposed, two of them are for it, so what
I'm going to do is I'm going to pull the ace out of the hat and I'm
going to vote against it myself, for one simple reason, by being in the
majority, I can bring it back for reconsideration, and I will do that.
When Commissioner Halas is here, it might be a difference of
opinion. I don't see where we're going with this, but I can tell you
right now, it is not going the way we ever envisioned. I never though
we'd run into these kind of problems.
I apologize for all the hard work and effort that you have put
into this. I feel for you for all those evening meetings, for those
times you went out door to door, collecting the petitions, talking to
people one that a time. And believe me, I've got tears in my eyes,
too. I am so disappointed in my fellow commission members now I
can't even describe it.
But I'm not going to belabor this forever. I'm going to let
Commissioner Fiala have the last word, then we're going to bring a
vote.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is just in asking questions
from Commissioner Coyle in -- rather from David. And
Commissioner Coyle said what they should do is go out and assess
themselves, but I understood you to say they can't do that unless the
Page 151
December 3, 2002
MSTBU is in place; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, no. It's just a question of the mechanism.
An assessment can be done by obviously a group of volunteers in a
neighborhood that go out and get their neighbors to agree to assess
themselves, and that's one way for it to be done.
If there was a neighborhood association there -- and for
instance, in many subdivisions or gated communities, condominiums,
just by virtue of living in that area you're subject to being assessed
because there is a mechanism, an association that can do that -- can
impose that upon you. And that's the right that you give up, that is,
to be free from assessment, by moving into that place.
But this is just a regular neighborhood, so they don't have that.
One thing--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So is this going to give that to them
then?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, they have all the resources they always
had, and that is, as a community and neighbors, they can come
together and, you know, pool their money or attempt to formalize
their relationship in an association. But it won't be government.
Government MSTUs and MSBUs are just another mechanism in a
community that has the potential to achieve certain ends.
One thing in regard to the reconsideration. Chairman Coletta's
correct that by voting with the majority he can bring the matter back.
But by virtue of the reconsideration ordinance, the motion for
reconsideration would obv -- apparently come up that the next
meeting, which is the last meeting of the year, and then under the
ordinance, the matter in chief, meaning this item itself, would come
up two regularly scheduled meetings later, which would be January
28th, and it would be in the new year, so we have lost our calendar
requirement for creating an MSTBU this year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's be clear about one thing, that
the answer to Commissioner Fiala's question is, no, it is not
Page 152
December 3, 2002
necessary to create an MSTBU to have an assessment, right? MR. WEIGEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if the people were told that the
way to solve this problem is to go out and get the people whose
names are on this list to tell them how much money they could afford
to do this, then we would know how much money we have to play
with. Right now we know we've got $172 to play with.
Now, they can do that right now on their own accord. We don't
have to interfere that all. We can lend all the support in the world to
them. But we do not have to create an MSTBU that will accomplish
nothing. Is that not correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, yes, you're correct. We don't need to
create an MSTBU to accomplish nothing.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me -- let me just interject one
thing, because you said a couple of-- you said a couple of things
about, and lend them all the support that we possibly can. We don't
go out and lend support to private organizations, okay, that are trying
to do special assessments so -- and that is not our normal mechanism.
If we have an organization that comes forward, maybe a special
assessment for water sewer district, or in this particular case, for a
road, they come together, they do a petition to get the 50 plus one,
and then we establish the MSTU into that process -- MSTBU in this
particular case -- and the staff allocates the time at that particular
juncture.
That MSTBU, as it moves along, and that staff time that's put
into that process to do the grant or whatever, okay, that time is
charged against that MSTBU in that process.
So I will tell you, our normal mechanism in this government is
for every private organization, may it be condo association or
whatever, we don't give them attorney time and you don't get
transportation time or transportation engineering as the way we do
business. They either set up themselves in some kind of an
Page 153
December 3, 2002
assessment organization where they can tax themselves in order to
pay for that or it's done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Any commissioner can help them
do that.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay? So they can get a lot of
support from their commissioner or the rest of the commissioners to
do things like that. And I don't know anybody here who would object
to helping them do that.
But I'm trying to help them get it done quickly, okay, rather than
going through an exercise that's going to lead us nowhere.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This would have cost the
commission absolutely zero in dollars. A little bit of staff time as we
move forward. The answer would have been there. I'm telling you
right now, we're going to go zero with it. It's going to be -- the road's
going to be condemned to be where it is until some future
commission that's more enlightened can step forward and do what
has to be done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you can continue --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know I'm not changing anybody's
opinion by this, but I'm telling you, obviously I'm disappointed.
And you've heard from your staff, you heard from the county
attorney. Every one of them is saying the same message. In order to
go forward with this, to be able to obtain the right-of-way, you have
to have an MSTU in place to be able to start it.
If it fails, you dissolve the whole thing and you've lost nothing.
You've made a commitment, you've served a purpose, and these
people here felt like, you know, they're not second-class citizens.
We've gone that this long enough. I understand now that
because Mr. Halas isn't here -- and he had to leave for a very good
reason -- that regardless of how I vote, this will not be available to
come back until another full year away, so I'm not -- I'm not going to
Page 154
December 3, 2002
vote in the negative. I'm going to vote with my heart in the positive,
because it will be no good to bring it back for this particular MSTU.
With that, we're going to call the question, unless somebody else
wants one more final comment.
Mr. Weigel, are you just putting your hands up in surrender?
MR. WEIGEL: No, well, I did that long ago. But I think I'd be
remiss to tell you the rule -- of the rules of procedure that are there.
And for instance, aside from the up or down vote on this, there
conceivably could be a motion to continue to the next meeting. You
always have that as one of the procedures that are there. That doesn't
mean that motion would pass or not. But the reconsideration route is
obviously far more convoluted and difficult.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'll give that a try. I've got a
feeling that's not going to go any -- I withdraw my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll withdraw my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I ask for a motion for
reconsideration --
MR. WEIGEL: No, no, continuance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, to recon --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To continue?
MR. WEIGEL: Continue to the next --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- continue this item to the next
meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion for
continuance by myself, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed.'?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 155
December 3, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, God bless, you Commissioner
Coyle. I could kiss you if you were a little cuter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't mind involving the
other commissioner in this debate. I think he has every right to have
his opinion --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're still in the water, folks.
Item #8F
AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE LITTLE LEAGUE
ROAD/TRAFFORD FARM ROAD MUNICIPAL SERVICE
TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT- CONTINUED TO DECEMBER
17. 2002
Let's move on to the next one, which is quite a bit different.
MR. KANT: The next one is somewhat different. Excuse me
while I change the slide.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was surprising, Mr. Coyle.
Thank you.
MR. KANT: This is the Trafford Farm, Little League Road
area. This is Lake Trafford Road. Lake Trafford is just about where
Leo is.
This is the Habitat for Humanity, the Immokalee Cemetery,
Tony Rosberg Park, and this is Little League Road, which goes up,
and interestingly enough, hangs a sharp left and continues all the way
through to this street, which is Trafford Farm Road. Trafford Farm
Road goes back out on Lake Trafford Road. This is more of a U or a
circle.
Frankly, Commissioners, we're probably going to have a very
similar discussion to what we just had with the Doak Street. While
we have a somewhat elevated tax base in this area, again, it's very
limited. That the half mill that we set nominally, it's a little less than
Page 156
December 3, 2002
$2,000.
And as Commissioner Coyle was pointing out earlier, even if we
put that up to two or three mills, you're only talking about several
thousand dollars.
Currently that particular area is being maintained by the folks
that live up there, specifically one Mr. Lightner, has been spending a
lot of his own money, time and effort to keep those roads clear.
This is different because we don't really see the circulatory or
regional characteristics that we see down that Doak Street -- Doak
Avenue, excuse me -- because it starts that Lake Trafford, or actually
right off of Lake Trafford by that spur, and comes right back to Lake
Trafford.
So I'm not sure what type of assistance might be out there. But
again, one of the tasks that we've set ourselves to is to try to find
outside assistance for this.
That's about all I have to say. I said the rest of it that the other
hearing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Question, if I may. This one here
has a little bit more upscale housing compared to the --
MR. KANT: Yeah. There's still a number of very rural lots,
different sizes, flag lots, that type of thing, some small private streets
going off of these streets. There are not as many mobile homes.
There are a few. Most of them are much more substantial, as I say,
and that's reflected in the higher tax rate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This might also be a place where
you could put a reasonable assessment on them and bring it up to an
amount that would allow for you to keep it graded as far as a lime
rock road goes?
MR. KANT: That's true, although I would be less than candid
with you if I didn't point out that at a recent meeting we offered that
alternative to the residents, and one of-- one or -- actually two of
them were quick to point out that they're already getting that for
Page 157
December 3, 2002
nothing basically through the good auspices of Mr. Lightner, and it
wouldn't make sense to turn around and ask them to pay for it.
What they really want is a paved road, and then they want that
road to be of such a standard that the county would then add it to its
inventory and take it over for maintenance.
And that's -- ultimately that's the objective, where you have
roads like this where you're going to be creating an outlet for some of
the side streets, where you're going to be making more connectivity.
They should be added to the county's inventory.
If they were to serve absolutely no one but the residents, we
might have a different outlook on that, and we have in the past.
We've recommended against it in the past. In this case, I think it
does serve the good purpose or I wouldn't be standing here in front of
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have three speakers on this,
I believe, but first we'll go to Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: The anticipated expenditures
for the improvement is a quarter of a million dollars?
MR. KANT: Yeah. We did a rough estimate. It's going to be
close to that. Part of the problem that this point is we haven't fully
defined what some of the drainage issues are, and I'm very concerned
about putting too -- sharpening my pencil too fine and putting two
hard a number against that until we get a little more engineering.
We can't do that until we form the district and see if we can find
some funding for it so that we can actually do the engineering that's
going to be necessary to give you good numbers.
Keep in mind, Commissioners, that just because we form these
districts, that doesn't commit anybody to anything, unlike what we --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Kant, we went through that
exercise just a few minutes ago.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, the anticipated -- if we
Page 158
December 3, 2002
go to two mills, the anticipated collection of taxes, $7,000?
MR. KANT: Yeah, give or take, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioners, I expect that may change,
because once you get above the homestead exemption area, you're
getting into the full valuations that occur beyond that, so I would
tend to think that generally when the millage increases, it more than
merely doubles. It probably goes up a little higher than that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, can we expand upon that?
MR. WEIGEL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- now, it's on the tree
assessed value that the -- for an MSTU? Is that what you're saying?
Instead of--
MR. WEIGEL: I mentioned homestead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you won't get to save our
homes and you won't get the other ones on there, it would be the true
assessed value?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: For the record, Michael Smykowski,
budget director. It would be on the taxable value of the properties,
which is already net of the save our homes, the homestead
exemption, et cetera, whatever other exemptions that may exist.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's important
information.
MR. KANT: Those are the figures that were quoted, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But you could still do a special
assessment, correct?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You said -- you said the value that
would be assessed on the MSTBU would be net of the homestead
exemption and save our homes. How can it be net of the
save-our-homes initiative?
Page 159
December 3, 2002
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The -- you have a gross taxable value, and
then you have exemptions, and then the net -- the just value less the
exemptions is the taxable value.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: And the taxable value is the amount to
which the millage would apply against each individual property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So Commissioner Henning's
question was whether or not it was assessed against the total value,
and it is not assessed against the total value. It's assessed against a
somewhat reduced value, right?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The taxable value, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to make sure we've
got the right question.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'm sorry if I made that more confusing
than it needs to be, but --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How many speakers do we have,
three?
MS. FILSON: Three.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you please call them up.
MS. FILSON: Noe Leal, and he will be followed by Gene
Silguero.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: And for the record, Commissioners, those
values are preliminary estimates provided by the property appraiser
based on today's values. Obviously property over time tends to
appreciate, and, you know, to what extent is unknown. But you'd be
levying taxes a year out from now and it would be based on whatever
the current assessed value is, presumably higher than what is stated
here.
MR. LEAL: My name is Noe Leal. I live on Little League
Road, and I have a lot of things that I was preparing to say, but after
hearing Mr. Coyle, you say you don't want to give us false hope?
You're giving us no hope.
Page 160
December 3, 2002
And it should be up to us to vote if we want -- we're willing to
pay for it, and you're telling us right away you don't want to give us
false hope. Well, you're giving us no hope. Let us make that
decision.
I'm a taxpayer. I pay taxes, impact fees, everything. I pay
sewer; I don't have sewer. I have city water; no sewer.
You go drive on the dirt road. Come out to Immokalee, come
out to my house. Stand outside my home for five minutes, and you
tell me that's where you want to live.
I'm going to -- I was born and raised in Immokalee, I'm not
leaving there. I'm a middle-class citizen there.
I am very angry right now, but -- you know, Mr. Coletta, you
know, I know he's done everything, gave us hope, but you're giving
us no hope.
Give us a chance. Form this committee. It's not costing you
nothing. We'll pay for it. We'll come up with whatever, and we'll
raise the money however. We want a chance. That's all I'm asking
you. You're giving us no hope though.
And that's basically all I have to say. You can come up with all
your figures and numbers. I don't have that for you. All your
studies, surveys. All I know is that I have a dirt road and I want it
paved, and I want to know how we can get it paved.
It's been like that for 20, 30 years, but Immokalee doesn't speak
up for itself. But I'm going to be here year after year. You might not
be here, but I'll still be here. I'm not leaving Immokalee. That's all I
have to say.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question.
Do you understand you have the ability to do that right now
whether we take any action or not?
MR. LEAL: No, no.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you --
Page 161
December 3, 2002
MR. LEAL: We like to go about it the way we've been through
this and the way we've been recommended to do it. And we want --
we want to find out -- do it this way first, then if that doesn't happen,
then that's up to us as a community to decide what we want to do
after that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it delays the process of getting
it done.
MR. LEAL: Delayed it for 20, 30 years. What's another year?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You want to delay it for another
year or two years?
MR. LEAL: Well, I've waited 20 years. Why not another year?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I were in your position, what I
would do is I would get with the neighbors and say, look, can we
come up with a special assessment --
MR. LEAL: Well, it's not easier said than done -- you know, it's
easier said than done, in doing that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Gene Silguero.
MR. SILGUERO: Silguero.
MS. FILSON: And he will be followed by Terrie Aviles.
MR. SILGUERO: Commissioners, I won't take a lot of your
time. I just wanted to give you a glimpse of where we're coming
from on Little League Road, Lake Trafford Farms Road.
I remember 20 years ago -- I was back in high school -- I
remember the folks back there -- I didn't live back there, but I
remember the folks back there were donating right-of-ways, were
signing petitions, and here it is 20 years later. We're still here before
you folks trying to get this approved. All we're asking is for a little
bit of help. We pay a lot of taxes.
Mr. Leal there pays close to 3,000 a year in his property taxes. I
pay $2800 a year in property taxes. What are we paying taxes for,
Page 162
December 3, 2002
you know7 I don't understand it.
If you go down to Golden Gate Boulevard-- and I mentioned
this that the last meeting -- three houses come up on a one-mile
stretch of road. Collier County paves it.
Here we have 80 to 100 homes on Little League Road and we
can't get it paved. I don't understand that. And I've heard from
different people, different excuses. It's because we set -- there was
money set aside for that so many years ago. I've heard 10, 20
different excuses. Never the same one.
I would like to see this -- seems like we finally have some
people that are willing to help us. I hope we're not mistaken. Thank
yOU.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The final speaker is Terrie Aveles -- Aviles.
MS. AVILES: My name is Terrie Aviles, for the record.
I'm a little disappointed to hear Mr. Henning and Mr. Coyle.
We were looking forward to this. We thought, you know, we had it
in.
Like Noe and Gene said, you know, we're asking for your help.
This is how we're asking. You know, if we could have done it
another way, we would have done it now. But, you know, we were
told that the county -- we pay taxes, we vote, we do all the right
things, and we were told, come to the commissioners, the
commissioners will help you. And so we're a little frustrated and a
little disappointed.
So I just hope you guys understand how they feel. I don't even
live on this street, but being a part of the community, it is very
disappointing. Because when we go back home, we're going to hear,
see, we told you you weren't going to get anywhere. Those people
are not going to help you. We've been through this. You're not going
to get anywhere. We've done it and we've failed, and you did too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Terrie, I apologize, because I really
Page 163
December 3, 2002
thought I was taking you down the right road where you would take
care of it, your own expense, build these darn things, find the funding
yourself. You people have shown good citizenship, and I'm very
proud of what you did. This is not over by a long shot, believe me. I
apologize. I told you you didn't have to come.
This should have been something that was going to be one, two,
three. I mean, citizens standing up for their ability to be able to tax
themselves to be able to find the funding through a mechanism of our
government. We're probably failing you, but hopefully -- I'm going
to ask for a continuance on this one, too, and we'll be able to
hopefully bring this back, with the good graces of a couple
commissioners here, for reconsideration that the next meeting, and
maybe we might be able to offer a more convincing argument.
Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Fiala. Don't go.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that everybody has
misunderstand (sic) what Commissioner Coyle has said. The hope --
he understands the hope, and that's what you're saying, but he doesn't
want to give you a false hope. He doesn't want to get your
expectations up high just to be let down. MS. AVILES: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is what he is saying. He
wants to help you. And I'm sure -- you know, he does this with
everybody -- is he wants to make it happen. He doesn't -- he knows
he can make it happen. He doesn't want it -- for you to fail.
MS. AVILES: Then-- I understand that, and I did understand
what you said.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. AVILES: Then I would say, help us. I understand the
gentleman over here. I don't know your name, but he said normally
we don't help unless we have this MSTBU, in this situation, in place.
You don't offer county help, you don't offer county hours or
anything. So how are you going to help us? If you can't help us do
Page 164
December 3, 2002
this MSTBU, then how can you help us? Tell us how you can help
us. We'll take the help any way we can, but help us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I could help with that-- is
identify other funding sources first, like CDBG, state tax increments.
There are a lot of sources. I think that everybody's onboard in the
improvements in Immokalee for interstate 29. They had all the
commissioners there -- the majority of the commissioners there that a
meeting in Lee County for the improvements of that road. You know,
we want to support Immokalee. But again, the false hope is not
where we need to be for the citizens of Immokalee.
MS. AVILES: I would invite all of you out to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've been to Immokalee. Thank
yOU.
MS. AVILES: -- to these streets.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great community.
