BCC Minutes 02/25/2003 RFebruary 25, 2003
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, February 25, 2003
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:
Tom Henning
Frank Halas
Donna Fiala
Fred W. Coyle
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
February 25, 2003
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
February 25, 2003
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Minister Paul Jarrett, Naples Church of Christ
e
AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. January 28, 2003 - BCC Regular Meeting
C. January 29, 2003 - BCC/Sign Ordinance Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS
e
PROCLAMATIONS
Proclamation to recognize Holland T. Salley for his steadfast commitment to
changing and enriching lives through Education. Also present, but not
accepting, will be Kim Long, President of the Edison Community College
Foundation.
Be
Proclamation to recognize the importance of community awareness of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. To be accepted
by Ken Pineau, Director of Collier County Emergency Management.
Proclamation to designate February 25, 2003 as Children's Day in Collier
County. To be accepted by Clay Cone.
0
Proclamation to acknowledge and thank the volunteers of the Veteran's
Transportation Program. To be accepted by James H. Elson, President of the
2
February 25, 2003
E®
Collier County Veterans Council.
Proclamation to acknowledge the South Florida Chapter of Multiple
Sclerosis for their efforts to improve the lives of Collier County Residents
that are coping with this disease. To be accepted by Karen Dresback,
President of the South Florida Chapter for Multiple Sclerosis.
5. PRESENTATIONS
e
PUBLIC PETITIONS
Ae
Public Petition Request by Mr. Michael T. Hoyt, Gulf Harbor Moorings Inc.,
to discuss a Quit Claim Deed to remove the "Public" Language from
Property Deed.
Be
Public Petition Request by Mr. Thomas L. Baker to discuss Code
Enforcement as it relates to C5 Industrial in J&C Industrial Park.
Ce
Public Petition Request by Ms. Melanie Beebe to discuss Waiving Variance
Fees at 245 22nd Avenue NE.
e
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Ae
ADA-2002-AR-3455, Timothy W. Ferguson, P.A., representing Naples
Seventh Day Adventists Church, requesting an Administrative Appeal to
official interpretation INTP-2002-AR-2910 concerning the Commercial
Infill Provision of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Future
Land Use Element.
ge
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ao
This item to be heard at 1:10 p.m. Adopt a Resolution amending the
Water and Sewer Impact Fee Rate Schedule, which is Schedule Two of
Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Law and
Ordinances, the same being the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee
Ordinance.
This item to be heard at 1:10 p.m. Adopt a Resolution amending the
Water, Sewer, Fire Meter and Surcharge Rates, which is Schedule One of
Appendix A to Section Four of the Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-73,
3
February 25, 2003
Ce
De
Ee
Gg
titled the Collier County Water-Sewer District Uniform Billing, Operating
and Regulatory Standards Ordinance.
This item to be heard at 1:10 p.m. Adopt a Resolution amending the
Miscellaneous Fees for Services, which is Schedule Six of Appendix A to
Section Four of the Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-73, titled the Collier
County Water-Sewer District Uniform Billing, Operating and Regulatory
Standards Ordinance.
This item to be heard at 1:10 p.m. Adopt a Resolution amending the
Meter Installation Charges (Tapping Fees) and Backflow Device Charges,
which is Schedule Four of Appendix A to Section Four of the Collier
County Ordinance No. 2001-73, titled the Collier County Water-Sewer
District Uniform Billing, Operating and Regulatory Standards Ordinance.
Adoption of an Ordinance amending Section 126-83 of the Collier County
Code of Laws and Ordinances, also cited as Ordinance No. 92-60, as
amended, concerning the expanded use of Category "B"
(Advertising/Promotion) Tourist Development Tax Revenues to include the
funding of Convention Centers, Tourist Bureaus and Tourist Information
Centers as County Agencies, as recommended by the Tourist Development
Council.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDZ-01-AR-
1842, Dwight Nadcau of RWA, Inc., representing Thomas G. Eckerty,
Trustee for the 1-75 Land Trust, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural
Agricultural, RSF-4, RMF-6, RMS-12, and C-4 to PUD, Plarmcd Unit
Development to be known as the East Gateway PUD allowing for
Commercial Uses for property located on the South side of 1-75, North of
Davis Boulevard (CR 84) and approximately one quarter mile West of
Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida.
This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Adoption of an Ordinance authorizing
the Issuance of Revenue Bonds payable from various Gas Tax Revenues of
the County for the principal purposes of acquiring and constructing various
Transportation-Related Capital Improvements and refunding certain
outstanding indebtedness of the County; providing for various rights and
remedies of the bondholders; providing that the bonds authorized hereunder
4
Februa~ 25, 2003
will not create a general debt or obligation of the County; and providing an
effective date.
e
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee.
B. Discussion regarding rush hour dump-truck traffic on Oil Well and
Immokalee Roads. (Commissioner Coletta)
10.
11.
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Ae
This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m.
Master Plan Update, Project 70070.
Utilities)
Adopt the 2002 Collier County Water
(Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public
Be
This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. Adopt the 2002 Collier County
Wastewater Master Plan Update, Project 73066. (Jim DeLony,
Administrator, Public Utilities)
Ce
Approve an Interim Interlocal Agreement with the Collier County School
Board for coordinated land use and school planning as required by Chapter
2003-296 Laws of Florida. (Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development)
De
Approve a Resolution to authorize the Collier Mosquito Control District to
expand boundaries into Immokalee. (John Dunnuck, Administrator, Public
Services)
ge
Provide a report regarding water quality of wells in Golden Gate City. (Dr.
Colfer, Collier County Health Department)
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12.
13.
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. This item continued from the February, 11~ 2003 BCC Meeting.
Discussion regarding construction of the North County Library and the
5
February 25, 2003
14.
15.
expansion of the North County Wastewater Reclamation Facility.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16.
CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
Ae
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Petition CARNY-2003-AR-3726, Mr. H.B. "Benny" Starling, Jr.,
President, Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, requesting a Permit to
conduct a Fair from February 26th through March 9th, 2003, at 110
North 1 st Street and East Main Street (S.R. 29) in Immokalee.
2)
Request to submit a Grant Application for $200,000 under the Florida
Economic Development Transportation Fund Program on behalf of
March Performance, pursuant to s.288.106, Florida Statutes; and
providing administrative support as local participation in the program.
3)
Approve an Agreement to accept an Artificial Reef Grant from the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Committee.
4)
Approve FY03/04 Tourist Development Grant Application Forms for
Category "B" (Special Events) and Category "C" (Museums), as
recommended by the Tourist Development Council.
5)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plats of "Pelican Marsh Unit Three
(Phases One and Two)".
6) Final acceptance of water utility facilities for Vista Gardens.
6
February 25, 2003
Be
7)
8)
9)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of"Carlton Lakes Unit No. 1".
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of"Carlton Lakes Unit No. 2".
Recommendation to authorize the Community Development and
Environmental Services Division to enter into contract negotiations
with the Bureau of Surveying and Mapping of the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection to have Second Order Vertical Control
established through Golden Gate Estates, to support the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) Restudy and Appeal.
10)
Approval of an Inteflocal Agreement between Collier County Board
of County Commissioners and the City of Naples to administer
contracts with Tomasello Consulting Engineers, Inc., for engineering
services related to Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) Restudy and
Appeal.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Request Board approval for the Landscape Maintenance Agreement
with Keith Basik and Jeffrey Basik, Principals of Naples Big Cypress,
Inc., for the future landscaping and maintenance on Basik Drive.
2)
Approve Bid #02-3365, "SR45-US 41 Tamiami Trail North Phase II
Streetscape Beautification Project" and award to Vila and Son
Landscaping Corporation in the amount of $253,925.84.
3)
Approve a Change Order with Better Roads Inc., for median
modifications on Davis Boulevard in the amount of $16,740 from
Project 60016.
4)
Approve funding in the amount of $116,951 for design and
engineering, acquisition of permits, funding strategy and remaining
half of project coordination to Woods Hole Group for the Haldeman
Creek Basin Restoration (A.K.A. Dredging) Project, Contract No. 01-
3216, Project Number 51011.
7
February 25, 2003
Ce
5)
Approve a budget amendment to move $80,703 from the
Transportation Maintenance Road & Bridge Operating appropriations
into the Capital appropriations to purchase a tractor previously
approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Approve TDC Category "A" Grant Application Form.
2)
Approve Resolution supporting continued State funding of Coastal
Projects.
3)
Approve Amendment No. 2, Second Extension to the Agreement No.
HW465 with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for
Electronics Recycling.
4)
Authorize the execution of a Work Order No. UC-016 (Exhibit A)
under Contract 02-3345 - Annual Contract for underground
construction for relocation work in the amount of $861,421.50 to
Cross Country Pipe and Rail Inc., DBA/Cross Country Underground
Inc., for the relocation of a 16" water main and a 16" reclaimed water
line.
5)
Award Annual Contracts to selected firms for Trenchless Sewer
System Rehabilitation Contracting Services per Bid 03-3455, Project
73050.
6)
Accept three Grant Agreements from the South Florida Water
Management District in the total amount of $150,000.
De
PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Approve the Chairman to sign a Training Affiliation Agreement
between Collier County and the Cleveland Clinic Hospital.
2)
Award of Bid #02-3433 for the purchase of EMS uniforms to RSVP
Ltd., Inc., for the Emergency Medical Services Department in the
estimated annual amount of $95,000.
8
February 25, 2003
3)
4)
Award Contract #02-3420 "Veterinary Supplies" to the following
firms: Bumes Veterinary Supply, Ft. Dodge Animal Health Services,
Merritt Veterinary Supply, Schering-Plough, Inc., Suncoast Surgical
Supply, Inc., Webster Veterinary Supply, Bayer Corporation, Merial
Limited USA, Novartis, Inc., Pfizer Animal Health (Estimated annual
amount of total contract for all firms $53,900.)
Approval to award Contract #02-3393 to Sparks Exhibits and
Environments, Inc., to design, fabricate and install educational
exhibits at the Collier County Museum.
te
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
Approve Award of Bid #03-3475 for Temporary Laborers for Collier
County to Able Body Labor as Primary Vendor and Tandem Staffing
and Manpower of Naples as Secondary Vendors.
2)
Award a Contract for Architectural Services in the amount of
$500,000 for the design of the new Fleet Facility, RFP #02-3422.
3)
Recommendation to declare certain County-Owned Property as
Surplus and authorize a sale of the Surplus Property on March 15,
2003.
4)
Approval to Award Bid #03-3472 in the amount of $65,000 for
"Exterior Pressure Steam Cleaning" to Precision Cleaning, Inc.
Fe
COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Approve a Budget Amendment to recognize and appropriate revenue
of $27,491 from Isles of Capri Fire Control District Impact Fees for
equipment expenditures necessitated by new growth.
2)
Approval to extend the lease agreement between Collier County and
Gulf Shore Associates, Limited Parmership, for Pelican Bay Services
Division Offices at a first year's annual rent that will not exceed
$24,392.
3)
Adoption of a Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida authorizing the issuance by Collier County,
9
February 25, 2003
Florida of $120,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of Collier
County, Florida Gas Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2003 in order to
provide funds for the principal purposes of financing the costs of
various transportation improvements within the County and
refinancing certain indebtedness; pledging the money's received by
the County from the herein described Gas Tax Revenues to secure
payment and interest on said bonds; providing for the rights of the
holders of said bonds; providing for certain additional matters in
respect to said bonds; and providing for an effective date for this
Resolution.
Ge
He
Jo
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Items to file for record with action as directed.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
Ke
COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Authorize the Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondent Jeffrey
A. Richardson for the fee taking of Parcel No. 198 in the amount of
$6,300 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Jeffrey A. Richardson,
et al, Case No. 02-2188-CA (Immokalee Road Project #60018).
2)
Authorize the Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents
Jimmie L. Rogers and Betty L. Rogers for the fee taking of Parcel No.
200 in the amount of $69,000 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v.
Jeffrey A. Richardson, et al, Case No. 02-2188-CA (Immokalee Road
Project//60018).
3)
Approve the Agreed Order awarding expert fees relative to the
Lawsuit Acquisition of Parcels 167, 767, 867A and 867B in the
Lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Wallace L. Lewis, Jr., et al, Case
No. 01-0711-CA (Livingston Road, Project No. 60071).
10
February 25, 2003
17.
4)
Authorize the Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents Steven
V. Ciardullo and Deborah K. Ciardullo, for the fee taking of Parcel
No. 197 in the amount of $6,300 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County
v. Robert W. Pieplow, et ux, et al, Case No. 02-2133-CA (Immokalee
Road Project #60018).
5)
Authorize the Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents
Lawrence A. Krahn, Jr. and Dee Ann L. Krahn, as Trustees under
Declaration of Trust dated January 31, 1991, designated as Trust No.
001, for the fee taking of Parcel No. 195 in the amount of $6,300 in
the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. Robert W. Pieplow, et ux, et al,
Case No. 02-2133-CA (Immokalee Road Project #60018).
6)
Authorize the Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondent Madge
Green for the fee taking of Parcel No. 214 in the amount of $3,300 in
the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. Efrain Arce, et al, Case No. 02-
2119-CA (Immokalee Road Project #60018).
7)
Authorize the Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents Darryl
J. Damico and Brad T. Damico for the fee taking of Parcel No. 218 in
the amount of $3,300 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. Cary B.
Collins, et al, Case No. 02-2134-CA (Immokalee Road Project
#60018).
8)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the fee simple
acquisition of Parcel 110C, the acquisition of a perpetual, non-
exclusive slope and utility easement of Parcel 510C, and a temporary
construction easement for Parcel 710, in the Lawsuit styled Collier
County v. G-4 Partnership, et al, (Goodlette-Frank Road, Project No.
60134).
9)
Request by the Collier County Health Facilities Authority for
approval of a resolution authorizing the Authority to issue refunding
bonds to be used to refinance bonds issued in 1999 for Cleveland
Clinic Facilities.
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
February 25, 2003
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
VA-2002-AR-3322, Jerry Neal, requesting a 7.5 foot variance from the
required 7.5 foot setback for dock facilities to zero feet for property located
at 86 Dolphin Circle, further described as Lot 86, Isles of Capri Unit 1, in
Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Be
Petition AVROW2002-AR2332 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the
County's and the Public's interest in a portion of the road fight-of-way for
Coralwood Drive which was dedicated to the County as 3ra Avenue for
Northwest by the Plat of "Golden Gate Estates Unit No. 95", as recorded in
Plat Book 9, Page 45, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, located in
Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 26 East.
Ce
Approval of an Ordinance amending the quorum requirements for the Black
Affairs Advisory Board.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
12
February 25, 2003
February 25, 2003
MR. MUDD: Mike's on, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call the meeting of the Board of
Collier County Commissioners to order. We're going to have the
invocation today by Minister Paul Jarrett, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance, and that will be led by our public works administrator,
Jim DeLony.
Would you all rise, please.
MR. JARRETT: Our Father, which art in heaven, we thank you
for the privilege that we have to come before your throne in times of
testing and in times of trial and to ask your blessing.
We pray that we might also not forget you to -- when there are
times to give thanks and that all times that our petitions might be
accompanied by thanksgiving.
We, indeed, have much to be thankful for. You bless us in so
many ways with great material wealth, and you also bless us with the
freedoms that we enjoy as citizens of this great nation.
And I pray that you would help us to count these blessings, to be
mindful of the blessings that we have and recognize that with those
blessings comes great responsibility.
Among the many blessings that we enjoy is the blessing of
children and all that they mean to us and to our world and the future
that they represent. And I pray that we might recognize the
responsibilities that we have towards children and towards those less
fortunate, that we might exercise those responsibilities.
And I pray that this might be the case at every level of our
government, that from the president to this commission, that there
might always be a concern for the least in society, and that their
needs might be met and might be placed in the forefront of every
decision.
Bless this gathering this day, that it might be conducted in a
peaceful and positive manner and that the decisions that are made
will be in the best interest of our community and of the lowest of our
Page 2
February 25, 2003
-- and the weakest of our citizens.
In Jesus' name we ask these blessings, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
REGULAR, SUMMARY AND CONSENT AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Welcome, All.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning.
Mr. Weigel, do you have any additions, corrections, deletions to
the agenda today?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you.
I have one, it's an addition -- it's not an addition of an item, but it is
some additional language to an item, and it is 16(K)9 appearing
under the county attorney consent agenda. And there is a provision
-- I have passed it out to you and provided it in the book in the
hallway -- where a phrase is being added to the resolution for the
board to approve.
And I would ask that the board approve the resolution as
revised. That phrase reads this way: Pay or reimburse the borrowers
for the payment of, or to refinance certain prior debt the proceeds of
which were used to pay costs of acquiring, constructing, renovation,
rehabilitating and equipping certain health care facilities.
This, I'll add parenthetically, does not change the amount of the
bond or the transaction which is involved, which does not involve, as
your executive summary indicates, any funding responsibilities or
obligations of the Board of County Commissioners. This is a
statutory approval process for the Collier County health facilities
Page 3
February 25, 2003
authority, a separate authority from this Board of County
Commissioners.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Thank you. Anything else?
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County manager, Jim Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Agenda changes for February 27th (sic), 2003.
The first item is to withdraw item 6(B), and that was a
public petition request from Thomas L. Baker, discuss code
enforcement as it relates to C-5 industrial in the J&C Industrial Park,
and that was at the petitioner's request.
The next item is to continue item 7(A) indefinitely, and
that's ADA-2002-AR-3433 (sic). That's Timothy W. Ferguson, P.A.,
representing Naples Seventh Day Adventists Church requesting an
administrative appeal to official -- to an official interpretation
concerning the commercial infill provision of the Collier County
Growth Management Plan in the future land use element. That was at
the petitioner's request.
The next item is item 9(C), and that is to add that item, and
it's consideration of a resolution supporting continuation of the state
housing trust fund, and that particular item was passed out to all the
commission members on Friday, and that's at Commissioner Fiala's
request.
The next item is to move item 16(A)6 to 10(H), and that's
the final acceptance of water utility facilities for Vista Gardens, and
that's at Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next item is to withdraw item 16(B)3, and that was
approve a change order for Better Roads, Inc., for median
modifications to Davis Boulevard in the amount of $16,740 for
Project 60016, and that was at the staffs request.
The next item is to move item 16(B)4 to item 10(F), and
Page 4
February 25, 2003
that's to approve funding in the amount of $116,951 for the design
and engineering, acquisition of permits, funding strategy, and
remaining half of project coordination to Wood (sic) Hold Group for
the Haldeman Creek Basin restoration project. That's a dredging
project, Mr. Chairman.
The next item is to move item 16(E)1 to 10(G), and that's
to approve the award of a bid, 03-3475, for temporary laborers for
Collier County Able Body Labor as a prime (sic) vendor and Tandem
Staffing and Manpower of Naples as secondary vendors, and that
item to be moved is at Commissioner Fiala's request.
And there's a couple of notes I'd like to go over as far as agenda
items today and time certain items that we have on the agenda.
Item 16(A)4, pages 45 and 46 were made a part of the
packet in error and basically are extraneous information, okay, what
questions do you want to ask an applicant. How they got there, I still
don't know, but we'll try to find out.
The next item is item 16(F)3. This is an undate of the
resolution that was item 10(B) of the 11 February board meeting,
okay, so it basically has some scrivener errors and whatnot, and that's
why it's in the agenda on the consent agenda at 16(F)3.
Items -- the next item is 16(D)1. The following should
have been included in the title, not to exceed $25,000 and is
appropriated within the EMS budget, and I'd like to add that to the
record for item 16(D) 1.
And the time certain items we have today, item 8(G), and
that has to do with our bond issues for gas tax for the capital program
for transportation and that will -- that item will be heard at 10 a.m.
this morning.
Items 8(A) and 8 -- or excuse me, 10(A) and 10(B) will be
heard at one p.m. this afternoon, and they are basically the water and
sewer master plan items, and they are basically the basis of the
impact fees and the user rate schedule that are at items 8(A), 8(B),
Page 5
February 25, 2003
8(C), and 8(D), and they will be heard right after 10(A) and 10(B),
and I've got those down consecutively starting at 1' 10.
And one addition to your schedule that came in late, item
13(A), which is the clerk's -- the Clerk of Court's discussion, time
certain for 1:30 p.m. this afternoon.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You'll keep us straight on those time
certains --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- today? Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta, do you have any additions, corrections,
deletions or ex parte communication on the summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no additions or
corrections, and all my ex parte is contained within this folder and
available for anyone that wishes to see it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have no ex parte communications
on the summary agenda or no additional changes.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: None.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'd like to bring forth 17(B)
to be continued. That's in regards to the closure of Coral Wood
Drive that intersects with Logan.
And as far as ex parte, yes, I have one, and that was with agenda
item 8(F). It's in regards to the PUD, 01-AR-1842.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: On 17(B) is there information that
you need for that or --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Page 6
February 25, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we need some additional
information before we think about closure of that road. I want to
make sure that there's not possible future access someplace else.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, if there is, I'd sure like to see
any possible access to it, but let's go ahead and continue that till the
next meeting or indefinitely.
MR. MUDD: Next meeting, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next meeting. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'll entertain a motion on
today's agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala to approve the meeting today
with those changes.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Page 7
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER~' MEETING.
February 25, 2003
Withdraw Item 6B: Public Petition request by Thomas L. Baker to discuss Code
Enforcement as i7~ relates to C5 Industrial in J&C Industrial Park. (Petitioner
request.)
Continue Item 7A Indefinitely: ADA-2002-AR-3455, Timothy W. Ferguson, P.A.,
representing Naples Seventh Day Adventists Church, requesting an
Administrative Appeal to official interpretation INTP-2002-AR-2910 concerning the
Commercial Infill Provision of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Future
Land Use Element. (Petitioner request.)
Add Item 9C: Consideration of a resolution supporting continuation of the State
Housing Trust Fund. (Commissioner Fiala.)
Move Item 16(A)6 to 10H: Final acceptance of water utility facilities for Vista
Gardens. (Commissioner Fiala request.)
Withdraw Item 16(B)3: Approve a Change Order with Better Roads, Inc., for
median modifications on Davis Boulevard in the amount of $16,740 from Project
60016. (Staff request.)
Move 16(B)4 to 10F;.. Approve funding in the amount of $116,951 for design and
engineering, acquisition of permits, funding strategy and remaining half of project
coordination to Woods Hold Group for the Haldeman Creek Basin Restoration
(A.K.A. Dredging) Project, Contract No. 01-3216, Project Number 51011.
(Commissioner Henning request.)
Move Item 16(E}1 to 10G'. Approve Award of Bid #03-3475 for temporary laborers
for Collier County to Able Body Labor as primary vendor, and Tandem Staffing
and Manpower of Naples as secondary vendors. (Commissioner Fiala request.)
Notes:
Item 16(A)4; Pages 45 and 46 were made a part of this packet in error and is
extraneous information.
Item 16(F)3: This is an update of the Resolution, Item 10B of the 2/11/03 agenda.
Item 16(D)1:. The following should have been included in the title: "Not to exceed
$25,000 and is appropriated within the EMS budget."
TIME CERTAIN ITEMS:
Item 8G: To be heard at 10:00 a.m.
Items 10A, 10B to be heard consecutively at 1:00 p.m.
Items 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D to be heard consecutively at 1:10 p.m.
February 25, 2003
Item #2B
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2003-
Motion to approve the 28th, '03, regular meeting?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
And motion carries, 5-0.
Item #2C
WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 29, 2003-
APPROVED AS PRF, SFNTED
Motion to carry -- entertain a motion to approve the January
29th, '03, BCC sign ordinance --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- workshop.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion made by Commissioner
Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 8
February 25, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
No service awards today.
Item ~4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZiNG HOLLAND T. SALLEY FOR
HIS STEADFAST COMMITMENT TO CHANGiNG AND
FNRICHING I JIVES THROI IGH F, DI JCATION-ADOPTED
We do have some proclamations. The first one will be read
by Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is a proclamation to
recognize Holland T. Salley for his steadfast commitment to
changing and enriching lives through education. Would Mr. Salley come forward, please.
Sir, if you'll just stand here and face the audience while I read
this proclamation.
MR. SALLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd also like to announce that Kim
Long, a member of the Edison Community College Foundation, is
present also.
Whereas, Holland T. Salley has dedicated 32 years of leadership
and service to Edison Community College, having faithfully served
on the Edison Community College District Board of Trustees for 19
years, from 1971 to 1990, and the Edison Community College
Foundation Board for 27 years, from 1975 to the present day; and,
Whereas, he has worked diligently and earnestly in articulating
the higher education needs of Collier County; and,
Page 9
February 25, 2003
Whereas, having chaired the fund raising drive for the Collier
County campus of Edison Community College at the time of its
construction, he was instrumental in establishing and continues to
advocate on behalf of the campus; and,
Whereas, his dedication to the establishment of a campus in
Collier County was recognized by having the campus auditorium
named in his honor; and,
Whereas, he has actively supported faculty excellence through
the Holland and Mary Jeanne Salley instructional chair for Collier
County since 1999; and,
Whereas, he has provided invaluable financial assistance and
academic support to Collier students through the Holland T. and
Mary Jeanne Salley scholarship; and,
Whereas, he has contributed generously to the college for the
past 24 years; and,
Whereas, he has provided leadership, vision, and financial
resources not only to Edison Community College, but to many
worthwhile organizations and courses -- causes in the Naples
Community; and,
Whereas, he has made exemplary contributions to other
educational endeavors in Collier County, being recognized by the
Florida Department of Education with the commissioner's business
recognition awards for outstanding support of education in 1992 and
1993, and his efforts with junior achievement for which he was
awarded the Junior Achievement Business Leadership Hall of Fame
Laureate in 1993.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the citizens of this
county, recognize Holland Salley's steadfast commitments to
changing and enriching lives through education and declare March
27th, 2003, as Holland T. Salley day.
Done and ordered this 25th day of February, 2003, Board of
Page 10
February 25, 2003
County Commissioners, Tom Henning, chairman.
I entertain a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Salley--
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I appreciate it. Thank you. Now,
you need to get a photo op. They're going to take a picture of you.
MR. SALLEY: Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen and ladies.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're welcome to say a few words
if you'd like, Mr. Salley. At the podium, at the mike. Thank you.
MR. SALLEY: I am overwhelmed. I can't imagine all of this
has happened in just a few years. I'm sorry we didn't get to do more,
but we look forward to Edison Community College as going great
guns in years ahead. And I and others, like Kim, will be carrying on.
We hope all of you will stand behind us.
Thank you very kindly. This is a great privilege.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's just a small facet of what Mr.
Salley has been involved in in the community for years and years,
and we appreciate your involvement in our great community of
Page 11
February 25, 2003
Collier County. Thank you.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING COMMUNITY AWARENESS
OF THE EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-
TO-KNOW ACT-ADOPTED
Next proclamation will be read by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, will the-- will the
members of the Collier County Emergency Management come
forward, please.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Ken Pineau.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Ken.
This is a proclamation.
Whereas, the safe use of hazardous material is essential to
business, industry and local governments to maintain economic
stability and to protect the citizens of the Ninth Planning District of
Florida; and,
Whereas, it is essential to plan and prepare for the accidental
release of hazardous materials and to protect the well being of all
citizens and visitors in the district; and,
Whereas, response teams, such as fire, police, and emergency
medical services must know the types of hazardous materials and
chemicals that are being used and stored in the event of an incident to
respond safely; and,
Whereas, all citizens have a right to know the types of
hazardous materials and chemicals in their communities and a right
to know the proper procedures to take in case of an accident or
emergency.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the Southwest
Page 12
February 25, 2003
Florida Regional Planning Council recognizes the importance of
community awareness of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act enacted by the United States of America and
hereby declares the week of February 23rd to March 1st, 2003, as
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Awareness
Week in Southwest Florida.