MS. AVILES: Yeah. But we're concentrating on the streets
now. We do have a great community. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep.
MS. AVILES: And, you know, we don't need anybody else to
tell us because we do know. We live there. And all those false
stories that are given about Immokalee, they're not true.
So I'm making a personal invitation to you both, all of you, to
come out to these streets, come ride them, come walk them, if you
can. You can't. We have people who are not getting their trash
picked up because the trash vehicles will not go down these streets.
They're having to take their streets (sic) down to a comer. I mean,
it's not fair.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Emergency vehicles, how about
that?
MS. AVILES: Yeah. The emergency vehicles. We had an
emergency one time where the ambulance would not go down to the
house. They had to wheel the person to the comer to the ambulance.
Page 165
December 3, 2002
You know, it's not about just fixing this road because we want it
paved. It's for a reason. The patrol cars, the ambulance, the fire
engine, they're not driving these streets, so people that are on these
streets and have an emergency, in a sense, we're saying to them,
tough shit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm not too sure, Commissioner
Coyle, if the light's still on from before or not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I would just like to make
one more comment. And I know that my intent is not going to be
understood, okay? But I'm going to say it one more time. I hope you
understand that the MSTU is not going to pay for your roads.
MS. AVILES: Right, we do understand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
MS. AVILES: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
It won't pay for your roads, okay?
The MSTU is not going to let you
do anything you couldn't do already. So what's going to happen is,
we're going to create this MSTU, and then we're going to get into the
next year's budgeting cycle, and then we're going to be looking for
money, and then we're going to say to you, whoops, we couldn't fine
the money to do this. How much are you willing to pay?
And then you're going to say -- you're going to contact your
residents and you're going to say, well, we can forward to pay X
amount of money, and then we'll go around and we'll look for some
matching funds and we'll look for a grant for that.
I'm saying, don't wait till next year. Let's do that right now.
Let's identify the money right now. Let's look for some grants for
you to get this done. Let's talk with your residents right now about
how much they can afford to pay and how much they'd be willing to
pay for matching money to get those grants.
If we know that information now, we can go out and look for
those additional funding sources. But if we tell you to create an
MSTU that's going to generate $172 a year, that doesn't get you
Page 166
December 3, 2002
anywhere. And that's all I'm trying to say to you is, if somebody
went out and got the names of these people on this petition -- MS. AVILES: They did.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and you did it without anybody
else's help.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no, they had plenty of help.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, okay. Then you can go help
them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I already did.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you didn't depend upon the
staff to do that, I don't think. MS. AVILES: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you could go to those people
and say, look, the MSTU is not going to generate enough money to
do this job. It won't even generate enough money for us to go out
and get some matching funds. So how much can you afford, how
much are you willing to put into this, and then let's calculate how
much money that will get us. And then once we know what money
we would have to work with, we can go get -- try to get community
block grants of some kind, we can try to find money from another
source, but that least we know what we've got to work with.
But this way, you get $172. We don't have anything to work
with. And then come back to you and say, well, we're going to have
to slap another 20 mills on your property tax, which is a really hefty
charge. You don't want to do that. You know, you really don't want
to do that.
It seems to me that you want to do something pretty quickly.
And we can play this game forever if you want to. But I'll tell you
right now, the MSTU is not going to get it for you.
MS. AVILES: Yeah, it seems like that. But we're going to get
it done either way, with the help or without it, but we'll get it done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can we -- can these people be
Page 167
December 3, 2002
empowered to go forward and get the land deeded over without any
county help? I mean, has this ever been done? I mean, people that
are in a situation where two people work in the family, can they go
forward?
An MSTU gives them the ability to be able to do this, I mean,
with the assistance of the county. Can these people themselves do
what a county would normally do and go out and ask for these lands
to be deeded over without attorneys' help, without anything else
behind it to be able to direct them?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't think they necessarily have to
deed it over to anyone that this point, as long as they agree -- see,
essentially it's private property, which they have ingress/egress rights
on, and in some ways it's called a glorified driveway that the
emergency vehicles can't get through to get to these -- get to these
homes sometimes.
But if they all agree among themselves and don't have problems
about going-- hiring someone to go and do work on-- fill in
chuckholes, you know, start small and get bigger later, as far as
paving would come later, they could conceivably work through those
things themselves on just a consensus basis.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They could conceivable.
MR. WEIGEL: Conceivably. Now, attorneys always looking
for every liability or risk may say, well, you need to get this in
writing and get this ability to -- a license agreement to be on the
property. It doesn't really have to get to the level of deeding or
conveying the property to someone, because if you're conveying
more than just the ability to come on and -- or giving permission to
get on the property to do the fixing, whatever they want to do, you're
giving away property rights.
And if they don't give it to the county and make it ultimately a
public road, I don't think they'd want to give away the essential rights
of-- of that roads -- the roads we're talking about here.
Page 168
December 3, 2002
There was a -- there was a road, North Livingston, I think it's
called Hunter Boulevard, and those people came before this board
several times. Now, this was kind of an affluent street, a developing
street, and -- led by Dr. Christian Kent, I believe, and they came and
wanted to create an MSTU but they never could get the signatures
together to come before the board, and they were having problems on
their street.
And so ultimately, through their own means -- and I heard they
were kind of Herculean and difficult, but they got the people to go
forward and donate privately.
Now, again, these are people with means to do so. And they
upgraded their street, but they didn't bring it to county standard, and
it's still a private road, although it looks almost like a public road, but
they took case of their swale and drainage issues and they paved it.
And I knew that road quite well because I had in-laws that lived on
it, and I hated to go down that road because it was so bad. But it's
now a nice road. Not to county standard, but it's still very nice.
So it can be done, but it just depends on coming up with the
resources to do it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's why you have -- it's called
government, to be able to assist you to get to that point. MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, then I think I'm
going to ask for a continuance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to verify.
Commissioner Coyle mentioned a few times that this is not the way
to do it, but I believe this is what staff recommended them to do, and
I think that they were all follow -- they were looking for direction
from staff, staff recommended, and they were following the direction
that they were given.
I found it very interesting is these two gentlemen came up, one
-- or this lady told us, one pays $2,800 a year taxes and one pays
Page 169
December 3, 2002
$3,000 a year taxes, and yet they can't get EMS service down there
and they don't have a paved road. I only -- I hate to tell you what I
pay. I pay $1,200 a year taxes in my house. Yes, I've been there 28
years, but still, I pay $1,200 a year and I have paved roads and I have
sewer, and I can get an ambulance to my home, and these people
cannot. And I just think we need to do -- they're paying taxes for
what?
SPEAKER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion for a
continuance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it, of course.
MR. WEIGEL: To the next meeting, specifically to the next --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To the next --
MR. WEIGEL: -- board meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- meeting. Specifically to the next
meeting. Hopefully it's going to go right again. It can't --
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning is the
opposing vote.
Thank you so much for indulging us on this. We're going to
take a short 1 O-minute break, and I'm going to go out and jump out of
a window or something.
(Brief recess.)
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2002-65, CREATING THE ARNOLD-
Page 170
December 3, 2002
MERCANTILE AVENUE MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND
BENEFIT UNIT, FOR ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF EXPENSES,
TAXATION NOT TO EXCEED 1 MIL OF AD VALOREM TAXES
PER YEAR- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a number of people still
here for one more item, so I'm going to go to the last MSTU that we
have here, and that would be 8(D), Arnold/Mercantile Avenue. Mr. Kant? I took you by surprise, didn't I?
MR. KANT: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, thank you. Sorry about that.
For the record, Edward Kant, transportation operations director.
This is another MSTBU request. This is the area known as the
Arnold/Mercantile Avenue area. If you give me a second, I'll show it
to you on this map.
This is Airport Road out here. This is the new Livingston Road
over here. This is coming in on Mercantile out by Tamiami Ford.
And this is Mercantile Avenue, Arnold Avenue, and there are three
connector streets: A little street called Dawn Street, a little street
called Dean Street, and in the middle, an extension of Industrial
Boulevard.
We received a petition signed by over 80 percent of the property
owners in the area, requesting that the county bring the roads up to
standard and then incorporate those roads into the county's inventory.
There's not much else to say -- there's a little bit better tax base
on this one. It was set at 1 MIL, generating about $51,000. Although
again, this is a large project. Our initial estimates are in the
neighborhood of a million dollars, depending again upon what the
ultimate drainage requirements are going to be.
We've had a number of meetings with the property owners.
They were instrumental again in circulating the petitions and in
requesting our assistance.
This would be similar to what was proposed in Immokalee in
Page 171
December 3, 2002
that the roads would come up to standard, standards similar to what
we did about oh, eight or nine years ago from Progress Avenue south
in the Industrial Park, to bring the roads up to the similar standard to
that. And then the MSTBU would essentially go away, there
wouldn't be any reason for it to continue to exist.
And the easements, in some cases we already have road
easements. There were some easements dedicated from the -- on the
western half of the subdivision. It's an unrecorded subdivision, but
all of the deeds, at least in the deed research that we did, indicated
that there were reservations for roadway easements on all the lots.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fast question, Mr. Kant. You say
there were -- you've received a petition from 80 percent. On the
other two from Immokalee, we had signed petitions -- MR. KANT: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and I didn't realize -- I've gotten
a letter here that said they were -- somebody was against it, but I saw
nothing in petitions or anything that showed so many people were for
it.
MR. KANT: We had-- there are -- I believe there are 104 or
106 property owners. We had, let me think, 23 no responses, eight --
six or eight no's, and all the rest were yes. Whatever that difference
was, 87 or 80 something. ! can't remember.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't realize there was that
percentage --
MR. KANT: But the percentage was about 8 ! or 82 percent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala answered
-- asked my question, so I will make a motion to approve this MSTU,
not to exceed 1 MIL of ad valorem tax per year.
Page 172
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
One question. You said the total amount was going to be a
million dollars?
MR. KANT: Yeah, our initial estimates are in the neighborhood
of a million. And again, that's very dependent upon the drainage.
The roads were originally developed to the then county
standard, and they seemed to be, based on the initial inspections that
we did, in reasonably good repair. But there have been some
drainage problems. We've noticed that there is some localized
flooding. And we believe that in order to make sure that the roads do
meet our standards, that we make sure that there's no drainage
problems when we get done there. No sense in just putting a coat of
asphalt on it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, no, I understand.
The only question I've got is that the, you know, $50,000, a
million dollars, that would be 20 years; is that correct?
MR. KANT: That depends on how the MS -- the benefit unit
and the taxing unit are set up.
Again, the first order of business is to finish getting the
right-of-way. Then we need to sit down, once we have a better
handle on the exact nature of the project, and figure out what the
assessments would be. But as I said, it could go -- I've seen them go
anywhere from seven to 21 years.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I have the same question
with respect to the payback on this property on these improvements.
Tell me about the dedication of the right-of-way on -- for this
project.
MR. KANT: To the best of my knowledge, based on the
documentation we have so far, this portion of Arnold Avenue and
Page 173
December 3, 2002
this portion of Mercantile Avenue have been dedicated but never
accepted by the county. Again, anybody can file a deed for anything.
It depends on what you want to do with it.
This front piece, the 400 feet in here up to this point, that was
accepted and has been on the county's inventory for a number of
years. We would have to obtain right-of-way from these property
owners and these property owners and this piece of Dawn Street. I'm
not certain about Industrial at this point. So that represents about
half the properties.
Each of the deeds, again, based on my initial inspection of just a
handful picked at random, indicate that the deeds do indicate that
there's 30 feet across the front, either the north 30 feet or the south 30
feet, of each of those properties reserved for roadway purposes. The
problem was, it was never dedicated to anybody. This was an
unrecorded subdivision that was initiated back in the late Sixties,
early Seventies.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does that mean we have to obtain
MR. KANT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
property owners--
MR. KANT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
MR. KANT: Yes, sir.
-- that property from the private
-- some way?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Hopefully through gift.
MR. KANT: We've already sent a letter out informing them
again of this meeting and asking for some detail and requesting that
they reconfirm that they are willing to donate the property. Those
who signed the initial petition, there was a very specific notice in that
petition that they would be expected to donate the property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, does the projected
cost for this project make the assumption that the property will be
Page 174
December 3, 2002
donated --
MR. KANT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or is there some allowance for
us having to acquire it?
MR. KANT: I think that I would be safe to say that there's
probably a minor allowance for some title work, but we did not
anticipate any property acquisition cost. We did not anticipate
having to pay for the land or go to condemnation.
Again, the issue here is like if they do that, they're basically
taking it out of their neighbor's pocket.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's my point. If there are any
acquisition costs, they will come out of increased assessments of the
MSTU. I would--
MR. KANT: Oh, yes, sir, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
Now, I -- we had 84 percent of the people who supported this --
MR. KANT: It was -- I don't remember the exact numbers, 80
something, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I received a letter from a
gentleman who objects to this. It's the only one I've received, by the
way. But he is vigorously opposing this. And he says he has
checked with a number of the residents and they don't want to pay
any additional taxes whatsoever, and they're not going to give us
their property. So if we get it, I guess we'll have to pay for it. It's
probably a little late now to act on this, because I understand these
discussions have been going on for a long, long time. MR. KANT: Almost two years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And if 84 percent of the
residents are -- the owners are agreeable to this, it's probably a little
late to go back and reassess it.
MR. KANT: I might point out, this is not residential property.
There's no homestead exemption or anything like that. This is all
Page 175
December 3, 2002
commercial and industrial property.
It was at one time that close to being put on the county's
roadway inventory, but for whatever reasons back in the early
Eighties, it was never -- the developer just never consummated that,
and so he was able to sell the lots. Again, I guess at that time the
rules were different. And these folks have been looking for, well, as
long as I've been around, that's 20 some odd years now, to get them
accepted.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One final question. You say
you've seen the paybacks for MSTU's range anywhere from seven to
20 years. Is there some way we can make sure that the taxing rate is
established in a way that will guarantee us payback at least within
that time period?
MR. KANT: Yes, Commissioner. What we -- before and what
I was going to elaborate on a little earlier was the mere fact that we
established the district obviously doesn't obligate us or them, for that
matter, because we still have to come back to you with a two -- at
least two public hearings: One when we get the preliminary roll and
one when we get the bids in and get the final roll. And if there's a
significant difference, it could still wash out.
So we have a lot of steps to take and we have a lot of checks and
balances in the process, but we will be coming back to you once we
get the project defined, because I've got to sit with the county
attorney, I've got to sit with the budget office, and we've got to figure
out how we're going to pay for this, just like all the others.
Again, we're in a little bit better position because at least if we
would do nothing but do the 1 MIL MSTU as an initial, we'd have
about $50,000 that we would have as a kind of a kick-start to do the
engineering and that type of thing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions? If not, I'll call
the question.
MS. FILSON: Oh, Commissioner, I'm sorry, I have two
Page 176
December 3, 2002
speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How many people?
MS. FILSON: Two speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please call them up.
MS. FILSON: Mike Davis, and he will be followed by Stephen
Couture.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Going to talk us out of it, Mr. Davis?
MR. DAVIS: No, sir, Mr. Chairman, I will not.
Mike Davis, for the record; property owner at 3661 Mercantile
Avenue. And just a couple things that -- there are several of us here
today that own property. And Mr. Kant's exactly right, over 80
percent of us signed a paper a long, long time ago saying we will
give the right-of-way to the county, we want the county to improve
our roads, and we will pay for it. There will be -- the other taxpayers
in Collier County are not going to pay a nickel of this. And I don't
like that, I've got a lot of other things I could do with that money, but
this is the situation we're in as property owners, and for us to resolve
the situation of having a road that I own to the center of and I'm
liable for, this is how I'm going to solve that, by paying -- making an
improvement to my building, if you will, and paying for it.
And I think in some discussions we had, one of the options we
talked about was we would have the ability to simply just write a
check for-- if my share is $16,000, when this is done, is to write a
check for $16,000, and I'm done, and save whatever interest costs.
So I think we'll probably be looking at some flexibility to pay for
this.
But two things, if I could get on the record, and maybe Mr. Kant
could just confirm: One is it's -- and we had a couple people here that
had to leave that had this concern. One is that with an MSTBU, that
once it's funded and the project is paid for, then it goes away. There's
no continued life to it.
MR. KANT: That's correct. The way we've been asked to set
Page 177
December 3, 2002
this up is to bring the road -- the project is to get the road up to
standard so that it will be accepted for incorporation in the county's
inventory. After that point, there'd be no reason to continue the
MSTBU.
The other question had to do with the easement. You'll have to
restate that.
MR. DAVIS: Well, just on the record, that the only easement
that the county would need is the easement in the front of our
buildings for the roadway. It wouldn't be any rear easements for
drainage or anything like that.
MR. KANT: To the best of our knowledge, that's correct. I
believe there are already drainage easements set up along some of the
side lots and rear lots -- side lot lines and rear lot lines.
But again, our -- it's not our intent to ask for more easements
than what might already exist.
MR. DAVIS: With that, I would just encourage you to vote
positive to allow us to spend our money to improve our road and then
give it to you. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker will be your final speaker,
Stephen Couture.
MR. COUTURE: For the record, Stephen Couture; I'm a local
business owner and a property owner at 3406 Mercantile -- I'm sorry,
3406 Dean Street.
I have a picture. Could I pass that through?
My situation is I'm on the comer of Dean and Arnold. And
from what I understand, 30 foot from the center of the road would
encroach on my parking lot.
I have no problem donating the land, I have no problem paying
for the upgrade on the road. My partner and I both agree. The
situation is the loss of parking. And I believe there's a green space
percentage that you're supposed to have. Does anybody have an
answer on that percentage of green space?
Page 178
December 3, 2002
MR. KANT: I think that the way we're going to have to
approach this is that we have a lot of existing buildings there. It's not
our intent to make them redo their front yards or come back in and
have to replant. We only want to work within that 30-foot -- or
actually, it's a total of 60 foot. We only want to work within that
60-foot right-of-way.
There's an existing road. That road will be left basically in
place and upgraded. Their drainage ditches need to be cleaned out.
There may be some culvert pipes that will have to be replaced for
either grade or size or condition.
Our initial thought about doing that would be to incorporate that
into the work where the property owner would only have to pay for
the materials, and the cost of the labor would be incorporated into the
overall project. That way we'd only have one contractor have to
work there.
I don't -- I was looking at the drawing the gentleman -- or the
photograph, rather, that the gentleman had provided, and he does
have practically his whole front yard paved. I don't anticipate that
we're going to take any of that or do anything with that; however, we
probably will be working in the ditch, which is to the north of the
edge of your parking area.
MR. COUTURE: Correct. I believe I might lose six or seven
parking spaces. And what I'd like to see is possibly be exempt on the
percentage of green space where I could develop some more parking,
in the event that I lose parking.
MR. KANT: I think that's an issue that we'd have to take up as
we progress through the project, because we're going to have a lot of
individual property owners who are going to have some similar
situations.
Where -- unfortunately I don't think we've had as good a control
within some of the industrial districts as we've had in some of the
residential districts where we've got a lot of parking encroachments,
Page 179
December 3, 2002
we've got a lot of lack of green space.
But it's not the intent of this project to mm around and bring all
of that landscaping and all that parking up to code. That would be
way -- in my opinion, that would be way beyond the scope of what
these folks came to us for.
MR. COUTURE: That would be something I wouldn't mind
paying for is beautification in front of my building. It's not that
pretty to look at.
The other issue was in our loading dock, when I'd get a semi
back in, you know, I'm right at the edge of the road today, which,
you know, obviously once we survey that street, we'll figure out
where the center of that road is. So I have nothing else to say. I'm
okay with it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe this is a question for
Joe Schmitt or Jim Mudd.
If we do create some nonconformities, can those
nonconformities be waived by staff?. Or are we going to work
through this process?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I just had that phone call with
Norman in the back of the room.
We're going to have to take a look and wait for the design to
come back in; take a look at the existing properties that we have and
see where the nonconformities are, if there are any at all, and see if
we can't work through the process.
And if it causes an issue, for instance, on that particular street or
whatever, we need to bring it back to that MSTU and let them know
what that is. And then if it isn't going to work in that particular case,
there might be some folks that drop out of that municipal taxing unit
after the engineering is done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- and we'll look at that
Page 180
December 3, 2002
before -- the board will look at that when it comes back at the design
phase, then, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. If there's something that
causes us to go nonconforming, we ought to bring it back and let you
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great. So everybody's in full
knowledge of what's going on. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's super. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there anything else? If there isn't
-- Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have on record the list of
signatures on this petition?
MR. KANT: Yes, Commissioner. I don't have it with me.
book about that thick.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. I just wanted to know. In
case anybody asks to see it, we have them.
MR. KANT: Yes, I have them and I'll be happy to supply them,
anytime anybody wants to see them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
The ayes have it, 4-0.
It's a
Item #8A
Page 181
December 3, 2002
ORDINANCE 2002-66, AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, AS
AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2001-13, THE COLLIER
COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE-
ADOPTED
Okay, we're back now to being on schedule. 8(A).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have to get a drink, I'll be
right back.
MR. TINDALL: Commissioners, for the record, Phil Tindall,
impact fee coordinator.
This item is a follow-up to the updates to our parks and
recreation and road impact fee increases that occurred earlier this
year. The board had, during that process, expressed a desire to
address some concerns having to -- yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question, do we have any
public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I'm sorry.
MR. TINDALL: -- had expressed some desire to address some
issues having to do with the process, some of the economic impacts
on the building industry having to do -- I don't know what's causing
that -- having to do with large increases and impact fees occurring
every few years, and also issues associated with the cost of
consulting contracts, and asked the staff to look into the possibility of
annual indexing, adjustments by way of indexing to the impact fees
to arrive at a little more predictability in our annual increases and
adjustments in the rates.
And that's what we've done. We committed to doing that in the
parks and impact fee update and recreation impact fee update
process, as well as with the roads.
And what I'd like to do is just go through an explanation of how
Page 182
December 3, 2002
those indexes will be calculated and when they'll take place and that
sort of thing.
First of all, the parks and recreation impact fee indexing will
occur approximately August 2nd of next year, which would be a year
after the current rates took effect. And this is a very simple
straightforward process by which we will take the rates that are in
place and increase them or adjust them by the change in the CPI
index for the Miami/Fort Lauderdale MSA. Which if you take the
last five years' worth of changes in that index, it averaged about 2.1
percent per period. The highest was about 3.8 percent. So I would
anticipate the next -- the first indexing increase would probably be
less than four percent. Of course you can't predict that with
certainty, because you don't know what's going to happen to the
economy in the next year.
The road impact fee index methodology is a little bit more
complicated, but not a whole lot more. With roads, you have several
components: Design, right-of-way, utilities, relocation, construction
of CEI and mitigation.
With the right-of-way component, there's going to be two
different ways of doing the adjustment. There's two parts to it. The
part having to do with the actual land cost, which is the cost of
actually acquiring the land, as well as the severances and businesses
damages, would be based upon the real prop -- the just value figures
reported from the property appraiser's office. And that's capped at 25
percent. And that would be 75 percent of that particular component.
The remaining 25 percent of the right-of-way portion of the
calculation of the fee would be based upon CPI projections that are
provided by the FDOT office of planning, which next year would be
3.6 percent, the following year 3.5, and for years after that are
projected to be about 3.3 percent each year.
And then all the other components, such as design, utilities,
construction engineering, mitigation, all those would be adjusted
Page 183
December 3, 2002
based upon those same CPI projections.
The worst case scenario that I've calculated that we would
anticipate next year, which would occur on or about November 1st of
next year, would be no more than about a 12.8 percent increase in the
road impact fee.
And that's pretty much a nutshell on what is expected here as far
as the way the indexing process will work. We think it will serve all
the objectives that the board had in mind in terms of the issues they
were concerned about.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry, we do have one
speaker?
MS. FILSON: Actually, the speaker left, so we have none.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I'll ask my question then.
I'm a little confused about the way we calculate that increase for
right-of-way acquisition. I can appreciate the fact that we're using
the tax assessor's figures to accomplish that increase, but to what
extent do we use actual right-of-way cost acquisition figures for the
intervening one year?
We have examples today in this packet where the staff has been
able to negotiate the gifts of land, donations of land, for right-of-way
purchases with essentially no additional out-of-pocket cost. How is
that taken into consideration as we begin to update the impact fees
for the future?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator.
Commissioner, as we went through the last process, and we're
working to continue our database so that we're in a better position as
we go to the next cycle, that would be each of the three years when
we do the major updates.
For the interim process, we are proposing to use the property
appraiser's increase in assessed value without new development.
Page 184
December 3, 2002
And we've found, looking at even this last cycle, that's fairly
well indicative of what we found when we did the detailed analysis
of costs. So rather than taking any individual one or two acquisition
items in a given time, we're using that as the interim inflationary rate,
and then we will do the full study at the end of three years for the
third-year update.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you just use the inflationary
figures for the two years, and then at the third year you take into
consideration the--
MR. FEDER: All the new sets of data, as we did the last cycle,
yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, the other problem
here is that there is no firm implementation date. It seems to me that
it would be a great service to our community if we had a firm date at
which these new rates would be reflected. That gives everybody a
chance --
MR. FEDER: We agree with you, Commissioner. And I think
it's in the fax now, but November 1 st, the reason for that, that while
most of it is by the consumer price index for transportation issues
that was in the impact fee material provided previously, the portion
that is the property appraiser's, of course that comes out in June. It's
reevaluated a bit in July, but then it's certified about September,
October.
So since we implemented the last increase November 1 st and
noting that that's part of the equation, we're recommending
November 1st for update the next two years, and of course then for
the major review of the process in the third year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that will be the effective date.
MR. FEDER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we will have that in this
ordinance.
MR. FEDER: That is correct, sir.
Page 185
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let's go back to the first
question. If at the end of three years you find that we have been
extremely successful in getting right-of-ways donated to us or
acquiring them at lower costs than in the past, what do we do about
retroactive adjustments? Because it would appear to me that we
would have charged too much.
MR. FEDER: I would almost hope that we could get in that
position. I'm not sure we will, sir, in all due respect. Because
remember, even when we did the last update of the impact fee
process, we had to look at most recent right-of-way acquisition
figures and make that our basis. We didn't do it projected out. The
only thing we know for sure is it's increasing.
And as you very correctly pointed out to us, when we wait three
years to then look at those increases, it becomes an awfully big --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Too late.
MR. FEDER: -- increase and a surprise for everybody.
So we're pretty comfortable that while we'll have to do some
adjustment after the end of three years -- and that third year, that
year's worth of adjustment can be taken into account if we're in fact a
little bit aggressive, let's say, on the property appraiser's portion --
but realistically we think we're going to be in line and maybe have to
do a little bit more increase. And we'll evaluate that after three years,
and then I'm sure refine what we're doing even in the interim years
for our inflation rate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there anything that would keep
us from adjusting these more frequently, if we can actually
demonstrate over the next year or two years that we can get
right-of-way less expensively than we had --
MR. FEDER: There's nothing that would stop this board from
either not implementing or to implement modified. But my
recommendation to you is that those activities come up periodically,
but in the overall is how we evaluate the last cycle. We found that it
Page 186
December 3, 2002
pretty well paralleled the property appraiser's assessed value
increase, even with new development. So we backed it off without
new development to make sure that we don't end up over-assessing,
but yet at the same time making sure that we don't get far afield in
three years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And just one final observation. It
really would help us, I think, to make sure we get all the questions
answered if these kinds of things are staffed through all of the
appropriate committees, including DSAC. And I understand this one
was not.
MR. FEDER: It was, sir. With all due respect, I can -- we have
minutes from meetings. DSAC -- this was in the initial proposal,
even when it was URS, because this had been raised by the board
some time, and with your guidance. It was reviewed with them in
general terms then.
It was then reviewed. We went back with the changes. It's gone
through the different committees. Of course as you go through the
different committees and come through and get refinements -- but
having said that, the thing that wasn't discussed was the
implementation date, which was discussed today in the practical
aspect. But the concept of how we go at it, the only modification to
the initial discussion was to go property appraisers without new
development, rather than with new development.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval and a
second from Commissioner Henning. Is there any discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 187
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
The ayes have it, 4-0.
Item #8H
RESOLUTION 2002-489, RE PETITION VA-2002-AR-2431, TINA
LEVAN REQUESTING A 6.5 FOOT VARIANCE FOR A POOL
SCREEN ENCLOSURE IN THE RSF-1 ZONING DISTRICT,
FROM THE 30-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT,
TO ALLOW A 23.5 FOOT SETBACK, FOR PROPERTY
IJOCATFiD AT 250 CARICA ROAD- ADOPTED
Next item would be 8(H), which was formerly 17(B); am I
correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, for the record, Joe Schmitt,
administrator, community development, environmental services
division.
Understanding you do not want to review this entire petition --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's correct, sir.
MR. SCHMITT: -- you just want to discuss one issue, and so
rather than review the entire petition, we're prepared to answer your
questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, I appreciate very much the
indulgence of this board.
The reason I pulled it is I had real concern over this. If you read
down in the executive summary, it says the pool was built based
upon information provided by the county on a permit application.
The 20-foot side setback was required instead of a 30-foot side
setback.
In other words, due to misinformation, this person was required
Page 188
December 3, 2002
to go forth and get a variance to be able to correct the situation that
was caused by the county. And what I'm recommending, and I'm
going to make a motion, is that we approve this and refund the
variance money back to the petitioner who's asking for the variance,
because it's not their fault that this took place in the first place.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that for discussion
purposes.
Can you tell us about that?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, for discussion purposes, the -- and
certainly the board can take that direction. I would only add that we
would have to take monies from the general fund and reimburse the
Fund 113, which is the development services fees, for $1,025 that
this petition costs.
There are I guess somewhat mitigating issues here, and I just
want to point out on the visualizer that the portion in yellow is
shaded as the lanai; orange is the area that it was later built without a
permit.
The line that is drawn on there is actually the setback line. The
pool was in fact constructed within the setback.
The petitioner did say that if in fact they had the right
information to begin with, the whole pool would have been moved
over. Frankly, that's why the planning commission approved it. The
lanai screen -- or the pool screen can be put in without the variance
right now. It would abut -- as it's shown there, it would abut the right
side of the spa.
What the petitioner wanted to do, since this addition to the lanai
was built, is to -- or actually to the lanai, was actually build right
there where he's pointing, they wanted to enclose the whole thing, so
that's why the petition was actually approved.
Yes, there was misinformation. That's gone back several years.
I did not do any investigating -- investigation as to why or how that
information was passed. It was an error made, probably when it
Page 189
December 3, 2002
came in for initial review at the front counter.
And based on that, you certainly can move in that direction. I
would have to come back with an executive summary and have the
funds transferred again from the general fund to the development
services fund, Fund 113, and then reimburse the applicant.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So are you saying that when
the applicant came in that we don't know if the correct information
was provided?
MR. SCHMITT: To the best of my knowledge, the information
that was provided was incorrect at the initial application.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was incorrect.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. It was stated at 20 feet, when it should
have been a 30-foot setback. We can argue as far as who's
responsible from a contractor perspective, should they know these
kinds of things, but the fact of the matter is they were told 20 feet.
That was the premise of the petitioner's decision to put the pool
where it's located. The addition to the pool deck was added without a
permit. And of course the pool is still unpermitted.
The applicant's here. I guess she's now returned, so she can
explain that portion of it.
When it was presented to the planning commission, again it was
just said that we wanted to use the lanai screen or the pool screen to
cover the entire deck to include the orange area that was added, and
that petition was approved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're getting into he said,
she said.
MR. SCHMITT: There was no -- the issue here is we're
recommending approval, the planning commission recommended
approval. I think the discussion is should the applicant be
reimbursed, and that's a decision certainly that the board can direct
Page 190
December 3, 2002
the staff to go back and prepare such executive summary.
I only caution that we're using the general fund to pay for a
specific interest of a single taxpayer, and if that's your direction, we'll
come back with the executive summary.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do have the petitioner here at
this point in time.
Would you like to state your objective?
MS. LEVAN: Well, I don't know what's been said so far. I just
walked in the building.
I'm Tina Levan. And this has been a long ordeal for me. I've
been four years going through this.
When I first hired my pool done, I hired a company called
Mirage Pools and they --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt
you.
Are you out of paper?
THE COURT REPORTER: No. I was just wondering if I need
to swear in the witness.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, we're going to hold off for just
about two or three minutes there. Go ahead. Would you like to take a quick--
THE COURT REPORTER: No, I'm fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're fine? Okay.
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I didn't know if I needed
to swear her in.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, is this required for this particular
one? Yes, you do.
All those people wishing to participate, please stand at this time
and be sworn in.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And real quick, going down the line
here, Commissioner Fiala, anything to declare?
Page 191
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The only thing I have to declare is
I've talked to the petitioner when she was here in the room. That's
the full extent of it.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me for the interruption.
MS. LEVAN: I'm sorry. I know I got here late. I was trying to
get here, but --
I hired a company called Mirage Pools. And in the meantime,
they left like 40 some pools unfinished, and mine just happened to be
one of them.
And then in the meantime, I hired another company. They
didn't come in -- they didn't finish the job either. I've lost a
tremendous amount of money going through this ordeal.
And then I hired yet a third company, and they came in and they
said well, what is with your pool deck? And I said I don't know.
You know, with all these different people coming in and nobody
showing up to work and companies going out of business and leaving
me, I don't know. You know, at that point I was going through a
very difficult divorce at the same time, so there was just total chaos
in my life.
So they suggested that I add on to the pool, after my daughter
had fallen in and cracked her head on the side of the pool and was
stunned to the point where if I wasn't standing right there, it would
have been really bad.
And so we talked about it, and they said, well, you know,
according to your permit, you have plenty of room, you have a
20-foot setback, it's not a problem, we can add on to your pool deck.
And then when we go for your screen enclosure, you know -- and
Page 192
December 3, 2002
I'm like, ah, that will be great.
But see, I'm-- you know, I'm a single person, I don't know, I've
never built anything in my life. I'm going by what people tell me.
So he said that he could do it, I said great, I paid him the money,
$4,000 to extend the deck. He extended the deck into what we know
now as being the setback. But I didn't know that at the time.
So I was looking out for the safety of my children more than
anything. I wasn't looking to break any rules or -- as far as I knew,
we were going with what the rules were. I just wanted to do
something that was good for my family, and I got kind of caught in
everything.
In the meantime, it's just been one fiasco after the other. So I
mean, I don't know--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, where we are right now is
there's a motion for approval of your variance and also a side motion
for-- to have you reimbursed for the money. And that's where the
discussion at this point in time (sic). And we're going to -- if you'd
stay right there for a minute.
Commissioner Fiala, and then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So when you sought this
variance, then you had to pay the money up front; is that correct?
MS. LEVAN: Yes, we did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then what you've done now is
ask for the return of the money? Is that -- did you contact
Commissioner Coletta?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
MS. LEVAN: No, I didn't contact him. It was recommended to
me that I do this, so it was --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me, I'm the one that saw it
in the agenda package. Then I told staff that I was going to pull it for
that reason. I was trying to get ahold of you myself, I was
unsuccessful, and they did.
Page 193
December 3, 2002
MS. LEVAN: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for Mr.
Weigel.
Is this going to take a super majority vote on this variance?
MR. WEIGEL: No, a variance only takes a three vote, a mere
majority.
I'll add additionally that in regard to the motion that's before you
right now pertaining to a refund, I would ask that if you pursue that,
that you indicate that the refund is in the public interest or public
benefit to do so. That way we don't run into any --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right, I'll so state that.
MR. WEIGEL: -- problems, if that goes forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm in favor of the variance, but
I can't vote for it because of the attached of using the general fund
money for a refund. So --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a question. Is this general
fund money, or is this money she put into the general fund that she's
taking back out?
MR. SCHMITT: No, she has already paid her fee, and that goes
into the development services fees, Fund 113.
If the board directs that we refund her money, we will do so, but
I still have to recoup the cost that was incurred for the county
performing the work. And that, I would have to come back with a
budget amendment and a proposal to move funds from the general
fund to recoup the money back into Fund 113 after the
reimbursement -- or reimburse the applicant for the fees.
And just for a point of clarification, the addition to the pool
deck was not an encroachment, because there is no encroachment for
a pool deck. What we're dealing with here is not a variance for the
deck. The variance is dealing with the screen enclosure. And so the
portion in orange was not in violation of any sort. It was when the
Page 194
December 3, 2002
applicant's contractor came in to apply for the permit to put in the
pool screen, that's when it was discovered that what they wanted
could not be constructed, because it was in violation of the setback.