Done and ordered this 25th day of February, 2002 (sic). Motion
to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second. Motion by Commissioner
Fiala, second by yours truly.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion passes, 5-0. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Ken.
MR. PINEAU: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for
the recognition.
We in emergency management have been very involved in
hazardous materials for the last 15 years. This is a direct result of a
couple of incidents involving methyl isocyanate that occurred in
Bhopal, India, and Nitro, West Virginia, back in the late '70s, early
'80s.
Since that time we have approximately 60 facilities here in the
county that store extremely hazardous substances. These are
carcinogens and things that can kill very easily. And we go out on a
biannual basis and visit those. And I can assure you that all of our
public safety agencies treat these chemicals with the utmost respect.
In fact, we've had a pretty good track record over the years. In
Page 13
February 25, 2003
fact, very little instances that caused anything out of the ordinary.
The facility owners have done a tremendous job as well to make
sure that these are handled in a very safe and -- very safe
environment, so we're very fortunate here to have a plan, like all the
other counties in the State of Florida. And working with the public
safety agencies, we're keeping the county safe and we hope to
continue to do so.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 25, 2003 AS
CHITDRF, N'S DAY 1N COTJ,IER COl JNTY-ADOPTED
Next proclamation I'm going to read, and if I can ask Clay Cone
and anybody else with Collier County School Readiness Coalition.
Thanks for being here with us this morning.
Whereas, Collier County Readiness Coalition in conjunction
with the Florida Children's Forum and the state legislator (sic)
celebrating children's day during the month of February; and,
Whereas, research on brain development indicates that
stimulating and nurturing environments during children's first five
years -- which I get to find that out -- of life in the critical long-term
development and school readiness; and,
Whereas, the ability of Collier County's parents to work in a tied
(sic) inextricably to their ability to obtain and afford high quality
early education and child care programs; and,
Whereas, business and community benefits when children are
provided high quality early childhood programs; and,
Whereas, working families must be assured of the high quality
early children (sic) programs so that their children may be ready to
Page 14
February 25, 2003
begin school and to exceed in school; and,
Whereas, by calling attention to the needs for the quality early
education care programs for all young children and their families in
our community, we hope to improve the quality and availability of
such service; and,
Whereas, parents and children and teachers -- oh, and child care
workers to demonstrate their dedication to the need of children with
celebration throughout Collier County and the State of Florida; and,
Whereas, Collier School Readiness Coalition Incorporated,
Child Care of Southwest Florida, Incorporated, School Districts of
Collier County, Redland Christian Migrant Association,
Incorporated, Collier County Health Department, Department of
Children and Family Services, along with other agencies in
continuing the collaboration (sic) and their commitment to advancing
the needs of children and families through high quality
comprehensive education, and caring service.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed that (sic) the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Tuesday, February
25th, 2003, be designated as Children's Day in Collier County.
And we urge all citizens of Collier County to support the quality
early education and the care of the working families.
Done on this day, the 25th of February, 2002 (sic), signed by the
chairman.
All in -- I make a motion that we approve this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion made by Commission
Henning, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Page 15
February 25, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
beautiful.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
Thank you.
Did they do all this artwork? It's
Congratulations. Thank you very
much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Children, the artwork is beautiful.
It decorates our whole room. It looked pretty drab without your
artwork, I want to tell you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we have some of those
stickers, please.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They're five dollars each, right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Those are gifts.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We'll take a hundred and put it
on Commissioner Henning's bill. There we go. Pass it on down.
MR. CONE: Good morning, Commissioners. Clay Cone for the
record.
On behalf of the Collier School Readiness Coalition, we are
pleased to accept this proclamation designating today, February 25th,
as Children's Day in Collier County.
I could go on for many, many hours about this important issue,
but instead, we'll let the children make a presentation to you.
(The children sang the ABCs in unison.)
(Applause.)
MS. HOWARD: Boys and girls, do you think maybe the
audience would sing with you if you did it again? Should we try and
see if they know them? Let's do it again.
(The children and audience sang the ABCs in
Page 16
February 25, 2003
unison.)
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All set.
MS. HOWARD: Try one more.
THE CHILDREN: One little, two little, three little children,
four little, five little, six little children, seven little, eight little, nine
little children, 10 little children ready for school. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, thank you, Clay. It's a real
privilege to have this -- our furore with us today. Thank you very
much --
MR. CONE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- for taking your time. They're
laughing at you, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSION COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, this is going
to be a hard act for you to follow.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next proclamation --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait for the --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, we have a little gift.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, my goodness, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: When are they due back?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You have to figure out what
you're going to do with them today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We get to take care of them today?
Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very, very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You want another picture?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you so much. What a real
privilege today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You did a great job. You were
absolutely wonderful.
Page 17
February 25, 2003
THE CHILDREN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Bye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good. Next proclamation will be
read by Commissioner Halas.
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION ACKNOWLEDGING THE VOLUNTEERS OF
THE VETERAN'S TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM-ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HALAS: At this time I'd like to have
the volunteers of the people who drive the veterans back and forth to
their different doctor appointments in South Florida come forward. I
think this is a very -- a group of people that are very dedicated and
take care of our veterans and people that we should never forget.
If you'd all come forward, I'd greatly appreciate it so we --
MR. ELSON: Goodmoming.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning.
MR. ELSON: I just have a couple of representatives today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
Whereas, the Veterans' Transportation Program is a cooperative
effort between the Board of County Commissioners and Collier
County Veterans' Council; and,
Whereas, the goal of this program is to provide free
transportation for veterans to VA medical appointments throughout
South Florida;
Whereas, the transportation program employs one half-time
employee and utilizes the services of volunteer drivers and office
staff;
Whereas, in the fiscal year 2002 the program transported 699
veterans, our volunteer drivers clocked 2,280 hours and drove 77,405
Page 18
February 25, 2003
miles; and,
Whereas, our volunteers made 188 trips to the Bay Pines VA
Medical Center and 133 trips to Fort Myers VA Outpatient Clinic;
and,
Whereas, our volunteer drivers and office staff provided
transportation to over 95 percent of the veterans who requested our
assistance.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that we wish to
acknowledge and to thank the volunteers who have provided and
continue to provide an invaluable service to the veterans of our
community.
Done on the order of this day, the 25th day of February, 2003,
signed by Tom Henning, the Board of Collier County
Commissioners.
And I'd like at this time to make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'll second it. Motion by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Henning.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you, gentlemen, and lady.
Who gets this proclamation?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Jim does.
Page 19
February 25, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Don't go away. We're going to get a
picture, okay? Thanks for your time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You said something in Hungarian,
didn't you? I wish I could speak it though.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's all huddle in and get a picture.
Jim, if you'd like to say a few words, please feel free.
MR. ELSON: James Elson, president of the Veterans' Council.
It's my pleasure to accept this proclamation on behalf of the 24
individuals who have driven those 77,000 mile, starting early,
typically 5 o'clock in the morning, always there to take care of the
people, the other veterans that require assistance.
In this county, there's roughly 60,000 -- maybe more, a lot of
people aren't registered -- 60,000 veterans in this county that depend
on people such as our 24 drivers to help them out when needed, and
I'm really proud to work and serve with such a good group of people.
Commissioners all, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Last but not least is a proclamation
to be read by Commissioner Coletta.
Item #4E
PROCLAMATION ACKNOWLEDGING THE SOUTH FLORIDA
CHAPTER OF MI II,TIPlJE SCIJEROSIS-ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you, Chairman
Henning. It's an honor and a privilege to read this proclamation for
the MS Society.
Page 20
February 25, 2003
Before I begin, I'd like to call Karen Dresback, the president of
the South Florida chapter of MS, Dr. Sparks Lenny, who has been
very instrumental in organizing this walk, Bob Ladd and Jay
Horowitz of News Radio 1660, Pat Humphries, if she's here, from the
Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, one of the sponsors, and the
members from the Unity of Naples Church and the Edison
Community College Student Association, if you'd come forward and
face the audience, please.
Whereas, multiple sclerosis is one of the most common diseases
of the central nervous system affecting over 14,000 people in Florida,
4,000 people in South Florida, and 200 people in Collier County
alone; and,
Whereas, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society with its 1,500
staff and 800,000 volunteers nationwide since 198 -- 46 served as the
largest funder of MS research worldwide and serves as the primary
source of information and services to people with MS and their loved
ones; and,
Whereas, the South Florida chapter of the National Multiple
Sclerosis Society provides a wide variety of programs and services to
people with MS and their families in Collier County; and,
Whereas, these free services include support groups, Tai Chi
Aquatics, and physical therapy classes, women's and men's retreats,
kids cope (sic) camp, interactive web programs, teleconferencing,
information and referral, advocacy, lending library, peer counseling
and education; and,
Whereas, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has an active
chapter in Collier County since 1980 and has provided support group
service in Collier County since 1993; and,
Whereas, the MS Society has held an annual MS Walk in
Collier County since 1994 for the purpose of raising public
awareness of multiple sclerosis and to raise critical funds for local
programs and research.
Page 21
February 25, 2003
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that the work of the
National Multiple Sclerosis Society, South Florida chapter, be
acknowledged for its continued effort -- continued efforts to improve
the lives of Collier County residents and their loved ones who are
coping with multiple sclerosis. We encourage all residents of Collier
County to take part in the annual Naples/Collier MS Walk on
Sunday, March 9th, 2003.
Done and ordered this 25th day of February, 2003, Board of
Collier County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom
Henning, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion to accept.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I got a motion by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala to accept this proclamation.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(N o response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you'd stand right there for a
moment. We're going to get a photo op.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great.
Doctor, good to see you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I got to talk to you yesterday.
Page 22
February 25, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks, good to see you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you for coming.
MS. DRESBACK: Those kids are a hard act to follow. I wish I
had them to help me.
Thank you, members of the county commission, ladies and
gentlemen. I salute and I'm grateful to Chairman Tom Henning and
the commission for introducing this proclamation and for citing the
important work of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.
As president, I accept this proclamation on behalf of all those
with multiple sclerosis. You have truly honored them today.
Multiple sclerosis is a prime of life disease usually diagnosed
during the younger adult years of 20 to 40. People have no idea how
they'll be affected. It's just so unpredictable. Imagine losing your
eyesight, the use of your limbs, or cognitive function. Imagine
feeling fine one day and the next being unable to get out of bed.
Imagine being unable to take care of your family, losing your job,
your insurance, your identity. Imagine symptoms like these coming
and going, or even worse, remaining for 50 years. You have just
imagined the lives of those with MS.
The National MS Society has provided hope and help for people
with MS through our extensive and promising national/international
research programs and helped through local client programs here in
Collier County.
Commissioner Coletta, you have just mentioned that we are the
number one source of MS research funding in the world, and we are
also the number one source of MS information in the world, and we
cover a variety of topics, including MS drug therapies, handling
depression, managing fatigue, alternative treatments, and changing
family relations, just to name a few.
At an age where there is a plethora of information available via
the Internet, the National MS Society can be counted on to ensure
that accurate and quality information is provided to those who need it
Page 23
February 25, 2003
most.
Last year alone, over $32 million was invested to support more
than 300 research projects nationwide. Three quarters of a million of
these dollars came right here from South Florida.
And this investment has made possible significant
advancements towards finding treatments and improving diagnosis,
rehabilitation and symptomatic therapy for people with all forms of
MS, thus bringing us closer to a cure. Yet only 10 years ago, there
was not a single drug therapy available on the market.
Today, thanks to this investment and research, there are now
MS drug therapies available and several more in the advanced stages
of clinical research trials, which promises more effective treatment
and more choice in the very near future.
In these economically trying times threatened by a decrease in
the national institute of house funding of research, the National MS
Society bears an even greater responsibility to ensure the MS
research will continue to be funded.
It is through venues like the MS Walk, now in its 10th year here
in Collier County, that these critical dollars will be raised.
I'd like to acknowledge the MS Walk committee members,
Janice Bronstein, Nancy Morris, Lesley Abbott, Judy Medary
(phonetic), David Medary, Sarah and Pat Keller, Carol Medsen
(phonetic), and Gerald and Jan Stanford, who have worked tireously
(sic) to ensure that this walk will be the best one today, and Jay
Horowitz and Bob Ladd of News Radio 1660 who have helped
spread the word.
I hope they'll join us and Commissioners Jim Coletta and Diana
(sic) Fiala, our honoring co-chairs of the National MS Walk in
Collier County. That's Sunday, March 9th at Loudermilk Park at
eight a.m. Let us walk together for the cause and work together for a
cure.
Thank you, and God bless.
Page 24
February 25, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. DRESBACK: I'd just like to call upon Dr. Sparks Lenny to
say a few words.
DR. LENNY: Chairman Henning and members of the
commission, thank you so much for having us in here this morning,
where so much of the real business, the real life of Collier County
takes place.
The Golden Gate Area Civic Association, Estates Area Civic
Association, and I know everybody knows how much and how hard
they've worked over the years, they were the very first organization
in town that became a cyber partner for us, putting up a link where
people could directly register on line for the MS Walk. I want to
acknowledge them.
I'd like to bring up Bob Ladd and Jay Horowitz. We went to
them and asked News Radio 1660, would you help us get the word
out? You cannot mm on that station 24 hours a day and listen for an
hour and not be aware of the MS Walk. They have done an
incredible job. They're a big part of our community. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks for being here this morning.
We appreciate it.
DR. LENNY: This gentleman behind me is Reverend Albert
Wingate of the Unity of Naples Church, one of the organizations in
town that is doing a walk team this year. Albert, would you like to
say just a word or two?
MR. WINGATE: It's difficult for ministers to be brief, but I just
want to say thank you for all the support and for all the help and
courage you're bringing to those who are struggling with this disease.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
DR. LENNY: I just want to end up with one comment. There's
Page 25
February 25, 2003
another walk team -- couldn't have anybody here today -- and that's
Edison Community College. The student government association is
putting together a very big walk team, and as Commissioner Coletta
knows, because I forwarded him an email that I received -- I received
an email last night from a student. I had sent emails out to all my
current and former students saying, you know, check the Edison
Community College website. They have a beautiful link up on the
MS Walk.
I received an email late last night from a former student whose
fiancee has just been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. This
happens every day. This is also part of life in our community. But a
wonderful part of life in our community is all people who have come
together to really care and make a difference.
Thank you very much, and God bless you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION BY MR. MICHAEL T. HOYT, GULF
HARBOR MOORINGS, 1NC., TO DISCUSS A QUIT CLAIM
DEED REMOVING THE PUBLIC LANGUAGE FROM
PROPERTY DEED-DISCI ISSF, D
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is public petition.
The first one up here is a request by Michael Hoyt of Gulf
Harbor Moorings, Incorporated, to discuss a quit claim deed to
remove the public right-of-way language on the property deed.
I'm -- in this item, any -- possibility of a lobbyist representing?
we a registered lobbyist? Are we getting paid for this, Mr. Hoyt?
Are you employed by somebody for this?
MR. HOYT: No, sir. I'm the president of the Gulf Harbor
And
Are
Page 26
February 25, 2003
Moorings, Inc., Association.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. So it's a not-for-profit
organization?
MR. HOYT: Not-for-profit organization, correct.
As part of-- part of my start was exactly that. My name is
Michael Hoyt, for the record, and I am the president of the Gulf
Harbor Moorings, Inc. Bob DiModica is the vice-president. We are
both -- excuse me -- both homeowners in Gulf Harbor Moorings,
Inc., which is -- I'm sorry -- Gulf Harbor, which is a community in
North Naples off of Wiggins Pass Road and west of U.S. 41.
The association is made up of 24 families that are all
homeowners in this neighborhood.
The issue that we're here today to petition you with is, there's a
piece of property, that the sole purpose for this corporation to exist is
to own this piece of property and it has for the past 20 -- 23 years.
In 1963, this piece of property, which is a little difficult to see
on here, but -- here's a little better, 400 foot, approximately, by
20-foot long piece of property was deeded by the original developer
of this neighborhood to the county. And in 1980, this piece of
property was deeded from the county to our association.
The issue that we're here to talk about is that -- the resolution
that was included in our petition -- resolution 80-130 (sic) says in it
that, whereas, the real property sought to be conveyed to the
association will be used for the pleasure and recreation of the
members of the Gulf Harbor Association is not needed for the county
purposes other than for the easement and use restrictions contained in
the quit claim deed.
Well, the quit claim deed, in summary, contains an item that
says, in the event the association uses the property for anything other
than boat launching areas to provide public access to adjacent
navigable waters, the county shall have the right to re-enter and
possess this property.
Page 27
February 25, 2003
Now, what we'd like to do -- this is a platted boat basin, as
you've seen in the package that we've submitted to you -- is that we
would like to actually use this boat basin for its intended purposes for
the neighborhood non-waterfront homeowners.
And at this point, due to this item being in the deed, we feel like
this would require us to run a public park or a commercial marina.
And this is something that Bob DiModica has been working on for
the last year and a half, and maybe I can ask Bob to give you a little
bit of an update on what he's done on that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, I appreciate your presentation.
I'm not going to allow anybody to speak under this presentation
today. It's for the board to consider whether to bring it not -- MR. HOYT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- bring it back or not, so --
MR. HOYT: Okay. The last summary of it is is that we feel
like this -- within a mile of here is the public park of Cocohatchee,
which is a facility that's well used but obviously overburdened, and
we have an opportunity to take some of that pressure off that park by
allowing our homeowners to use a boat basin that's in our
neighborhood that's, right now, currently under used.
We would consider that -- we also include in our petition a quit
claim deed for your consideration, but we would like to ask the board
to tell us what the best tool is to be able to move forward and not
have to take on the burden of a public park or commercial marina.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And, again, this item, if the
board-- the majority of the board wishes, can bring it back for
further discussion. And I can tell you my feelings. I'm not willing to
give up public access to water or private roads. I feel that is in the
public domain. So I'll find out what the rest of my colleagues feel on
that-- this issue.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Page 28
February 25, 2003
I'll tell you the way I feel about it is, we're all the time going out
there and trying to buy land, trying to buy new access, and we pay
absolute fortunes for it. You know, this is in the public domain now,
it should remain the public domain unless, one, these people are
willing to prepare it in such a way that it would be used by the public
or, number two, they're willing to compensate us in dollars and cents
so that we could mitigate the use someplace else.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I'm hearing from you is -- you're
not willing to quit cl -- deed this over to the -- that community?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, not at all.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I generally like to
defer to the commissioner in whose district these things lie, and
because I believe they understand best what is necessary for the
district, although, I, too, am reluctant, particularly at the present point
in time, to make a decision to deed over property and eliminate
public access to waterfront. We are dealing with that issue on a
regular basis, and it's a tough one to deal with.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I feel there's such a shortage
right now of public access to launching areas that -- and as long as
the residents can continue to use it, this way the public would be
allowed to as well, so I would be hesitant to consider this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, as Commissioner Coyle
brought up, the fact that there -- being that this is my area, I've given
this considerable thought. And we're under much pressure at the
present time to re -- to try to retain the resources we have to get to
the gulf. And I feel that in the benefit of all the citizens of Collier
County, I can't give up this access because I feel that it's going to be
Page 29
February 25, 2003
needed in the very near future.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, I want to thank you for being
with us here today. We have considered about bringing it back, and I
see no support to bring it back. But again, thank you for bringing
this to our attention.
MR. HOYT: Appreciate your time.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION BY MS. MELANIE BEEBE TO DISCUSS
WAIVING VARIANCE FEES AT 245 22~D AVENUE NE-
DISCUSSED, TO BE BROUGHT BACK AT A FUTURE
MF.F. TING
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is a request by Ms. Beebe
to discuss a waiver of a variance of a fee at the address of 245 22nd
Avenue Northeast.
MR. BEEBE: I'm Tim Beebe.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
MR. BEEBE: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Are you speaking for your wife, sir?
Yes, I am.
Thank you.
MR. BEEBE: This is the first that I've heard of this. I've dealt
with Mr. Schneider and code enforcement for the past, I'd say, four
or five months so that we could get it to this point.
I don't know if you guys have maps of this property in your
possession. But we purchased this property over two years ago, and
we received something from code enforcement about a shed that --
and they told us that this house was about 14 feet too close to the
property line.
This was subdivided back in the early '90s. And at that point
when we bought the house, our title insurance -- we got a fence
permit, we got several other permits through this, and it was brought
Page 30
February 25, 2003
to our attention that now they want us to move our house 14 feet.
The cost of that is phenomenal, obviously. And why this has
been brought to their attention, we have no idea. And I'm requesting
that the variance fees be waived. They told me that they'd be
somewhere around $3,000, which we just -- we don't have that
money to put up for the variance fees to begin with, or why we
should have to move this house if it was approved when it was built
and when it was subdivided 10, 15 years ago.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, did you have a survey on your
property when it was --
MR. BEEBE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- done?
MR. BEEBE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did you talk to your surveyor when
this -- when you became aware of the setbacks?
MR. BEEBE: We talked to -- we talked to the title insurance
company, we talked to the mortgage company, we talked to the
surveyor. And when they gave us a clear survey of it, they said that
there was no problem, because they said if there would have been
anything, that it would have been listed in Collier County code and it
would have been something that came about before this house was
purchased.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm not sure if it's -- if it's up
to the taxpayers for the request of the variance, or if the title
company and this surveying company, what part did they share into
this responsibility?
MR. BEEBE: None, none.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They want -- they don't want to take
any responsibility?
MR. BEEBE: They said that the only thing that they do not
cover is if-- I don't know the exact terminology that they used. But
that's the only thing that they didn't cover is if the house was too
Page 31
February 25, 2003
close to the property line. So what title insurance is good for, I really
don't know at this point.
But the house sits at an angle. You can see, I think, it's 14 feet,
three inches off one comer and 11 feet, eight inches off the other
comer. It was a five-acre tract when they split it up. And we got
three acres of it and the adjacent property got two acres of it. And I
don't -- this is just a big surprise to us.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I would -- if I was in your shoes, sir,
I would ask your surveyor to be involved in this process or seek legal
counsel, because I think there is a responsibility on the people you
hired and paid in this process. I understand the hardship, but I can't
agree, myself, that the taxpayers should help you out in this situation.
But I'm only one voice. We'll wait and hear what the others say.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate the opportunity to
be able to talk.
I can understand the hardship too. You say the title insurance
doesn't give you any protection in this case? MR. BEEBE: Absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought that was --
MR. BEEBE: We didn't --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- the very reason-- I thought
that was the very reason you took out title insurance.
MR. BEEBE: That's what we thought, sir. And when we called
and we requested -- because Mr. Schneider was a big help in this.
And we worked hand in hand with him for a couple months before it
got to this point. And we exhausted every -- every avenue that there
was, and it's come back to, this is our last -- last mm.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And the problem is is
that the county doesn't play a direct role in this as far as the
negligence of what happened, or else I would be very sympathetic to
where you're coming from. I do believe the fee isn't 3,000. It's
Page 32
February 25, 2003
2,000? Two thousand dollars, Mr. Schmitt? Not that that's a small
sum of money.
MR. BEEBE: No, absolutely not.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, community
development and environmental services administrator. This would
be an after-the-fact variance, so it actually would be $4,050. It's a
$2,025 charge for an after-the-fact variance. Of course, if you're not
asking for the house to be moved, what they're going to be asking for
is a variance on the setback, I'm not sure of the particular
requirements or how much of a setback that they would be asking
for, but it would be an after-the-fact variance of $4,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt, if I may ask you a
question. I understand what the after-the-fact variance is all about.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it's to deal with people
that flagrantly avoided the law for one reason or another. But didn't
the variance violation come with the prior owner; is there any
consideration to be given for that?
MR. SCHMITT: The board certainly can, but from the Land
Development Code perspective, there's no legal definition or any
delineation in regards to the previous owner. It's the owner that
currently occupies the home that is served the notice of violation.
It's an unfortunate situation, and I certainly understand the -- at
least some of the background in this case. But in that regard, it's up
to the board to decide how they want to deal with this, but --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well.
MR. SCHMITT: -- it does require a variance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me just say that public petition is
to listen to the petitioner and decide whether to bring it back at a
future date.
So Commissioner Coletta, are you --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've just got one question, then
Page 33
February 25, 2003
I can make a -- I can make a -- I can make a decision one way or the
other.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt, have we had this
situation arise many times in the past where we've got some sort of
performance that we've been dealing with as far as a new owner
coming in, buying a property, and then trying to get the variance to
make it correct and finding out about the deficiency after the fact?
Has there been a standard pro forma that we draw on from this?
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There hasn't been? So in other
words, this hasn't occurred before quite like this?
MR. SCHMITT: Not that I -- it probably has, but in my
recollection, normally a variance -- after-the-fact variance, regardless
of the circumstances, an after-the-fact variance in the Land
Development Code is two times the fee of the variance process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'll be honest with you, I
hope I'm not standing alone on this, but I would ask for it to come
back, not to have the variance removed, but the after-the-fact
variance given consideration.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're talking about a fee here for the
after fact (sic) variance. Are you willing to bring it back to hear
consideration --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to have it come
back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would also.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ditto.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a question.
Page 34
February 25, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got a question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- majority, and we're going to bring
this back to hear it at a later date. So we can deal with those
questions at that time. Thank you.
Next item we have a time certain -- is 8 --
MR. SCHMITT: Can I just ask a question? Do you want it to
come back as part of the application request, or would you like to
deal with that as a separate issue prior to them applying for the
variance?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we hear it at the same
time.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
Item #8G
ORDINANCE 2003-09 AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF
REVENUE BONDS PAYABLE FROM VARIOUS GAS TAX
REVENUES OF THE COUNTY FOR THE PRINCIPAL PURPOSE
OF ACQUIRING AND CONSTRUCTING VARIOUS
TRANSPORTATION-RELATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS-
ADOPTFD
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item it 8(G). It's a time certain.
This is the adoption of the ordinance authorizing insurance of a
revenue bond payable--
MR. MUDD: Various gas tax revenues of the county for the
principal purpose of acquiring a construction, various
transportation-related capital improvements and refunding certain
outstanding indebtedness of the county; providing for various rights
and remedies of the bondholders providing that the bonds authorized
hereunder will not create a general debt or obligation of the county
Page 35
February 25, 2003
and providing an effective date.
Commissioner, we brought this before you last meeting as a --
as a -- the ability to advertise to get your direction, and now here's
the bond in front of the Board of County Commissioners, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I will second that motion. Is
there any discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, let me first close the public
hearing and ask for a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I make a motion to
approve. And I'd like to make a comment with that motion, that we
-- we just held a workshop that was open to the public to discuss this
issue in its entirety, and I see no reason to rediscuss it here. It's a
fairly simple, straightforward process, and I make a motion we
approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second that.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just one point of clarification.
Nothing in this bond issue is extending the gas tax. This is -- this is
just what the gas tax is with their present sunset dates on them, and
we're using that as collateral in order to receive this bond to the tune
of about $104 million; is that correct, Michael? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: This is an adoption of an ordinance -- for
the record, Michael Smykowski, budget director-- that espouses the
board's home rule powers to issue debt and secure it with these gas
taxes, and that is in keeping with past board practice. In 1980 when
you did the last (sic) transportation bond issue, you adopted a similar
ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. With no further discussion,
all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 36
February 25, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any dissenting votes?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does that put us back on the -- on
track?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And Commissioner, just as another item
of clarification, the board asked us to come back and talk to them
about extending gas taxes and what that would do with the next bond
issue, because you withheld one of the provisions based on that item
from the last board meeting.
We will come back to you on Friday, the first part of that
workshop, strategic workshop, and it's talking about long-range
funding, and I thought it'd fit right in. So we'll get that information
to you at that meeting Friday morning.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2003-10 AMENDING SECTION 126-83 OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,
ALSO CITED AS ORDINANCE NO. 92-60, CONCERNING THE
EXPANDED USE OF CATEGORY "B", TOURIST
DF, VF, I,OPMF, NT TAX REVFJNI ;F,S-ADOPTF, D
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The next item is 8(E), the
adoption of an ordinance amending the section of 126-83 of the
Collier County code and (sic) laws and ordinances citing that
ordinance number 92-60, as amended, concerning the expansion of
Page 37
February 25, 2003
the (sic) category B advertising and promotion of tourist tax
revenues, including the funding of convention centers, tourist
bureaus and tourist information centers as a -- Collier (sic) agency, as
recommended by Tourist Development Council. And that's -- any
questions on this item?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have any questions.