So that's when the error was discovered.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. And that error is a result of--
MR. SCHMITT: The error that was originally a result of a
misstatement as a 20-foot setback, back when the pool was first
constructed. How long ago, I don't know, I didn't do any research
into that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I mean, there's something on
record that shows that this is true?
MS. LEVAN: Yeah, I even have it with me, actually.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And that was made --
MS. LEVAN: I have a copy of the original permit somewhere
in here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And it says that on the permit, is that
what you're saying?
MS. LEVAN: It does.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you put that on the visualizer,
please, so we can see where we are?
MS. LEVAN: All right, let me find it here. I know it's here
somewhere.
MR. SCHMITT: Left and right setbacks. It's right on there.
There they are, right there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There we go. There you go, there's
the smoking gun.
MR. SCHMITT: There it is. And so that was dated -- it was
'98. '98 when that permit was issued, identifying the 20-foot setback.
And as the petitioner pointed out at the planning commission, it
would move the pool to accommodate the screening around the entire
spa. And we recognized that. I mean, the planning commission
Page 195
December 3, 2002
recognized that, and so did the staff, and the staff concurred with
recommending approval, and the planning commission did as well.
And that's why it was on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the reason -- I know, I
understand it, this is a separate issue -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- and this is just a case of what's fair
in this world.
Would this have happened if the -- if it had the correct 30 feet,
30 feet in there, would this still have happened?
MR. SCHMITT: No, the pool --
MS. LEVAN: No, the pool would--
MR. SCHMITT: -- would have probably been moved over at
least --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So then the end result is this
happened as a direct result of what's printed on this permit.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And I would recognize and say that. The
issue then is, as the county attorney pointed out, if you so direct,
we'll come back with an executive summary and a budget
amendment that this is deemed in the public interest.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle and then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you tell me what the distance
is between the spa and the enclosure?
MR. SCHMITT: The enclosure has not been built.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, there's--
MR. SCHMITT: There's no enclosure, there's no fence right
now around the pool, so the pool is in violation of the Florida
Building Code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about the outer edge of the
Page 196
December 3, 2002
orange area identified on this diagram?
MR. SCHMITT: That shows 23 and a half feet from the
property line to the outer edge. You're looking at this distance right
here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what is the distance then to
the spa? Is that six and a half feet?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, it would be -- that's 30.8, seven and a
half feet, approximately.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Seven and a half feet.
I would merely make the observation, and let me preface it by
saying that I understand that the staff has contributed to this problem.
But I'd make the observation that seven and a half feet is not essential
to provide for a safe passageway between the pool and the deck or
enclosure.
There is in fact what looks to be like three feet or three and a
half feet at best from the pool, and the lower edge of that orange area.
You see where I'm pointing?
MS. LEVAN: No, there wasn't. That's why I added on that
little slice that kind of goes out, rather than doing a rectangular or a
90-degree angle there. I angled it out there because there was only
like 18 inches between the edge of the deck and the edge of the pool.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I understand what you're
saying, but you're not following me. MS. LEVAN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Joe, look at the lower comer of
the orange area.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, from there to the edge of--
further down, to the lower comer. Right there. Now, from there to
the pool, what distance is that?
MR. SCHMITT: I am not sure, but that does fall within the -- if
I recall, it's 21 inches you need from the pool to the edge of the pool
Page 197
December 3, 2002
screen to be within compliance, because it has to allow for an
individual to get out of the pool. There's no requirement for a
clearance of the spa, so where I drew the line here, the screen could
actually have been put directly where the line is showing and still be
within compliance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm not suggesting that we
not give the petitioner enough room to walk around that spa. I'm not
actually suggesting that, but try to follow me here now.
At the lower edge of that orange portion --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- from there to the pool looks to
me like it's about two and a half or three feet. I'm guessing from
looking at the rest of the scale here.
Now, why can't we have two and a half to three feet from the
spa, rather than going over a full six and a half or 6.8 feet?
MS. LEVAN: It's already --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's already paved?
MS. LEVAN: It's all done.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, from what I understand in this
particular case, and let me try to help just a little bit. And I'm going
to go back to what Joe mentioned. He said the stuff in yellow with
the pool with the spa, that footprint meets the 30-foot setbacks left
and right, based on our code.
Now, I can't tell you if the pool service or the third pool service
or whatever knew that, even though the permit said 20, but they had
30.
When the petitioner decided to put in the orange area, okay, this
was after the deck and the pool was already done. This permit's over,
okay? She has to file for another permit in order to put that orange
area in. She didn't come back for a permit for that orange area. So
that's unpermitted.
Now, the petitioner comes back to the board for a variance and
Page 198
December 3, 2002
says well, you originally told us the permit was 20-foot setbacks,
even though I'm at 30-foot setbacks right now with my pool, and I
want to put up a screen structure to incorporate the unpaved,
unpermitted orange area to be incorporated into the yellow area so it
becomes one particular structure.
At that particular juncture, she needs a variance, because she no
longer meets the 30-foot setbacks. 30-foot setbacks, because of an
orange area that's not permitted, okay? And I would juncture -- well,
I can't tell you what that person at the front desk told the setback was
when he came in for a permit for the orange area, but --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, but-- well, I'm confused
then. The orange area has already been constructed.
MR. SCHMITT: There's an aerial of the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the orange area was not
permitted.
MR. SCHMITT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Forget about mistakes about
setbacks.
MR. MUDD: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No matter if it was within the
required setback, it should have been permitted. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So given that set of facts, I'm not
inclined to vote for a refund of the fees here, because obviously
illegal action was taken to do this construction without a permit.
That's not the public's fault, and the public shouldn't have to pay for
that.
I would vote to grant her the variance, however, since it's
already there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, is that the case that he just
interpreted?
MR. SCHMITT: I would defer to the applicant, but from my
Page 199
December 3, 2002
initial investigation, the addition to the lanai itself, the pool deck,
was added without a proper permit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So in other words, I don't -- I'm
sorry, re --
MR. SCHMITT: The orange portion was added -- that is not in
the executive summary.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why not? To me that's information
that would have saved us a lot of time and trouble, if that was made
available to us. You know, the only thing it says in here is that the
pool was built based upon the information provided by the county on
the permit application that a 20-foot side setback was required
instead of a 30-foot side setback.
With the rest of the information missing, you know, you can
only come to a conclusion that I came to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, I agree with
your analogy, but maybe that would be more appropriate on a
one-on-one basis.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You might be correct, but I think
when something like this comes down, I want to make sure the
point's made well.
I withdraw the motion for --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I withdraw my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- the refund, and do make a motion
that we approve the variance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And do we have anything else?
Commissioner Fiala, anything else?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, all those in favor, indicate by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 200
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Thank you.
MS. LEVAN: Thank you.
Item #10A
AQUIFER PERFORMANCE TEST REPORT REGARDING THE
CITY OF NAPLES EAST GOLDEN GATE WELL FIELD-
PRESENTED; TO BE FURTHER DISCUSSED IN WORKSHOP
SESSION WITH THF, CITY OF NAPI,FJS IN JANIZARY_ 2003
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So now, county manager's
report.
MR. MUDD: That brings us to a presentation by Dan Mercer.
He's going to try to summarize a study that was done by the City of
Naples on the East Golden Gate well field testing and monitoring.
About eight months ago, Commissioners, we had some -- we
had some public sentiment that said that the well field that the city
has out on Everglades Boulevard was drawing down ponds. In
particular Mr. Weeks had made a statement to the board that his pond
was being adversely affected by that well field.
At which time the city decided that they needed to put that
rumor to rest. And so -- and also, the South Florida Water
Management District had some concerns, and so the city decided to
contract this particular study. Without further ado, Mr. Mercer, the
public works director for the City of Naples.
MR. MERCER: Thank you very much, sir.
Chairman, members of the Board of County Commissioners, I
appreciate the opportunity to come back. Jim's done an outstanding
job leading up to what I was about to say. He's covered most of that.
But again, just to remind you, last June of 2001, we came to you
Page 201
December 3, 2002
based on some concerns that was brought to our attention that there
was some sentiment that our well field was causing some adverse
effects to the residents around our well field.
We made a commitment to you at that time in June to hire a
firm to do an in-depth study. And we did that. And we've recently
received that report and requested to come to you and give a quick
presentation.
I didn't do the report myself, so instead of baffling through the
technical terms and words, I'm going to turn it over to Chuck Drake,
who is one of the principals with Hartman & Associates, out of
Orlando, who will give you a quick overview of what his findings --
his testing and findings were.
MR. DRAKE: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is
Chuck Drake. I'm a professional geologist. And since Dan stumbled
through all the technical terms, I'll do it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Try again.
MR. DRAKE: That's what my wife keeps telling me.
First of all, just to get you oriented is the slide that shows the
City of Naples, East Golden Gate well field, Collier County's Golden
Gate well field, and Florida Cities Water Company, which is now
FGUA. And the City of Naples also has their Coastal Ridge well
field, approximately in this area.
The red squares are monitoring stations that the South Florida
Water Management District maintains on their canal system, Golden
Gate Canal, Fakiunion, Everglades.
The green triangles are monitoring stations that the United
States Geological Survey and/or the South Florida Water
Management District maintains for groundwater levels. That's just to
give you an idea of where the facilities are located.
And zooming in on the City of Naples well field, and zoom in
like right in this area -- on your hand-out, the gray circles are the
city's production wells. At each of the -- well, about every other
Page 202
December 3, 2002
production well, we installed a monitor well. We have one well
that's about 20 feet deep and one that's about 80 to 1 O0 feet deep,
depending on the depth of the production well. So those are shown
by the blue triangles.
We also installed a monitor well up here, a shallow and deep
one, over right adjacent to Mr. Weeks' property in the county
right-of-way. That's a 20-foot deep well and about 80 feet deep on
the deep one.
We also went out well to the west and installed two more
shallow and deep wells. And then at each -- well, actually at well 3,
19, 14, 21 and 25 we did some specific testing to find out how the
water levels responded to pumping.
Just before that, just to give you an idea of what it looks like
going right to the well field, this is from the data we collected when
we were drawing the wells. We find out that the Lower Tamiami
Aquifer shown in blue here is separated from the water table, which
is a shallow aquifer, about 20 feet thick, by a confining unit; it's
called the Tamiami confining unit that's either made up of sand and
clay or sand, silt and clay. And that forms that -- a relatively
impermeable barrier. Not 100 percent impermeable, but water can
move very slowly through it vertically.
And just very generally, what I mean by that is when you pump
a well in the East Golden Gate well field area, the water level in the
aquifer you pump drops and the water level in the water table just
above it drops also. Not as much, but it mimics that same shape.
That's different than if you had a fully impermeable barrier where no
matter how hard you pumped the aquifer, nothing in the water table
would happen. So in general, that's what we found, the schematic on
the left.
And back in January of this year, we started monitoring at Mr.
Weeks' property -- not on his property, on the right-of-way adjacent
to his property. And the blue line is the water level of both the
Page 203
December 3, 2002
shallow and deep well adjacent to his property. The orange line is
the water level of the Fakiunion Canal, that's maybe three quarters of
a mile or so to the west. And you can see from January of 2002 to
beginning of May, you can see a steady decline in groundwater
levels and the canal. That's mostly due to the lack of rainfall, which
is shown here in the magenta color. So you can see a little bit of rain
in January, beginning of January. The end. And then not until April
does it really rain again. So the canal is -- whatever rainfall has
occurred, that canal is catching that rain water in the drainage basin
and sending it off down south to be discharged into the Everglades.
And the green line is the pumpage from the City of Naples, East
Golden Gate well field. So you can see that at least during this time
period the city is reducing their average daily flow. So you'd think if
they're pumping less groundwater, the groundwater levels would
come back up, but they don't, they continue to drop.
Another thing to look at is when it does rain, the water level in
the canal comes up, just like you'd expect. So the canal in this case
always does it, the canal works like it was designed to do and that is
to drain the land.
And what we found is back from '99 until about 2000, there's a
significant decline in the groundwater levels in the deeper aquifer
because of-- mostly because of agricultural pumpage. That's when
they're out irrigating their crops, the crops are being planted, they
need to grow them in, there's not much rainfall, but there's very little
change in the shallow aquifer. The -- the other one. We'll go to the
next one.
And specifically at Mr. Weeks' property, when we did a test at
well 21, which is the well closest to Mr. Weeks' property, we started
that test at this time period. You can see the water levels do decline
maybe a tenth of a foot. But you see the overall, there is an overall
decline that's continuing, just like I showed on the chart prior to that.
And these water levels stay the same. And I want you to remember
Page 204
December 3, 2002
that for just a minute.
So we go to the next one. The two water levels at his property
were basically at the same elevation, within five-hundredths of a
foot, probably.
When we go to this well 21 and turn the well on, the water level
in the deep well drops about two and a half feet. Now, this is right at
the well; not a mile away, but about -- but right at the well about 15
feet away.
In the shallow monitor well, it's about 20 feet deep. It only
drops -- the water level will only drop maybe four-tenths of a foot.
And that's right at the well.
So if you go some distance away, 300, 500 feet, this water table
impact goes away. You don't see any draw-down at a distance of
500 feet in the water table due to this well being on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm a little bit confused. We've seen
pictures taken by the county of the canal that runs along that well
field. And when they were pumping the canal would absolutely go
dry. Is that correct, Mr. Mudd, or am I --
MR. DRAKE: No, you're correct, Mr. Coletta, the canal did go
dry. That was during the time period of like mid -- late 1999, 2000,
early -- and 2001 was a one-in-200-year drought. So we had
essentially like no rainfall, very, very little rainfall.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, we're going to take just a
couple minute break. (Brief recess.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's proceed.
The other question I had was the wells, are they all at their
permitted depth? Are they at the correct depth, according to the
southwest regional --
MR. DRAKE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There's no question about the depth,
they're all at the correct depth?
Page 205
December 3, 2002
MR. DRAKE: Yes, sir, they're all in the Lower Tamiami
Aquifer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: According to what the permit is, that
these wells are supposed to be, they all are set at the correct depth?
MR. DRAKE: Yes, sir, between about 80 and 100 feet deep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There's none of them set at 30 or 40?
MR. DRAKE: No production wells that shallow, no, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I had some questions.
Probably Mr. Mercer could answer them. And I'll keep them easy.
MR. DRAKE: I was going to -- could I show you just one
more?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
MR. DRAKE: Okay. Well, one point I wanted to make, you
can see on this slide, when the rainfall does occur, the canal pops up.
But from January through the first of May, there's about a three-foot
decline in the canal stage. And the pumpage actually -- during this
time period the pumpage from the city's well field is actually
declining.
And remember, the city's well field has been out there since
1978 or '80, I think the first wells were put in. So any impacts that
that would have caused would have been created a long time ago. So
this decline is a result of that pumping. It's mostly -- well, all a
decline due to lack of rainfall during that time.
So you can see there's a three-foot decline from January to the
first of May in the canal and groundwater, both.
And then just one last one. We tested well number 14. And this
is just to illustrate the difference in how much separation or how the
impermeability of the confining layer between the water table at the
very shallow aquifer and the deeper one is.
The red line is the water level in the deep aquifer when we
pumped number 14. And this monitor well is only about 15 feet
Page 206
December 3, 2002
away. The water level dropped about only -- in this case only
four-tenths, five-tenths of a foot in a production well of 500 gallons
per minute.
The blue line is the water table, the shallow aquifer, the 20 feet
deep. You see this -- the change in water levels is from there to there
when we turn the well off. So that water table has only been
impacted probably by five-hundredths -- less than that, a hundredth
of a foot.
And then you see that over-- even when the well shuts off,
there's still a downward decline over just a three-day period. So
there's a regional gradient, or a regional decline that's always going
on.
So then we turn the well back on. The deep aquifer water level
dropped. And you can see how this slope pretty well matches that
one. This is the regional trend. We turn the well off, the water level
pops right back up, actually a little higher than before we started
pumping. And the water table responded by that amount.
So that's the only impact that we had on the water table right at
that one well. And that's only 15 feet away. So if you go 300, 500
feet away, this hundredth of a foot is essentially zero.
Now, there is some impact on the canal. I don't want to lead
you the wrong way. There is an impact on the canal, but it's more
like a tenth or a hundredth of a foot, it's not three feet or five feet.
When you get a three- to five-foot change in that canal, that's because
of either lack of rainfall or it's rained several inches and the canal
fills up and drains the water away.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Mercer, these questions are
for you, because I'm sure you could answer them better than your
experts, since it has to do with the City of Naples.
Consumption per capita for the City of Naples, do you know
what that is?
Page 207
December 3, 2002
MR. MERCER: Per capita is about 327 gallons per person.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three hundred and --
MR. MERCER: 327 gallons per person.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Per week?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Day.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The national average, if I'm not
mistaken, is 152, isn't it?
MR. MUDD: 145, 152, someplace in there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wow. And the capacity of
these new wells?
MR. MERCER: The new wells? No, these are all existing
wells we tested. The well field has been in place -- actually the date
that we started installing was about '72, 1972, and then we continued
that through till about '78. So they've been installed for a good 20
plus years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MERCER: And the capacity -- our complete capacity,
permit capacity for both well fields combined, is 17.7 million gallons
per day. That's both well fields combined. Permitted capacity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, in the future, do you see
any -- or is the City of Naples going to ask Southwest Florida for any
additional capacity?
MR. MERCER: Yes, we are. On our current permit, permit
renewal we're under right now, which the study will help towards
that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay, that's why--
MR. MERCER: -- there's an increased capacity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's right. Now I remember.
It's coming back. It's been such a long time on that.
But, wow, I don't know what the -- I know the City of Naples
has a year-round water restriction.
MR. MERCER: Yes, sir.
Page 208
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know, do they have a
reversed rate increase? We do?
MR. MERCER: We only have a two-tier inverted block
structure right now. In January we will be going to -- council are
requesting a three-tier for regular service.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The treated wastewater
that you have, what is done with that during the summertime?
MR. MERCER: During the rainy season, the golf courses do
continue to use portions of it. Some does go to medians and
right-of-ways that the city maintains. And there is a greater portion
of it going to the Gordon River during the rainy season.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you know the percentage of
what's being flushed down the Gordon River, versus what's going on
golf courses or medians?
MR. MERCER: Well, on an annual average, we have an annual
average going out of the plant of six and a half, 6.8 million gallons,
and an average of about 2.4 goes to the river, give or take a tenth of a
percentage there, but it's close.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How much would the county --
or the need for the pressure on the Golden Gate Estates wells if you
go to ASR technology to store that instead of, you know, going down
the river?
MR. MERCER: I won't comment too much on that yet. We
have just presented a master plan to our council about a month and a
half ago. We are coming back to them to add some ASR study to that
master plan, plus some other data they're looking for. So until we
really present that to them and get further into it, I can't comment too
much on it yet, depending on the direction we receive.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, I guess my
concern is we all have to work together to try to provide to all of our
residents here in Collier County and visitors. We know -- we seen
(sic) a snapshot yesterday of the growth that's going to occur in
Page 209
December 3, 2002
Golden Gate Estates. Build-out capacity is 90,000. And that could
increase. Depends on those five-acre lots. Those people are not on
municipality services for water or sewer. The configuration of the
lots probably will prohibit that -- and that's my opinion. It is going to
be a great cost for them to go onto city water.
So I think that maybe we can address this during our workshop
with the City Council of how we can lower the use of the
consumptive use permit for the City of Naples.
Dan, I know you're doing a great job and City Council's doing a
great job of lowering the consumptive use per capita, or per
household, but wow, I hate to see what it was before that. I mean, it's
pretty much double what it was -- what the national average is. And
it must have been quite higher. But we need to get a little bit closer,
because we need to provide for our citizens, too.
So I guess if it would be anything, my direction would be we
need to talk to this during our workshop with City Council to see
what other alternatives the city can do on their use, water use.
MR. MERCER: I think-- I may have misled you there. I mean,
our per capita per day is based on a design, and we're at three -- what
did I say, 327 gallons per person?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. MERCER: That's on a permitted design capacity. So in
other words, that really gives us -- that's sort of a buffer of water we
are not using is from the national average to the 350 -- 327. It's not
like we're using the 327.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, what are we using?
MR. MERCER: Did I say that right?
It's closer to about 220 gallons per day.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's only 100 more.
MR. MERCER: Well, hopefully with our reused master plan
and getting into irrigation, using other alternative sources for
irrigation. Again a large portion of our water goes out for irrigation.
Page 210
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, we know--
MR. MERCER: We're trying to fix that at this point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We know the demand for
irrigation is in the wintertime when -- you know, we don't have that
demand in the summertime. We all know that. It's just a little
concern there. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Dan, with respect to the
utilization, are these the utilization rates that are historical utilization
rates, or are these the utilization rates you expect as a result of the
new water restrictions, which really haven't been in effect that long?
Are you expecting any substantial -- do you have any forecast on any
substantial reduction in utilization as a result of the water restrictions
and/or the rate changes?
MR. MERCER: The water restriction is going to affect the use.
The water -- it will conserve it to a point. Again, people like green
grass here in Naples, though, so it's still going to be some use.
The conservation rate will have another impact on it. We're
getting a lot of calls about the notice already.
The biggest -- we think our biggest impact is going to be on
what we do with reuse. If we can -- you know, right now we're
planning approximately $20 million expansion of our reuse system.
Of course, the state's not helping us too much towards that by trying
to limit reuse. The use or reuse is almost like shooting us in the foot.
But our plans are to expand reuse and to add that to residential
neighborhoods throughout the community, and looking at two phases
right off the bat. And that's going to put a lot of reuse water back for
irrigation, which cuts the reduction of that potable water use we think
quite a bit, once it's implemented.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're actually planning on
extending reuse to each household?
MR. MERCER: Probably not city-wide, but we're looking at
Page 211
December 3, 2002
about 6,000? 6,000 customers in the first two rates, which we're
addressing the largest users first.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're starting in Port Royal first?
MR. MERCER: We'll say the southern portion of our service
area. We won't pinpoint it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've pinpointed me, I guess, is
that what you're saying?
MR. MERCER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you living in Port Royal?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, not quite yet.
But you've recently implemented a requirement to have rain
sensors on all the sprinklers, right?
MR. MERCER: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The point I'm getting at is that as
most of us know, in the City of Naples the irrigation requirements are
generally a single-family household; or multi-family households, but
they're in residential areas primarily, because you catch most of the
golf courses with reuse water; is that not true? MR. MERCER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it appears to me that what we
have to do is to find some way of dealing with that use from a
residential standpoint, as far as the irrigation is concerned. And that
is going to be the most difficult segment of your customer
population, to service with a reuse system, because it's going to be
expensive and time-consuming to get that installed. And we're
probably looking at years and years before you do that.
But is there any other alternative with respect to reducing the
use of potable water for irrigation? Can we go to one more stage of
restriction as far as water usage is concerned? I know my system is
on the same cycle that it was on three years ago when we had what,
was it Stage 3 water restrictions, which are the most severe?
Everything is still green.
Page 212
December 3, 2002
MR. MERCER: You know, we can implement all the rules and
restrictions we can. Unfortunately, if we don't enforce them, it's for
naught. So our biggest -- over the next year, we actually have
applied for a grant from Big Cypress -- and it sounds like we may be
successful in getting a grant -- is to really get out and educate and
help retrofit and change people's way of thinking and systems out
throughout our community, and have staff do that with this grant
funding.
So education's going to be the biggest impact. Getting people to
understand you don't have to put four inches of water a week on your
lawn to keep it green; one inch will do it. And they're afraid if they
cut back three inches, my grass is going to turn brown. And their
lawn people unfortunately are telling them it probably will do that.
So they like the grass to grow and cut it and they make money off of
that.
So ours is going to be to educate. I think that's the biggest
element. I think with the master plans and the conservation and the
rates and everything else, we can implement those. We're going to
have to educate and police the system to make it effective, to be
honest with you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I do have a question too, sir. In
Collier County, in order to conserve the Tamiami Aquifer, the
county's been drawing their new water sources from the Hawthorne
Aquifer; is that correct, Mr. Mudd? The Hawthorne Aquifer is where
we draw our brine water from to --
MR. MUDD: The lower Hawthorne, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Lower Hawthorne.
We've been doing that on a regular basis so we don't increase
our use of the Tamiami Aquifer, so we can reserve that for the
residents of Golden Gate Estates and those people that have no
access to portable piped-in water.
Does the City of Naples have any plans to be doing this process,
Page 213
December 3, 2002
as far as the conversion of that brine water through a reverse osmosis
MR. MERCER: That's part of our water master plan we just
presented also to go to a different treatment system. Probably do a
blend, which we will look at. One of them is reverse osmosis.
There's I think three or four different options, and reverse osmosis is
one of them, which means we can go to a different water supply to
get that. That is part of the plan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I feel very fortunate I live
where I do and I have all native grasses that require very little or no
irrigation. In fact, I think it's been over a year since I irrigated it, and
it still looks green.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Gentlemen, you've all asked the
questions that I would have asked. I'll just rest.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What kind of action do we require
on this?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this was just an update for you to
bring closure to that particular issue that Mr. Weeks brought forward
about his pond going down. And what they particularly showed you
today was the fact that his pond goes down because of the dry season
at a rate -- as the dry season continues, it goes down more and more.
And we've seen 7- to 11-foot particular drops, depending on what
kind of drought we're in.
And I guess when Mr. Weeks brought that forward to us, it was
at the height of a six-year drought area, so he was seeing more of a
decline in his pond than you normally would if it was an average
rainfall kind of year.
From what I read out of this study, their wells basically can
impact up to a half a foot on the surficial aquifer, and it's not that 7-
to 11-foot that we were seeing in Mr. Weeks' pond.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, Mr. Mudd, I'd like to see if the
Page 214
December 3, 2002
commission has enough interest. I know I, for one, and
Commissioner Henning already stated he's interested in -- in a water
workshop that we could hold in conjunction with the City of Naples.
I'd also suggest we include such other municipalities as Marco
Island and Everglades City.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I was asking, we have a
workshop with the City of Naples in January. MR. MUDD: 10th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that could be one of the
issues that could be put on the agenda, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- I'm not sure when the
application for the extension for the consumptive use is going to be
issued. Any idea on that?
MR. MERCER: Well, we hope to -- when's the next meeting?
We're waiting on a response. We've given this report to South
Florida. They've been waiting for this report to proceed with our
permit.
I will say that my patience professionally is drawing very short
with the State of Florida, and I will probably be requesting to go to
Tallahassee shortly, if something don't happen, because I'm working
without a permit, and that's not proper. The state needs to get it in
gear, for the record, news medias here, and something needs to
happen.
You know, we've gone far beyond what's normal for any water
purveyor out there, and they're still coming back after a meeting last
Wednesday and saying okay, well, let's start with some more work.
Well, enough is enough. Give us a permit or not. We've proved
we've got more than enough water for our customers today.
And this report really -- you know, we work good with your
staff, Mr. Mudd and his staff. We've been working real well
Page 215
December 3, 2002
together. And as we've committed to before, we've put wells out
there. And this information is good for your use, as well as ours for
all residents of Collier County.
So I'm agreeing with where you're headed. I mean, this is not a
Naples or Collier County issue, this is a regional issue we need to be
working on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Dan, welcome to
government, because that's how it works. It gets frustrating
sometimes.
But I guess -- my concern would be I guess that we would want
some leverage on the input of that consumptive use permit. And I
don't want to hold you up but, you know, if we need --
MR. MERCER: I think you are an interested party, so you
should receive notice of any intent to issue a permit. Just like we
would of you. It just should be part of the process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In that time, Mr. Mudd, is it
appropriate if we don't have any agreement between the City Council
and the County Commissioners, can we make some comments to the
application?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, you can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Item #1 OB
RECOMMENDATION OF FINAL CANDIDATE SELECTIONS
FOR THE POSITION OF CHIEF HEARING EXAMINER BY THE
HEARING EXAMINER ADVISORY COMMITTEE - HEARING
EXAMINER NOT TO BE HIRED AND RESPONSIBILITY TO
REMAIN WITH THE BOARD OF COl JNTY COMMISSIONERS
Move on to the next item there, final selection for the position
Page 216
December 3, 2002
of chief hearing examiner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we want to give these back to
them or anything?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, we'll collect them and we can return
those studies to them so we can --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- cut down on cost. I know that Naples News
will be asking for at least three copies.
For the record, I'm Jim Mudd, county manager. I'm here at the
podium because I'm the chair of the hearing examiner advisory
committee. And I was voted in that position by the group that you
chartered to find some candidates for the hearing examiner.
We started -- in your packet, I pretty much laid out when the
concept of a hearing examiner started in Collier County, and that was
October 24th, 2000. And I won't belabor the dates, but this board has
talked about or approved land development codes or concepts or
resolutions to set up a selection committee, all of those different
things, at least seven times.
In January of this year, you passed a resolution to form a
advisory committee to go out and get the selection. There was going
to be one member from the Collier County Planning Commission,
one member from the development services advisory committee, one
member from the environmental advisory committee, one staff
member appointed by the county manager. And if I was the county
manager, I wouldn't have picked myself, but I wasn't, but I was the
person that was picked. And three at large members.
And on the 22nd of March, you approved those seven people.
And my hat's off to those seven people, because as a committee, we
worked hard, we laid out what the job description for the position
was, we laid out what the advertisement was going to be, we decided
what the selection -- or grading system would be on the resumes and
the written applications. We came up with a system to grade them on
Page 217
December 3, 2002
a written product, once we came down to a shorter list than the
original applicants. And then we came up with the interview
questions and we actually interviewed six of those candidates. We
started with 54 and brought it down to 14 for a written product, and
then to six.
We interviewed those six in November, on the 12th. And in that
process, the board unanimously approved three candidates to come
forward to the board. And those are: Mr. Albert J. Slap, Ms. Susan
Rubright, and Daniel P. Fernandez, in that order. So Mr. Slap is our
first choice, Ms. Rubright is our second, and Mr. Daniel Fernandez is
our third. And the grade sheets are also in the packet that was
provided. And you can see how we came down to select those
candidates.
What I'm presenting today is a recommendation that the
advisory committee recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the outcome of their HEX advisory board
and have the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners start
contract negotiations, with the help of the county attorney, with the
number one candidate, Albert J. Slap.
If the parties are unable to successfully negotiate a contract --
and we learned from the school board on this particular one -- the
committee recommends the chairman to commence negotiations with
the remaining candidates in rank order.
But I'm going to state for the record that the committee, because
of Sunshine laws and everything else, that every time you -- when
the chairman and the county attorney negotiate with the particular
candidate, that if that contract negotiation fails for one reason or the
other, that the chairman come back or the county attorney come back
to the board and tell the board the disposition of that particular
negotiation. All the while, while the negotiation's going on, David--
and we've been very conscientious about making sure that we did all
our advisory committee meetings and selections and interviews in the
Page 218
December 3, 2002
sunshine.
And so we'll -- I've recommended and David recommended that
we continue to do that during the contract negotiation process. And
he'll basically advertise those particular negotiation opportunities for
the public, and they can sit and watch how this goes. And then the
county attorney will come back to the board after each either
successful or unsuccessful negotiation, inform the board and get the
board's approval to move on to the next candidate. And we thought
that would be a good way to get a qualified hearing examiner in case
one or more of the contract negotiation efforts fail.
I can tell you unequivocally that the three candidates that we
provided to you are outstanding. They have a track record, and
you've got part of the resumes in your file. Their track records show
that. And they are most qualified to do that particular job.
Once the board approves this, I'd also like to sunset the selection
committee or this advisory committee so I can put seven people back
to do something else besides looking for more candidates.
But my hat's off to this advisory committee that I had the honor
to chair. They worked very hard. And I will also tell you that these
are very, very dedicated citizens to this county in that effort. And
one of the gentlemen-- and I would be remiss if I didn't say who they
were.
At large, David K. Johnson; at large, Nancy Ann Payton; at
large, with recruiting experience is Kathleen Curatolo; planning
commission nominee was Lindy Adelstein, who's here in the
audience today; development services advisory committee nominee
was Bruce Anderson; environmental advisory committee was
Michael J. Coe; and I was the county manager's nominee.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Questions on the part of the commission? Commissioner
Henning?
Page 219
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Comments? Can I make a
comment?
I had reservations about the whole process back when the board
approved it for the LDC changes. Receiving some correspondence
and understanding the position of the planning commission and how
the planning commission has done an excellent job of going through
the details, some of the details that we're remiss to have time to do,
it's their desire to -- not to hire a hearing examiner and have the
planning commission hear the conditional uses and the variances,
along with the other stuff.
We all know that the ultimate goal where we're going with this,
since I think the total project is like 200,000, $250,000, is for the
hearing examiner to hear all land use petitions. And I think we've
taken a turn from that.
So I hope that we can get support to give staff direction to say
we really appreciate staff's time, we appreciate the selection
committee's time, but at this time we don't think it's the best interest
of the community to have a hearing examiner. That's my feelings.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll just mention that up to
this point in time, I depend on you guys, first of all, when we discuss
these different petitions, PUD's. Each one of you have a different
approach to these things. I look forward to that, because it helps me
to make a better, more rounded decision. I look forward to the input
of the CCPC, because they pick apart things I would never notice.
When I read through some of their transcripts -- in fact, I've even
brought some of the tapes home to help me better understand what
I'm going to be looking at, and their direction has, I believe, helped
us to work toward a better answer. Now -- and I would hate to see
them go away.
And I am concerned also that just one person being responsible
for those decisions and then having to go to a court of law if
Page 220
December 3, 2002
somebody doesn't agree with that, you know, and wants to contest it I
think is very cumbersome. I hate to see throwing over a quarter of a
million dollars at something that I don't feel comfortable with.
So I have to agree with Commissioner Henning. We have a
volunteer group now. We almost work as a volunteer.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me --just to clarify and give
you some information real quick. In your packet it basically shows
the land development code that was changed. Right now what you're
giving the hearing examiner power to do, okay, what you've
delegated to him or her, should you decide to go forward with this, is
to do variances and to basically hear variances. So the variances,
they would be the hearing officer for variances, and subjects of that
nature, administrative subjects, boat docks and things like that.
Any conditional use of particular items, that person would give
a recommendation to the board and that would be provided to the
board. Outside of those particular basic issues, that's all that you've
delegated to the hearing examiner.
And the intent back in 2000, as we were developing the land
development code as it went through the board, and I followed this,
the intent was to get comfortable with the hearing examiner, so that if
you weren't comfortable with the hearing examiner, you wouldn't
expand his or her authorities that you would like to work. If you
weren't comfortable with the hearing examiner, you don't have to
extend the contract with this particular person, because this is a
contract employee. And this was supposed to be a trial period of
time so that you weren't just giving him or her carte blanche, you
were basically going to get familiar, comfortable, with that process as
it moved along.
And that's what I've heard described to the board. And as the
board dialogued this over this two-year period of time, that's
basically the intent that they had as they were going through and
direction that they gave to staff. So that's why the land development
Page 221
December 3, 2002
code is set up the way it is. It was for a limited delegation for
variances, and variances being they would be the person that would
oversee the variances, conditional uses. They would hear,
recommend to the board, but the board would still hear, be the
appellate authority. And then all other zonings, PUD's, any of those
other issues would come to the board and to the planning commission
just as they have all the time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, in response to that, right now
we're doing that, and we're not even spending that extra money. And
you've got nine of them, five of us, all for the price of the hearing
examiner. And so, you know, we've got a pretty good team in place.
And I think that when they first initially began this, which was
before my time, actually, I think they had kind of a broken system
they were trying to fix and they needed to do that. And not that the
system won't get broken again, don't get me wrong, but right now we
have a pretty good system going here. And I just hate to see us
spending that extra money when we could build another mile of road
or some -- well, not a mile, maybe another inch or two of road.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we take that $250,000
and split it up among us?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He really didn't mean that.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the funds for this particular
person and his legal aid would come out of 113, which would --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I understand that. I was just
being a little facetious.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jim, I'm going to save most of my
comments until after I hear the public speakers, but walk me through
the process that would have occurred this morning when we were
considering variances for the Collier County government complex if
Page 222
December 3, 2002
we had a hearing officer. What would have happened today?
MR. MUDD: That particular item would have gone in front of
the hearing examiner, and he would have taken a look at that
variance request, and all the particular elements that you or the
planning commission have looked at in that process, and you make
that decision based on the legal aspects of it. And he would or she
would basically use the legal aspects of that variance, and -- that
variance request and use it against the land development code to
either approve or disapprove.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if I -- I'm not a lawyer of
course, I'm sure everybody knows that. But it would appear to me --
MR. MUDD: And let's say he did approve that variance. He
would have approved that variance and he wouldn't have done a
right-in, right-out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, no, it's --
MR. MUDD: I'm not trying to be facetious with you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I know.