MR. WALLACE: For the record, Bleu Wallace, director of
community development operations. Jack Wert, the tourism director,
is out of town on county business, and so I'm here pitching this
today.
This is really straightforward. What we're doing is having our
current TDC enabling ordinance mirror the state statute to authorize
the expanded use of tourism tax to fund the newly-created
department. And this has been discussed with the county attorney
and also the Clerk of the Court, and they support this change.
The terms of the amendment, we're putting in the exact verbiage
that's in the state statute, so it will authorize the funding of the staff.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I move to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 38
February 25, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
MR. WALLACE:
Aye.
Any opposed?
Motion carries, 5-0.
Thank you.
Item #8F
ORDINANCE 2003-11, PETITION PUDZ-01-AR-1842, DWIGHT
NADEAU OF RWA, INC., REPRESENTING THOMAS G.
ECKERTY, TRUSTEE FOR THE 1-75 LAND TRUST,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL
AGRICULTURAL, RSF-4, RMF-6, RMS-12 AND C-4 TO PUD,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE
EAST GATEWAY PIID-ADOPTED WITH STIPIII~ATIONS
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is petition
PUDZ-01-AR-1842. Petitioner representative is Dwight Nadeau of
WRA (sic) representing Tom Eckerly (sic), Trustee, for the 1-75 land
trust.
Mr. Nadeau, if you're not aware, we are changing the order a
little bit, having the petitioner go first. MR. NADEAU: That's fine.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, you have to swear him in.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you all rise, and anybody
who would like to participate in this application, be sworn in by our
court reporter.
(The witnesses were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Ex parte communications on
this item?
Commissioner Coletta, did you speak to anybody on this item?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you come back to me in
Page 39
February 25, 2003
a second?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I have spoken with the
petitioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have no ex parte communication --
this item was -- we heard this item before, the Board of
Commissioners. No? Okay.
MR. NADEAU: No, Mr. Chairman, we have not.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I've spoken with
the petitioner and his representatives.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've spoken both with the --
walked the property and also spoke with the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I also spoke to the petition
on this one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Nadeau, you're on deck.
You have five minutes. Just kidding.
MR. NADEAU: Okay. For the record, my name is Dwight
Nadeau, planning manager for RWA, representing the petitioner on
this PUDZ-2001-AR- 1842.
With the board's indulgence, I'd like to have the executive
summary as well as the staff report entered into the petitioner's side
of the record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine. Yeah, it is. It is part of
the record.
MR. NADEAU: Thank you very much. Just wanted to make
sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Page 40
February 25, 2003
MR. NADEAU: What we have is a 37.39 acre piece of property
which is currently zoned C-4, RMF-12, RMF-6, RSF-4, and "A"
agriculture, an add mixture of both high-intensity commercial land
uses, high-intensity residential, as well as low-intensity residential on
the property in a, you know, hodgepodge mixture of zoning inside
the Activity Center #9 district boundaries.
That zoning that's in place right now would permit
approximately 95,000 square feet of retail commercial land uses, 95
multi-family residential units, and three single-family homes.
We've spent a great deal of time with staff, and probably one of
the most significant issues in the mind of the board probably would
be Davis Boulevard, given that Davis Boulevard was formerly under
a moratorium given it's exceeding its capacity. That moratorium was
lifted on February 5; however, the provisions of 3.15 that you just
recently adopted in ordinance 2003-1, the -- any impacts to deficient
roadways will not occur beyond the de minimis or one percent of that
road's capacity.
So in the lengthy negotiations -- I commend your transportation
planning staff, we worked long and hard on this -- we came up with a
one percent de minimis impact on Davis Boulevard, and that was
9,400 square. Well, subsequently, at the Planning Commission
meeting, Commissioner Richardson asked, well, if you're willing to
limit yourself to 9,400 square feet, are you willing to limit yourself to
nothing until the facility is improved.
And I responded, well, Commissioner, given the cost of
mobilization of all the resources and permitting just for 9,400 square
feet, we probably wouldn't go forward with that in any case. So I
agreed to that condition.
Based on that condition of 9,400 square feet, we were found to
be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. So going beyond that
and agreeing to no development until the facility is improved, we've
gone well beyond compliance with the plan, and I believe staff will
Page 41
February 25, 2003
support us on that.
We have some compatibility issues and interconnectivity issues
that need to be addressed, and I'll step to the presentation board and
explain those to you.
The existing Sattlebrook Village PUD lies to the west of this. It
has a permitted water management system that will provide the
conveyance for East Gateway; therefore, the Sattlebrook Village
PUD with its conservation area being in alignment with the proposed
conservation area in the East Gateway PUD, drainage will come from
East Gateway, through the preserve area in the Sattlebrook Village
PUD, and then to the Palm Springs subdivision to the west where
there is a conveyance swale. That conveyance swale will take the
waters from both East Gateway as well as Sattlebrook, underneath
1-75 to the Golden Gate Canal. So the project is per -- the
conveyance system for the project has already been permitted by the
water management district.
In relation to compatibility with the surrounding land uses, we
do have some fairly high-intensity affordability housing residential
units in the Sattlebrook Village PUD. The minimum preserve would
-- on this master plan is 160 feet, so there would be 160-foot
separation from the common boundary of Sattlebrook Village with
East Gateway PUD.
Down in the southern portion where the existing Phase I
property is -- excuse me -- we have imposed a 50-foot setback for the
commercial land uses away from the residential land uses, and we've
imposed a 35-foot height limitation on those commercial buildings,
which may be in this area along -- or abutting or adjoining Phase I of
Sattlebrook Village.
In addition to that, the subject property lies adjacent to, across
the street from Westport Commerce Center, which I believe was
recently acquired and is going to be the location of the infamous
Super Wal-Mart.
Page 42
February 25, 2003
Well, we will be in alignment with the access -- the approved
access to Westport Commerce Center. And this is a segment of your
access management plan that I imported onto the PUD master plan
that indicates the alignments both north and south, and it will be a
signalized intersection.
And transportation planning will probably correct me if I'm
wrong, but we're anticipating that the Super Wal-Mart, if it gets
constructed, will be the land use that would warrant the signal.
In addition to that, we have the existing 951 commerce center
PUD to the east of us. It has been platted, and we're going to provide
for a frontage road that will interconnect with Bedzel Circle within
that commerce center subdivision.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala has a question,
if you don't mind.
MR. NADEAU: Please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Before you leave that,
I wanted to note two things. Number one, how many units are
proposed or already built -- or at build-out, let's say that. How many
units at build-out will Sattlebrook have, and number two, could you
show me where they -- where their entrance and exit is compared to
what you have there for yours and Super Wal-Mart.
MR. NADEAU: The answer to your question is, the overall
density of Sattlebrook Village, there is 140 units that are already
constructed in Phase I. And the recent approval of the site
development plan for Sattlebrook Village, Phase II, was 298 units.
That being a total density on the property of 438 multi-family
residential units.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And where do they -- where do
they come out on this map?
MR. NADEAU: With the indulgence of our county
administrator, I will give you an exhibit that will show -- the water
management plan will work.
Page 43
February 25, 2003
What you'll be seeing is the conceptual water management plan
for the East Gateway project, and it will show you the orientation. If
you want to, you might zoom in a little bit directly down on
. Sattlebrook and the interface. There we go.
Now you can see the interaction between the two PUDs, and see
that there's a centrally located, I believe it's around, a six-acre
wetland preserve in Sattlebrook Village adjoining the East Gateway's
preserve to the east. That water from East Gateway will flow
through that conservation area and discharge into the conveyance
swale, as I stated earlier. It runs along the common easterly
boundary of Sattlebrook Village and will go up into the Golden Gate
Canal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But how is the traffic going to get
out of Sattlebrook? Where?
MR. NADEAU: Okay. Sattlebrook Village has no direct
access to Davis Boulevard. They're coming out on what-- it's called
Sattlebrook Circle, but it is -- we could say that it's within
right-of-way of Radio Road, but Sattlebrook Village has no direct
access to David Boulevard, so they come in-- and I don't--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's an access road, right?
MR. NADEAU: It's an access road.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Access road off of Radio.
MR. NADEAU: Yes. See, it looks like this. Slide it up a little
bit, Ray.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Up higher.
MR. NADEAU: There you go.
Okay. See, the interconnection between Radio and Davis has
now been closed, okay, and it's all been moved east -- excuse me --
west of the Circle K. Okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But they do eventually access --
they have the option of either Radio Road or David Boulevard; is that
correct?
Page 44
February 25, 2003
MR. NADEAU: Well, they would have to use Radio Road and
the signalized intersection to get onto Davis, yes, but they have no
direct access to Davis.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please continue.
MR. NADEAU: Yes. The PUD is required to have 9.34 acres
of retained native vegetation pursuant to the Land Development
Code, 5.7 of which is contained within the preserve boundary, as you
see it today.
As we go through our environmental permitting with the water
management district and the Army Corps of Engineers, we will have
a -- we'll have some type of mitigation. Even though the wetlands on
the property are extremely poor quality, the remaining 3.6 acres --
the remaining 3.64 acres could be located south of the existing
preserve in the setback area or it could be somewhere else depending
on the habitat values that we have defined during the water
management ERP review.
With -- there are some interim improvements that will be
coming through from your transportation planning staff, having met
with them. I've seen the plans. Apparently they have done an
analysis, and there will be additional capacity on the roadway. The
initiation of those construction -- of those -- the construction of those
interim improvements is anticipated to occur within the next three or
four months. This is what I'm learning from transportation planning
as well as transportation engineering.
Now, given that the Super Wal-Mart and that the parent
company that is leasing the land to the Super Wal-Mart has paid all
of their impact fees, it's very probable that the majority of the
capacity that may come out of the interim improvements would be
utilized by that parent company or the Super Wal-Mart.
My -- the petitioner fully recognizes that he will not be able to
move forward on the property until the facility is improved to some
extent. It can be incremental or it can be completely done with a $64
Page 45
February 25, 2003
million DOT project.
With that, we have been found to be in compliance about the
comprehensive plan. We've provided all the reasonable assurances in
the PUD for compatibility interconnectivity. It complies with the
provisions of the future land use elements business park as well as
the Land Development Code's requirements for
industrial/commercial development.
And by virtue that the PUD, upon being adopted, would become
a part of the Land Development Code, the proposed project will be
developed in full accordance with the requirements of Collier County
and the Land Development Code including the interchange -- the
interchange 9 activity center master plan, which was recently
adopted.
And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you
might have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioners? Oh.
Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Nadeau, tell me about how
you're going to buffer that area on the southwest comer of your
property from the residential. I understand you're going to have an
increased setback. But it would be helpful if we could make sure that
there would be no parking adjacent to the residential area and there
would be sufficient landscape buffering in that portion of the
development.
MR. NADEAU: Understood. Two rows of parking does --
parallel parking, 24-foot aisle width. That's 60. It eats 60 feet up;
however, we do have a 15-foot buffer requirement as pursuant to the
code. I can make a commitment to you that of the 50 percent --
excuse me -- of the 50-foot setback, there will be 25 feet of-- a
minimum of 25 feet of landscaping that would be associated in that
setback area, in addition to the limitation on the building height of 35
feet.
Page 46
February 25, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
he's talking about?
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
Can you show me where this is that
It's -- well, I can't-- yeah, there
you go.
MR. NADEAU: Commissioner Fiala, it's right here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But you would plan on
having parking along that property boundary?
MR. NADEAU: Commissioner, I don't have a site plan for the
property as of yet. I cannot anticipate this. But we have a pretty
close driveway coming into our westerly boundary, and we won't be
parking directly off of this spur road. It would have to be set back, so
there may not be room to put parking on this side. It would be a
constraint -- constrained site condition that could preclude parking
there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, your access onto
Davis Boulevard is directly opposite the proposed entrance to Super
Wal-Mart, right?
MR. NADEAU: That is accurate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Now, there's some concern
that there might be flooding of the residential areas. Can we gain
some assurance that the water management plan will foreclose any
opportunity for flooding in that area?
MR. NADEAU: Without a doubt. The permitting requirements
of the South Florida Water Management District mandate that you
cannot flood other people's properties, discharge onto other people's
properties, other than as permitted by the district, which is the case
with the Sattlebrook Village PUD; therefore, the property will be
bermed, and all of the water management would occur on the
property.
Another interesting point, too, I may bring up is that while they
don't have any definitive plans or don't know what to ask of us, I
have been approached by both Collier County transportation
Page 47
February 25, 2003
engineering and planning as well as DOT. They want to talk to us
about possibly putting some storm water management facility
improvements in.
Now, it wouldn't be associated with the interim improvements
that are coming forward, but potentially in the future when the more
extensive improvements are contemplated.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a couple of questions I'd
like to ask you.
Sattlebrook, what is it zoned as presently?
MR. NADEAU: It is PUD, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But what type of-- is it a RSF --
MF-6 (sic) with housing?
MR. NADEAU: No, it would be -- if it were under today's
conditions, it would be RMF-16 limited to 13 dwelling units per acre,
but it is--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. NADEAU: -- affordable housing PUD.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what concerns me is that we
already have affordable housing in that area. If we go ahead and
rezone this, then we have the possibility of losing that area for
affordable housing. And the other thing that concerns me is the
traffic impact not only just on Davis Boulevard but that whole
intersection. And I realize that there's some upgrades that are going
to be made, but I believe that the Wal-Mart has already got vested
traffic counts; is that correct?
MR. NADEAU: Yes. As I had stated, the parent company of
the -- that sold the property, or excuse me, leased property to the
Super Wal-Mart, has paid their impact fees up front, and they're first
in line to get capacity.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so what concerns me
Page 48
February 25, 2003
is the amount of traffic that's going to be in that particular area. As
we know right now, we have a lot of developments south of 951, and
I think it's going to be some time before there's going to be any real --
real comfort as far as traffic goes. I know that the county's got some
ideas there of working with the turn lanes, but I don't think that's
going to encompass the whole problem. I think there's another
problem whereby DOT has got to get involved too.
MR. NADEAU: Well, that's accurate -- that's accurate as well.
But, again, Commissioner Halas, we're not moving forward -- we're
not permitted to move forward until there's capacity on the roadway.
So if those other entities eat up all the capacity on Davis or Collier
Boulevard, this project may not move forward for a few years.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But still we get back to the
point that we still have the possibility of affordable housing in that
particular area.
MR. NADEAU: You mean in the Activity Center #9 by
approving this consistent land use, that putting an affordable housing
land use within an activity center?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, if we rezone this. But right
now it's zoned for RSF-4 and RMF-6 and 12 at the present time; is
that correct?
MR. NADEAU: Oh, yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, okay.
MR. NADEAU: The issue is that for anyone to be able to
develop on those properties, they would have to wait for the
roadway. What's unique about this rezoning is, if the PUD's
approved, it's going to provide the mechanism by which a developer,
my client, or a future developer to contribute or build pavement, put
in paint and pavement to add additional capacity to the roadway, or
they could write a check to the transportation department so that they
could expedite the design of further improvements.
So the add mixture of zoning there is inconsistent with the focus
Page 49
February 25, 2003
of the interchange master plan vision statement, which was adopted
by the board, and the Activity Center #9 zoning overly district, which
was adopted and put into the Land Development Code.
So are we foregoing affordable housing land uses by doing this
rezoning? I say no, because it wouldn't be consistent with the focus
of what the county wants in this area. And we've got nearly -- you
know, we have a lot of units right next door.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. Would
it be inappropriate to ask Norm Feder to step up so I could ask him a
question?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we wait -- I have some
questions for Mr. Nadeau.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll wait--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And if you can--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll wait--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- till that point in time that it's
appropriate to call Mr. Feder up. If you would be so kind as not to
close the public part of the hearing so possibly I might be able to get
a response back from the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll make a note of that.
Mr. Nadeau?
MR. NADEAU: Yes, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So this is in the part of the Activity
Center #9 which is a commercial overlay of depicting at what the
buildings -- what kind of landscaping is on this -- in the overlay? Or
is it just bordering it? Is it out of the --
MR. NADEAU: Oh, no, no.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: -- or what?
MR. NADEAU: Ray is putting up the Activity Center #9
boundaries, and the highlighted portion is the East Gateway PUD,
Page 50
February 25, 2003
proposed East Gateway property, and it is within the Activity Center
#9 and will be subject to all the requirements of division 2.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You answered that question.
Is the bold black lines within the Activity Center #9?
MR. NADEAU: Yes.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I heard yes.
The present zoning, one of them is RMF-16?
MR. NADEAU: There is some RMF-12, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: RMF-12. Is that affordable housing
or is that multi-family? Is that the definition, or what is it?
MR. NADEAU: Well, all RMF-12 is a zoning district, is that if
you can fit up to 12 dwelling units per acre on your property and
meet the designing standards of the RMF-12 district regulations, you
can build up to 12.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. NADEAU: It has nothing to do with the affordable
housing density bonus program which Sattlebrook Village went
through to get their additional density.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I see. Okay. Well, now I have that
straight in my mind.
No further questions from (sic) the petitioner?
Ray Bellows from community development.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'd just like to
add a few comments to Dwight's presentation, first off dealing with
traffic.
During the Planning Commission, it was discussed that -- the
impacts of the current zoning versus the proposed. Under the current
zoning, the developer can apply for site development planning
permits now and conceivably start impacting the roadway sooner.
Through the PUD process, we're going to limit the traffic to zero
percent until such time as the roadway's improved, accept -- to
Page 51
February 25, 2003
operate at acceptable standards.
So the Planning Commission determined the rezoning to PUD
was a benefit to the community because we could have better control
of traffic impacts.
The other issue dealt with landscaping because this project abuts
a residential project to the west, you'd have to provide a larger
landscape buffer with a wall treatment that separates
commercial/industrial with residential.
In addition, the EAC heard this petition and they recommended
denial. That's the reason this petition couldn't have been on the
summary agenda. The reason for denial for the lack of information
presented at the time.
It was explained to the EAC that because no site development
plan was prepared and that they are subject to the South Florida
Water Management District permitting, they weren't required to
provide any other additional information, and all the mitigation to be
worked out with the district.
That's all I have based on the information. Dwight covered
pretty much the consistency. The Growth Management Plan staff
has recommended approval based on the fact that it is consistent with
the traffic circulation element and with all the elements of the
comprehensive plan.
I'd be happy to answer any other questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala has some
questions for you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I have two main
concerns. Number one, the people next door in Sattlebrook, they
even have the opening there with the landscaping, and I don't know
how much landscaping would buffer. But to have commercial and
industrial right next door to my bedroom window is kind of tough. I
think that that greatly reduces the -- or greatly increases the noise in
that area.
Page 52
February 25, 2003
But secondly, and most importantly -- and I understand you're
saying you approve because you feel the traffic flow would be fine,
but I have trouble -- I have trouble understanding that with the Super
Wal-Mart coming in, with 438 units pouring out into that area, plus
now commercial and industrial on an already broken roadway and
you're going to fix it. How can you fix it to accommodate all that
traffic? I just -- I just have a lot of trouble understanding that.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, ifI may. The petitioner's agreed not to
build anything until the road --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, I know. But even when he
builds it, I mean, we're still going to have all this traffic generated.
How much can you fix it to accommodate all this traffic?
MR. BELLOWS: The other issue is if we didn't rezone it to
PUD, the existing zoning would remain, and that means residential
development. Residential development, if you look at how the trips
are derived, residential units are the source of where the trips start.
They are the generators of traffic. Commercial uses are generally
collectors or attractors of traffic.
People living in the residences that are trying to get to goods
and services they need are going to either pass by this point, go to the
commercial uses they're trying to get to, or they'll stop at this site that
has the commercial uses. So it's capturing a certain amount of traffic
that's passing by this road segment anyways.
So it's taken into those factors when the traffic impact studies
were presented to transportation. They look at the difference of
existing conditions of traffic, how it's generated, versus the proposed.
And in this case, the proposed has some capture of existing traffic
that's passing by there.
And they came up with a formula of limiting the traffic to one
percent of the impact, however, during the Planning Commission, as
Mr. Nadeau explained, he agreed to zero percent until the road was
improved.
Page 53
February 25, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. One more question then.
You mentioned, or he mentioned, to some extent the road will be
improved before they can -- they can start building. What is to some
extent?
MR. BELLOWS: I have transportation department here.
Maybe they can explain a little more. My understanding is they can't
have anything until the road is operating at acceptable levels of
service.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Operating at acceptable levels for
Super Wal-Mart and Sattlebrook and the traffic that's generated from
the surrounding radius areas?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator.
Commissioner, I have to answer your question in two parts. The
first one is that we do have a project to improve some of the access,
extend some mm lanes and make basically intersection
improvements at Davis and 951. That will be coming to you in about
a month for letting (sic), done in about three or four months, and it
will resolve our current deficiency out there and provide some
additional capacity.
I think the question that you're asking though, if I understood --
if I didn't, please make sure I do -- is, what about all the other
development out there; what's going to happen? First of all, that
interim project, as I said, will reserve current deficiencies, and that's
why it's in your plan and will be moving forward. It will provide
some additional capacity out there. We're nmning about 20,000 on
what can handle about 18, and that's why you had the planning
moratorium until we came through with this interim project.
With the interim project, we'll have capacity of about 28,000
vehicles because you're actually turning -- cutting off all of the
access across between those developments, particularly the gas
stations at the intersection. Dual lefts and other ability to receive in
Page 54
February 25, 2003
the intersection itself is a major controlling issue on this section
between Davis and -- on Davis between 951 and Radio.
The question though is, we've got a lot of other development in
the area that's been previously approved. You've got a vested
development, as we know that's already been mentioned, right across
from there. There's some very good features about what's being
proposed here. They're getting their access point directly across.
That will help in the future as they develop.
And the issue that they've agreed to is that they can't come
forward with any development until at least the interim project is
completed, and then, of course, in the future when they come with a
site plan, they can't come forward if there's not adequate public
facility; however, we have not gone as far as this board wants on that
issue, and that's why you're asking the question and why I'm not
giving you a real clear definitive answer. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. FEDER: And that is that we're doing a vesting review
right now to determine beyond what's out there on the roadways
today, what is already fully vest, and how do we apply that to the
system to go to the next generation of concurrency management.
Also right now, we're still with AUIR, so we determine
concurrency and capability once a year. You, last December, found
that consistency for the following year was there and that we have an
interim project so, therefore, there's adequate public facilities that
theoretically couldn't be addressed until the next update of the AUIR.
That's part of why we're doing a vested determination, to make
modifications of that to go to a more real time concurrency
management system. That's obviously the desire of this board. We're
very aware of that, so that's why we're doing the vesting review.
It's -- a long way of answering your question is, we, with the
interim project, will add some capacity out there. The question is the
timing of when the improvements come along, how they impact the
Page 55
February 25, 2003
roadway as to whether or not, let's say, this project and this timing
can move forward, but that's true of the other projects unless they're
vested. So we know there's some significant vested projects out
there, Wal-Mart and the like.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How many -- how many --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Excuse me, Mr. Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Excuse me. I'd like to ask a
question, if I could.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I'll let you ask the
question. But I want to make sure that Commissioner Fiala
understood what was just said by Mr. Feder.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did you get it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I kind of got it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I drew my own conclusion from
what you mentioned.
MR. FEDER: What I said to you is, the concurrent process
would say that because of the interim project, there will be adequate
public facility determination out there at capacity. They've agreed
that they won't move until that interim project is completed. At that
time, depending what else comes on, whether or not it would
consume that extra capacity, you might go into a degradate (sic)
situation, vested in the next AUIR next December.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But in other words, if it was
checkbook concurrency, it wouldn't -- it wouldn't meet the --
MR. FEDER: If it was checkbook, then, this minute, the vested
trips were assigned to the system when they're likely to come on line.
If there's any additional capacity to allow that until it's consumed,
and at that time, on a quarterly basis, monthly or whatever, at that
time, then you wouldn't allow further development. In our current
process, we only adjust that once a year, the AUIR.
Page 56
February 25, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas,
Commissioner Coletta, and then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Norm, at the present time, can you
give me an accurate count of how many PUDs or developments at
that area are vested?
MR. FEDER: No. We're in that process, as you requested us to
do, and we're due to deliver to you hopefully July or August, a very
good feel for that. We're working toward that right now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you tell me when you expect
Super Wal-Mart to start construction?
MR. FEDER: I can tell you that there's a lot of discussion with
them in our process, but I can't tell you exactly when. That's part of
what we're trying to do in this vesting is get each developer to give
us a feel.
Now, I can tell you on that one, I know that one's vested
because of the nature of the process. But I can't tell you exactly their
schedule of construction and the level of impact --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then how can we make a decision
on what we're going to do here as far as -- because we've got a lot of
things -- a lot of balls in the air here. One is, we've got the ability to
have affordable housing, we've got traffic issues out in that area, and
we've got all this vested traffic that's already been paid for.
Now, how do we go about coming to a conclusion here if we're
going to -- if we're going to supersede what we're going to do, and
that's concurrency?
MR. FEDER: What I will tell you is I appreciate the question.
By your current process, typically you look at general consistency at
PUD level until it comes in the site plan. At that time it's evaluated
as to whether or not there is adequate public facility to move
forward. And that's been the process. But I think what I'm hearing
and what we've been hearing from the board is, we need to get that
vesting analysis before we go.
Page 57
February 25, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Halas, if I may interject. Jim
Mudd, for the record, county manager.
One of the reasons DCA kicked back our checkbook
concurrency plan and said that you can't do the one year like we
wanted to and you wanted to do the three years because we didn't
have a good idea of the vesting requirements that were out there in
the county.
Yeah, things are vested, but you don't know when they're going
to come on line and when they're going to consume capacity on your
transportation network. And before DCA would entertain a year
window, okay, for checkbook concurrency, they said that we had to
come back with that timeline of when the vested properties were
going to come on line, and that's what Norman and his staff is trying
to ascertain right now from the community out there, that has those
particular PUDs and zonings.
Now, just to try to get the timeline down, and I need Norman to
come back to the podium one more time to answer -- to fill in this
blank that I have in my mind. Norman's going to come to the board,
okay, in March, and ask you to let (sic) a contract so he can do
intersection improvements to Davis and 951 by where those gas
stations are. He's going to extend those turn lanes because right now
in order to make a turn, you're consuming through traffic and things
are backing up there. Everybody's been there and everybody's been
tied up at that intersection at least one time in the last week. And so
-- I would have said the last year, but last week is probably about
right.
So that's going to happen, and that project will be finished based
on Norman's three months or so by mid July sometime. Norman will
-- has a six-month period of time which started in January, or
thereabouts, to figure out the vesting process, and he plans to bring
that back to the board in July and August.
Page 58
February 25, 2003
In the fall we plan to bring back that one year concurrency,
okay, as far -- to the board and get that checkbook thing finally done
and sent up to DCA so we can bring the one year back again. That's
the Phase II. So we're going to do that.
Mr. Nadeau -- I hope I got -- pronounced it right -- Dwight can't
come back to the board and consume traffic until he comes forward
with his SDP plan, okay, which he had said to the board just a second
ago, they don't have yet.
So he has to come forward with that SDP, and that's when
they're paying impact fees, that's when they'd be consuming traffic,
and I really believe that that SDP isn't going to be ready before we're
into the one-year process and Norman will know exactly when Super
Wal-Mart plans to come on line and consume that traffic on the
existing roadway.