MR. MUDD: -- but he would have made that decision based on
the variance. And those other particular issues --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wouldn't have been solved.
MR. MUDD: -- wouldn't have been part of the problem. But
you would have had to get it at the conditional use issue where it was
a recommendation by the planning commission that that be part of it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
The other possibility, of course, is that he would have
disapproved it, because it clearly did not meet the land development
code requirement. It was a variance, and it exceeded what was
permitted as far as height was concerned.
Looking purely at the facts, it would appear to me that he would
have had to disapprove that request. I could be wrong.
MR. MUDD: I'm not going to get into that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know.
Page 223
December 3, 2002
MR. MUDD: -- discussion with you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know, there's no point in taking
that too much further. But I just wanted to explore that a little bit.
And then I'll make one general comment. And I suspect the -- I'm
doing this primarily because I suspect there's going to be some
members of the planning commission who are going to come before
us and speak; is that true?
MS. FILSON: I have three speakers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Any of them from the planning
commission?
MS. FILSON: Ken Abemathy..
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'd like to make this comment
so that the planning commissioners will have an opportunity to
respond to it.
Like the other commissioners, I think they do an exceptional
job, and they do catch a lot of things we don't catch, and I appreciate
their recommendations.
I do think there are other things they can do for us that are
probably even more valuable, however, and that is a proactive role in
evaluating our land development code. And rather than sitting in
judgment of whether or not somebody meets it, be in a position of
advising us how we should change it. Be more proactive. So that
when we're struggling with what is wrong with our control of
development in Collier County, we've got a group of people who can
look at it, evaluate all sides of the issues, and make recommendations
to us about land development codes, changes rather than just
interpretations of it.
And I would appreciate your reaction to that, Ken. And that
does not mean that I'm proposing we eliminate the CCPC and divert
it to this purpose I'm talking about, but certainly include that
responsibility in the CCPC's area of responsibility. And so that's it
for me.
Page 224
December 3, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, we'll call up the speakers in
just one moment.
The part I'm having a problem with now, either way I could go
with. I could see some benefits one way; I like the system as it exists
now. My problem is the fact that we've been down this merry road
for one heck of a long time. Why didn't we put a skid -- the stops to
it way, way back when before we got to the point of committees
being put together, probably thousands of dollars of staff's time spent
on it. I'm kind of lost to we got to the point we're at now with a
decision that's waving back and forth. Now, very likely not going to
end up favorably for a hearing examiner. It's a lesson to be learned,
and I'm not too sure how I can apply it in the future.
Commissioner Fiala, then we'll go out to the speakers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I should respond to that. I must
admit that each time that we spoke of it -- and I was just talking to
Leo about this yesterday. Each time we spoke of it, I had my
concerns, and I voiced my concerns, you know, about possibly the
person not being so inclined to listen to the community as we would
be, and possibly somehow, you know, getting entwined with one
group or another and maybe having a problem there.
But still, even though I voiced my concerns, I voted for it. And
I think -- I'll admit to you outright, I just felt that maybe I didn't have
the expertise to know any better. Maybe I was wrong. And being
that the good things were pointed out, I kept thinking, well, you
know, maybe I'm wrong in my feelings. I must -- you know,
everybody else seemed to think that this was such a great idea. I
know that's not the way to vote. Isn't that terrible to just be upfront
and honest? But that's how I felt. So you asked that question, and
I'm admitting to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So the human element comes into
play here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Isn't that awful?
Page 225
December 3, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to the speakers.
MS. FILSON: Your first speaker is Ken Abernathy. He will be
followed by Lindy Adelstein.
MR. ABERNATHY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. My name is Ken Abernathy. I reside on Belair
Lane in the Park Shore neighborhood of the City of Naples. I appear
here today as chairman of your planning commission to discuss the
hearing examiner program.
I have a great deal of sympathy for Jim Mudd and his
committee. And in answer to you, Commissioner Coletta --
Chairman Coletta, hindsight is always good in these things.
We I think somewhere along the line made the decision to wait
until something was going to happen in this program, knowing that
commissioners were turning over last fall -- this fall, just last month
-- to wait for the commission that was going to live with this animal
and have them decide whether we really needed to put the rubber to
the road. Everything that's gone on thus far has been preliminary.
And looking back on it, the steps that Jim has alluded to, frankly
I don't think -- or I'm inclined to think that perhaps we would not
have gotten the commission's attention, that someone would have
said well, let's play this out and see what we come up with. But here
we are at a juncture where a decision has to be made, either to go
forward or not to go forward.
I had some prepared remarks, but I think for the most part I'll
start by answering a couple of the hypotheticals that have come up.
Commissioner Coyle, you asked what would have happened to
the county commission's variance petition had the hearing examiner
disapproved it. Well, you said that and then stopped. Had he
disapproved it, the county would have had to go to the circuit court
with a writ of certiorari, which the judge can either approve or
disapprove. If he disapproves, I guess your recourse is to fire the
hearing examiner. I mean, that's all that's left.
Page 226
December 3, 2002
By the same token, this little lady who was in here from Pine
Ridge this afternoon, if her variance request had been turned down,
under the hearing examiner system she would have had to hire a
lawyer, go to the circuit court and beg their indulgence to hear her
case.
That to me -- now, I know some of you don't like variances, but
they are a part of our land development code. And as long as they
are, you have to deal with them. If you really, really don't like them,
then try eliminating them. Take that out of the land development
code. I don't think you'd be happy with that. But to take somebody
who wants a boat dock extension or a variance of two and a half feet
or whatever that footage was that you all were trying to gainsay,
that's just -- to me, it's unthinkable that we would ordain a system
like that, the very simple matter in those cases, for the petitioner to
come to the BCC. In other words, if he goes to the circuit court and
certiorari is granted, the first thing the judge is going to do is to push
him into mediation.
So here you've got this little lady, not so little, perhaps, who
wants her variance. At the first turn she is rebuffed by the county
commission, her elected commissioners, because they have put this
hearing examiner in place. Then she goes to the judicial system and
the first thing the elected judge does is put her into mediation. So
what sort of a system is that? I don't think that's really where we
want to be in all of this.
Now, it seems to me ironic that you are considering
emasculating the planning commission at a time when several of you
have more than once praised our work in an unsolicited context. We
haven't gone around asking how do you think we're doing, but
everybody seems to be pleased with it. The community seems to be
pleased, and at that --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Mr. Abernathy, wrap that
up, please.
Page 227
December 3, 2002
MR. ABERNATHY: All right.
I think based on my letter and the things I've said today, you get
the drift of what I think about this. And I hope that, with all due
respect to the work that this selection committee put in, Mr.
Adelstein was one of the six planning commissioners who, despite
his work on that committee, voted for the planning commission to
oppose this program. So with all due respect to them, to me it's like
the lyricist has said, there's a time to hold 'em and a time to fold 'em.
And I think the time to fold this program is right now. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Lindy Adelstein, and he will
be followed by Sally Barker.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Good afternoon. My name is Lindy
Adelstein, and I've been here a long time today. I live on Palm
Drive, so you can guess where I was this morning.
I'm of course a member of the Collier County Planning
Commission. And I had the really good fortune to work with Jim
Mudd on this committee to hire -- to find a hearing examiner. I can't
say I've ever worked with anybody any better qualified than he is.
And I'm also saying to you that the three candidates that we've come
up with, all of them could do an excellent job at this. They're all
very, very qualified.
Now, beyond that point, I have just two points. The first is I do
feel we're doing a good job. I've heard the compliments. I also feel
that we're always talking about the money we spend on this and the
money we spend on that. And there is no doubt, within two years,
three at the most, this will start costing a quarter of a million dollars a
year. And if it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's working well. As long as
it's working well, it's my belief that we ought to keep it like it is and
save the money.
Page 228
December 3, 2002
My second point, and this is only my concept, the citizens of
Collier County expect the county commissioners to protect their
rights. They look to you to give them help. If there is a problem, like
that lady today, she could come to the county commissioners. And
they're her county commissioners; one of them she helped elect. And
that, Commissioners, will give her a fair shake. What are they going
to think if you abandon that by hiring a hearing examiner?
My personal feeling is you'd be committing political suicide.
Because once they don't have the trust in you, being their
representative, they're going to find someone who will turn around
and say wait a minute, we will represent you. This doesn't have to go
on this way.
I personally feel that in all ways right now, the best thing that
Collier County could do would be to maintain the system they have.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Sally
Barker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good evening, Mrs. Barker.
MS. BARKER: Good evening, Commissioners. Let me thaw
out a bit. It's pretty cold in the back of the room.
For the record, my name is Sally Barker. And I want to echo a
lot of what Mr. Abernathy and Mr. Adelstein have said. I admire the
hard work that Mr. Mudd's committee has done over this past year.
And I thought coming into the meeting today that it was going to be
hard to stop the steamroller. I didn't realize the sentiment had
shifted.
But I just want to say that I've been monitoring this whole
proposal for the last two years, this whole hearing examiner idea.
And in the past two years, in all of the discussions, I have never once
heard a compelling reason for why we need one. Why do we need
one?
Page 229
December 3, 2002
I've heard the rationales. I mean, the proposal came after a
string of marathon county commission meetings, the 12-hour
meetings, and I believe it was Commissioner Mac'Kie who said well,
if we had a hearing examiner, then maybe we wouldn't have to sit
through these marathon meetings, the hearing examiner could handle
all of that. And from there it just kind of snowballed. And the rest of
the commissioners said oh, good, that will give us time to look at the
big picture, policy stuff.
And yeah, okay, it may do that. But the problem is here that it
-- it will also further serve to isolate you. You're already isolated
from staff by the county manager's ordinance. And now the hearing
examiner ordinance will tend to isolate you from the public. Yes, I
know you hear from the public on a regular basis, but not on specific
items, necessarily.
And it seems to me that in order to act effectively on the big
picture policy items, you really need to have a hands-on experience
with the little picture items, like the variance that came up today,
both yours and the lady's from Pine Ridge. How do you make these
decisions without having actual real-life knowledge of what the
issues are and what the problems are? Otherwise you're just relying
on staff again.
And the other problem I see is that the hearing examiner will
approve or disapprove projects or proposals based upon the law.
Based on the land development code and the comp. plan. And there
are some proposals, as you well know, that come along that may be
strictly legal but aren't necessarily desirable. And those are going to
be judgment calls. And can a hearing examiner make those judgment
calls as well as you guys? I don't think so. I think you have the
experience, you know the heart of the community to make the right
judgment calls.
And the other thing of it is, I don't exactly see the development
community in here beating down the doors saying, you know, don't
Page 230
December 3, 2002
do this, don't do this. In fact, they support the idea of a hearing
examiner. And I can understand why. You know, they have the
ability to hire lawyers, land use lawyers, who live and breathe and
drink and eat the land development code and the comp. plan every
day of their lives. That's their business.
Now, if an item comes before a hearing examiner, an ordinary
citizen like myself goes up against a land use lawyer, I don't stand a
chance. I really don't. There is just no way that I can argue against a
land use lawyer in what is essentially a court of law. I don't have the
time to sit down at the land development code and memorize it
chapter and verse, or the comp. plan. I mean, we're talking
documents that are like that, right?
And the other problem is that both the land development code
and the comp. plan are just absolutely rife with vaguenesses and
imprecisenesses -- I don't think those are words, but they'll do for the
moment -- that are open to interpretation. Until we get the LDC
straightened out and some of the imprecise language tightened up
and we know where we want to go, do we really want to hand this
over to a hearing examiner, a stranger, who is going to be making his
decisions based on the law? I mean, his first allegiance is to the law,
it's not to the will of the community. I'm nearly finished.
The bottom line here is that the current system isn't broken. The
planning commission, as you've all said, is doing an excellent job. So
why are we trying to fix it? And if there is a compelling reason for
putting in a hearing examiner program, could somebody please
explain it to me? Because I haven't got a clue. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Sally. That was very
well put.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was well put, and very thought
provoking, wasn't it?
Page 231
December 3, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thought all the presentations were
very good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, all of them.
You know, when we think about this, we as commissioners, it
would be so much easier to just have a hearing examiner be able to
point a finger and say it's his problem or it's his fault or place blame.
But that's what we all took this job for, was to make the decisions,
the tough decisions, and then stand behind them and do our best to
help improve and shape our community for the future.
And right now we would be handing this poor person an
incomplete document, because the land development code is still a
work in progress. We're trying to change it around to better reflect
our mission, and that is to get a good firm grasp on development and
shape it so that the future of Collier County has a much better chance
of preserving their water and their environment and so forth. And
we're doing a pretty good job.
I think once -- I'm a little embarrassed to say after all the work
you've done. I mean, I'm really embarrassed that we're -- that I'm
going in this direction.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it's okay, I'm keeping track of all
the things you told me to do and then you nixed it. So it's okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know the list is growing longer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm just glad we don't pay you by the
hour.
MR. MUDD: Don't feel bad about that. The board directed an
advisory group to go out and select. And we did that, okay? And if
you believe that the decision for hearing examiner is a bad decision,
then you need to call the ball. I mean, don't stay on the bus to
Abilene when you know you don't want to go there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And once we create that position,
then we can't go backwards again, or it would be very difficult.
So I would like to make a motion that we do not go any further
Page 232
December 3, 2002
on this hearing examiner initiative and go back to the way it was.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second that.
We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala, a second by myself,
Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm happy to report that I wasn't
here when that was approved and when you were given those
directions, because I too would be embarrassed if that happened. I
know of the many times when we have given you direction to do
things and then we've called it off after you've spent a lot of time --
you and the staff. And that is unfortunate. But it is not sufficient
reason that you've spent a lot of time for us to move ahead for
something we don't feel comfortable with. And I'm sure there are
countless hours of wasted time here. But sometimes that's the way
these decisions get made. It takes time. So I would support the
motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If anybody wants to check the
record, I always had concern about this, this whole thing, from
changing land development code, the selection committee, so on and
so forth. So that's for the record. I'm ready to vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, it's great to be right.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Opposed?
The ayes have it, 4-0.
Good, another one behind us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's good to see Sally Barker back
Page 233
December 3, 2002
there smiling her head off.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it was Sally Barker that
convinced me to change my mind. No, you all did. You all did a
wonderful --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was that part about political
suicide that got to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it was something about
chocolate chip cookies or something.
Item #1 lA
COMMENT BY MR. KRAMER REGARDING THE AIRPORT
A l ITHOR ITY
Okay, now we're back to staff and commissioner -- general
communications.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, you're absolutely correct. We
almost forget. Public comments on general topics. MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How many do we have?
MS. FILSON: Two.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great. Would you please call the
first one.
MS. FILSON: Jim Kramer, and he will be followed by Monty
Lazarus.
MR. KRAMER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Jim
Kramer, and I need to put my airport hat on for the time being.
It appears that there's going to be a discussion about the airport
authority, and my suggestion is you leave it alone. The authorities in
Collier County, both the Municipal and the Collier County
authorities, were separated -- or were set up to separate politics from
Page 234
December 3, 2002
the operations of the airport. I think that's a good system. I think it
ought to stay that way. It's almost as volatile as the separation of
church and state. And I think we ought to continue with the program
as is. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, your final --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Kramer, before you go.
Mr. Kramer?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hold it, hold it. Couple comments on
that. Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Coyle. MR. KRAMER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you figured out what
topic you're going to bring up in the next public petition next --
December 17th?
MR. KRAMER: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You'll let me know, right?
MR. KRAMER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You have mixed-- Mr. Kramer, in
your comments, you have mixed two different issues. And I want to
make sure I understand which one you're addressing.
It seems to me that you made reference to a potential
combination of airport authorities into a single authority for the entire
county. And you also made reference to the possibility of bringing
the Collier County Airport Authority under the jurisdiction of county
manager. Am I correct there, or am I misinterpreting what you said?
MR. KRAMER: No, sir, you are incorrect.
There is -- as you are aware, there are some discussions in the
newspaper in other forums about that particular thing. And I am not
in support of either of that. You see --
Page 235
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you're talking only about the
issue of the Collier County Airport Authority being under the
jurisdiction of the county manager then; is that what you're talking
about?
MR. KRAMER: No, sir, I'm also -- not talking about that. You
see, there are two airport authorities.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Really? I didn't know that.
MR. KRAMER: Naples' is self-supporting, Collier County's is
not. But both were set up by the legislature to separate the business
of the airports from the politics of the jurisdiction that they're a part
of. And I think that's a good system.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to draw your attention to
the fact that the City of Naples doesn't contribute any money for the
support of the City of Naples Airport. And there is good reason for
the separation to be there. With the Collier County Airport
Authority, they are dependent almost entirely upon grants and
revenue from this Board of County Commissioners and the county
government. And as long as I'm here, I'm certainly not going to
support a separation from our money. This is taxpayer money we're
talking about. We're responsible for its expenditure. And if we're
going to give it to somebody to spend, I'll be darned if I'm going to
relinquish control over that process.
So you might very well be correct with respect to the City of
Naples Airport, and I recognize the need for separation there, but it
certainly doesn't apply in this case.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Meanwhile, we do appreciate your
comments.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Kramer, you're stating that
the legislators set up the airport authorities?
MR. KRAMER: The authorities -- in both cases, it is my belief
that both were set up by the legislature.
Page 236
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Item #1 lB
COMMENTS BY MONTY LAZARUS REGARDING THE
AIRPORT Al JTHORITY
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Monty Lazarus.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you're a welcome addition to
the end of the day.
MR. LAZARUS: I hope so.
Good evening, and thanks for the privilege. I appreciate being
here.
Monty Lazarus, I am the chairman of the Collier County Airport
Authority, I have nothing to do with the Naples Airport Authority,
and yes, there are two authorities.
Commissioner Coyle, I think there's a misapprehension going
around, and that is that you do not now have any control over
expenditures. That is absolutely and totally false. Every penny that
we spend is budgeted, and it comes before the county commission,
and you have to approve it. So you have control at this point, and
you will have control into the indefinite future. There is no way our
airport authority can spend money without your approval, and that
means all of you members of the county commission.
And our budget is reviewed and the county manager is part of
that process. So please understand what the situation is and
understand it correctly.
And as you said, we are dependent on revenues that we get from
the commission. Those revenues are in the form of loans. And we're
the only body I know of in the county that operates on the basis of
loans and not subsidy and not money that is absolutely granted to us.