And chances are, Mr. Nadeau, or his client, won't be able to
develop that construction process until the four-lane or six-lane of
that project -- which is scheduled for--
MR. FEDER: Right now, 2007. They have the right-of-way.
We do not have the construction program in five years.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta has some
burning desire to ask some questions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, first off, we're only as
good as the information we receive and what's before us. And when
you read our executive summary, based on current peak season, peak
hour conditions, three or four primary roadway segments to be
impacted by the proposed rezone are deficient under adopted levels
of service standards. The addition of a new site generating trips will
further aggravate poor operating conditions as noted in the staff
report.
Given the current growth trend that takes into consideration both
general background growth and other approved developments, the
proposed intensification of the subject property is both significant
Page 59
February 25, 2003
and adverse under the provisions of the transportation element
Growth Management Plan.
Objective 5 of the transportation element states that the BCC
shall not approval any such requests for rezoning that significantly
impacts a roadway segment that is already operating or projected to
operate within one year at an acceptable level of service unless
specific mitigated stipulations are approved.
Now, have all these specific mitigation stipulations come into
place? Are we there at the point where I presume this needed facility
can be okayed, even though there's conditions placed to it? I'm kind
of questioning why we're okaying something so early on when we
don't even have the road capacity to be able to handle it.
MR. FEDER: Yeah. And we're back to the issue of the Planned
Unit Development versus a site plan where we have the analysis of
traffic, and at that time determining concurrency and adequate public
facilities certification.
At the PUD level, you are not necessarily looking at, under
current process, your total capacity out there; however, point being
taken and very well taken, is you've got major vested projects, you
not only have a Super Wal-Mart, the out parcels, you have DRIs in
the area.
The interim project and what has been committed to by the
developers, they won't move until there's adequate public facilities.
Well, that's your case anyway. The interim project will provide some
excess capacity, but they come on line. I think Jim's review with you
is they might not. They could possibly come on line if there's
available capacity and they move forward under the current process,
even though we have other vested trips.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me get the short of it. So
what you're saying, yes or no, specific mitigation stipulations have
been met?
MR. FEDER: The interim project we already have programmed
Page 60
February 25, 2003
is meeting the problems in that area, as I identified for you. It will
resolve the current deficiency and give us some additional capacity
for some period of time until other development and pressures, this
or others, come on line.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And with the chair's
permission, I'd like to ask Mr. Bellows a question. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Bellows, Sattlebrook, is
that an affordable housing project that's coming in; is that already
vested?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, it's approved and it's about 12 to 13
units per acre. Mr. Nadeau was correct on the number of units. It
was -- I have the number here, 438 units. And it's outside the activity
center. A portion of it is developed. I have a-- an aerial photo, but
it's not the best quality, but I think you can -- MR. NADEAU: I've got one, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: The aerial shows the existing development on
the southern portion. When we were looking at this site in regards to
this proposal, staff analyzed the existing conditions and what could
be done today. Under current zoning, he has C-4. He can start
building zoning -- or buildings right now without going through the
public hearing process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Affordable housing or housing,
correct?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. In the back is residential, RMF-12,
which would allow for affordable and market rate housing. Because
this is in the industrial activity center, the land values are artificially
raised even before the zoning because of its potential for commercial
zoning by being located in the industrial activity center.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we'll be coming --
MR. BELLOWS: So it makes it more difficult --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- a partner in the --
Page 61
February 25, 2003
MR. BELLOWS: -- to do affordable housing because the land
costs are increasing just because it is in the industrial activity center.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And so if land value has
increased, we should change the zoning to match what it is? Is that
what the answer is?
MR. BELLOWS: No, I didn't -- what I'm saying is, it makes it
more difficult to build under the existing zoning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Under the existing zoning. But
meanwhile, Sattlebrook's going to go in right next to this, and they
managed to be able to do it for that one.
We lay these things out for what we want to do, we usually
don't pick the most conducive areas for affordable housing. At least
that's been my observation. Very rarely do we see them along the
coast or inland waterways. In fact, I can't recall any instance where I
have ever seen them there.
And I'm a little bit concemed now. We have something that we
have designated for housing, for density housing, in an area that it
won't be impacting any other type of housing, and all of a sudden
now we have it competing with an industrial use, and the industrial
use is going to win out.
And my other concem is the fact that now we're going to be
turning this into an industrial area which means doing it to a
neighborhood that's going to be affordable housing, Sattlebrook.
Sattlebrook -- would we have done that if Sattlebrook would have an
upscale housing where -- a number of units in there, maybe a less
density? Would this particular use been (sic) considered conducive if
it wasn't affordable housing next door?
MR. BELLOWS: Staff looks at it as residential, not whether it's
affordable or not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: It's residential --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sure they do.
Page 62
February 25, 2003
MR. BELLOWS: -- in our eyes, and that's why the codes are
designed to protect the residential with increased landscape
buffering. Staff has also worked with the applicant to -- for the PUD
process, increasing the development standard to protect the
residential, such as limiting building heights, increasing setbacks that
are greater than what's normally required under the existing C-4
zoning in that area.
Through the PUD process, we can also require this large buffer
area along -- separating the two, which is also a benefit to
Sattlebrook Village that they wouldn't get under the existing zoning.
The other idea that staff is looking at when we look at zoning is,
what -- do the existing land uses impact the use now? We have a
Super Wal-Mart here, we have existing industrial/commercial uses
here, we have 1-75 here, and some wetland preserve areas to deal
with here. It makes it difficult to put in a quality development trying
to meet all those site constraints. Because it isn't in an activity
center, this is where the county encourages this type of development
also.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Bellows, I want to
apologize if I implied in any way I didn't think staff was sensitive to
the needs of housing. They are very sensitive. And the question
might have been a little bit loaded, and after I reviewed it in my
mind, I didn't want it to imply the fact that I didn't think we weren't
(sic) being sensitive to affordable housing. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm going to ask some
questions of the petitioner.
Is your client -- since there is an issue arising about affordable
housing, is your client willing to rezone it to affordable housing? I
mean, it's zoned multi-family now and commercial. It's not
affordable housing. Is there any desire to change it to affordable
housing?
MR. NADEAU: I don't believe that there would be any interest
Page 63
February 25, 2003
in the trust doing affordable housing because the trust owns
Sattlebrook Village.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. NADEAU: Okay? So that property was originally
rezoned by John Jassey, and then I rezoned it myself. I followed the
site development plan process for Phase I. I represented Creative
Choice that is now doing Sattlebrook Village, Phase II, the Activity
Center #9 --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So there's no interest in changing it
to affordable housing?
MR. NADEAU: Not at this late a date.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
MR. NADEAU: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Okay. You answered my question.
And I think what we need to do here,
since this is an Activity Center #9, is how do we protect the
residents, the existing residents, in Sattlebrook, and that is through
the landscape buffer which nobody is bringing up.
The second thing is, let's not get tied to concurrency here.
Concurrency, again, which we're stuck on, is through the Site
Development Plan. It's the best process to do it, because when you all
are ready to come forward, that capacity might not be there, and what
we -- I'm afraid what we're doing here is trying to give some type of
vesting to the petitioner by putting on conditions. I don't want to put
conditions on it. I want staff, our staff, to determine that.
So why don't we find out how we can protect the residents next
door.
MR. NADEAU: If I may, in response to that, Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
MR. NADEAU: -- is that we have already identified that we're
going to provide, of that 50 feet, the 25-foot landscape buffer. And
I'll even go beyond that. I'll go beyond that and say it would be a
25-foot buffer following the requirements of the type D of the Land
Page 64
February 25, 2003
Development Code.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That's the heaviest buffer.
MR. NADEAU: Which is the most intense buffer that is
possible.
MR. BELLOWS: A wall.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I've been struggling
trying to find what the advantage is for the community and the
county to approve this rezoning. In fact, one of the first questions I
asked Mr. Nadeau when we discussed it is, why in the world are you
proposing this development in an area that is already under a
moratorium?
After considerable analysis, I have come to a couple of
conclusions. Number one, a portion of the property is zoned C-4
right now. And the petitioner could begin developing that right now.
We have no control over it right now. The rest of it is zoned
single-family and multi-family, would permit about a hundred
additional homes there.
And what I would like to remind the commissioners of is that
homes, homes generate traffic. Commercial does not generate
traffic. So if you're looking for ways to reduce the traffic impact,
what you'd want to do is get awa -- get rid of the homes.
Commercial attracts traffic. It doesn't place more cars on the road.
The same people that come and shop at Super Wal-Mart will likely
go across the street and shop at that place too. So commercial does
not put additional cars on the road.
So the question is, do we want to take action which will permit
us to gain control over this as a PUD, or do we want to just let it go
along as it currently is with C-4 commercial zoned directly adjacent
to residential?
And if you proceed with the existing zoning, you're going to
have C-4 adjacent to residential on the west as well as on the north. I
Page 65
February 25, 2003
submit to you that I don't think that's an appropriate kind of
relationship.
And if we -- if we approve this as a PUD, we do a couple of
things. Number one, we reduce the building of additional homes
which generates traffic in a very, very congested area, and number
two, we get a PUD that lets us specify what we're going to permit
them to do that there. We can determine what kind of uses are put in
that particular area through a PUD. We can't do it under its existing
zoning. So we have no control over what happens. We would be
doing the residents a favor, I think, by doing this.
The other thing is that there is no concurrency issue here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely no concurrency issue
whatsoever. This is not a development order. This is not an
authorization for people to do a single thing. They can't pour a yard
of concrete, you can't clear the property, you can't do anything with it
merely because we rezone it to a zoning that gives us greater control
and is more compatible with the neighborhood.
So I would urge the commissioners to set aside concerns over
concurrency because there is not going to be any construction here,
end of story. It just won't be here, and that's a condition of approval
until there is adequate capacity under our concurrency guidelines to
permit that to happen.
So my only real concern is to make sure that the people in
Sattlebrook Village are not adversely impacted by this. And I think
that whenever the time comes for us to decide upon the uses for this
particular property in a PUD, that we have to consult very closely
with those adjacent residents and make sure we have uses in that
PUD that are compatible with the neighborhood, and that's the
advantage of the PUD. We can control what goes on there with the
PUD. We cannot control it under its existing zoning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Page 66
February 25, 2003
I know Commissioner Halas has some questions, but our court
reporter's been going on since nine o'clock. And without any
objections, I would like to grant 10 minutes' break. Great. Take 10.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take your seats, please.
Thank you.
Okay. Where we left off is questions from -- that we have staff
and the petitioner up here, so is there any further questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Commissioner Halas had
some questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas had some
questions?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned in regards to, if we
decide to rezone this, we can get -- be able to work with you in
regards to making sure that we've got enough right-of-way and
everything else to expand in that particular area of the roadway to
meet the capacity, the future capacity in that particular area.
I'm quite concerned about the development that's taking place
all along the 951 and Davis Boulevard area. And one of the things
that we have to address -- and I think you see that. That's pretty clear
that it's on a-- foremost on everybody's mind here, is to make sure
that we've got adequate access or adequate road service in that
particular area, because that's going to be a very high demand with
all the expansion going down 951 southbound and also what's
coming off of the expressway in that general area, so we need to have
a buy-in by you to help us making sure that we've got the adequate
right-of-way for expansion of those roads out in that area.
MR. NADEAU: And that reasonable assurance has been
provided for in the PUD document, Commissioner Halas. I won't
read it to you because it's fairly long.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. NADEAU: And it's item 5.5.P on Page V5 or 55 of the
Page 67
February 25, 2003
PUD document, and I'll just kind of paraphrase it. The Davis
Boulevard environmental study prepared by DOT identified
additional right-of-way for the six-laning improvement between
Radio and Collier.
It would be obtained from lands to the south of the existing
Davis Boulevard right-of-way. Should DOT find additional
right-of-way necessary beyond the proposed right-of-way needs,
reservation of a right-of-way for dedication for improvements to
Davis Boulevard must be identified on either the preliminary
subdivision plat or Site Development Plan, whichever occurs first.
The right-of-way will be dedicated as fee simple allowing the
recording of plat or prior to first CO or within 90 days of the request
of the county.
Any compensation for the right-of-way will be consistent with
the requirements of the LDC. No buffers, easements or other
facilities may be designated within the Davis Boulevard future
rights-of-way. So that has been already accommodated in the
document, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Question. If we approve this, can
you live with the stipulations that the lesser intensive use would be
on the side of Sattlebrook and the more intensive use would be on the
side of the easterly property, which is presently zoned commercial?
MR. NADEAU: I would have really no objection to that at all,
Mr. Chairman. The issue would be what the -- how you would scale
the intensity of the land uses, because the intensity of the land uses
that are permitted in the PUD are those that are permitted in the C-4
zoning designation, which exists on a portion of the property.
So is a gas station more intensive than a barber shop? Probably
so. That gas station, if it were going to be located in the East
Gateway property, would probably be located on the frontage of
Davis Boulevard south of the frontage road that will interconnect
Page 68
February 25, 2003
with Bedzel Circle.
So if a gas station was going to go into this -- into this property,
they're probably going to be wanting to be located right on Davis
Boulevard for that access. So given the closeness of the access road
here and our 50-foot buffer, there's probably no opportunity to put a
high-intensity use requiring greater visibility. And I think, really, that
would be the highest intensity use that would be permitted in here.
So I would have no objection to that condition, that -- can we just
pick on a gas station or--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That isn't what I'm asking. What
you just explained makes a lot of sense to me. MR. NADEAU: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And what I'm looking for is the --
how we can protect the quality of life of the existing residents, and
you just explained what we need to do. I need to feel confident that
50 -- or a landscape buffer D is a most high intense buffer in the
Land Development Code.
MR. BELLOWS: It is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Commissioner Coyle.
MR. BELLOWS: And there will be a wall within that buffer.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a procedural question. It
relates to the question I previously proposed to staff about, if FDOT
finds that additional right-of-way is necessary beyond the proposed
right-of-way, we're specifying that the reservation of the right-of-way
be identified in either the preliminary subdivision plat or the Site
Development Plan.
Now, let's presume that FDOT has not made a decision about
the additional right-of-way until after the preliminary subdivision
plat or the Site Development Plan is prepared. How do we deal with
reserving that right-of-way? It's purely a procedural issue.
Page 69
February 25, 2003
MR. BELLOWS: I'll let--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator. Commissioner, we tried to work with the final plat.
Florida DOT has developed a project development environmental
(sic). They pretty much know generally the right-of-way. The
bigger issue and the one we want to make sure is considered in the
PUD as well is the opportunity for retention, both possibly a little bit
on the interim project, but more particularly as the state's widening
project comes through.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So are we in a position fairly
quickly to tell the petitioner how much land they have to reserve for
right-of-way?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. FEDER: In general terms, we can now with the project
development environment study.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I, too, am very
concerned with the neighbors, as I started our to ask initially, what
can we do to protect them. One of the things I wanted to know when
we're talking about the landscape D buffer is, down in the portion
where it stops, but that's where the traffic comes in and where the
parking is going to be considered. Why don't we have that
landscaping buffer going all the way down to David Boulevard to
protect all of the homes that are in that area?
MR. NADEAU: Why don't we do that, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we should.
MR. NADEAU: Why don't we go ahead and have a type D
buffer, 25 feet in width, extend to the southern property boundary of
East Gateway PUD along its westerly boundary?
Page 70
February 25, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So in other words, the line
that I see there will extend all the way down to the end, right? Okay.
MR. NADEAU: Within the 50-foot setback area, there will be a
25-foot type D landscape buffer that will extend to the property
boundary of-- the southerly property boundary of East Gateway
associated with the west boundary.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Second question is, one of
the other commissioners asked about the parking, and I wasn't even
thinking about that, but I wanted to make sure that what you're going
to do is steer that away, as one of the other commissioners requested,
so that we can, again, provide somewhat of a noise barrier for these
people.
And lastly, although I had talked with you privately, I will,
again, mention on the record -- because you have assured me there
weren't going to be any pawn shops or homeless shelters or anything
like that in this area next to these people's homes, nor alcohol
treatment centers or anything like that so that we can protect these
people to some degree.
MR. NADEAU: The -- none of those land uses are permitted in
the East Gateway PUD, and a few of them are specifically excluded
in the PUD.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good for you, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wanted to comment on a
couple of things. One, the affordable housing issue, I didn't realize
that Sattlebrook was originally part of this whole plan of things and
that your developer was also involved in that. To that I give you a
compliment and I'm sorry if I came down hard on the other end. So
that removes my objection to the affordable housing issue, the fact
that there is an involvement there for the other part.
Page 71
February 25, 2003
The traffic. I believe what staff's telling me. I believe that
we're talking about just giving or selling the reverse -- or the reserves
that are going to be coming sometime in the distance future. This
gives them an ability to be able to come in when everything else is
met, when everyone that's been grandfathered in that's been
recognized before uses up their capacity, what's ever (sic) left then
could be used for this project. That's my understanding. I put it in
the simplest of terms.
Only at that point in time in the future, when there is that
capacity would these people be able to come for their final PUD and
move forward with the final -- putting it all together, what's going to
be there.
Also, too, the landscape buffer. I -- my compliments to you,
Commissioner Fiala, for thinking of that final little touch that would
protect the integrity of the existing neighborhood.
All in all, I think this project meets the requirements of what we
need, and I'd like to make a motion -- well, I'm sorry. You've got to
close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'm not sure if Commissioner
Halas has anything else.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. I'm all through.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Nobody else? I close the
public hearing.
Commissioner Coletta, you had something?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I would like to make a
motion for approval with all the stipulations that we have previously
mentioned and that staff has brought up, and if you would like to
outline them again, and, of course, to include Commissioner Fiala's
increase of the landscape buffer.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have -- the petitioner has agreed to
provide a 25-foot type D landscape buffer along the west side of the
PUD stretching from the existing preserve area shown on the master
Page 72
February 25, 2003
plan down to the southern property line. They're also agreeing to
provide the lesser intense use such as eliminating gas stations from
the west side of the PUD in the commercial areas.
Staff is also recommending that the petitioner provide in writing
in the PUD document the minimum width of this buffer along the
west side. That's just another guarantee that the -- what we see on
the master plan is what the residents will get when the tract is
developed.
And those were the three stipulations that I have.
MR. MUDD: What about the Planning Commission; what did
they have?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The Plan-- I have a problem with
the--
MR. BELLOWS: That's already been included--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Planning Commission's --
MR. BELLOWS: -- in the PUD document. The Planning
Commission limitation of zero square footage of construction until
the road's improved.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The --just a clarification. If
there is a gas station, it will be on the east side of their access point?
MR. BELLOWS: East side of the PUD.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the parking?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ask your question, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. And also that
you'll try and move the parking to the east side of the property rather
than closer to the affordable housing village there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Thank you. All right.
There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Coyle.
Page 73
February 25, 2003
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
MR. NADEAU:
Opposed?
Motion carries, 5-0.
Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2003-92 APPOINTING LINDA HARTMAN TO
THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES LAND TRUST COMMITTEE-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD:
CHAIRMAN
MR. MUDD:
CHAIRMAN
MR. MUDD:
Mr. Chairman, the next item is 9(A).
HENNING: 9(A)?
Yes, sir.
HENNING: Which is --
Appointment of member to the Golden Gate
Estates Land Trust Committee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. If I may, I'd like to
nominate Linda Hartman for that, make a motion we accept --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- the recommendation of the
committee.
Page 74
February 25, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Henning.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Item #9B
DISCUSSION REGARDING RUSH HOUR DUMP-TRUCK
TRAFFIC ON OIL WELL AND IMMOKALEE ROADS-STAFF
DIRECTED TO CONTINUE MEET1NG WITH DIFFERENT
ORGANIZATIONS REGARDING THIS MATTER AND BRING
RF. PORT BACK
Next item is item 9(B), discussion regarding the rush hour dump
truck traffic on Oil Well Road and Immokalee Roads.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. I do
appreciate it.
As you know, and I'm sure you're aware that there's been
considerable concern within the county about the greatly increased
traffic, and not to mention the truck traffic which has added to it.
And what I'm basically proposing is that we direct staff to bring
this back to us with several options, but I'd like to bring up some
different thoughts.
We -- there's been meetings taking place between pit operators
Page 75
February 25, 2003
and the sheriffs department that -- I've met with them several times
myself to discuss the many types of problems and to see what kind of
solutions could be brought forward.
Realizing that this is something that's best in the sunshine where
we involve the general public, especially the civic leaders of the area,
I suggested that we put together a task force that would comprise of
the pit owners, it would comprise of the sheriffs department, the
civic leaders of the area to come together and discuss the problems
and come back to us with some suggestions or recommendations.
We've received-- many complaints have been received
considering such things as Jake brakes, which are used to slow trucks
down when they gain sufficient speed. Not always necessary to use
if you keep your speed a little more moderate, and they're very
intrusive in residential neighborhoods. A lot of complaints in the
Orange Tree Waterway area about that, the trucks occupying the left
lane of four-lane highways and -- with one truck on the right, one
truck on the left, and slowing traffic down, and consideration be
given to an act -- an ordinance or taking our ordinance that now
exists and bringing it around so that we limit this practice to only
passing for trucks as far as the left lane goes.
The speeding. Of course, there's always an issue the sheriffs
department would be prepared to be dealing with over a period of
time, and possibly through an educational program to the truckers
themselves.
The start times and the ending times are very controversial.
There's something to be said with earlier starts or with later starts,
and that's something that needs more finer definition of what the
advantages and disadvantages might be, and we might want to
consider on a case by case basis to try to meet the needs.
We have to be, at all times, aware of the fact that the truckers
themselves are in a highly competitive business, and of-- very often
the last load or the last two loads are where they make their profits
Page 76
February 25, 2003
for the day, that a relatively small number of the truckers are the
chronic violators that have been making it very difficult for the rest
of the industry.
They're also able to avoid string operations that the sheriff has
tried to do numerous times by the simple fact that they use the cell
phones at their disposal and CB radios to send warnings back when
one's in place. So very often you only net one or two violators and
that's the end of it after much of the sheriffs resources and times are
spent on it.
They fill a very important need for the community with what
they have to offer, and that's the fill dirt. I've got to remind this
commission and the public in general that not only is that fill dirt
used for the -- to build your homes -- it takes X number of loads to
do it. It's quite a bit. But also, too, our aggressive road program is
very dependent upon it, a steady supply of that fill dirt.
I would suggest in the short-term that the staff bring back to us
possible short-term solutions that would deal with right lane only,
enacting that into our ordinance. I believe that we have the power to
do that already. I may be wrong, but staff can re -- can come back to
us on it.
Putting up no Jake brake signs in residential areas would inform
them that Jake brakes are not acceptable in this area. A residential
area, please, no Jake brakes.
Handing out brochures at the pit, printouts. And we've had the
trucking industry itself offer to do this, where they would have it in
two languages so they could start to brief the truckers themselves of
the problems that exist and how they might be able to be a solution to
it.
I'd like to see this task force formed including, of course, the
sheriffs department, our own transportation staff, pit owners,
brokers, and local civic leaders.
I would be looking for whatever solutions they could come
Page 77
February 25, 2003
forward with at that point in time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala has a question.
She wants to know what a Jake brake is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh. It's named after a fellow
named Jake Koloski. No, I just made that up.
A Jake brake is a device that allows you to use the hydraulic
pressure within the truck's engine to be able to slow it down. Also, it
gives you the ability to be able to travel at a faster speed and to bring
your truck to a rest, to a stop, with the aid of a Jake brake in a much
shorter distance. So it gives you the ability to be able to move faster
across the highways.
The problem is, it's not always conducive to residential areas,
because it does make a loud, whining sound that carries for miles, to
say the least.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I believe you have speakers on
this, too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we have -- we have five
speakers.
Commissioner Coletta, I know the sheriffs department is here
that might be able to address the need. So if it's appropriate, if we
can hear from the sheriffs department at this time.
MS. OSCEOLA: Good morning, Commissioners, Tina Osceola,
Collier County Sheriffs Office. It's O-S-C-E-O-L-A, public affairs
supervisor. I also have with me Captain Jim Bloom, B-L-O-O-M.
He's the captain of the special operations division and patrol division.
Basically it's, for us, for the sheriffs office, it's important for us
to receive input from the public as well as, of course, the county, the
commissioners, as well as staff. In our approach to law enforcement
at the sheriff's office, we always try to bring in several factors before
we initiate any sort of action or any sort of operation.
Page 78
February 25, 2003
And part of that is identifying a specific problem, and we fully
support the--Commissioner Coletta's suggestion of having a task
force or a study group to be able to do that.
We believe that statistical studies need to be done. We have
some preliminary statistics, but I think further analysis of those stats
need to be done so that we're not addressing a phantom problem or a
perceived problem, that we're actually addressing what specific items
need to be addressed. It's an incredible waste of manpower and tax
dollars to fight a phantom.
We also already have -- and not to coin Mr. Halas's phrase, but
several balls up in the air already. We don't want to preempt any of
our efforts now that we're making with pit owners as well as county
staff addressing some of these issues that really can be done in the
short-term. They're not going to take a long amount of time. We're
just not there yet.
Some of those include the signage, of course, enforcement
efforts, some reminders out to the actual drivers, issues like that,
things that have been discussed in the past month with the private
sector.
Also when it comes to law enforcement and the Collier County
Sheriff's Office, community policing is a philosophy and a way of
life for us. So given that, every one of the members at the sheriff's
office has a specific way of dealing with things when we operate.
Part of that is, like I said in the very beginning, we have to go back to
the beginning and identify a specific problem before we can even get
to a solution.
Part of that addresses engineering. When you're dealing with a
problem like traffic, you can't ask for a better example on how
community policing works, because we need to get with the specifics
of how the business operates, how law enforcement operates, and
how the county, meaning staff, can help us and we can help the
county staff as well as the private owners work together.
Page 79
February 25, 2003
We also have to do a considerable amount of education, because
it would be a gross oversight to assume that all truck drivers are at
fault. It would be a gross oversight also to expect every one of those
truck drivers to be completely aware of county's and state
regulations. They change quite frequently, and we need to probably
make them aware and do some education awareness with the truck
drivers as well as all vehicle drivers.
One of the -- one of the misconceptions is that most vehicle
crashes involving dump truck drivers are the dump truck drivers'
faults. Again, statistical analysis -- a statistical analysis needs to be
done because we believe that a large number of those accidents --
and I don't want to preempt by saying that scale can be tipped either
way. So I don't know which is in the majority, but I do know that it's
-- a large number of them are not the dump truck drivers' faults.
Those drivers who drive something other than a commercial
vehicle need to be aware that you can't pull in front of a dump truck
that has a full load going through a green light just to try to get ahead
of them because they may be driving slower than you, which, of
course, is a problem.
These are issues that need to be addressed because it is a
community problem. The sheriffs office doesn't have full
ownership, the county commission doesn't have full ownership, and
certainly the dump truck drivers do not have full ownership of this
problem. All of us have a problem, those that do not drive the dump
trucks, those of us that enforce it, those of us that regulate it, and also
those of us who participate in the business.
And so as the sheriffs office, as far as we're concerned, we
stand ready to assist the board in whatever it is you choose to do or
direct us to do because we feel that we can definitely play an
important role in bringing this community problem to some sort of
resolution so that everyone goes home happy.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It sounds like you're working on this
Page 80
February 25, 2003
issue along with staff, and we don't need to interfere with what's --
your progress. That's what I'm hearing. So, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, it's not interfering.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry for the -- choosing the
words.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The staff, they are -- there is a
direction going on this. The only thing that's missing is the private
element of our residents out there that deserve answers and to be a
part of the process so that they know that it's working. That's what
I'm asking for over and above what's being done already.
And I don't think there's any problem on the part of the sheriffs
department or the civic leaders of the county joining in on this
process. Where it's held, at the sheriffs office or if it's held here at
the Collier County commission building, it doesn't matter, just as
long as it takes place in the sunshine and that the public's aware of
the fact that we're moving forward.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a couple of questions in
regards to how the sheriff (sic) department basically handles traffic
violations and are -- is, first of all -- first of all, does the sheriffs
department have the ability to have unmarked cars -- MS. OSCEOLA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- for traffic -- for traffic
patrolling?
MS. OSCEOLA: We have a fleet that is comprised of
unmarked vehicles as well as marked vehicles. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. OSCEOLA: But it's basically the sheriffs position that
those who are conducting traffic operations, that most of them are
marked for a variety of reasons, one of which includes officer safety.
When you're dealing with highways, they need to be properly
Page 81
February 25, 2003
marked so that -- and also for the public's safety so that they know
they're actually law enforcement officers pulling them over.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what I'm getting at is one of
the -- the points that Commissioner Coletta brought up was the fact
that when they see -- when the truckers or -- matter of fact, anybody
that is out on a road and is patrolling, and if the car is well -- highly
visible, that other drivers have a way of notifying other drivers that
may be violating the law, and I feel that part of the education process
involves where -- whether it's a citizen or whether it's a truck driver,
that they get caught and that's part of the education process. And I
think that's what needs to be probably enforced in this county is the
fact that because -- I see an awful lot of, not only people doing this,
citizens doing this, but I see trucks, and that's running red lights and
doing a lot of excess speeding, and it's the fact, because of the high
visibility of the police at the time, everybody falls in line. And I
think if we had, like -- more or less like a stealth activity, the
education process would be increased.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Bloom?
MR. BLOOM: Commissioner, if I could comment on that just a
second. Jim Bloom, captain of the operations division with the
Collier County Sheriffs Office. I concur wholeheartedly with what
you're saying.
Once again, even if we pull that dump truck driver or a regular
driver, an SUV over, even in an unmarked -- they still -- Nextels are
a great technology thing. We live and die by them now. Most of the
truck drivers, along with most -- probably everybody on the board
and everybody in this room have Nextels.
As soon as we pull that first vehicle over, whether it's a marked
vehicle or not, they're right on that phone and saying, Collier County
Sheriffs Office is on Collier Boulevard right now at such and such a
location. It's not that we don't think that would be effective, because
it is.
Page 82
February 25, 2003
And we use unmarked vehicles, for example, for our red light
enforcement. We may stage a -- I won't tell you what kind of
vehicles we have, for obvious reasons. But we'll stage an unmarked
vehicle at these locations, and then we'll sit our officers down and we
pull them into certain locations.
We've kind of gone away from that. If you've seen, I'm sure,
over the last year, we've worked a lot -- and I've worked with some
of the commissioners here, getting in their districts as far as smaller
details, when I say that, rather than 10 officers in one location going
down to three or four so we can just spread out across the county.
And we used to pull them in, for example, into parking lots and
so forth, but you only affect those three or four people that you're
pulling over as compared to, if people do know we're out there in
enforcement.
And you are right, we do only slow them down at times, those
people that -- the three or four hours that we're there. And that's one
thing, we have to educate the community and make this a community
problem.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I assume that you'll probably also
use your helicopters in the air?
MR. BLOOM: We actually use our Cessna, 172, yes, sir, for --
we don't use our helicopters. What we use is a fixed wing, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. BLOOM: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's go to public speakers.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Bill McDonald -- McDaniel.
I'm sorry. He will be followed by Ben (sic) Smith. Sorry.
MR. McDANIEL: That's all right. I've been called worse than
that.
For the record, Commissioners, my name is Bill McDaniel, and
I'm the owner of Big Island Excavating located out on Immokalee
Road. We also are the contract miner for the Bonness family on 858
Page 83
February 25, 2003
Oil Well Road at Shaggy Cypress Mine. Am I talking too fast?
Today I would -- I would like to allow you people to be aware
that the mining industry is in wholehearted support of the efforts that
Commissioner Coletta, the staff, and the sheriffs department are
endeavoring to do.
The traffic issues that exist in Collier County are manyfold, part
of which is the increased dump truck traffic, hauling of aggregates
from our mines here in Collier County to the different developments,
road construction and whatnot.
The premise behind my speaking today was to share with you
that there are efforts that are -- as Commissioner Henning already
pointed out, there are efforts that have been and are already in place,
cooperative efforts from the mining industry, establishment of a
coalition between the sheriffs office and the trucking industry.
They've already met. There's a meeting scheduled in the month of
March to educate the truckers with respect to these ever-changing
Department of Transportation regulations and rules.
Discussions on check stations to have the truckers who are out
there every day doing their job and are legal and operative to come
and have their trucks inspected for free, if you will, and to show their
effort to cooperate with what, in fact, is taking place.
The mining industry ourselves have offered our specific mining
sites as staging areas for the sheriffs office to come and utilize for
inspections, utilize for issuing traffic violations so that they're not
further exacerbating a very dangerous circumstance on the roads that
already exists. And those are a couple of things that we have done.
Another thing that we're doing is, at Commissioner Coletta's
suggestion, we're an information source. All -- virtually all these
trucks between Mr. Jones's mine and our two, virtually all the trucks
that travel in Collier County come through us at one stage or another.
Yesterday I prepared and faxed to Commissioner Coletta's
Page 84
February 25, 2003
office a notice to the truckers that will be distributed out in the next
few days asking them to please not utilize their engine brakes in
residential areas, just to assist with respect to the noise.
And -- we're an information source to get to the people to get
them to volunteer to assist with the circumstances that prevail. None
of us can do anything about the level of service of the roads. We're
already past a lot of that. We all know about the construction that's
planned in our road construction in Collier County in the next five
years.
None of us can do anything about the fact that we're the number
one metropolitan growth community in the United States. None of
us can do anything about the fact that FEMA has established very
specific regulations regarding fill requirements and so on that -- they
need to come from somewhere.
So these are the efforts that are already in place at -- excuse me
-- at Commissioner -- and through Commissioner Coletta's efforts
that we're, in fact, working on. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just -- I'm sorry. Go ahead,
Commissioner Halas. You had your hand up first.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that what you're doing is --
that you should be commended for looking at self-regulating yourself
instead of looking for government to regulate yourself, and I think
that's a great step forward in regards to making sure that the trucks
are safe on the highway and that drivers are taking the steps here to
make sure that their trucks are safe by brakes or whatever else that
need to be checked.
MR. McDANIEL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think that's a -- you should
be commended for this.
MR. McDANIEL: Again -- thank you, sir. I mean, the realities
are, we all know that the issue exists, and how best do we facilitate
Page 85
February 25, 2003
that? And we have been working with staff. I have been attending
meetings with the commissioner and the sheriffs office to work
through this process to bring a circumstance of poor conditions
already in our community and to make them as palatable as possible.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. McDANIEL: You've only got 26 seconds.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to recognize
another thing about Bill. When I say about public involvement and
bringing in civic leaders, Bill will be wearing both hats. He just
recently accepted the presidency of the Sanctuary Road Civic
Association, a new group out there in the rural part of the estates, and
I'm very proud of that group, and I thank Bill for stepping up to the
plate on that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You had mentioned before,
Commissioner Coletta, about staying in the right lane and using the
left lane only for passing. Is that something that your trucks are now
doing?
MR. McDANIEL: Let me clarify one point, Commissioner
Coletta (sic). They're not my trucks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
MR. McDANIEL: I'm a mining industry. We mine the
aggregate, we put it in the trucks. And I believe there is a
representative of the trucking industry that's here today that will
share with you, a lot of those trucks are, in fact, independent
contractor.
But going back to your question, if you will, the right lane only
is a traffic issue that is being explored with respect to the sheriffs
department, and it is a viable alternative necessarily, given the traffic
conditions that are out there, all of the road construction that is, in
fact, taking place.
Page 86
February 25, 2003
So -- but those -- those are some of the things that are being
considered working with this coalition that's been developed with the
trucking industry and the sheriffs department. Next month when we
have our -- actually we're having our first real live meeting of this
coalition, and that's going to be part of the discussion as to how best
to facilitate some of these issues.
I know that there's some mapping that's already taken place of
showing the bridge limitations, the weight limitation on the bridges
that are already there, getting the information out to the trucking
industry to help assist with this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. McDANIEL: Absolutely, thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ben (sic) Smith.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And let's call up the next one, if the
next person can stand up next to the person speaking. Appreciate it.
MS. FILSON: He will be followed by Luis Valcarcel. I know I
got that wrong.
MR. SMITH: Good morning, Commissioners. My name's Bem
Smith. I'm with Soil Tech Distributors. It's B-E-M, by the way. A
little different.
But I came -- I'm coming before you today just to let you know
a little bit that I've learned over my years of being in the trucking
business. We're -- Soil Tech is a truck brokerage company. What
we do, we find the work for independent owners of trucks, and then
we pay them weekly. We find the work, they go to the jobs that we
find. Obviously we work with the pits, the local pits.
There's 800 trips a day roughly in Collier County. They bring
things like concrete aggregate into town, road building materials,
landfill cover, beach sand, clay for your ball fields, sludge removal,
and trash removal, just to mention a few things other than the fill that
we had talked about earlier that Commissioner Coletta had alluded to
earlier about the building residences and commercial buildings as
Page 87
February 25, 2003
well as governmental buildings.
So obviously there's a lot of things that the trucking industry has
to be very cognitive of, which is supplying -- you know, servicing
their customers.
As part of that, we have a safety training program that we have
to install, because we couldn't keep the insurance. Insurance rates
are skyrocketing. And in order to keep insurance rates down, we
have a safety program that we have every month, that we have a
meeting. In addition to that, each week the truckers turn in a safety
inspection report.
In addition to that, annually DOT has an independent inspection
program. So all the drivers that drive for us, obviously, are
commercial drivers. They have special licensing procedures to go
through to become drivers.
So there's a lot of things that the truckers have to go through.
Safety training, you know. They're self-regulated in the sense that we
have to meet or approve before we can even get on the roads.
I think that the idea here was -- or as I understood it was they
were trying to cut back the hours so that we weren't interfering with
the congested times of traffic. Actually, I think that part of our
problem is that we have squeezed in the time.
Currently the pits are open from seven to five, I believe. And
we used to be open from five a.m., and we had -- a lot of those trips
were made before people were even on the roads. Now we're
actually squeezing the traffic together with the trucks, so everybody's
leaving Golden Gate, coming in at the same time at seven o'clock in
the morning.
The pits can't operate before that. We suggest that they be
allowed to open earlier, let a lot of those trips start and where the
trucks are actually going back when the main traffic is coming into
town. We'd like to do that.
We have met with the sheriff's department. We have agreed to
Page 88
February 25, 2003
all be a part of this coalition, this task force. We'd be happy to meet
with homeowners and individuals that have problems and they can be
brought in that forum. They can be discussed, we can disseminate
that information back to the volumes of trucks that are signed up
under us. So I -- we -- again, we'd welcome that type of, you know,
thing that we need to -- the teamwork that we need.
I think that's my main emphasis is that, you know, I think it's
needed. It's headed in the right direction, but we would like to be a
part of it, and I think we are trying to be self-enforcing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Luis Valcarcel, and he will
be followed by Pat Humphries.
MR. VALCARCEL: My name is Luis Valcarcel. I'm
representing Self Line Trucking. We've been here in business 25
years. I don't have much to say. Bem Smith said most of it. I'm here
to comb -- I mean, give you my cooperation to do whatever help, and
I agree to everything he just was saying.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, sir.
MR. VALCARCEL: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Pat Humphries, and she will
be followed by your final speaker, William Corzo.
MS. HUMPHRIES: Good morning. I'm Pat Humphries from
the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association.
I have been corresponding with the Department of
Transportation in a vain attempt to have a 20 mile per hour blinking
light installed in front of Corkscrew Elementary School and
Corkscrew Middle School on Oil Well Road.
They have supplied me with all sorts of engineering findings
and philosophies, but that does not solve the problem.
We are dealing with a David and Goliath situation here. David
being the small child rushing to get to school, and Goliath, the
hundreds of dump trucks barrelling down on him every school day
Page 89
February 25, 2003
morning and afternoon.
Unfortunately, unlike the Biblical tale, this is not going to come
out right in the end. The only thing providing safety for David and
his classmates is a traffic light at a crossing area, which is fine if that
is where the children cross.
Time is money to these truck drivers, and a 20 mile per hour
blinking light is a visual reminder that a light is coming up and
children are in the vicinity. They are already exceeding the 45 mile
per hour speed limit daily.
I have talked to people in that neighborhood and to the principal
at Corkscrew Elementary School, and they agree it is badly needed.
A speed reduction of 35 miles per hour on Oil Well Road and a
20 mile per hour blinking light prior to reaching these two schools
would provide a safer environment for the students.
I travel on Golden Gate Boulevard every morning, and I know
that it works for Big Cypress Elementary School. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta has a
question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't go away yet, Mrs.
Humphries.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have a question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, for Mr. Feder, if he
would, please.
This is -- this is an issue I talked to Mr. Feder about. He was
going to do some research. I can't say that he's completed it yet, but I
thought at this point in time we could be reassured by the fact that
traffic is looking into it again? On the -- I'm sorry, Mr. Feder, the
blinking light on Oil Well Road to give warning to the trucker that it
is a school zone.
MR. FEDER: We're working with the school board as they're
Page 90
February 25, 2003
developing the other facility out there next to the current pools (sic),
and we will evaluate the issue of a blinking light there. We'll make
that commitment to you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bottom line, it's an enforcement
issue, correct? There's already --
MR. FEDER: It is and it will continue to be. But the
commissioner's asked us to look at that as one item that could help.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And it's just a little
thing that adds a little more to it to give that driver a continuous
reminder, the fact that it is a school zone, and I sure hope that the
school board and the transportation department can get together on a
final resolution on that.
Mrs. Humphries, I hope that the civic association picked you as
a representative to this task force.
MS. HUMPHRIES: Yes, sir, I am.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is William Corzo.
MR. CORZO: Good morning. My name is William Corzo,
C-O-R-Z-O. I'm with Gulf Coast Trucking and Excavating.
I run independent truckers. We do have -- seen problems,
existing problems that we have. We are working on issues that we
have with the amount of jobs that we have in a certain area.
Immokalee Road is very business. Oil Well is very busy, as we all
know.
Speed is one issue, the road is another. We're all working on
winding roads up. Immokalee, everybody's aware of, that's going to
be starting anytime soon.
Another issue that we thought we concurred was the signal
lights, the time those lights turn from green, yellow and red.
We spent millions of dollars on this, tax money, on these lights.
Still today, as we see, you drive down any of these roads in Collier
County, and we still see that same issue.
Page 91
February 25, 2003
Dump trucks are 70,000 pounds when they're loaded, okay?
Cars are 2,000 pounds. These dump trucks cannot stop as cars do.
We have issues with cars cutting in front of us, risking our lives
and risking the cars' lives. We're jumping off the road not to hit the
car in front of us.
The right lane issue, it would be great if we could use it. The
problem is, as we all know, the right lane is always the turning lane
into a commercial place, McDonald's, so on, so on. The trucks
cannot continue going on the right lane when you have cars stopping
every block. We take 10 times more time to stop and to start a
vehicle, a truck.
By stopping at every block, a dump truck, it would be
impossible to pick up 45 miles. The speed limit's 45, for example.
The car takes off, boom, they're at 45. Dump trucks can't do that.
Then we have vehicles going around the dump trucks, cutting in
front of us to make a right turn. Those are cer -- minor issue that we
all live with.
The amount of material needed in these neighborhoods, as we
all know that we're a growing county, it's -- it's very rough to say the
amount of cars versus the amount of trucks that are on the roads
today.
If you look at a certain road, there's a lot of trucks on the road
because of the amount of building going on.
So, yes, we're pointing fingers at the dump trucks for using Jake
brakes, for taking red lights, we're pointing fingers at all that, but
nobody points a finger at the dump truck and states, that gentleman is
putting my house up, okay? This building right here that we're
sitting in, if it wasn't for the dump trucks, this building wouldn't be
here. If it wasn't for dump trucks, Rinker Materials wouldn't be able
to pump your concrete.
We have to sit back and look at all those things that the dump
trucks are doing positively. Yes, we have less experienced drivers out
Page 92
February 25, 2003
there just as we have less experienced car drivers.
We are working on safety meetings. We do require them to fill
out safety sheets. We do meet regularly. We do speak with them, let
them know issues that we have. We are working with the pits with
the hours.
Of course, by shutting down the pit early in the afternoon, yes,
we get done our job faster, but at the same time, the demand of
material that is needed at these job sites, that's the issue we like to get
up early. First round, we're out of the way so everybody's heading
out. We're coming back in, everything's safe. We're in the safe side.
We all have wives and kids out there. Our safety issue is one of
the main things that we have to look at. And the sheriffs department
is working on these issues, complaints, reference people calling,
what's going on. It's a great thing that we're having this going on
with the sheriffs department, the DOT officers.
We need to clamp down on it and work together as a team. Just
by seeing the dump truck, we cannot target that guy as a bad guy
because he's driving a dump truck.
It has been -- you sit back and we have the sheriffs department
stopping these dump trucks for a lot of things they can't help to do.
If a vehicle stops in front of you, of course the dump truck is going to
run off the road so it won't hit the vehicle in front of us.
Insurance prices have gone skyrocket. Fuel, we all know on
fuel. These dump trucks -- the reason why they're going fast is to get
their money's worth. We can't look at it today compared to what we
did 10 years ago when Collier County started. We used to do twice
as much back then without the traffic. Now we have the traffic. We
have to deal with it, so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. CORZO: Any questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the last of the public
Page 93
February 25, 2003
speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to make a motion that the
board commend all of the people who are working together for their
efforts and also to encourage you to work together in order to solve
the problem.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second that.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, just a couple comments.
One, I assume that your motion includes the new part coming in
with the civic involvement involving the civic leaders so that they
also could be abreast of what's happening to be able to express their
part to make it a more rounded coalition and task force.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, as I understood the sheriffs
representatives, that is your first step, is to get with the residents and
work these things out, so obviously it would include all the people
that you're accustomed to talking with and working with all of the
elements. And it seems to me that you are talking, and I'd like to
encourage you to continue doing that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think the other thing we need to
do is continue the efforts of education with the drivers, and I think
we need to get on an education process with the -- the average citizen
in this community, because they do pull a lot of stunts on you people,
and I'm hoping that we can increase road enforcement and hopefully
we can address both the drivers that are out of compliance, whether it
be dump truck drivers, semi drivers, or the regular drivers on the
street, because I think that's a real issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have anything to add,
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do, Commissioner
Page 94
February 25, 2003
Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't let this go after spending
this much time to (sic) it.
Would you consider incorporating in your motion that staff
come back to us with the two elements that we could do to be able to
help in the short-term, and that would be the Jake brake signs, which
are something that would assist in the educational effort. And
number two --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Greatly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- to see what they can do
about the ordinance for a right lane only?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not willing to incorporate that in
my mo -- my second. I would like the sheriff's department to come
back with any further recommendations, or if we need to work on
anything else.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me, but I can't support
the motion for the simple reason that some of the elements that the
community's looking for are going to be put off to sometime in the
distance future. We know that there's a need for it. There's been
agreement within the sheriff's department, within the trucking
industry, the meetings that took place, but it has to come from our
staff back to us. So without that element in that, I can't support the
motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think, again, the sheriff said--
department is working on all those issues. And, you know, nod up
and down or sideways if you need to -- if we need to bring that back,
you'll bring it back.
MS. OSCEOLA: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I understand. If we need any further
things, bring it back to the Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Meanwhile, the situation hasn't
Page 95
February 25, 2003
improved one iota. We're still living with a very negative situation
that the public demands, absolutely demands that we take some sort
of action.
This is the least obtrusive way that would require that we get
something out there more on the educational part to see what can be
done to alleviate the traffic problem. People won't be struck on
four-lane highways with two trucks running abreast.
Please give a curry consideration before that motion comes
forward. I'd hate to see that the efforts that have been put together so
far are going to go astray. These are what we brought up in
numerous meetings and everybody agreed on it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Commissioner, you've worked
on this issue, and I think you've brought a lot of things to the
forefront, so I commend you on that. So, you know, I guess we --
my perspective, I always look for the experts, the people who enforce
the law, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you like to call them up
for a second opinion and ask them what they think about that part?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm staying with my second.
Any further discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a new motion
that we take the original motion and also incorporate the element of
Page 96
February 25, 2003
the civic leaders and also incorporate the Jake brake signs and to
have staff come back to us and report to us on how we can deal with
the trucks in the four-laned highways as far as right lane only except
for passing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The implication is that we're
going to form a group of people by motion of the Board of County
Commissioners, and I am concerned that that might create a situation
with the sunshine law violations.
County attorney, can you talk to me about that? We are -- the
advantage of letting the departments work together to come up with
recommendations to us is that they can talk with each other. They
can talk with each other individually or as a group.
If we form this organization as a result of a motion by the Board
of County Commissioners, it's my belief that we then force them to
work in the sunshine, which means they cannot talk with each other
on an ongoing basis and coordinate issues, they have to meet and do
all their business during the sunshine.
Now, that, to me, would handcuff the sheriffs office when
they're trying to get out and talk with the community leaders and
work out problems.
What's your take on that?
MR. WEIGEL: You're a good student of the law,
Commissioner.
If this board constitutes a committee, then those persons or
elements from various offices that would become that committee and
report back to the board with this charge to do so, I would advise,
would be subject to the sunshine law.
I would -- I would be very concerned not to have that discussion
Page 97
February 25, 2003
and recommendation to those persons that would serve on the board
because there is the potential of even individual liability in that
regard.
If this board just says, we look forward to hearing from the
various groups that are out there and accept the -- and review the
information that comes, they're hearing it from different disparate
groups and then assimilating it together for your own
decision-making later, and there would be no problem with the
sunshine law--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that was the intent of my first
motion. Now, the motion that's on the table right now, however,
would create a sunshine law problem and, I believe, would triple or
quadruple the time required to reach these solutions and get the
recommendations to us.
So I would urge the board-- the members of the board to
consider this very carefully. You've got people who are working
together right now. If they're not working together, they can come to
each of the individual commissioners and say, would you please get
these people to listen to me or let me be on this committee. And so
there are ways of dealing with this issue. But to create a -- an
organization by motion of the Board of County Commissioners, I
think, is the wrong way to proceed with this issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I understand
where you're coming -- and your concerns about sunshine. I, myself,
am a strong endorsement of the sunshine laws and also of community
involvement, and at no point in time was I asking this to form an
official committee. It's a task force, very similar to what we did for
clam farming.
If this particular thing is wrong, then we've got a problem with
sunshine in clam farming, we've got a problem in other task forces
that are out there. This is under the auspices of the sheriffs
Page 98
February 25, 2003
department.
Let me reword the motion itself so that it might be able to
remove this. That we encourage the sheriffs department to bring
local community leaders, civic leaders, into the process so that they
can be sitting at the table to hear what's taking place.
Now the Collier County Commission is not responsible for who
those members are, we don't have to vote on them. The civic leaders
-- and I'm sure that the sheriffs department's going to be working
very closely to identify the civic leaders that we're talking about.
They already know who they are, Orange Tree Waterways, Golden
Gate Estates Civic, might be one or two other ones out there, that
would be invited to sit there and be able to follow the process, go
through and report back.
The only problem that's been wrong with the process up to this
point in time is that it has lacked that personal involvement of the
public itself, and that has been the whole contention of why I wanted
to get this before you.
The sheriffs department's been doing a good job of bringing all
these people together. It's all being done in secret -- not secret, but
being done behind closed doors. I asked if I could bring civic
leaders, and I was told no at that point in time, it was not a good idea.
Well, I don't agree with that. I think that they have a place at
the table. They're the people that I represent, and those are the
people that I want to make sure that are going to hear everything as
it's coming down.
They won't slow the process down. They're going to be there to
get their thoughts across. You don't want them to walk through the
door and say to you, this is what we've come up with, then all of a
sudden have the community out there go absolutely crazy. You want
them to be part of it early on. That's what we are here for as
commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I can have a question from
Page 99
February 25, 2003
(sic) our county attorney on the explanation of your motion. Can we
demand a -- constitutional officers to do certain things?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Recommend is the word.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh.
MR. WEIGEL: No. Demand, no. I'd say no. You can ask for
them to -- in terms of a committee or an involvement, you can ask
them to be involved. Obviously the response or activity on the
constitutional officer is clearly independent of the request and it's in
their own decision-making ability.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thanks. And just before I go
to Commissioner Coyle, we have a one o'clock time certain, and
we're going to fit some lunch in there somewhere, so --
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, it-- I don't understand the
distinction between the motion that's on the table now and the motion
I made some 15 or 20 minutes ago.
The -- as I understand Commissioner Coletta's desire, it is to
have a group of people work together and include members of the
community. That's exactly what I suggested some time back. And I
want to ask a question.
Have you excluded any members of the public from your
discussions? Have you been at all reluctant to make contact with
members of the --
MS. OSCEOLA: I should probably preface that first by saying,
we are in the infancy stages, and we were in the infancy stages when
we were brought to the table last week of the -- of our own internal
review of a problem that was identified by the public. Oftentimes
those problems are voiced to people other than the sheriffs office and
we have to hear them through a third party.
We were in the stages of meeting with people individually first.
That's just part of what we do, similar to an investigation, you talk
with all parties interested.
Page 100
February 25, 2003
We were probably, at this point in time, probably two weeks
away from the period when we were going to start gathering
everyone together to bring them to the table. And of course, that
includes the pit owners, the county staff as it is, as well as the
different people from the community. So although we do appreciate
the encouragement to do so, you should feel con -- well, relatively
assured that that is and will happen. That's part of how we operate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that's part of your process?
MS. OSCEOLA: Right, that's part of our process. And we
would be remiss as staff members for the sheriff if that didn't occur.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So have you ever denied anybody a
meeting or being at the table?
MS. OSCEOLA: We probably -- I can say that we probably
did. In how we operate, we try to meet with people individually first,
because if you have people coming from opposite ends, you won't get
anything accomplished in a limited amount of time that we normally
have. If we only have -- as you can see just this morning, sometimes
we'll only have 30 to 45 minutes to try to sit down with each
individual group, then we see who the major spokespeople are in
those areas, what the concerns are, then, like I said, two weeks from
now, we would have brought back some of that information and
opened it up actually by doing a public notice to the members of the
public to come forward, as well as making contact.
We have contacts with people in all these areas and others, as
Commissioner Coletta -- but we just weren't there yet.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you just need some time?
MS. OSCEOLA: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what Commissioner
Coletta was trying to get across is to not only have leaders get
together, but also to identify, if we need to, come up with new
Page 101
February 25, 2003
regulations or laws in -- regarding dealing with slow traffic.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Same thing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we are all on the same track here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we were, and we're
getting closer to it. The problem was is that you were trying to hold
us status quo to where it was, and I just wanted to make sure that the
public knows that they're going to be part of this process, number
one.
Number two, we still haven't addressed the issue, which staff is
more than willing to take on, and the pit owners think it's an
excellent idea, the sheriff's department's endorsed it, of the Jake
brake sign issue, which isn't that terribly involved. It's a small little
thing to show the community that, yes, we're being proactive.
This is a short-term thing that we're starting to work with. Plus
the other information that's coming available today. I didn't want to
hold it back any longer. As you commissioners are aware, my
constituency out there is becoming very, very angry about the fact
there's been no response from my office on what's being done
because of the fact we're waiting for the sheriff's office to reach some
point in time. That's what we're doing today, we're getting it out in
the sunshine.