Page 237
December 3, 2002
Let me please take you back 50 years when the airports existed,
from 1944 until 1994, and were neglected, were run by the county
and were in miserable condition. In '93 the ordinance -- and it wasn't
the legislature, it was the county commission -- which passed the
ordinance creating the Collier County Airport Authority, the
authority in that 10 years has put in terminal buildings, new facilities,
the incubator facility at Immokalee, securities, hangars. You name it,
those improvements have been made, thanks to you and the money
you have loaned us, upon which we have leveraged $15 million in
grants. I think that's a remarkable accomplishment.
We're doing it under your supervision today; I hope we do it
under your supervision tomorrow, but in the form we now have. I
earnestly plead this case.
What we had prior to 1994 was unsatisfactory. It did not work.
What we have today is working. The users like it, I don't -- I haven't
heard a single user object to the form of system that we have. The
users like it, the communities like it, and I don't know where the
impetus comes from to make any changes in it.
I'd be delighted to answer any questions. We are responsible to
you. I want to be -- as chairman, I want to be responsible to you.
You're our guiding force. You give us the principles upon which we
operate. And I want to do that and I'm sure my colleagues do as
well.
I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. But again, I
again beg you not to make any significant changes in the way we
operate. We are -- incidentally, we're not a bunch of pilots out there.
We are hard-headed business people, I'm sorry to say two lawyers,
including me, I'm a recovering lawyer, and we have other
hard-headed people, and in some cases hard-hearted, too, when it
comes to spending money. With a crew of total staff of 16 and a
half, 17 people, we run three airports and do it very, very well.
So I appreciate the opportunity to plead the case.
Page 238
December 3, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right, let's start with
Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's a
pleasure having you here today with us. What is the process with
hiring an airport director?
MR. LAZARUS: The process is that the applications are
advertised, and they have been advertised. They have gone out and
we have received applications in response. The applications have
come through the county staff to us. We've had about I think 35 --
roughly 35 applications. We have a sub-committee of the airport
authority, and I'm the chairman of that. There are three of us. We
have been through the applications once. We have narrowed them
down to a group of five. And we -- in order to save money, rather
than bringing people in immediately, we are making telephone
interviews first to see if we can narrow further, and then we will
bring in any of the candidates who appear to be qualified for the
position.
I must say, it is terribly important to us to have an executive
director who is responsible to our authority, and is under our
jurisdiction. Otherwise, we will be operating with somebody who
has either no loyalty or divided loyalty, and that gives us
responsibility without any authority. And you can't run an
organization properly that way, in my opinion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not done yet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sorry, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we don't have the
opportunity for our county staff to have input on the salary of the
director then.
MR. LAZARUS: On the salary? Absolutely, you can do that.
We set the salary, but you can make any change you want on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think that we can,
Page 239
December 3, 2002
according to the existing agreement.
MR. LAZARUS: Not under the existing ordinance. We set the
salary. And we do it very, very responsibly. We've -- our salaries
have been set on a comparable basis with other airport directors, and
we have been on the conservative side in that area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Lazarus, either I wasn't very
clear in my explanation, or you have misinterpreted what I said --
MR. LAZARUS: Probably my fault.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- so I'll try it one more time.
MR. LAZARUS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Kramer was making reference
to two airport authorities and both treating them equally, essentially
equally and independently. I made the observation that the City of
Naples does not provide financial support for their airport authority,
and it is totally independent. There is no budget review whatsoever
for the Naples Airport Authority. And that I would always demand
that we have budget control or at least control over the funds that go
to this airport authority, and would resist having it be as independent
as the Naples Airport Authority, because we're providing the funds.
MR. LAZARUS: As long as you provide the funds, we don't
have a problem with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'd also like to provide --
have the authority not to provide the funds.
MR. LAZARUS: And we would like that as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I can assure you, I fully
understand the way the money is authorized and budgeted and
allocated and expended. And the impetus for any change in the
organizational structure of the airport authority, as you know, has
come from the productivity committee.
MR. LAZARUS: I'm sorry, I must interrupt there, disagree with
Page 240
December 3, 2002
you, sir. In October of 2001, the productivity committee did a study
of the airport authority, and concluded at that time that there was no
need and no reason to make any changes in the structure or operation
of the airport authority.
The subsequent letter that came out was a letter written by one
of the members, it had no backing, it had no support, and was
contrary to the findings the productivity commission itself made. So
I find nothing in the record to indicate that the productivity
commission is urging any change in structure. I think that emphasis
on the letter that was received a couple of months ago is totally
misplaced. That's my opinion, and I think it's supported by the facts,
sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, then I'll take a look at it.
MR. LAZARUS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Lazarus, forgive me, but I went
through the minutes of the productivity committee meeting and it
seemed to mirror the letter that I received from the productivity
committee making the recommendations. That's what's a little bit
confusing.
MR. LAZARUS: Did you read the minutes of 2001, October,
20017
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no, I read the minutes of the
recent meeting that took place.
MR. LAZARUS: Well, there was no basis for a change. There
was a study done in October of 2001, a study, and they concluded at
that point after that study was made that there was no basis, no basis,
for changing the airport authority.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What about the last letter we
received in that meeting that took place where the recommendation
was to disband the authority?
MR. LAZARUS: But there was no basis given. It was just a
conclusion.
Page 241
December 3, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It was a conclusion. Okay, great,
we're in agreement. They didn't give an item-by-item list, they just
recommended that it be disbanded. We're in agreement, no problem.
MR. LAZARUS: Okay. We are --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I mean, I did go back to the
minutes when I heard that --
MR. LAZARUS: Oh, there's no question --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- was a problem with it.
MR. LAZARUS: -- that the minutes -- the minutes conclude
that it should be disbanded, and the letter was sent pursuant to that.
But there was no study done, there was no factual basis, contrary to
what was said by the same commission in 2001.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I've got to be honest with you, I do
have some concerns and I'd like to be up-front with you on them.
One of them is the fact that when you look at the organizational
chart, Collier County Commission, direct line airport authority. We
don't have that buffer between your authority and the commission
itself. We receive reports from you that I recently have turned over
to our budgeting department to have them decipher and come back
to. And I probably was -- that's something that they're really not
responsible for but they gladly did. And I do appreciate that.
Then the report comes back which gave cause for a little loss of
confidence that the budget report for the quarter only had two months
in it and that it didn't balance. At that point in time, you know,
there's utter panic. Here I am the responsible party, I get a budget
report that comes directly to me that's missing a full month from the
quarter, and it doesn't balance. So that's one of the reasons why
there's some concern.
MR. LAZARUS: I apologize for a mistake that was made in
one report in ! 0 years. I apologize for that. We did make a mistake,
and I admit it. Once in 10 years. Mistakes do happen. It didn't hurt
anything, it didn't cause any problems. Our accounting is proper. We
Page 242
December 3, 2002
have been working very closely with the clerk of courts.
I don't know what else to tell you, except that we have been --
I've been associated personally, and forgive a personal reference,
with a lot of organizations. Unfortunately they've been nonprofit,
first government and now United Airlines. But aside from that, aside
from that, the efficiency of your airport authority is really
commendable. These are people who dedicate knowledge, time and
resources and do it properly. Our executive director who's now gone,
of course, was just outstanding. We had the best record of procuring
grants of any organization I know of in this field.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And also, too, we have an
investment right now in the airport authority that's outstanding of
what, $8 million?
MR. LAZARUS: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, that's taxpayers' money
that we're responsible for. So if we ask you some hard questions, you
understand where we're coming from.
MR. LAZARUS: You should ask hard questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're just stewards of the taxpayers'
money.
MR. LAZARUS: You should ask hard questions. I should be
questioned, I should be put on the spit every month or every three
months. I agree with that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would the airport authority consider
holding off the hiring of a new director until we have a chance to
discuss this further?
MR. LAZARUS: We're going ahead with deliberate speed, as
the supreme court said. If you want to discuss it further, that's
obviously your privilege.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, you plan to hire a
director, regardless of where this commission is?
MR. LAZARUS: We're not planning to do that. We're
Page 243
December 3, 2002
interviewing. We're going through the process. We have to go
through a process until we are advised otherwise. We have people
out there on a string right now, and we're going through the interview
process. We're not doing anything out of order at all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I was going to ask if we -- if
you were maybe suggesting that we do a workshop or something to
find out where they are, where they're going, what they're looking
for, if that's the direction we want to go, or-
Item #15A
COUNTY MANAGER MUDD TO LOOK AT ORDINANCE WITH
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND
COME BACK TO THE gCC ON JANIIARY 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, there's unanswered questions,
and I do have some misgivings that I would like to explore further.
Maybe a workshop would be the correct avenue.
Any thoughts on this, Mr. Mudd? Does this sound like the way
to go? Do we have--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is the last time I'm going to
put an item under staff communication that gets us in the middle of
this.
What I was -- there's been some concern that several of the
commissioners have raised to me in conversations that I've had with
them. And I wanted to make sure that you knew that under the
existing ordinance, it's not a Florida statute, the existing ordinance
that you made, you pretty much made the airport authority
independent except at budget time. And if you want staff to go in
there and look about having them come forward to the board to
approve contracts -- right now they approve the contracts, they do
Page 244
December 3, 2002
everything as far as the operational piece for that airport authority,
where you -- let's equate it to public utilities for just a second.
Everything they do that has any delegation authority, you have that
division come to you before contracts, execution, selection, and all of
those things. You don't have that same oversight in the airport
authority.
There have been, and you've read them in the papers and things
like that, there are some things, you know, when Dwight Brock did
his audit of the airport authority and there were some issues between
Mr. Drury and Mr. Brock that came forward. The recent budget
document that came in, a quarterly report that came in that was
incomplete. And I'm not trying to bring things in -- I'm not trying to
put salt on the wounds and things.
But if you want staff to go in there and take a look at that
ordinance to try to get a little additional oversight as far as the board,
then you're going to have to direct me to do that, because right now I
don't have the authority to do that. You've given all the authority to
the airport authority.
And so that was the only reason that I put it here, to talk about
that thing. I wasn't coming to the board asking for a recreation, a
reinvention, a renovation, a disembowelment or whatever you want
to call it, okay, by the airport authority. I was just asking for
permission to talk about the ordinance with the attorney, to talk with
the airport authority folks, the chair, to talk about different processes
to see if there's any mutual agreements that could be made with the
other airport authority in the county. I don't have that authority right
now. When you get into that thing, I'm out of it. It's up -- you've got
it delegated, and it's done in an ordinance. So all I was asking for is
your direction to either get involved or not get involved, whatever
your pleasure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's see if we have any agreement
here. I'm for going forward. I feel responsible for what's taken
Page 245
December 3, 2002
place. I want the answers and I want to know all the options.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Going forward with what?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just what Mr. Mudd said, to look at
all the possibilities, to be able to see what kind of oversights we're
lacking here and that we need to have in place to be able to protect
the taxpayers' money.
MR. LAZARUS: Excuse me, but I have to say again, all the
oversights are in place through the budget process. We have done
nothing to violate the budget process. We have made no
fundamental errors in the process --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Lazarus, I'm going to ask you to
leave this discussion to the commission. If we have a question, we'll
come right back to you, sir. I do appreciate your indulgence for just
a short time while we go through this. MR. LAZARUS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You may stay there, if you'd like, in
case somebody has a question for you. MR. LAZARUS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, before you
were interrupted?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I think there's enough concern
that -- as I said, maybe a workshop or something, just so that we iron
this all out. I think it's tough for the airport authority to operate as it
is with a cloud hanging over their head. At the same time, maybe we
should know what their plans are. They're trying to move forward to
hire an executive director, which they must do, if indeed they're
going to be operating this way. And we don't want to run into the
same hearing examiner thing again with the airport authority, so
possibly -- doesn't even have to -- well, I guess it should be a
workshop. But we should get together very quickly and we should
have the airport authority there, as well as anybody else who could --
certainly the clerk of courts should be there, too.
Page 246
December 3, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We got that--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Productivity committee?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That would be great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How soon could we do this?
MR. MUDD: What, a workshop?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: You just had a workshop with the airport
authority less than six months ago. If you want --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But times have changed, right?
MR. MUDD: -- another one, we can have another one. I don't
know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it's time to do it again.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: December 24th?
MR. MUDD: I'll set it up. We're into February, March and
those particular issues at this juncture.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think what the county
manager has stated is changing -- possibly taking a look at changing
the ordinance. Workshops are very nice to have, but you can't make
decisions within a workshop.
Do we know -- Commissioner Fiala, do you know how much
the airport authority is going to be offered as salary?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you know that, you know,
during the budget process the general fund augments the airport
authority?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I think it's imprudent (sic)
that we have some kind of input in that process. There is a difference
between a general aviation and hub in what an airport director
receives.
Now, I'm not sure if we all understand that, and the difference of
Page 247
December 3, 2002
the salaries for that position. And I think that if we bring everything
out in the open and let's make a decision together, we're much better
off so we're not pointing fingers. Because Mr. Lazarus and Mr. West
and a lot of other people are very generous with their time with the
airports. And communication is the best thing that we can do. And
let's make a good decision.
So I'm all in favor of changing the ordinance for this process of
hiring of an airport director.
MR. LAZARUS: May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? May I
ask a question?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, you may, but I'm going to -- go
ahead.
MR. LAZARUS: I just want to ask a question. I don't
understand whether you mean change the ordinance just in respect to
salary or whether somebody else but the airport authority just picks
the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that's up for the commission
to decide at a future time. We're being very general in our description
we're looking for, so the county manager can come back and offer us
all sorts of different options; is that correct, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To answer your question, very
valid question, it is so that we have airport on this election, and the
salary.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you think you have sufficient
direction?
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I was going to say is
tell me about the ordinance. You know, sometimes if we discuss
what we're looking for to give the county manager some direction as
to what we're hoping to accomplish by this ordinance, or to change it.
Quite frankly, I don't know what the ordinance says now, other than
what you just told me. I don't know what it says.
Page 248
December 3, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can make it really simple. What it
says is you're responsible.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you want to change it to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think that we have to
have -- we should have a little bit more input in the process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think they would be willing
to do --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oversight.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to let that happen, right? But we
need to be discussing this. I think it --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that's just--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Even if it's at a board meeting. I
don't care where we discuss it, but we should give it some time and --
or at a workshop, however you want to do that. Give it some time so
that we do this thing right.
I think the -- quite frankly, you know, I come from the airline
industry. I come from United Airlines, too. And I think they've
made great strides. I've been in the airline industry down here. I was
until the airline went out of business, but I was with them since '74,
and so I have a great deal of respect for how far the airports have
come. And I think because the airport authority hasn't been involved
in the muck and mire of all the government bureaticries (sic), I don't
know what the word --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Bureaucracy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I wanted to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- get it a little bit different than
that.
But anyway, they haven't been bogged down with it. And
sometimes they can cut through the red tape that we can't cut through
as easily. And they're a bunch of guys that know the airline industry
back and forward, and yet they offer their time free of charge, and so
Page 249
December 3, 2002
I have to give them a lot of respect for that, and I think they should
be in on this, absolutely. Being that we're putting out $8 million a
year, or-- well, we have a loan of $8 million, and we hope to
sometime see it come back, and they're out there without any
direction from us, I think we should participate a little bit in the
process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, do you think we've
covered this sufficiently enough so you have direction, or do you
have any questions that you want to ask?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what I plan to do is come back to
you on the 14th of January with an item on the agenda and give you
an opportunity to read the airport ordinance, and then we'll talk about
some areas whereby the board could interject some control or recoup
some control, if you'd like, in that process. And then you can give me
direction from there in order to change the ordinance or not.
I think we can do that in an hour or so during the regular
meeting on the 14th of January, but not the ! 7th of December. 17th
is booked. We have -- right now we have six continued items on
there, plus the human relations ordinance that's coming to us. It's
going to be a busy day.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
report there?
It's going to be a great meeting.
Would that also conclude your staff
Item #15B
DISCUSSION REGARDING GROWTH OF UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the other thing you should have
noticed in your packet is any change orders, you had a change order
Page 250
December 3, 2002
check sheet, that was the first thing under that executive summary,
where that program manager went through excruciating pain to make
sure that all of those items were identified and initialed off on and
checked. This was the first agenda packet that was like that. We
said it would be on the 3rd of December, and it was.
We're continuing, Mr. Brock mentioned it this morning, about
improving our contracting and the way we do that, including training
for our program managers. And we're getting into that process right
now.
I can't understate what Dwight talked about, though, this
morning. This -- based on our 20-year plan, on utilities and
transportation, 20-year plans now, we're going to spend about a
billion dollars every five years, between utilities and transportation,
for the next 20 years. And if you looked at the Florida Trend
magazine that just came out, it has Collier County, Naples on the top
for growth predictions through 2006, and it predicts that we're going
to receive 20,000 residents a year for those next three years. And
we're growing at about 20.4 percent. So even those folks aren't
predicting any slowdown.
And so I will tell you that we need to be prudent with that and
we'll get at it, and we'll make sure that the contract piece is set,
because we are going to build a lot of things and we need to make
sure that we're dotting all the I's, crossing all the T's and we're getting
everything that's in that contract and what it's specified to be. And
we're looking at that. It's a constant process. And that's all I have, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nothing else to add for closing
comments?
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing.
In regard to the hearing examiner item, part of the motion was to
kind of put things back the way they are. So working with county
Page 251
December 3, 2002
manager, we'll advise you in regard to any removal from the land
development code of the hearing officer ordinance and things of that
nature. That's all, thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Item #15C
SAFETY CONCERNS OF LELY GOLF ESTATES RESIDENTS
REGARDING WARREN STREET- TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO
THE lqCC ON JANIIARY 14_ 2003
Closing comments from the commissioners. Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, I was going to talk -- I
was going to ask you to bring up at the next BCC meeting, but I think
I'll skip it till January. I wanted to talk with the other commissioners
a little bit about some safety concerns that the Lely Golf Estates
people have and some of the problems that they've been facing.
I met with them I think it was Monday night -- oh, that was just
last night -- and I promised them I would ask you if I could bring that
up to you and maybe some solutions. That's all. May I do that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are you talking about?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think you've talked with
somebody already about this. About Lely Golf Estates and the
problems they're having with Warren Street and the accident rate
climbing and the -- they wanted to -- actually what they wanted to do
was close Warren Street. And I said remember Foxfire. They
reminded me that it wasn't a through street connecting any major
thoroughfares, and I said I don't think we're inclined to close much of
anything.