My motion stands that we're suggesting to the sheriff's
department that they bring the public into the process. Let it stay in
their domain. I don't want to get any more involved than I am. I just
want to make sure that it takes place within the public domain. And
number two, the Jake brake issue and that we have staff report back
to us as far as the passing lane on four-lane highways, the left lane --
right lane only for trucks except for passing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And my second stands.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the only thing my
motion encompasses, and I've got a second on it. And I would wish
Page 102
February 25, 2003
that at this time we would consider a vote on it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, can you identify me (sic) what
source of funding you want to do -- to do this project?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's for staff to bring
back to us at the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not prepared to do staffs
work and identify what number from the funding process that we'd
be paying for the Jake brake signs or possibly for staff time to do
work on the ordinance. They report back to us next meeting cycle,
hopefully, that this is what they recommend and these are the
options.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know why this is so
difficult to get the public's best interest put forward. It's a -- I'm a
little bit at a loss why we're dragging this whole process out.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I mean, we're here to budget
the taxpayers' money. That is part of the process. I think it's a very
fair question, so -- and we approved the budget, so we have to amend
the budget. That's why I was asking.
Commissioner Coyle has something.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think you hit the nail
right on the head, Commissioner Coletta, when you said, we're not
going to do staffs work.
What the sheriffs office and all the other people involved are
supposed to do as a result of this is come to us with
recommendations.
The staffs objective is to come to us with recommendations
about the kinds of traffic signs, the kinds of lanes or lane markings
that we want to have to solve this problem.
What we are really saying is, we want you to do this, we want
you to put in a flashing yellow light, we want you to put in a --
Page 103
February 25, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Jake brake sign.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- Jake brake sign without
listening to anybody's recommendations concerning this.
At -- you're gathering information, you're going to come back
with recommendations about what to do and how we do it. Why are
we in the position now of telling you what we're going to do before
the group even gets a chance to get together and discuss the problem?
There might be a lot of other solutions. That's why it's taking so
long.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Call for the motion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Motion carries, 3-2. Commissioner
Coyle and Commissioner Henning dissenting on the motion.
Thank you. We're going to take a lunch break until one o'clock.
We have a one o'clock time certain.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
(A lunch recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Everybody take their seats.
We're reconvening the Board of County Commissioners meeting.
Jim Mudd, I need your assistance.
Item #10A
Page 104
February 25, 2003
THE 2002 COLLIER COUNTY WATER MASTER PLAN
l JPDATE-ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're on Item 10-A and B.
They're time certain at one p.m.
First item, 10-A is the adoption of the 2002 Collier County
Water Master Plan update project 70070. And 7-B is a companion
item, and that's to adopt a 2002 Collier County Water/Wastewater
Master Plan update project 73066. Both of these items will be
presented by Mr. Jim DeLony, Administrator for Public Utilities.
MR. DELONY: For the record, I'm Jim DeLony, Public
Utilities Administrator. As you're aware, the Board of County
Commissioners adopted the 2001 Collier County Water-Sewer
District Wastewater Master Plans, impact fee study and user rate
study in December 2001, with the direction to conduct annual
updates of these reports.
We are here today to ask for board approval for the 2002
Water-Sewer District Master Plans, and revisions to the district's
impact fee schedule, user fees and installation fees for services.
The Water/Wastewater Master Plan identify the capital
requirements necessary to meet the district's vision, will provide the
guidance for the district's long-range planning.
The 2001 master plans, which you have previously approved,
established a strategic county-wide 20-year plan for the district's
water and wastewater services and their facility, the Wastewater
facility.
The 2002 master plan updates the 20-year strategy and provides
that that essential framework for meeting reliability standards in all
aspects of our utility business.
The district's water, wastewater departments incurred substantial
expense in providing essential services. My other department
Page 105
February 25, 2003
receives tax revenues or other support from the general fund.
Therefore, the total cost of operations, maintenance and capital
improvements must be financed entirely from customer service
revenues; that is impact fees, miscellaneous fees for service, meter
installation and backflow charges, and user rates, fire meter and
surcharges.
We're also requesting today your approval of our impact fee
study that makes recommendations based on recovery of capital costs
for new customers and the expansion of water, wastewater services to
meet growth. The proposed impact fees provide cost reimbursement
for gross consumption of existing facilities, places the financial
burden for constructing new facilities on the new customers for
whose benefit the new facilities will be built, just as we're requesting
for your approval of the user rate study that makes recommendations
based on providing the financial resources required to pay for
operational and maintenance expenses and renewal and replacement
of existing facilities to comply with our bond commitments
associated with the district's outstanding debt, and finally to sustain
compliance with stringent and everchanging environmental
protection and public health permits and applications.
To date, we've reviewed these studies and recommendations
from the Productivity Committee, the Development Services
Advisory Committee, the Development Services Advisory Utilities
Subcommittee, the Collier Building Industry Association, and the
Board of County Commissioners in our public workshop held last--
on the 18th of February, last week. We've taken all of those
comments into consideration in these plans that we are presenting to
you today.
Commissioners, again, our purpose here today is to request on
behalf of the Public Utilities Division, your approval of six executive
summaries related to Water, Wastewater Master Plans and the
resulting fees and rates for the Collier County Water-Sewer District.
Page 106
February 25, 2003
We'll start with Item 10-A, sir, if you will.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions?
I'll entertain a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor of the motion
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Motion carries 5-0.
Item #1 OB
THE 2002 COLLIER COUNTY WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN
l JPD ATE- A DO PTF, D
MR. DELONY: Sir, Item 10-B.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. And, Mr.
Chairman, if I could, these are motions to authorize the development
of the necessary infrastructure, particularly water and sewer, that we
need to keep up with growth in the future. MR. DELONY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Fiala to approve. All in favor of the motion
Page 107
February 25, 2003
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #8A
RESOLUTION 2003-93 AMENDING THE WATER AND SEWER
IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE TWO OF APPENDIX A OF
CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAW AND
OR DIN ANCF, S- ADOPTED
MR. DELONY: We move now to items 8-A, which are the
executive summaries for the adoption of a resolution amending
Schedule Two of Appendix A; that is the water and sewer impact fee
schedule of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Law and
Ordinances as amended, the same being the Collier County
consolidated impact fee ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yeah, we just received one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any questions for Mr.
DeLony on 10 -- or 8-A?
MR. ELLIS: Good morning, Commissioners, David Ellis with
the Collier Building Industry Association.
I just want to make sure we've clarified one issue, the effective
date of both the impact fees would be April 1st, and I just wanted to
make sure that was clear in the ordinance and discussion.
Page 108
February 25, 2003
And at the same time it would also trigger the separate increase
in our road impact fees. As you will recall when we adopted our
road study, it was -- we were waiting for this study to take effect, so
that will also take place simultaneously, I guess, would be the right
word to say.
MR. MUDD: On 1, April, you're right. We were -- we were at
a downsized road impact fee, because we had relocates that were
being in the -- in the water sewer impact fee, and therefore, the
water-sewer folks were augmenting or offsetting the cost on the
roadside of the house for that. But when we passed the road impact
fee, we made it clear to the Board that when the water and sewer
impact fee, the new one came into being, and the date is 1, April,
2003, that it would no longer be a subsidy between, because we
would take the relocate costs out of the water-sewer impact fees, and,
therefore, we would go with the approved total amount of road
impact fees.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we're going to adopt this on April
Fools?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What better time.
MR. ELLIS: I just wanted to make sure that that was clarified
on the record, so that-- particularly for those in the general public
that were watching and they understood the change would also take
place for that on the 1st of April.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala has a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So does that mean, then, that
$500 is added onto the road impact fees, but only $10 -- $10 is
deleted from this, but $500 is added to the road impact fees?
MR. MUDD: Well, the road impact fees, if you remember
correctly had 63 categories, okay, and that statement is too generic,
and it only fits like a 2,000 square foot home difference. So, yes,
there's anywhere from three to six, $700 on road impact fees that
would be increased, and there'd be a $10 reduction in the water-sewer
Page 109
February 25, 2003
impact fee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That wasn't stated in here any
place, and I just wanted that on the record, as well.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, and that's why -- and I couldn't have
planted David Ellis there at the podium to say that better.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you, David.
MR. MUDD: But I was about to say that before you approved
this motion to make sure that it was on the record, and we knew all
the -- all the pieces to this.
MR. DELONY: As you may recall your schedule of fees for
the roads took this into account, and when you put those in effect, so
essentially that schedule will come in effect, as planned, 1, April, at
the time we will put our new rate schedule -- well, the one before
you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, on the overhead, if I can get it to
work, can you read that from your monitor? You can see the crossed
out amounts up here, and going down the categories, and you can see
the new amount that sits over to the side, and that's the -- and that
would be the -- the road impact fee with full relocates in it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further questions?
I'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coyle to approve, seconded by Commissioner Halas. No further
discussion. All in favor of the -- Mr. Weigel, thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Just a brief comment. There are two little typos
that I'd like to correct in the approved ordinance, if you approve it,
and also in the now therefore clause, add the words, to the effect
hereby adopted, you are creating new -- new rates and you're
determining here that they're to be assessed, and I like the word
adopted in resolutions.
Page 110
February 25, 2003
So I'd like to ask you to add that in this resolution. I'll make the
same comment in 8-B when that comes up, as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I see Commissioner Coyle
shaking his head, yes, and Commissioner Halas shaking his head,
yes. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #8B
RESOLUTION 2003-94 AMENDING THE WATER, SEWER,
FIRE METER AND SURCHARGE RATES, SCHEDULE ONE OF
APPENDIX A TO SECTION FOUR OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO_ 2001-73-ADOPTFD WITH AMFiNDMFNTS
MR. DELONY: Item agenda 8-B, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. DELONY: You have before you an executive summary
requesting the adoption of a resolution being the water, sewer, fire
meter and surcharge rates, which is Schedule One of appendix A to
Section four of the Collier County ordinance number 2001-73, titled
the Collier County Water-Sewer District Uniform Billing, Operating
and Regulatory Standards Ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? I'll close the public
Page 111
February 25, 2003
hearing. Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: With the amended resolution?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
approve with the amendments and second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got one question. These
charges are going to go in effect October 3rd; is that correct?
MR. DELONY: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: October of'03?
MR. DELONY: Yes, sir, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the anticipated revenues are
about 27,891.00; is that correct?
MR. DELONY: I'll have to look to my staffjust for a second to
look at that number.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In the next five years is what
we're anticipating for revenues.
MR. DELONY: Just a second. If you'll just give me a minute.
Yes, sir, about 27 million.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just need to verify, and I think
it's important that the public know that the average increase for -- the
increase for the average user is what?
MR. DELONY: Let me put that chart up. Let me put that up so
we can get the exact numbers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it's $2.25,
MR. DELONY: Yes, sir, it's $2.25, but I wasn't sure of the
spread.
As listed earlier, sir, the average customer will have an increase
Page 112
February 25, 2003
of about $2.10 per month.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I think that's important,
and that is mostly, if I understand correctly, a CPI increase?
MR. DELONY: For the large part, yes, sir, it's commensurate
over the 18-month period, it's about 2.9 percent, which approximates
the CPI for that period -- the period before. I don't know what it's
going to be for the 18 months, but certainly it'll be --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It depends on the CPI at that point
in time?
MR. DELONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. DELONY: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions? Seeing none,
I'll call the motion. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #8C
RESOLUTION 2003-95 AMENDING THE MISCELLANEOUS
FEES FOR SERVICES, SCHEDULE SIX OF APPENDIX A TO
SECTION FOUR OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.
2001-73-ADOPTF. D WITH AMF, NDMF. NTS
MR. DELONY: 8-C, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 8-C.
Page 113
February 25, 2003
MR. DELONY: Sir, you have before you an executive
summary requesting the adoption of a resolution amending the
miscellaneous fees for services, which is Schedule Six of Appendix
A to Section Four of the Collier County Ordinance number 20 --
2001-73, titled the Collier County Water-Sewer District Uniform
Billing, Operating and Regulatory Standards Ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions. Mr. Weigel, the
ordinance is okay on this one?
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, if I had my druthers I would remove one
word, extra word by, B-Y in there, now that you've asked me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: In the now therefore clause in the last line.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'll close the public hearing.
Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's with removing or leaving
the word in by, B-Y?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Changing it as recommended by
the County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got one additional I wonder if
we could add at this point, in regards to a customer, if the customer
calls with the suspicion that something is wrong with his meter, and
they go out and find out that the meter is defective, that the customer
should not be charged for that call, that service call.
MR. DELONY: That's our policy in effect currently.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It is?
MR. DELONY: Yes, sir, it is.
MR. MUDD: But you want to make sure it stays that way,
right, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. I want to make sure it
stays that way.
Page 114
February 25, 2003
MR. DELONY: There's no anticipated requirement or need to
change that policy.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Good.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Recognizing the motion by
Commissioner Coyle with the amendments of the ordinance, and
seconded by Commissioner Fiala. Any further questions?
I'll call the motion. All in favor of the motion signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #8D
RESOLUTION 2003-96 AMENDING THE METER
INSTALLATION CHARGES (TAPP1NG FEES) AND
BACKFLOW DEVICE CHARGES, SCHEDULE FOUR OF
APPENDIX A TO SECTION FOUR OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCFJ NO. 2001-73-ADOPTF, D WITH AMFNDMF, NTS
MR. DELONY: Sir, Item 8-D. You have before you an
executive summary to request the adoption of a resolution in the
tapping fees and backflow device charges, which is Schedule Four of
Appendix A to Section Four of the Collier County Ordinance number
2001-73.
Page 115
February 25, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala has a question.
MR. DELONY: Yes, sir-- ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Under the tapping fees
you show the meter sizes, and then what the fees change too, and in
all instances they have a reasonable change, except for the
three-quarter meter size, where it goes up from $302 to $562.
Everything else goes up 20 bucks, and I was wondering why this
went up $260.
MR. DELONY: Ma'am, quite frankly, that's a charge that
reflects now the true cost. It's been some time since we have updated
these fees. John, help me out, but the bottom line of it, though,
reflects our best approximation of the true cost of installing that
three-quarter inch meter, and that's an update to that fee schedule at
this time.
John, when was the last time --
MR. YONKOSKY: Two years ago.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So everything else had a true cost
except this particular size?
MR. YONKOSKY: The reason, Commissioner, for the --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name, please.
MR. YONKOSKY: John Yonkosky. The reason for this
increase right now, we're taking into consideration the automatic
one-year read meter, the cost of those meters and the cost of
installation of them.
So it is a significant jump at this time, but it's based on actual
cost.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But only on that one meter size?
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What I get is, and it should've been
updated a long time ago, it's a wrong figure because of costs.
MR. DELONY: When we went to the automated meters, that's
the time we should've updated these. We're at the point now where
Page 116
February 25, 2003
we're making appropriate adjustment to the rate charge.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. DELONY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions? Seeing none
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make a motion to -- that we
approve this.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I want to make one clarification
for the viewing audience, if I can.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We've got a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a second by commissioner
Coletta.
MR. MUDD: I just want to make sure for the viewing audience,
when they talked about the new automated meter readings, if you
have an old -- this is new construction, okay, that you're doing today.
It's strictly new construction. And for those folks that are getting
their meters out of the manual to the new automatic meter reading,
there's no charge for that. We're doing that within budget in order to
do some efficiencies in the process. I just didn't want to scare people
on the outside, because all of a sudden we're talking about new meter
reading and they see that little saucer thing sitting there by their
backflow device, they're going, oh, man, it just cost me two -- no,
that's not the case at all. This is only for new construction.
MR. DELONY: And new installations.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. On 8-D, it's the by that I meant to
remove in 8-C is 8-D. I had flipped the wrong page. So if you
would make your 8-D removing the word by, because there are two
words by, and, now, therefore, you've got it. So it's just corrected
typos is really all it--
Page 117
February 25, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, do you
recognize that in your motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion? All in favor
of the motion signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2003-97 SUPPORTING THE CONTINUATION OF
THF~ STATF, HOI ISING TRI IST FI JND-ADOPTF, D
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, we're on 9-C now.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're all done with the --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, we're all done with 8, now we're on 9-C
and that's Commissioner Fiala's item, which she wants to talk about a
-- a resolution supporting the continuation of the State Housing Trust
Fund.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. Yes, as you
would know, the -- the Governor has recommended cutting the
budget dramatically, and one of the things that he proposes to
eliminate is the State Housing Trust Fund. As you-all are aware,
Page 118
February 25, 2003
we're a donor county as it is, and -- but we really need these funds for
our affordable housing, and for the different, housing initiatives that --
that we work so diligently on, and so I've proposed a resolution with
the help of staff to submit to the Governor, and we need to do this
immediately. We can't wait a couple more weeks, because they're up
there talking about this right now.
So I'd be happy to read this to you, and I think David Ellis
would like to come up and just say a couple of words, as well, if
that's okay.
Would you like me to read this or -- you all got it, didn't you?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. We got it. I think-- I don't
think that anybody is not supportive of the SHIPS Fund, and we also
must recognize that our legislators have tough issues to deal with,
and the speaker of the house has made the statement, no new taxes.
So we know that it's going to affect us in some ways, we just
don't know the full ramification of it, so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Seems sort of helpless, though,
doesn't it?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, no, not necessarily. I mean,
they're going to pick on our general funds here. So you're going to
see that, but let's hear from Mr. David Ellis from CBIA.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And he's your public speaker.
MR. ELLIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm David Ellis,
and I actually come to you today wearing my hat as the chairman of
your Affordable Housing Commission. The Affordable Housing
Commission, as well as your Workforce Housing Task Force, have
sent letters to your delegation recommending that they support the
ideas that are held in this resolution. It's very important, this is -- for
many years was our only funding source and still remains very much
our primary funding source for our affordable housing efforts in
Collier County, our impact fee deferrals, the things we use to
supplement infrastructure for Habitat for Humanity and other areas,
Page 119
February 25, 2003
even now and what the Governor's budget will do, he's taking out of
the trust funds, and putting it into the general budget. In that
transaction we lose about a million dollars, and then it'll be at risk on
a year-to-year basis.
It would severely hamper what we can do with affordable
housing in Collier County and certainly we're exploring a lot of
issues and what can be done now. But this is the meat of what we do
with affordable housing. Without these funds available we would not
be able to do anything in Collier County, and I would encourage your
support, and thank you very much for adding this to your agenda.
Again, I agree with you, Commissioner, our legislative leaders
in Tallahassee have some tough decisions to make. I've talked to the
majority of our delegation already. They understand this, and they
are supportive of this, and I think they would even appreciate
knowing that you're concerned about this as well and with that,
again, they're going to -- they're going to make decisions, they're
going to do things that are beyond our control, but we would
appreciate your input.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I just want to start
off by telling you, David, that I really do appreciate the time that you
are spending with the committee, and Commissioner Fiala, I mean,
you two have been a perfect example of just not window dressing,
really doing something about it, and being proactive and I know good
results are coming from your efforts. I'd be very supportive of this.
My question would be, is the time element, being what it is, to
wait two weeks might be a serious problem. Can we move on this
resolution or proclamation at this point in time, or do we have to
bring it back to another meeting?
MR. WEIGEL: You're asking me?
MR. MUDD: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: You can act on it right now. We will transform
Page 120
February 25, 2003
it, if you approve it, into our county format. It'll be ready to go.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to second
Commissioner Fiala's proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make the motion that we
accept this resolution and forward it to the Governor immediately.
Thank you for your second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala has a motion to
move this resolution, seconded by Commissioner Coletta and
Commissioner Coyle has some comments.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I have no problem with the
proclamation. I'm supportive of it, but I just have a question. We are
a donor county, and we're getting a lot of unfunded mandates pushed
down on us, and my question is to the Commission, does it make any
sense for us to deal with all those issues in a single proclamation, in
encouraging our legislative representatives to recognize that we are a
donor county, and that we are getting hit with a lot of unfunded
mandates, and that we would -- we would hope that they could find
some fairness in the way those things are done.
My only reason in raising that is I hate to piecemeal this thing. I
don't want to bring back another proclamation next week to deal with
something else, and we're going to be faced with a lot of these
challenges, and I'm wondering if there's any way we can deal with it
in one proclamation, or resolution.
MR. ELLIS: Commissioner, if I can interject. From the
Affordable Housing Commission's perspective I will tell you if the
Governor -- if the budget was approved as it was presented, I think it
would merit serious consideration from the County's perspective to
see if we could opt out of this program. I mean, we're sending
documentary stamp funds now and, you're right, we are a donor
county. We can bring the folks in from Tallahassee, and they'll tell
us how some of our funds help less fortunate counties in our general
proximity, and how that works together, and that's all fine and good,
Page 121
February 25, 2003
but if we're sending away six, seven, eight million dollars and getting
back less than two, that's a point to where the program isn't working
for Collier County at all. And I think that's what we would probably
want to evaluate when that time comes.
The hope is we can hold this program together, and we're
actually trying to pursue ways to fix those formulas to our benefit.
We've been trying to work within the system. If this changed, I think
the system would no longer be working for us.
So whether or not you wanted to put that in the spirit of this
promise, you'll hear from us after legislative session, which would be
more like this summer, if this does go through, because at that point,
the system wouldn't work for us anymore.
And that really doesn't answer your question, but I think you're
getting to the heart of this issue, because we're sending off upwards
of sometimes -- we've heard, Commissioner, upwards of double of
what we're getting back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: My perspective on the question on
the floor is our legislation is going to have to cut something. So I
think we need to try to protect whatever we think is most important.
And I agree that we are a donor county. I've got some material that
I'm going to forward on to the rest of the commissioners through
County Manager Jim Mudd, and I've talked to our legislation
delegation on this item about being a donor county. Jim Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just to kind of give you an overall
Governor's budget perspective, and I'm not going to get into the
nitty-gritty, but I'm going to talk about doc stamps, in particular.
Based on -- based on last year's budget or state statute or whatever,
there are certain pieces of that doc stamp that's set aside for different
programs in the state, one of which is SHIP. In the Governor's
budget, I did see where he wanted to take -- we'll call them
handcuffs, off and give him some latitude to put doc stamps kind of
Page 122
February 25, 2003
into his general fund so he can divvy that out as he sees fit to balance
the budget or whatever for those state programs. But I will tell you
those handcuffs to him are guarantees to us. And I think you're
hitting at one of those guarantees today. But I did see throughout his
budget he tried to get those handcuffs off the doc stamps and push
that money into -- into kind of his general fund where he had some
latitude about what those funds could be used for. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. And our work --
Workforce Housing Task Force is strongly discussing in a package
you'll be receiving soon whether to suggest that maybe -- maybe we
do this as a local community, rather than through the state, and keep
our money here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call the question on the motion. All in favor of
the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you,
Commissioner, for bringing that forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Item #13A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY AND
THE EXPANSION OF THE NORTH COUNTY WASTEWATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY--CLERK OF COURTS DWIGHT E.
Page 123
February 25, 2003
BROCK SUGGESTS THOROUGH EVALUATION OF CONSENT
ITEMS PRIOR TO APPROVAL WITHOUT SUFFICIENT
BACKUP DOCUMENTATION PROVING EMERGENCY;
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS (F.S.255.20-DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY SITUATION) NEED TO BE MET BEFORE
PROJECTS CAN BE PAID; CLERK OF COURTS INSTRUCTED
TO PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSE AS TO WHY THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNSEL IS INCORRECT IN
ITS EVALUATION OF CONTRACTS' VALIDITY; COUNTY
MANAGER AND COUNTY ATTORNEY TO PUT TOGETHER
ALL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS ISSUE AND MEET
WITH CIJF, RK'S STAFF AT BCC/STRATF, GIC WORKSHOP
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next item we have a time
certain, which is --
MR. MUDD: 13-A.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- 13-A, and it is the Clerk of Court
discussion in regard in the construction of North County Wastewater
Reclamation Facility.
MR. BROCK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, fellow members
of the board. My name is Dwight Brock. I'm the Clerk of the Circuit
Court.
I'm here today to give you an advisory of what is going on with
both the Kraft Construction the and library on Airport Road, and the
North Collier Water Treatment Facility.
As you know, we completed an audit of the Kraft Construction
process, and we have been talking with Mr. Grant and Mr. Fridkin,
who are the attorneys involved with Kraft Construction with regard
to that process. They have provided us with additional information,
and we have a meeting scheduled with them, again, on the 7th of
March to try to deal with some of the issues.
We've dealt with some of the issues that we had identified as
Page 124
February 25, 2003
problems in the audit report, and we're trying to deal with some of
the other ones that we will get with them and discuss at that point in
time.
They have provided us with some -- some additional
information, I presume, in an attempt to convince us that they were
right and we were wrong. I'm not sure they have gotten there, but we
need to discuss it with them a little more. At the same time, we're
dealing with Jim, your county administrator, and those issues, I've
given him a brief synopsis of what we have seen that they have given
us. Without going into that until we discuss it with them, we're still
in the discussion mode with Kraft Construction.
As it relates to the North Water Treatment Facility, there were
three contractors involved in that particular project. One was Project
Integration, one was Hasson and Sawyer, and one was -- what's the
other one, Jim?
MR. MUDD: Mitchell and Stark.
MR. BROCK: Mitchell and Stark. Mitchell and Stark, I think,
is still on site working.
As it relates to Project Integration, there was an issue relating to
25520 of Florida Statute, which is a bidding requirement in the
statute that we're trying to work through the issues and find out to
ensure us that the statute had been complied with. There were also
some issues involving some billings that they had submitted to the
county, most of which they have agreed with us now. There are still
some outstanding issues, but the overwhelming majority of those
billing issues they have agreed with us. Some of them we may just
have to agree to disagree, but we are making headway there.
As it relates to the Mitchell and Stark portion of the project, we
met with Larry Farese, who is the attorney for Mitchell and Stark,
yesterday, in an attempt to come to a resolution of that matter.
I'm going to make a suggestion to the Board, and the Board can
accept or discard out of hand, but one of the problems that we're
Page 125
February 25, 2003
having with the Mitchell and Stark contract and the Project
Integration contract, when the Board addressed the issue of an
emergency in that particular scenario, the Board did that on consent
without any discussion, and left us with almost a complete void of
information from which we could come to the conclusion that you
had complied with 25520. And it has been a cumbersome process,
and I had this conversation with Jim yesterday. It has been a
cumbersome process both for his staff and my staff to try to go back
through that process and recreate it, when there's nothing on record
that sets forth your logic, because I'm going to give great deference
to your logic, whenever you make that determination based upon
Board record.
Obviously, I'm not going to ignore the law, but I'm going to give
great deference to decisions that you make as it relates to that. The
problem I've got is that it's been a struggle for us to try to pull
together all of the pieces of what transpired, and put it in a format in
which we are capable of dealing with that issue. We're working with
it. We're trying to work with Jim's office and Jim's people at the
County Attorney's Office, The County Attorney's people, and the
legal team that I have put together to try to deal with the issue.
I, obviously, have a different role than you do in government.
My role, as is defined by the constitution and the laws of this State, is
one of to ensure that, as best I can, I do not make payments that do
not comply with the law. That's the only role I have.
We started out here the other day getting a letter from Mitchell
and Stark that seemed to be, in some way, threatening. I don't think
they intended it that way, but, I mean, that accomplishes nothing for
me, because I'm still looking at the legal burden that I must comply
with. That's what I raised my hand and swore that I would do when I
took office as the Clerk of the Circuit Court, and I assure you that
won't change. They can threaten me. They can do anything they
want to, but I'm going to do the best, based upon the God-given
Page 126
February 25, 2003
abilities that I have, to comply with the law. And I'm going to use
the legal expertise that I have available to me to accomplish that.
Jim has been a great help in trying to deal with this. One of the
things that I think we should all, or I should make clear, so that it
does not become a public misconception, the process that was
undertaken to deal with the North Water Treatment Facility, you
know, we've looked at it relatively extensively, and we don't find
anything that Mitchell and Stark has billed us for, other than the fact
that we've got whether we complied with the statutory bidding
requirements. They seem to have done what was asked under the
contract.
The problem that we've got and the problem that we've got to
deal with and overcome is there's a statutory requirement, and we
have got to ensure that that statutory requirement is complied with,
and once we make that determination, as I have told Larry Farese,
and I think he understands, we will make the check to Mitchell and
Stark immediately upon making that determination. If, in fact, we're
unable to make that determination, we won't be cutting a check. It's
just that simple.
I think everybody understands the problems that we're
confronted with. We understand the problems that you are
confronted with. And it's going to take some time to roll through the
issues, decipher what took place, and try to make everybody feel
comfortable with what has occurred.
I'll answer any questions that I can, if you have them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle has a question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, this is a very, very
serious issue, as you know, Dwight, otherwise you wouldn't be
addressing it. I wasn't here when this original contract was signed in
2001, and the other commissioners were only here for a few months
before that, but if this project doesn't go forward, we're going to be in
Page 127
February 25, 2003
violation of the consent order with the State. And there will be a
virtual shutdown of anything happening in the northern part of the
county.
Now, I understand that you have some concerns with the
contract, and two of those concerns seem to be whether or not we
were permitted to declare an emergency, and the second concern
seems to be whether or not this constituted an emergency. And those
are questions I think we need to clarify and resolve right now. I don't
think we can wait for another week or two weeks or a month to
review.
Now, if you've got some concem about whether or not the
County Commission has violated the law, then I think we need to
clarify that right now. And my reading of this 220 -- 25520 provides
for a waiver of the competitive bidding process during an
interruption of an essential government service, or when the project
is undertaken as a repair or maintenance of an existing public facility.
Now, if you disagree with that, can you tell us why you disagree?
MR. BROCK: I can't. I don't think you read the entire statute
in its complete form. Okay. And I don't have it in front of me. If
you have it in front of you, I'll be more than happy to look at it, but I
think it says something to the effect of if it is a damage or destruction
created by unforeseen circumstances.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Certainly a sewage spill is not
foreseen or else we would have done something about it, I would
presume. But we do have an opinion by our legal counsel that says
not only do we have the authority to do this, but that this was an
emergency, and that the Commission acting in 19 -- or 2001, in fact,
had the authority to declare an emergency. What I'm concerned
about is why we can't get those questions answered now.
MR. BROCK: Well, let me put it to you in the way that the
Attorney General framed the question. The Attorney General said
that the Board of County Commissioners makes the initial
Page 128
February 25, 2003
determination, and if that determination is questioned, then at that
point in time, a trier of fact has to make the determination; i.e. in
making reference to the Court. I don't want to go there,
Commissioner, but if you-all want to go there, I'll be more than
happy to step in the ring with you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if-- I need to know whether
or not you're going to continue to withhold payment on what we
consider to be a valid contract.
MR. BROCK: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You are?
MR. BROCK: Until such time as we are convinced that the
Florida Statute has been complied with, I pursue it to the oath of
office that I took. I'm obligated under the law to do so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you give us your
interpretation as to why you believe these findings of our legal
counsel are incorrect?
MR. BROCK: Well, I mean, there's a multitude of reasons.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Will you provide some writing,
something in writing to that effect?
MR. BROCK: Yes. I'll provide something in writing, but, I
mean, I will stand here and to the best of my ability try to give you a
synopsis of them right now. Okay.
The spills that occurred back in, I think it was 2001, at the point
in time that those spills took place you had a contract in place with
Project Integration going forward to increase the capacity of that
facility, okay, by five million gallons per day. And that particular
process, in fact, was designed, under the first consent order, to deal
with that process. It would have solved the issue associated with
that. Everything that occurred after that, which is the Mitchell and
Stark component of the facility that they're working on right now,
occurred after all of this took place, and Commissioners, back on
March the 22nd, you declared an emergency on a consent agenda,
Page 129
February 25, 2003
without any factual basis in that record whatsoever delineating what
that emergency was.
If you go back and look at a previous agenda item, which was
also a consent agenda item with Hasson and Sawyer, you will see
clearly from that consent agenda item that the consent order required
the process to be completed in November of 2002. And it was
clearly stated in that particular consent agenda item that the purpose
of going farther than that and creating these flow equalization tanks
was an attempt on staff's part to step up the process to November of
2001.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Brock?
MR. BROCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING; Isn't it that we clarified the intent,
the Board clarified the intent of the emergency on those two actions?
Did we not clarify it, that it was an emergency?
MR. BROCK: If you did, I'm unaware of it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So we can make those
findings right now.
MR. BROCK: No. I mean, part of the problem we've got here,
Commissioner, is you've got contracts which have been let. The
bidding requirements of those contractors is provided by statute,
deals with the contract. You've got two issues here. You've got the
Hasson and Sawyer issue, which is an engineering firm, okay, that's
287, or the contractor's competitive negotiation act. If you look at
the section of 287 of the Florida statute, which provides for an
exception to that, the only thing that is required in that statute is a
certification by the administrative body, that being the Board of
County Commissioners, without any additional requirements. We
don't have a problem with that, then. That is, there's no guidelines
for you in making that determination. But if you go to 255, it clearly
sets out and delineates that it has to be an unforeseen circumstance,
okay.
Page 130
February 25, 2003
One of the questions here becomes one of is the fact that you
have a sewage treatment facility sitting out there that you have
allowed to be under the capacity or needs of the community, an
unforeseen circumstance.
The next issue, then, becomes one of was there damage and
destruction associated with that, is water flowing over the sides
because you are incapable of handling the capacity of that area,
because you have allowed them to hook up the facilities to the
structures, damage or destruction. These are questions that I do not
know the answer to yet.
One of the things that I'm attempting to avoid here is walking
over here to the building right behind us and dealing with the issue in
the courthouse. And I'm trying to work with the county staff, county
attorney and my legal team in order to facilitate that process. If that
is an unacceptable process, there is certainly another solution.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Under the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was next.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm so sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay. Essentially, your
position is that the failure of a sewage processing plant and the
correction of that condition is not an emergency situation, and that --
MR. BROCK: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and that what we should have
done was to ignore it as an emergency situation, and we should have
gone through a lengthy process of soliciting proposals, and
evaluating the proposals, and then awarding those proposals while
that plant was essentially shut down.
MR. BROCK: No, sir. That's not a correct statement of fact.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But it appears to me that
that's essentially what you're saying. This is -- this is a serious issue
for all of us, and if you're going to withhold -- withhold the payment,
Page 131
February 25, 2003
what I would request the Board to do would be to ask you for a -- a
response to our attorney's position on this. And if that -- that that
position -- I mean, if you don't want to respond in writing to
something of this importance, then, let's do it in court.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, I don't have a problem if that's
where you want to go.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you're making a decision. If
you don't want to pay the contractor, based upon what we believe is a
valid contract, and you have no -- you have no written response to us
telling us why it's not, then you make the call.
MR. BROKE: Commissioner, my responsibility under the law
is not to make the payment if I'm not convinced that it's lawful. If
you think I'm wrong, there's an avenue in the court for you to go to
court to force me to pay it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would you say that you're --
you're unwilling to provide us a written response to our position?
MR. BROCK: I think I have answered that question, and I told
you I would.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You will provide us a written
response?
MR. BROCK: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what's the time frame?
MR. BROCK: Well, as soon as we can. You know, one of the
problems that we've had, I sent you a letter the other day, and one of
the problems that we have had is compiling the facts. Now, let me
give you a history, okay, of this opinion from your County Attorney's
Office.
We had a meeting with the County Attorney's Office before two
weeks ago, and we set on the agenda for us to come in here and have
a discussion with you. I got a call from the County Attorney's Office
and requested my attorney to call him back and told him that if he
wanted it pulled that we would pull it. And he asked us to pull it. So
Page 132
February 25, 2003
we did.
About four days later, we get from Jim Mudd a copy of an
opinion from the County Attorney's Office dated the day that he
asked us to pull it. We had no mention, whatsoever, of that. After
that occurred, we had a meeting with your County Attorney's Office,
in which I asked them to sit down and provide us a synopsis of the
facts as late as this morning. We're still getting that synopsis of the
facts.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It seems to me when I read under
the statute of 255.2, and by the way, I wasn't here at the time sitting
on the dais, but I do remember that when this took place, I think
everybody in the community was very upset about what was going
on, and under statute 255.2 it says in here under subject A, that an
immediate danger to public health and safety, and it must've been
immediate danger to public health and safety because of the directive
that we received from Florida Department of Natural Resources
saying that they were going to shut the whole city down if we didn't
get this rectified.
And the other thing was, under C, it also states that interruption
of an essential government service, and I think at the time we would
consider that either sewer or water would be an essential government
service that is provided by the citizens of this community -- for the
citizens of this community.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner Halas, let me explain something
to you. You're trying to lump all aspects of this contract into one
incident. Can't do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But this --
MR. BROCK: At the time point in time that we had the
so-called interruption of governmental services, we had a contract
with Project Integration that was designed for the purpose of
remedying the problems that existed. Then, after that we declared an
Page 133
February 25, 2003
emergency back on March the 22nd, 2001, okay. Let's go on through
the process here, okay. On March the 22nd, on a consent agenda
item, the Board of County Commissioners approved an emergency,
without the underpinnings of what that emergency was, no discussion
whatsoever. And at the same time, you authorized staff to enter into
a contract. Now let's go through the process. Four hundred and
twenty-one days from the declaration of that emergency, staff signs a
contract. Now, staff signs that contract after it was sent out to three
people and asks for bids. That did not comply with Florida statute,
but you went through the process of developing all of the criteria and
evaluating the proposals, but it was not what was set forth in the
Florida statute as to the notice requirements under 255.
You came back later when I pointed out to Mr. Mudd that the
Board of County Commissioners had never even approved that
contract. That was signed by staff. And it was a process separate
and apart. It was flow equalization tanks, not dealing with the
immediate emergency that the contract with Project Integration was
designed to correct. It was an enhancement to the facility even
further.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Halas, Commissioner Halas, Mr.
Brock, if we can't hold hands and resolve this issue, maybe it's in the
best interest of everybody to have the judge decide. So I think that
we ought to put a time line on it, and if we can't come to some
resolution -- we have to come to a resolution somehow, so we might
as well get there.
MR. BROCK: You got it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, you want to
continue?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One of the things that bothers me
here is that in the time line that they're waiting, what is going to
happen as far as continuing on with upgrading the facilities that we
have. And the other thing that I'm concerned about is that I don't
Page 134
February 25, 2003
think we want to get into a shouting match with anybody. I think
what we want to do here is try to resolve what the problems is. But I
think under the situation that the commissioners who were sitting on
this dais at the time, they were trying to deal with a problem that took
place.
Now, about all of the other reasons that they didn't go to the
particular contractor that was under contract at the time, could've
been because maybe they felt that that contractor couldn't be --
couldn't commit to getting the facilities up and running as quick as
we felt was necessary here in the county.
MR. BROCK: One of the three contractors that you went to
with your bid was the contractor that you had on-line at the time. So
you took it to that particular contractor.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I don't like the
way this is going one bit. We have the Clerk of Courts here that's
very much respected within the community, and I value his opinion.
We have our staff who has done a wonderful job in the past of
handling difficulties and got us through all sorts of problems. I'd like
to see us make a recommendation that they go back and talk about
this one more time before we get to the point that it becomes
irreversible and we spend a lot of the public's money on attorneys.
This is -- I'll be honest with you, I'm a little bit disappointed in
everyone in this room right now. I expect better from everyone. I
would hope that we could go back one more time, sit down around
the table, and try to work this thing out with a logical solution. Put
any animosities aside that we have at this point in time, any angers,
anything that we feel inside, and let's solve the real problem that's
here, and let's get on with life. This thing here should not be
dominating the scene. It should have a simple solution to it, and we
should be able to put it behind us.
So I'm asking you one more time to go back, sit down, and see if
Page 135
February 25, 2003
you can come up with an understanding. If not, we're going to be
wasting the taxpayers' money, and I don't want to see that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree. We need to find the
problem, but this particular issue is not the problem. The problem is
why, when a contract that was let in 2001, are we dealing with
whether or not it's valid in 2003. Now, you know, I don't understand
MR. BROCK: The contract was not let in 2001.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. But the emergency
was declared in 2001, and they were operating under the assumption
they were going to have to have a contract to do the job. So the
question I have here is why does it take so long for the Clerk's Office
and our staff to understand the basic fundamentals of whether or not
this was an emergency, and whether or not the Board of County
Commissioners had a right to declare an emergency and bypass the
competitive procurement provisions.
The law, as I read it, and I'm not a lawyer, I don't pretend to
understand it all, but the law, as I read it, and the law as our attorney
reads it, is very clear. Now, we're here debating this when it would
be relatively simple to provide a written opinion from your attorney,
perhaps, to our attorney indicating where we are wrong, and at that
point in time, we can decide to agree or disagree. But this process
has happened too many times. We have gone through this process
too many times. There is something fundamentally wrong here about
why you can't bring to the Board of County Commissioners or our
staff your concerns and let us address them early on without having it
appear in newspaper headlines.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we're not pointing fingers, we're
just saying that something is broken --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Something's wrong.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- And needs to be fixed.
Page 136
February 25, 2003
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, excuse me. You know, I can't let
it go without saying anything. Your staff doesn't come to me and
consult with me about the decisions that they make. If they did, I
would try to help them and direct them, but that's not the routine
matter. I will tell you that that process is changing appreciably with
your present county manager coming on the scene. But I can tell you
that nobody ever came to me and asked me whether or not this was
an emergency at the point in time that we had it. The only time we
see it is when the bills come across our desks.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can't tell me that you did not
know about the sewage spill in North Naples, and you did not know
that there was an emergency there. Nobody had to come and ask you
or tell you that that was the case. You knew that was happening.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, if I thought that what you just
said met the statutory requirements, we wouldn't be here. What I'm
telling you is that doesn't meet the statutory requirements.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not sure if we're getting
anywhere.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, if I could help just a little bit.
What I will do with staff is I will provide -- Dwight mentioned earlier
in his statement about a time line to lay that out in excruciating
detail, and he asked the attorney this morning. I will get that time
line to him in excruciating detail. I will sit my staff down, as many
people as I have to that were involved in this, with his folks from
now, and let's say Friday morning, when you-all meet for the strategy
session, and we'll tell you if we're any farther along than we are
today. And if we can't come to some agreement in the next three
days or so and provide all that information, at that particular juncture,
if we choose to disagree, okay, and sometimes you get there, and
Dwight and I have talked about this before, then we will get some
higher authority to make a decision one way or the other. But let's
see what we can do over the next three days to get all -- if there's any
Page 137
February 25, 2003
blanks in there or there's any missing information, or the time line,
we'll get all that staff over to the Clerk, and we'll try to come up with
some resolution before Friday.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and I'm listening to
everything that's taken place, and I'd like to see if we can prevent
these type of meltdowns in the future, so that we can all do the right
thing, whatever it may be. And I propose to you, Mr. Brock, with all
due respect to your position, we'd be better served if you or your
designee would take a seat at the end of this dais and work with us
during the meeting. It's done in most counties around here. And if
they were here on a continuous basis -- I think the problem is there's
a communication lack where possibly the agenda, maybe, doesn't get
to you in a timely fashion, the daily function back and forth, but it
would be absolutely wonderful if a member of the Clerk's Office was
sitting down at the end of the dais, and they, sir, would you hold on
for a minute. We beg to differ with you in the direction you're going.
What a God send that would be if we could stop the fire before it
even started.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, I don't have a problem doing
that. You know, when I first started out as Clerk of the Circuit
Court, that was a process that we did. And through the years we got
moved from that position and, basically, we were told that, you
know, we were basically in persona non grata, but you know,
Commissioner Henning has suggested this in the past, and we'll be
more than happy to do that, if that's what you want.
One of the things that's happening today, that is totally different
than what has happened in the past, even back when all of this took
place, was Jim has my staff in the meetings that take place where
they discuss the agenda items, and we try to raise the issues.
Now, when this process started, we identified a concern that we
had about staff never approving two of the contracts. Okay. It came
Page 138
February 25, 2003
back before the Board. It came back before the Board in the form
that we did not necessarily agree had accomplished what we were
trying to accomplish. And we had asked that it be pulled from the
agenda, and, you know, out of pure oversight on some of our parts, it
didn't make it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Brock, I hear you, and I'd
feel a lot more comfortable if we were dealing in the sunshine with
you at the end of the dais and working with my county manager and
my staff. We're the people that make the decision and, we're the
people that are responsible for the decision. We very much welcome
your input before the fire starts. And I would hope that at the next
meeting when we convene up here that we have you at the end, and
when we reach points of contention you may be able to interject your
opinion, so we won't go down the wrong path, and we can eliminate
these problems before they ever begin.
MR. BROCK: I'll do my best.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The issue at hand, the
suggestion is for our county staff and County Attorney to work with
Mr. Brock, the Clerk of Courts, and we have time line, and a report
on our strategic planning session, which is on Friday. The question
would be, Mr. Weigel, can the Board take an action at this meeting?
MR. WEIGEL: You can. You can give general directions to
staff --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: -- at that point in time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No vote, just a direction?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you can even take a vote, as far as just
making the record as clear as you wish, as far as that goes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay
MR. WEIGEL: To the extent that that's -- this is Tuesday, and
that's Friday, we can make it an agenda item at the beginning of-- as
Page 139
February 25, 2003
a Board agenda item at the beginning of the meeting, as we did it a
couple of weeks ago on a recent matter. So, that's easy enough to do
and there are no notice issues in regard to that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So it sounds like we got some
direction, and we'll see where we're at on Friday. Commissioner
Halas has something.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've just got a question for staff. If
this leads to litigation and we can't resolve this, what -- where does
this put the county in respect to not meeting the requirements set
forth by that department?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have a -- you have an item on
the consent order that talks about the completion of equalization
tanks. This is a consent order, at the time it came up and we brought
it before the Board when we were going through that negotiation, if
you remember correctly, it was in the March time frame, March 13th,
2001, we came to the Board and started to address this, and then on
the 27th of March we addressed it again during the Board meeting,
and then we had an emergency Board meeting on the 30th of March,
and we were running back and forth to Fort Myers.
There is a requirement to have the equalization tank up and
running in November of 2003. Now, let me -- because there's some
dates that seem to have moved a little bit. The original -- the original
consent order had it for November, 2002. The permits, site
conditions, had changed during that process, and there had been
about, oh -- it wasn't until February, 2002 that we received the permit
from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, even to
get a go ahead on the equalization tank.
In the interim, the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection in the consent order made us not use half of the capacity
of the new plant that came on line, the new expansion, the five
million gallon. We could only use 2.5 million gallons of that. We
had to keep 2.5 in the aeration tanks in abeyance to be used as an
Page 140
February 25, 2003
equalization tank in order to get that done.
When they couldn't get us the permit earlier than February of
2002, and our design engineer told us at that time that it was -- it was
going to take us 16 to 18 months to get the equalization tank done, it
become evident to the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection that there was no way that the County could meet the
consent of November, 2002, and have that thing built that fast,
because you have to have the design done. The design was finished
around January, the permit, February, issued the first phase, which
was the ground work. We found ourselves in some wetland. We
tried to buy land from Collier Enterprises to the north of the property,
but they chose not to sell it to us. So we were stuck in a swamp.
And so we did the best we could, and we were originally going to
have a five million gallon equalization tank. The design came back,
plant capacities and whatnot. We could've reduced that to four
million gallons, and we were going to do that with the cone tank, if
you remember we talked about an oval at one time in front of the
Board, but that wouldn't fit on the property, nor would it fit on --
from an environmental perspective, because we found ourselves in a
swale in a live stream that we had to bridge over in order to do that.
So we separated the equalization tanks into two.
Long story, they give us until November 2003 to bring
equalization tanks in. But they made us do some things, like, you
can't use half of your plant. Now, that didn't work the first year,
okay, when it came on line, and the plant was very hard to get settled
down last season by using half the aeration with the new plant. The
new plant, five million gallon, was designed to work as one system,
not to have half of it sitting there and half working. So we were
giving the bugs too much air or we weren't giving it enough.
We went back to the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection to said, hey, look, this isn't making any sense to us, and
we're having a tough time stabilizing the plant, in case we do this
Page 141
February 25, 2003
again, and so they -- they acquiesced and let us use that half million
gallon equalization this time around, and I think it's up to the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection for a change this time. And
we brought something to the Board here a couple of months ago,
which was to add aeration to the old plant, floating aerators and we
brought that to the Board and basically said, if we could bring that on
line, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection would let
us use two runs of that aeration basin and bring all five million
gallons to bear, knowing that we were going to have the equalization
tanks in November 2003.
So, Commissioner Halas, I laid down the time line for you. The
issue now is if right now that contractor is a little bit ahead of
schedule in his contract, and that's Mitchell and Stark, because
they're building the equalization tanks right now, they have demobed
some of their subs right now, their electrical and whatever. I asked
them if they could please stay on -- stay on the job until the end of
the month so that -- that, you know, we can make some decision one
way or the other here, because I know Mr. Brock was going to
address the Board in the hopes that we could -- we could come up
with some solution to this, so that we wouldn't lose them offjob. But
they demob, and then you run into all kinds of contract negotiations
and judgments and lawsuits and things like that. But we'll miss the --
we'll miss that consent agenda, or the consent order item, and then
we're pretty much at the beck and call and will of whatever the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection wants to give us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then are susceptible to fines, then,
being levied to us?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think on Friday, once we get
done with this, and we come to some -- some decision or
non-decision, I think we need to either address some higher being, if
it goes that way, and I think we can provide the information that Mr.
Brock is looking for. If it goes to that, and we have to -- we have to
Page 142
February 25, 2003
enter into some lengthy process, I think that the Board, through the
Chairman, owes the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
a letter that basically says we might be in breach of our consent
order, and then see if we can't start some negotiation to minimize
whatever impact that would cause on the County.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And this item's going to come back
up on Tuesday, we're going to discuss it in more detail. MR. MUDD: Friday.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry, Friday. So is there any
further discussion on this item? Yes. We have two commissioners
that -- Commissioner Coyle and then Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I want to get one thing clear, that
the reason the contractor is demobilizing at that site is that they are
not getting paid; is that right?
MR. MUDD: That's true. Sir, we have, through this staff, we
have passed through vouchers three, four and five, I think, Dwight.
MR. BROCK: Three and four.
MR. MUDD: Three and four. And so those are the payments
that are being held up right now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And that contractor, through their lawyer, has
talked to Dwight about that. That was Mr. Larry Farese. MR. BROCK: Larry Farese.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- and they're not likely to
continue working, I presume, if their payments are paid up; is that a
fair statement, or if their payments are not made for these two
vouchers, as well any others? Are they going to keep working free
of charge?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
MR. MUDD: They might.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
Okay. Now, if they demob --
-- if they demobilize, and then we
Page 143
February 25, 2003
have to bring them back in order to get this job done on time, we're
looking at some additional costs, aren't we? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is an important issue that
needs to be resolved in days.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Commissioner Coletta.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, so we all understand the time
line here, the bill for request number three was received in my office
on, I think it was January 24th. It was submitted to the County, its
design engineer, on December 9. The date that I responded to Mr. --
Commissioner Henning's letter, we had had in our office the request
number four two days. So the prompt payment act gives us 25 days
in which to respond. We have responded and told them our issues
and there are some times in the prompt payment act that relate to the
payment process. The delay that has occurred here to this point is in
conformance with the prompt payment act, except for the delivery to
your office on the 9th -- the 9th of December and it being held there
until the 24th of January.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If it had been received in your
office a month earlier, would you have paid it?
MR. BROCK: Well, to answer your question honestly and
truthfully, we may very well have, because we hadn't caught the
problems associated with this particular negotiation process in the
early stages of this payment process. It was not until later on that
we caught the issue about whether or not you complied with the
statutory requirements for bidding.
Commissioner, you seem to be implying that I'm creating the
obligation. Contrary to that, Florida law creates the obligation. All I
try to do is to apply the Florida law. If, in fact, there is a problem
here, and I am correct, and I was to pay that, knowing what I know
today, I have a major problem. That is not going to happen under
Page 144
February 25, 2003
any circumstances.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is not the issue. The issue is
MR. BROCK: That is the issue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. The issue is whether or not
this was a legal contract and whether or not the County
Commissioners had the right to declare an emergency and bypass the
competitive procurement process.
I do not understand why two lawyers can't sit down and
determine whether or not that is the case in one day. The law is here.
Look at it, and tell somebody why it doesn't work. Now, if it doesn't
work, we go to court.
MR. BROCK: Do you want me to look at the record set by the
Board of County Commissioners in making that determination?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't care what you look at. Just
get all the facts.
MR. BROCK: Is that what you want me to look at,
Commissioner? If you do, I can tell you right now it doesn't.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then tell us what it doesn't
do, and then we'll make a decision. Can you do that?
MR. BROCK: Well, I mean, you have none of the statutory
requirements set out in your findings from the Board when you made
the decision. You know, this thing went through a consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Bullshit.
MR. BROCK: What'd you say? Bullshit?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me read to you exactly what
the staff said.
MR. BROCK: I mean, wait just a second, Commissioner.
Didn't you say bullshit?
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Mr. Brock, we're not getting
anywhere. We're going to continue this on Friday, and we're going
to move on on this item.
Page 145
February 25, 2003
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, I will hire the legal team and
we'll start if that's where you want to go. I don't have a problem. It's
up to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's up to you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It takes a majority. We're not going
to get a majority. This is a discussion item, we're going to go on --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I need
to be recognized. I was waiting--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we need to take a ten minute
break and get everybody settled down here. I really do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm for the break, and I would
like to speak when we come back. I think we need to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine. Thanks. Ten minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Gentlemen, ladies -- and lady.
Okay. Where did we lay off-- leave off?.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I was the next speaker,
Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. What I'd like to
share with you is the answer for future problems is the survey I did
some nine months ago about the Clerk of Court attending County
Commission meetings, and I surveyed 16 different counties, and at
that time, of the 16 counties, let's see if I got this right, five of them
said, yes, they personally attend, four says as needed, and seven said,
no, but in any case, when the Clerk of Court isn't there, they have a
designee that sits up there on the dais, or out in the near audience to
be able to take -- and I'd like to share the survey with you and
whoever else would like to have a copy of it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: A very good point, but I'm not sure
if this is the discussion that--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it is the discussion. We
Page 146
February 25, 2003
want to try to come up with a mechanism to avoid this problem in the
future.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Well, we need to come to a
resolution on this problem today, and I think that's what the
discussion is right now.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner Coletta, if you want me to attend
the Board meeting --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir.
MR. BROCK: -- I don't have a problem attending the Board
meeting. Every clerk in this state has a designee at the meeting to
take the minutes. I have a designee at this meeting taking the
minutes. That is a requirement by law. That designee being the lady
sitting right in front of me, the court reporter, whom I have a contract
with. But, obviously, that court reporter nor any designee that is
there for the purpose of taking minutes, is not going to be able to
provide you with the information that, I think, you would like me to
assist you with.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
MR. BROCK: And I don't have a problem doing that. I'll be
more than happy to do that, and try to help you. One of the reasons
that we have worked with Mr. Mudd, one of the reasons that we have
tried to create the major contracts department, was so that we could
deal with these issues up front.
I've worked very hard with Jim in an attempt to try to solve
some of the problems that we are now running into. Part of the
problem is that this mechanism was not in place prior to Jim Mudd. It
was not wanted prior to Jim Mudd. And Jim has made it very clear
that not only does he welcome it, but it helps him. We agree totally.
We want to make the process work better. That's our objective. My
role in life, what I have sworn to do when I raised my hand and took
the oath of office of the Clerk of Circuit Court was to follow the laws
and the constitution of the State of Florida and the United States.
Page 147
February 25, 2003
That's all I try to do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. And I hope that you
would share that with us on a regular basis to avoid these flare-ups
again in the future. I think with you -- your presence in this building
up front, when we're having the meetings, especially on contentious
issues where the Clerk of Courts enters in, your expertise would help
to avoid it before it becomes something where we're dealing to put
out a fire after the fact. You, Mr. Brock, came to me some time ago,
and you said, Commissioner Coletta, if you ever have any questions
about what it is that you'd like me to -- what's happening in the
process, and where I should be, just ask the question. My answer to
that was, Mr. Brock, I don't know the question to ask half the time.