But I realize that they've had a great safety concern, and it's
Page 252
December 3, 2002
getting worse. I guess what's happening is one community is using
Warren Street to get through to Rattlesnake-Hammock, and there's a
lot of speeding going on and so forth. And so what they're hoping to
do, and they had Gerald Morris with -- actually, I asked Norm Feder
to allow me to have Gerald Morris with me last night to suggest some
kind of speed calming or traffic calming issues. And of course they
don't have the money to do this, and -- but they estimate that it would
probably cost about 10,000, $15,000. But this way we would
accomplish the safety of that community, as well as slow the traffic
down. Especially the thing I'm really concerned with is the little --
Gulf Coast Little League area as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course. A suggestion,
Commissioner Fiala, would be two things: One is to make a
memorandum for the commissioners (sic), giving us all the facts; and
then number two, asking at some point in time when we have a
chance to study what you have together, to direct staff to bring it
back for consideration.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Tom?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I -- yeah, I am aware of it. It
does meet the warrant studies for speed bumps. We have $4 million
in transportation, transportation enhancements, correct?
MR. MUDD: You have a reserve fund for transportation, plus
you have about a million and a half dollars in the 111 account, okay,
that we've dedicate to transportation for paving and things like that in
this year's budget, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does this fit the criteria for
those enhancements, the four million plus the 1.1 -- 111 ?
MR. MUDD: I need to talk to -- I'd like to talk to Norm. He's
not here right now, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They can produce the accident --
MR. MUDD: Are we going to talk about this the 14th of
January, Commissioner?
Page 253
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We can talk about it now, if you'd
like, or we could talk about it on the 14th of January, whatever you'd
like.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't -- we don't see those
traffic calming devices come before the Board of Commissioners, do
we?
MR. MUDD: No, sir, you don't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a staff thing?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Normally it starts with the community,
then it comes forward, and then they do a warrant, as far as the road
is concerned. And they try to budget those improvements to the
road, if that study specifies that it's needed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And it does fit the
warrant study. That's what I'm told. So if it does, I think the money's
there. So if it is, let's fund it. That's all. If it's not, then we'll -- we
need to bring it back and talk about when it can be or what we need
to do.
MR. MUDD: And one of the things, like on Warren Street, just
-- it's more complicated than just this. Because you've got the sewer
plant that's there, and we plan to stop the Warren Street entrance
there and switch it over to Wildflower farther down. And they're
doing that right now and it's part of the improvement.
And part of the thing is to change the alignment of Warren
Street, because to get the parking over to where the little league
baseball diamond and things are for the kids, in order to get it across
the way. So if we put those things in now, we're just going to be
tearing them out here in a short period of time. And I'd like to be
able to give you that time line so we could make a good decision in
that process, so I'd like to get some --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to see it come back. I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually, it was Forest Glen
Boulevard that the --
Page 254
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Forest Hills Boulevard, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Forest Hills.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you just said something. First
of all, last night we understood from Gerald Morris that they were
going to realign Warren Street so that the parking lot was there closer
to the ball field. But you said close Warren Street. That's -- what did
you say?
MR. MUDD: No, I'm going to -- they're going to close -- you
know, right now you've got to go through Warren Street to make a
left-hand turn into the south sewer plant. They're going to stop that
access, okay--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, to the sewer plant.
MR. MUDD: The sewer plant. And that gives you the
opportunity to realign that road and to do that thing a little bit better.
And that's part of the ultimate plan on the road is to realign that in
order to get the parking spaces over to the other side of the street
when that entrance is closed. Come to think about it, utilities is
paying for that realignment, come to think about it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it should --
MR. MUDD: To the tune of about 25,000 --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- have been done a couple years
ago when they found -- you know, it's very tough for the little ones in
that area, especially with us enlarging our sewer plant and all the
stuff we're taking in and out. I'm glad that the sewer plant is stepping
up to the plate, by the way.
So where do we go from here? How do we move this along?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if there is a alignment
happening, it might not be a need for traffic calming devices, so we
need an update from our transportation department, maybe a
communications. Not on the 17th, though. Sometime if we can have
some kind of update.
MR. MUDD: We'll get you a memo on that, no problem.
Page 255
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. And in that memo, like
Commissioner Henning was saying, something about, you know, if it
meets the demand, will they build this and will they pay for this.
And might as well --
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, I'll give you an idea when it's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good.
MR. MUDD: -- going to be scheduled and things like that, if it
means the warrant study.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Thanks for your
support, Commissioner Henning. And that's all for me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, I've got one comment.
December 17th, I think we're going to have a full agenda; am I
correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's going to be quite full.
A suggestion I've got, and take it for what it's worth. One of the
items that's going to be coming before us again -- and I appreciate the
commission's indulgence to bring it back again, will be the
Immokalee MSTU's. I was wondering if there would be any
consideration on the part of this commission to have the commission
meeting start on Monday evening in Immokalee to handle that issue
and then be continued here back at the county complex on the 17th
and handle the rest of the issues. Merely a suggestion for your
consideration.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Boy, that sounds familiar. I
think I brought that up the last meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there an echo here?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll give you credit for it if you want
to do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I don't want credit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He means night meetings once a
month.
Page 256
December 3, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we should do that for
Immokalee, we should do that for everybody, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, where it's appropriate, I think
SO.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we should do it every
month. But there was no support.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I want to remind you that
Immokalee is 38 miles away, and the distance is quite severe, and it's
going to be difficult for as many people to attend as would like to.
And it's purely a suggestion because of the loaded schedule. If
you're not for it, there's no problem. I can sit through a meeting, no
matter how long it lasts.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We had a couple items on --
speaking about Immokalee, on the agenda that we discussed. And it
was a millage cap of five MILS for improvements that would never
happen. And personally, I don't want to see those items like that if
we know that there's no way that it's going to pay for it.
Commissioner Coyle was absolutely correct, that we need to
find -- and happy to give staff direction -- for other funding sources
for those improvements. Lighted area, you know, it could qualify for
many fundings. Or do we have to go to our legislation delegation?
But I think it's just a waste of time and it's non-productive for what
the citizens want to do.
And Commissioner Coletta, I'm sorry -- I feel sorry that you
misunderstood Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Coyle, his concerns and his
comments. And what I got out of it is that he wanted to make it
Page 257
December 3, 2002
happen for your constituents in Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we'll have a chance on the
17th to be able to address that again. And I do appreciate
Commissioner Coyle's concern. And possibly between now and then
we'll come up with an idea, a master plan, so say (sic), that may meet
the requirements that we need to be able to take it to the next step.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I hope maybe -- not finishing
my comments -- that what we can do is review what was discussed,
and maybe we can find out what the intent of the commissioners
were. Because some of the comments that came from after that I
think were inappropriate. I hope that may be you can consider an
apology after reviewing the minutes. So --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I can save you the time right
now, Commissioner Henning. What I said I truly believe. But if in
some way I offended Cormnissioner Coyle or yourself, and anything
I said, I'm sorry that you were offended.
I stand by what I said. There's been a lot of time that was put
into it. We used the guidelines that we got from the county for how
to handle the problem. And, you know, I was a little dismayed by
how the whole thing came out, but we will address the situation again
next meeting on the 17th.
And with that, we're adjourned.
*****Commissioner Coyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16Al
RESOLUTION 2002-480 REGARDING FINAL ACCEPTANCE
OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
Page 258
December 3, 2002
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "COLLIER'S
RESERVE"
Item # 16A2
F1NAL PLAT OF "CASTLEWOOD AT IMPERIAL" AND
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY- WITH
STIPI IIJATIONS
Item # 16A3
RESOLUTION 2002-481 REGARDING FINAL ACCEPTANCE
OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN
MARSH IINIT F. IGHTEF. N"
Item # 16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
THE PINNACI.E AT THE STRAND- WITH STIPI IIJATIONS
Item # 16A5
RESOLUTION 2002-482 REGARDING FINAL ACCEPTANCE
OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "COACHMEN
GIJF. N"
Item # 16A6
Page 259
December 3, 2002
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
BERMIJDA BAY AT BAY FOREST- WITH STIPIHJATIONS
Item #16A7
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "CAMDEN COVE" - WITH
STIPI JI,ATIONS
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 2002-483 REGARDING PETITION AVESMT2002-
AR2766 VACATING, RENOUNCING AND DISCLAIMING
EASEMENTS RECORDED IN SEPARATE INSTRUMENTS IN
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
LOCATED IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST_ COIJJIER COI INTY. FIJORIDA
Item #16A9
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2002-11 REGARDING PETITION CARNY-
2002-AR-3389, SANDRA RAMOS, PROGRAM LEADER II,
COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT THE
ANNUAL "CHRISTMAS AROUND THE WORLD" CARNIVAL
ON DECEMBER 13, 2002, ON COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY
AT THE IMMOKALEE SPORTS COMPLEX, LOCATED AT 505
F. SCAMFIIA STRF, F,T_ IMMOKAIJEE_ FIJORIDA
Item #16Al0
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2002-12 REGARDING PETITION CARNY-
2002-AR-3342, PEG RUBY, SPECIAL EVENTS COORDINATOR,
Page 260
December 3, 2002
COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT THE
ANNUAL "SNOWFEST" CARNIVAL ON DECEMBER 7, 2002,
ON COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY AT THE GOLDEN GATE
COMMUNITY PARK, LOCATED AT 3300 SANTA BARBARA
BOI II,F, VARD
Item #16Al 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AN ADDITIONAL
VEHICLE FOR THE APPROVED EXPANDED EVENING
SUPERVISOR POSITION AND FOR THE PURCHASE OF
ADDITIONAL WORKSTATIONS FOR THE APPROVED
EXPANDED INVESTIGATOR/SUPERVISOR AND CUSTOMER
SERVICE POSITION IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
DEPARTMENT
Item # 16B 1
EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF ACCESS
EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF COLLIER COUNTY AND SFWMD-
BCB FOR PERIODIC MAINTENANCE OF THE GOLDEN GATE
MAIN CANAL UNDER THE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTED AT 13TM
STREET SW. (PROJECT NO. 60012) FISCAL IMPACT:
$20~100.00
Item # 16B2
TERMINATION OF A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH VOLUSIA
COl JNTY FOR THE l ISE OF TWO TROIJJF, Y/BI JSES
Page 261
December 3, 2002
Item # 16B3
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 6 TO THE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH URS
CORPORATION SOUTHERN, IN THE AMOUNT OF $99,715,
FOR THE DESIGN OF COUNTY BARN ROAD FROM DAVIS
[IOIIIJEVARD TO RATTIJESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD
Item # 16B4
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
COLLIER PARK OF COMMERCE OWNERS' ASSOCIATION,
INC. (COPC) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING TWO
CONNECTING ROADS BETWEEN SOUTH HORSESHOE
DRIVE AND ENTERPRISE AVENUE EXTENSION (TRANSFER
STATION ROAD/AT NO COST TO COIJJlF, R COl JNTY
Item #16B5
SUBORDINATION OF UTILITY INTERESTS AGREEMENT
WITH FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY RELATIVE
TO TRANSFER ROAD AT NAPI,ES AIRPORT
Item # 16B6
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH NAPLES
LAKES DEVELOPMENT FOR ROAD IMPACT CREDITS
SUBJECT TO DEVELOPER COMPLYING WITH ALL
CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT IMPOSED BY THE
COIINTY
Item #16B7
Page 262
December 3, 2002
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH SIERRA
MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT FOR ROAD IMPACT CREDITS
SUBJECT TO DEVELOPER COMPLYING WITH ALL
CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT IMPOSED BY THE
COl JNTY
Item # 16B8
INTERFUND TRANSFER FOR DAVIS BOULEVARD, PHASE II,
LANDSCAPE RENOVATION IN ORDER TO PROCESS A
CHANGE ORDER FOR HANNULA LANDSCAPING IN THE
AMOIINT OF $47024.50
Item #16B9
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 WITH BETTER ROADS, INC. FOR THE
IMMOKALEE ROAD/I-75 INTERCHANGE CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $426,091.80, WHICH
INCLUDES A PORTION OF WORK TO BE PAID FOR BY
BRENTWOOD LAND PARTNERS, LLC. (PROJECT NO.
66042A/
Page 263
December 3, 2002
Item # 16C 1
ACCEPTANCE OF A RIGHT OF ENTRY, UTILITY EASEMENT,
AND ACCESS EASEMENT FROM THE DISTRICT SCHOOL
BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF A MONITORING WELL ON THE LELY
HIGH SCHOOL PROPERTY, THE COST OF WHICH WILL NOT
EXCEED $50.00
Item # 16C2
BID #03-3434- "CHEMICALS FOR UTILITIES" IN THE
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $718,401 - AWARDED TO THE
VARIOIIS VENDORS I,ISTED 1N THE EXECI JTIVF, SIJMMARY
Item #16C3
ONE WORK ORDERS WITH CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE AND
ONE WITH HOLE, MONTES, INC. TO DEVELOP A MASTER
PLAN TO INVESTIGATE THE GOLDEN GATE CANAL FOR
IRRIGATION WATER IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF
$87~300~ PROJECT 74021
Item # 16D 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING REVENUE TO FUND
THREE (3) ADDITIONAL EMS POSITIONS AS OUTLINED IN
THE NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE AGREEMENT
Item # 16E 1
Page 264
December 3, 2002
CONTRACT #01-3290 "FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES" FOR MULTIPLE PROJECTS -
AWARDED TO WII,SON MII,I~ER. INC.
Item # 16E2
BID #02-3432 "ON-CALL MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR
SERVICES" AWARDED TO UNITED MECHANICAL INC.,
B & I CONTRACTORS INC., AND AIR MECHANICAL AND
SERVICE CORPORATION FOR MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
AND CONTRACTOR SERVICES
Item # 16E3
BID #02-3431 "ON-CALL OVERHEAD DOOR AND
AUTOMATIC GATE CONTRACTOR FOR ANNUAL SERVICE
AND REPAIRS" AWARDED TO ACTION AUTOMATIC DOOR,
INC__ AND OVERDOORS OF FI~ORIDA INC
Item #16E4
PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $161,995 TO THE CITY OF
NAPLES FOR WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR
SERVICE AT THE MAIN GOVERNMENT COMPI,F,X
Item # 16E5
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO REAPPROPRIATE
CARRYFORWARD FUNDS IN SEVERAL PROJECTS AND TO
REOPEN PURCHASE ORDERS IN FY03 THAT WERE CLOSED
IN ERROR IN FY02 IN THE AMOIINT OF $177.245
Page 265
December 3, 2002
Item # 16E6
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH EAST NAPLES UNITED
METHODIST CHURCH INC., FOR LAND TO BE USED FOR
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT COMPLEX PARKING AT AN
ANNIIAI. RENT OF $1.000
Item #16E7
GROUP HEALTH THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATION FEES
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2003 WITH CORPORATE BENEFIT
SERVICES OF AMERICA
Item # 16F 1
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND COLLIER
COUNTY FOR FUNDS TO BE USED FOR STORM SHELTER
ENHANCEMENT FOR THE VINEYARDS AND LAUREL OAKS
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND BUDGET AMENDMENT TO
RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE REVENUE IN THE
AMOI INT OF $48,750
Item #16F2
ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE APPLICATION FOR A
MATCHING (50/50) GRANT OFFERED BY THE FLORIDA
DIVISION OF FORESTRY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,230 AND
NECESSARY RI IDGET AMENDMENTS
Item # 16I 1
Page 266
December 3, 2002
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE- FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 267
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
December 3, 2002
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
mo
Co
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 November 2, 2002 through November 8, 2002.
2. Disbursements for November 9, 2002 through November 15, 2002.
Districts:
Tuscany Reserve Community Development District - Minutes of
September 12, 2002, Minutes of September 30, 2002.
Fiddler's Creek Community Development District - Minutes from August
28, 2002 Meeting, Adopted Budget FY 2003; Schedule of Meetings FY
2002-2003 and Unaudited Financial Statements dated July 31, 2002.
Cedar Hammock Community Development District - Minutes of
November 5, 2002.
Mediterra South Community Development District - Minutes of July 24,
2002, Adopted Budget FY03 and Unaudited Financial Statement 6/30/02.\
o
Minutes:
Pelican Bay M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Agenda for October 2,
2002, October 2, 2002.
Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Committee_- Minutes of August
28, 2002.
Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board_- Minutes of August
22, 2002 and September 26, 2002.
Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Agenda for
November 19, 2002; Minutes of October 15, 2002.
H:DataYFormat
Isles of Capri Fire/Rescue Advisory Board Stunmary - Minutes of
October 3, 2002.
o
H:Data/Format
December 3, 2002
Item # 16J 1
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE PURCHASES OF
GOODS AND SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED
REPORT OF OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A VALID
PUBLIC PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZATION OF THE
EXPENDITURE OF COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID
PIIRCHASES
Item # 16K1
RESOLUTION 2002-484 REGARDING COLLIER COUNTY
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING
THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED TO
FINANCE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES FOR COMMUNITY
SCHOOl. OF NAPIJES INC.
Item # 16K2
APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT INCLUDING THE 2002
REOPENER WITH THE PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS OF
THE EVERGLADES INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTFRS. I.OCAI. 3670
Item # 17A
RESOLUTION 2002-485 RE PETITION VA-2002-AR-2617
MARLO VALLE, OF CREATIVE HOMES OF SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA, INC., REPRESENTING LLOYD E. WYNN,
REQUESTING AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES IN THE
Page 268
December 3, 2002
ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT FROM THE REQUIRED: 1)
30-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK (LDC SECTION 2.2.3.4.3.1.),
TO ALLOW A 14.4 FEET SIDE YARD SETBACK (A VARIANCE
OF 15.6 FEET); AND 2) 75-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK
(LDC SECTION 2.2.3.4.3.2.), TO ALLOW A 70.1 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK (A VARIANCE OF 4.9 FEET), FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2231 14TM AVENUE NE, FURTHER
DESCRIBED AS GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 16, TRACT
99_ I.OT E-1 50
Item #17B - Moved to Item #8H
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:00 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
JAMES COLLETTA, Chairman
~ DWIG~E BROCK CLERK
,,~est as to Cflal~'$
*ignat~ee
Page 269
December 3, 2002
These minutes approved by the Board on
presented / or as corrected "
, as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TERRI L. LEWIS AND
CHERIE' R. NOTTINGHAM
Page 270