I'm not a lawyer. That's why I would appreciate you attending these
meetings on a regular basis to be able to assist us through the process
in a more meaningful way, that will try to avoid it. No one here is a
crook. No one in here is based -- is dishonest. We all want to have
the very best that we can do. We want to produce the best product
for our taxpayers at the lowest possible cost. And I think your
presence will enable us to do that. And I would greatly welcome you
up on this dais.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Commissioner Coletta.
MR. BROCK: And I don't want you to think that I am
suggesting that anyone here is a crook. I have not implied, inferred or
in any way insinuated I believe that.
So don't leave here with that impression, if you have that
impression. The issues that I deal with, I'm going to deal with your
issue that you just raised, in the way that I used to deal with them
when I picked juries for 11 years. You know, every jury that I ever
seated, one of the questions that I asked them was, will you promise
me that you will only hold me to the standard of proving the
elements of the offense. Because I know what those elements are.
I've got a set of the Florida Standard Jury Instructions, so I know
Page 148
February 25, 2003
what those elements are. If you hold me to proving something that I
don't know what you're wanting me to prove, I'm going to fail
miserably. So if you don't tell me what it is that you want, I
obviously do not know what to answer.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sir, I offer for your
consideration the fact that the two previous Clerk of Courts attended
these meetings on a regular basis. It's my understanding that they
were here during the time that the commission was meeting. Possibly
we have to return to the old ways to be able to avoid any future
problems.
MR. BROCK: And so did I when I started. And it was indicated
to me in very clear and uncertain terms, that I was in persona non
grata.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Jim Mudd, do you need any further
direction on this item?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're adding this to the Friday
agenda. I'll have staff and whatever-- standing by over the Clerk's
Office and make sure that we can try to work this process out. We'll
report back to you on Friday morning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
Item #10C
INTERIM INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLIER
COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FOR COORDINATED LAND USE
AND SCHOOL PLANNING-APPROVED WITH NINETY DAY
F, XTF, NSION
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Gentlemen, thank you.. Back
on track, which item is 10-C.
MR. MUDD: That's to approve an interim interlocal agreement
Page 149
February 25, 2003
with the Collier County School Board for coordinated land use and
school planning as required by Chapter 2003-296 of the laws of
Florida. And Mr. Schmitt will be the presenter, or is it going to be
Marjorie?
MS. STUDENT: I'm going to do a brief presentation. Because
my last name is Student, I think we all decided that I would have the
job of being the presenter. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the
County Commission. Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney,
for the record.
This interlocal agreement comes about because of a new
requirement in state law, and the DCA is the agency the legislature
charged with oversight of this matter. And our interlocal agreement
is due to them by March the 1st.
The school board has already executed the agreement and had
their hearing on it on February 13th. And I'm just going to give you
an overview of what it does. And it's to provide coordination
between the school district and the County for the planning of
schools and the infrastructure that we need to put in to serve those
schools, and also it's to provide that we provide them with
information on rezonings and development approvals that would
increase the number of residential units or allow residential units so
they can properly plan and base their projections on the number of
students that are needed to be able to plan their schools.
It also has a provision about co-location of educational facilities
with other governmental facilities, if that's at all possible, and the
provision to adjust the capital improvement schedule in our comp
plan accordingly.
There's also a provision that we've already implemented through
an amendment to our land development code, where the school
district is to appoint a person to serve as the tenth member on our
Planning Commission. And it's up to this Commission, when it
comes to them, whether or not to grant that person voting status on
Page 150
February 25, 2003
our Planning Commission.
There's one other aspect of it that remains to be done. This
agreement is interim, and we have some issues with the school
district, what I call local issues, site planning kind of issues, issues
concerning architectural standards, buffering, traffic impacts, this
type of thing. And we have been working on it diligently, but with
the time frames that we have, and the deadline that was looming of
March 1 st, we're doing this interim agreement, and it's anticipated
that this agreement will be placed -- be replaced with a new
agreement that contains, what we call section 11, which will deal
with those local processes. And you will be having it come back to
you within 90 days from today, which would be before May the
23rd. And that's all I have, unless there are any questions --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
MS. STUDENT: -- and Ms. Wuerstle's here also to answer
questions:
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, you have a
question for--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you tell me what LOF
means? It was mentioned throughout --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Lube, oil, filter.
MS. STUDENT: I'm going to have to defer to --
MS. WUERSTLE: Laws of Florida.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Laws of Florida. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. How much time do we
have before we have to have a final permanent agreement? MS. STUDENT: We have 90 days.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. What's our time line with
respect to moving toward that 90 days?
MS. STUDENT: We are moving very rapidly. In fact,
tomorrow we're having a meeting with both the County and the
Page 151
February 25, 2003
school district with a representative from the Department of
Community Affairs. We had a meeting this past Friday on the issue.
And several of the items were hammered out. So we're moving
rapidly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what would be your expected
date of completion, or when do you think this would come back
before the Commission?
MS. STUDENT: I would hope that it would come back to the
Commission, at the latest, in mid May. I would hope earlier than
that. It's kind of-- there are some issues that are -- and I can defer to
staff on this, where we have some sticking points, and we hope that
with the involvement of the Department of Community Affairs that
we will be able to resolve those and move quickly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But mid May is beyond the 75
days, isn't it?
MS. STUDENT: As I calculate it, this would be a complete
agreement, 90 days from the today is May the 23rd, I believe.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But is that what the Florida
statute requires, that we have 90 days from the adoption of this
agreement, or did they specify a certain date?
MS. STUDENT: The Florida statutes did not specify a
particular date. DCA adopted some rules and a schedule for local
governments to comply. Collier County is one of the first local
governments, if not the first, that has to submit, I think Dade County
also has to submit theirs by March 1 st. The reason we're doing the
90 days was there were some sticking points on these local issues,
and DCA suggested this, as a matter of fact, so we would have an
agreement in place to meet the requirements of the statute. So we
have met the statutory requirements by doing this. We are free to --
under the statute, we can develop some alternative and additional
things in this agreement, and that's what the local process is about.
We have an agreement that meets the statutory requirements. The
Page 152
February 25, 2003
rest of this is to facilitate our planning with the school district so we
can move forward in a coordinated manner, and be a win, win for
everybody.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. My only concern is that, as
I understand it, we have 90 days from today-- MS. STUDENT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- if we approve this, to have a
final agreement; is that correct? MS. STUDENT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And my concern of waiting 75
days before we -- something is presented to us is we need time to
react if we haven't been able to reach agreement, and we need to see
if the Commissioners and the School Board need to get together to
hash out any differences. And all I'm looking for is a little pad there
so that we don't go --
MS. STUDENT: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- beyond the 90 days.
MS. STUDENT: I understand. And we could set a target. I'll
ask staff for their input, but we could certainly set a target of 45 days,
perhaps, just to try and get it all done and then that would allow
another 45-day time period to resolve any issues.
And the other thing -- I don't think we want to go there, but
another thing I'd like to point out that -- because you've seen other
interlocals where we replace -- they've been -- Hamilton Harbor
comes to mind, I think we're on our third one on Hamilton Harbor. If
we came down to that line, we could always replace it --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With another--
MS. STUDENT: -- with another-- with some change
provisions in it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have one public speaker.
Page 153
February 25, 2003
Amy Taylor.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Wuerstle -- Wuerstle?
MS. WUERSTLE: Wuerstle.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wuerstle. Great. Do you have
anything to add?
MS. WUERSTLE: I'm just here to answer any questions on
how we got to this point, if you need any additional information or
documentation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a comment. I think it's
wonderful that we're planning together how we're going to look in
the future, instead of each one going off separately. It's about time
we did something like this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Taylor.
MS. TAYLOR: You took the words right out of my mouth.
We're very looking forward to putting this local coordination
agreement into place. We do respond and gather and use Collier
County demographic information to determine where our school sites
should be generally located to respond to the demand generated by
residential development approvals. Our place or position to have an
ability to communicate to the Planning Commission and to the Board
of County Commissioners in terms of our capacity needs will be a
great enhancement.
Also the other elements of it to where we are responsive as well
to Collier County Government and its services and joint uses and so
forth, is something that we want to continue to refine and improve.
I'm just here, also to, you know, thank the staff for working with us
so diligently and working with another-- another staff and another
elected board. That's always going to be very challenging. And I'm
here to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. And, now, for the
record, that was Amy Taylor, Collier County School Board District.
Any further questions, discussion?
Page 154
February 25, 2003
Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I make the motion that we
approve the 90-day extension.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And there's a motion by
Commissioner Fiala and second by Commissioner Halas.
MS. STUDENT: Okay. Could I have some clarification,
because it should be to approve the agreement with the extension,
and I'm sorry, I forgot to mention one thing. There were a couple of
words that needed capitalizations, and a commas after in
coordination with the School District.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let's get your clarification.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Clarification would be that
the Board of County Commissioners approve the interim local -- the
interim 90-day local agreement with the Collier County School
Board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I still second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All in favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #1 OD
RFJSOLUTION 2003-98 AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER
MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT TO EXPAND BOUNDARIES
Page 155
February 25, 2003
INTO IMMOKAI,EE-ADOPTED
Next item is 8-D (sic), authorization and resolution to the
Collier Mosquito Control District to expand the boundaries into
Immokalee, and I will entertain a motion, if somebody --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta recommended
approval, second by Commissioner Coyle.
Anything that we need to get on the record?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you give a brief synopsis
for those people that would be listening to what's happening about
Immokalee coming on, when they're going to be collecting taxes,
when they become live or dead with mosquitoes, however you want
to put it, and also about Golden Gate Estates.
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes. For the record, John Dunnuck, Public
Services Administrator. To answer your specific question, with
approval of this resolution, the Collier County Mosquito Control
District, through the tax collector, will begin collecting taxes in the
Immokalee district beginning in the tax roll, which is fiscal year
2004. They can expect to have mosquito spraying in the summer of
2004.
And with respect to the Golden Gate Estates, we plan on doing a
survey later this fall to address the issue and, hopefully, implement a
plan for 2005. That's our expectation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir,
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Okay. Any speakers?
I'll call the motion. All in favor of
the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 156
February 25, 2003
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 5-0.
Item #10E
REPORT REGARDING WATER QUALITY OF WELLS IN
GOIJDEN GATE CITY-REPORT ACCEPTED
The next item is 10-E, a report regarding water quality of wells
in Golden Gate City.
MR. DUNNUCK: Sure. Good afternoon. Once again, my
name is John Dunnuck, Public Services Administrator. I was just
going to kick off, before I turn it over to Dr. Colfer, as I mention to
the Board of County Commissioners that it's my pleasure today to
not only have Dr. Colfer and her staff here, but also to have John
Manning representing Malcolm Pirnie who is also representing
Florida Government Utilities Authority within the Golden Gate City,
and we also have Mr. Bleu Wallace here to answer any questions that
you have may.
With that, I'll turn it over to Dr. Colfer, your Health Department
Director, to walk you through the issue within the Golden Gate City
relating to the wells.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We also have Steve Hart, staff person
for Congressman, Mario Diaz Balart, and I know that Mike Davis is
interested in this issue too, Representative Mike Davis. Thank you.
DR. COLFER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Board. For the record, I'm Dr. Joan Colfer, Director of the Collier
County Health Department. I want to thank you for the opportunity
Page 157
February 25, 2003
to talk with you today and discuss the wells in Golden Gate. It's an
opportunity to share information with you, and also to educate the
public.
What I am going to do with you this afternoon is give you the
history of the problem since last October, review well testing data
that we have and its public health significance, discuss additional
educational efforts for Golden Gate residents on wells, and make two
recommendations for your consideration.
Let me start by taking you back to October 15th of 2002. On
that day a representative of Florida Governmental Utility Authority
called our Environmental Health Director, and let him know that
seven of the nine wells in their well field, which is adjacent to
Golden Gate City, were contaminated. And I'm going to put up a
chart so I can show you where those well fields are in conjunction
with the City. Okay. So here's -- so here's the majority of Golden
Gate City, and--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You've got some helping hands here,
Doctor.
DR. COLFER: I need helping hands.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not the tooth fairy.
DR. COLFER: And this is the golf course, and I'm looking for
-- the wastewater treatment plant is down here, and water treatment
plant is here. I'm losing my -- I need help from my Environmental
Health Director, Ken, are the wells here too?
MR. RECH: The wells are over in this area right here.
DR. COLFER: But it's not marked on here. And this is Ken
Rech, who is our current Environmental Health Director. He walked
into the situation in the middle of October.
So our wells are here, and wells -- seven of the nine wells that
they have, which by the way are all shallow wells, and they are here
too, they can tell you some more about their wells, but they range
anywhere from 22 to maybe 45 feet. They are shallow wells there.
Page 158
February 25, 2003
So they called and they said, we've got a problem, our wells are
contaminated, and, you, Dr. Colfer, you need to worry about the
people here in Golden Gate City and are on private wells.
Now, let me go back and review for you what goes on in Golden
Gate City. Florida Governmental Utility serves 3,300 homes out of
the 54 private homes that exist in that city. That leaves 21 private
homes on individual wells in your backyard, or front yard, wherever
they put them.
So the concern was about private wells, and were they also
having problems. We don't have a lot of data about private wells in
Golden Gate. Pollution control actually has a data base that only goes
back to 1990, but we believe that those wells are shallow wells also,
probably not any deeper than what Florida Governmental Utility
Authority has.
We thought this was a significant problem. We began offering
testing through the Health Department to residents in Golden Gate
City. Anybody that wanted their well tested, we were happy to do it.
We needed a collection of samples so we knew what was going on.
Over the next few weeks we collected 200 samples, and at that point,
this was about-- around Thanksgiving, only 53 percent of the
samples that we collected at that time were clear, were good for
drinking. The other 47 percent were contaminated with what's called
total coliforms, and most of the total coliforms were something called
fecal coliforms.
Now, let me stop for a second, and you're making an ugly face
and you're absolutely right, Commissioner Fiala. But let me stop and
define what those things are. Total coliforms, it's an indicator
organism, and if you think of a garbage can, it's dirt in your water.
It's full of bacteria, and it can also include fecal coliforms. So when
you get a water test back that says you've got a lot of total coliforms,
you want to go the next step and see if there's fecal coliforms in it.
Now, fecal coliforms is just like what it sounds like. It means
Page 159
February 25, 2003
that you've got organisms that come from the intestines of either a
human or an animal. You've basically got some feces in your water
in microscopic amounts, but it's there. It's not good, and it's not -- it's
a public health problem.
So I have was in Jim Mudd's office, I think the same day saying,
we have a problem in Golden Gate City that we need to deal with.
We decided at that meeting to send some additional samples up to the
Florida Department of Health lab in Tampa. We wanted to answer
the question, if the fecal matter that was in -- that was in the test,
whether that was human or animal. And the Florida Department of
Health has a contract with a university lab up there that can do some
pretty sophisticated testing like.
So the night before Thanksgiving, we drew some more -- some
more samples from what we thought were the worst wells out there,
and we had somebody drive them up to Tampa. I called the day after
Thanksgiving just to make sure that everything was going along just
fine, they got the samples, and that things were growing and that we
were fine. And the gentleman that's head of that particular lab said,
Joan, he said, there's no fecal coliforms in any of the samples that
you've sent me. And I said, you know, how can that be.
So we needed to retrench at that point. Clearly, we had a
problem, you know, this wasn't making sense. And at that time, what
you do -- when you have a problem like that, is what you do is you
step back, and you do what's called split samples.
And so we went back out in the community, and we asked
people to, you know, let us take some more samples. We didn't do it
for the whole 200, but we took a subsample. And when we say split
samples, it's just like what it sounds. We split the samples between
the first lab we used, and we used a second lab. And for the second
lab we used the Collier County Water Authority lab, I mean, they're
the people that test the water that comes out of your pipes in this
building. So if we can't trust them to give us good answers, then we
Page 160
February 25, 2003
can't trust anybody.
We did that and we got different results. We didn't get the high
numbers of fecal coliforms that we saw. We got hardly any.
So, you know -- but still I was scratching my head, you know, I
just didn't want to take the easy way out, so I said, let's try it again.
Let's take, you know, another 20 samples. Let's do the thing again.
Let's send them to the original lab, send them to the Collier Water
Authority lab. Let's also send them to the Florida Department of
Health lab, and let's see what we get. And, indeed, the Florida
Department of Health lab and the Collier Water Authority lab, those
tests all came out relatively the same, and we had this other lab that
was giving us some results that I was now seriously beginning to
question.
We did it one more time, and, again, we got the same thing.
The first lab just wasn't giving us the correct results, and we couldn't
get anybody to duplicate those results, but so then I'm still standing
there saying, but that doesn't answer the question. It doesn't answer
the question for the people in Golden Gate. It doesn't answer the
question for you-all as commissioners, or to me as the Health
Director, which is, what is the scope of the problem in Golden Gate
City. And we just didn't know.
And this first chart up here is where we were when we got those
-- those results, and you can see that the blue dots are all good water.
Okay. And the red dots are total coliforms, that's the garbage bag
term, dirty water, you know, rotting plant vegetation, other bacteria.
And the yellow, which is fecal coliform.
So that first set of tests was telling me that this place is loaded
with fecal coliform, but when I repeated the test with other labs, I
didn't get those results. Nobody could duplicate it.
So, I said we have to start over completely. We have to ditch
this, and now we're to about December, and we decided at that point
to work with our statistician. Ken, is this the correct one?
Page 161
February 25, 2003
I needed to answer the question, what's the scope of the
problem. And we worked with our statistician in the health
department. We didn't want to have to go back to 200 more homes.
So we said, well, what's the sample size that we need given the
homes that there are in Golden Gate City, and that number is about
92. You need at least 92 samples.
So we went back and we sampled one more time. We did a
completely random sample. We got 117 samples, and I'll show you
those results. Now, I need help with the visualizer. Too many props
here. Okay.
So you can see from this little chart that we collected samples
on 117 homes, and 70 of those samples were clear, meaning they
were good, you could drink the water.
MR. MUDD: Are they the blue ones on the slide?
DR. COLFER: They are the blue ones on the chart. Thank you,
Jim. So 59 percent are clear, good wells, but 47 percent had total
coliforms -- I'm sorry, 47 homes, 40 percent had total coliforms, but
only one house had fecal coliform.
MR. MUDD: That's the yellow dot.
DR. COLFER: That's the yellow dot. So what we had by the
end of December, beginning of January, was we really only had a
situation where one household had fecal coliforms in it.
Now, that's good, but total coliforms are also not great. I mean,
the water is dirty. I mean, it smells bad. It looks bad. It tastes bad,
according to what my staff said. And what that does is it makes
people put treatment systems on so that they can use the water. So
they can drink it, you know, cook with it, things like that. But the
problem is you have to maintain those treatment systems. And one
of the things that we found is that that's very difficult for people to
do.
So at that juncture, we did the lift boil water notice. We had
people on boil water notice back at the beginning of this. But they
Page 162
February 25, 2003
have been on it for four months, and I just didn't think it meant
anything to people to keep it on. So we lifted the boil water notice,
but we did say that it's not really an endorsement of the well water
out in Golden Gate City. Some people don't drink it. I'm not inviting
them to go start drinking it, but you can get good water out of the
wells there. It's just that you have to really work at it. And you have
to maintain any system that you put on it.
We have said that if you're going to have a well, and you're
going to drink from it, you need to sanitize it, and you need to test it,
and you need to do that at least annually. You should let your well
sampling dictate the frequency of how often you do that. If you have
professionals that help you maintain your well system, then you need
to rely on them. And we've pulled a group of them together and
talked to them about what some of their recommendations would be.
I mean, they think you really need to do this monthly. I mean, that's
tough for people to do.
Yes, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we have -- does the County at
the present time have any type of procedure where they go out and
test wells for people?
DR. COLFER: No. You have a small well program in
Community Development. It's got two people in it, and their sole
function is to work with people that are putting in new wells. So it's
new construction. If somebody wants to just, you know, outside the
scope of this particular project, wants to have their well tested, you
know, they can look it up in the phonebook and have somebody
come test their well, bring a sample in, that sort of thing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But does the County
provide a service whereby somebody could bring in well water and
have it tested?
DR. COLFER: You could bring it to us, and we would send it
to somebody else and have it done. It's probably not the cheapest
Page 163
February 25, 2003
way to do it, but, yes, you could do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And do you know what the
nominal fee charge would be?
DR. COLFER: I need help from Ken.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Twenty-five dollars?
MR. RECH: Yes, it's $25 at the Health Department.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Question, when
you're testing these wells, are you testing them at the well head or at
the source that the people are drinking from?
DR. COLFER: Good question. And I have another slide that
can show that to you. We did both. Not out of choice, but, again,
some of the homes are very old. The regulations were different
many years ago. Many of well heads are buried. This is that same
117 wells, but you can see that 63 of them were tested at the well
head, and 54 of them we had to test further on in the distribution
center, or in the distribution system. I'm sorry. And, so you can see
right away that part of the problem is the treatment system, that 54
percent were positive for total coliform, if they had to draw it from
the treated part of the distribution system, as opposed to the raw
water supply.
So it's a problem if you have to put systems on, and you have to
treat your water, and you have to do it with the regularity that it
seems to take in Golden Gate City.
We've got some interventions that I wanted to talk to you about.
We have made this presentation at the Golden Gate Civic
Association a couple weeks ago. We've also prepared a little
brochure, and, Jim, if you'd be kind enough to hand those out.
Basically, what you're looking at, it's just a little question,
answer format, but we've drawn it up specifically for the residents in
Golden Gate City. And the Civic Association has offered to help us
distribute that to people in that area. They're going to do a door
Page 164
February 25, 2003
hanger campaign. I think they had that in the works anyway, and
said they'll be real happy to work with us and get this information out
to people.
I told you that I had to two recommendations, and I'd like to
discuss those with you. I'm uncomfortable that this situation exists in
Golden Gate. I mean, yes, in the end we did get good water samples
and we really only have one person with fecal coliform, but total
coliforms are not good either for people to be drinking. I think we
have a little bit of time here, but I don't want to walk away from this
situation. If you'll look at the density of the housing on that chart,
that's a lot of housing real close to each other, with really public
water supply only to three-fifths of the people out there.
I don't know what's happened, you know, in the years
previously, but I'm recommending that we -- that my department be
requested to do some additional monitoring of the situation in Golden
Gate. It's been pointed out to me that we did our definitive testing in
the driest season of the year. And I don't know what we'll see if we
test this again during rainy season, but I would like to do that. Yes,
sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we any mandates as far as the
County goes that anybody that wants to put a new well, or a new
well, that they have to have a certain depth, or old wells that go dry,
that they have to replace those wells with a deeper well?
DR. COLFER: I don't believe so. I'm not the person that runs
the well program, but I don't think so, and, indeed, those are things
that I have --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what we're getting is
ground water here.
DR. COLFER: Yeah. Right. One of the things I did forget to
mention, it was in the midst of this, I thought I needed help from the
other people in the County that have been here longer than I had, so I
put an ad hoc committee together of Florida Governmental Utility
Page 165
February 25, 2003
Authority, Community Development, where the two gentlemen are
that do do wells in the County, and they had a wealth of information
for us. Mr. DeLony had a representative from, you know, your utility
-- I'm trying to remember who else -- Florida Department of the
Environment sent representatives down, and Southwest Florida
Water Management District also worked on this committee with me
to help review all these things.
Mr. Halas looks like I still haven't answered his question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, you did. The other question I
have is the last question, is there water out there presently for county
water or are we strictly just talking all on -- everybody out there is on
wells?
DR. COLFER: No. And that was what I was trying to say
about Florida Governmental Utility Authority is out there and those
-- there is a representative here that can talk to you a little bit about
what Florida Governmental Utility Authority really is. It provides
drinking water of basically a public supply, that's a treated-water
supply to 3,300 homes of the 5,400 homes. So 2,100 homes are still
out there trying to get decent water out of a well, a well that is
somewhere probably between 22 and 45 or 52 feet deep.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Dr. Colfer, if I can help you along
here.
DR. COLFER: Please.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: While we don't know the depth of
the wells, I can tell you there are deeper wells out there. But even --
I mean, we're talking about the Tamiami aquifer. That's where the
wells are, and it runs anywhere from 25 feet to, I think, almost 70
feet.
So we don't know where the contamination is, but
Commissioner Coletta has a question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think you need to make it
clear on the test areas you went to where none of them were on the
Page 166
February 25, 2003
utility, right, they were all just private wells?
DR. COLFER: Right. The utility, we didn't-- I didn't care
about. Now, they'll tell you what they've been going through with
their own contaminated wells, and the problem that they had. But the
difference is that the utility has the ability to test their water on
almost a daily basis, if they determine that's what they need to do,
and treat it, and chlorinate it, so that even though their wells are not
shallow, even though -- or are shallow and they are having some
problems with it, they can chlorinate it to the extent that it's safe to
drink.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, you're going to have a
truer reaction from our listening audience, and I hope we do because,
I mean, this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed in -- as
soon as possible. Could you possibly now and possibly at the end
too give us a number they can call -- DR. COLFER: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- for the information.
DR. COLFER: And that's part of what this little brochure did.
I'm going to have them talk with Ken Rech, Ken, if you'd stand up
for a second. Again, Ken Rech is an engineer and with my
department as the Environmental Health Director, they can talk --
call and talk to him at 403-2499, extension 5530.
And if I could just finish my recommendations, and then I can
answer some questions. I really don't want to walk away from this. I
think we're all going to be back at the table looking at this city again
sometime in the furore.
So I would like your permission to continue to monitor the
situation, and I'd like to do that again in the summertime. It's not like
you can just go test five wells. I have to do a statistically
representative sample, or I can't tell you anything about what's going
on. I did put a little bit of a budget together. I estimate that it would
cost about $7,000 to do this once again in the summertime. That's
Page 167
February 25, 2003
my first recommendation.
The second recommendation is I would like your support -- I
don't need you to appoint those members or get into the Sunshine
issues, I basically just would like a nod of approval. I'd like to
continue the ad hoc committee that I have, perhaps add some
additional representatives that could help us look at cost and
financing, but I would like this committee to move in the direction of
working with Florida Governmental Utility Authority in looking at
the feasibility of extending that supply to the remaining 2,100 people
that are out there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I want to comment on that one,
because if we can solve this problem through education, the total
coliforms are treatable through the system that the people have in the
house, but if we have fecal coliforms, that is something else that we
need to deal with.
So I have a concern about government taking action, when the
best thing that we can do is educate the people on how to take care of
themselves. But, again, if it comes up fecal coliforms, then we need
to take action. That's where I stand, and I'm going to stand very
strong on that. Okay.
DR. COLFER: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, if there was ever a dangerous
time where, say for instance, you found a bunch of fecal coliforms
and you needed to notify people immediately, rather than send
something out, can you ever use that sheriff's new thing that they're
using now where they --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Reverse 911 ?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The reverse 911 ?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, the reverse 911, to notify
people in that particular area?
DR. COLFER: I'm sure the sheriff would allow us to -- to use
Page 168
February 25, 2003
that, we're all working very closely on bioterrorism issues, so I know
he does have that system. I'm sure he would allow us to use that, but
I'll go ask the question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay: We have a public speaker,
and before we do that, Steve Hart from Mario Diaz Balart is very
interested in this item, again, along with Representative David
Weldon's office and Representative Mike -- Mike Davis. So, I think
there is an action plan if government needs to take action on this.
We're ready to outsource and get some relief, correct? DR. COLFER: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Public speakers.
MS. FILSON: You have one public speaking, Mr. Chairman,
that's John Manning.
MR. MANNING: Only if you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Identify yourself on the record, for
the record, please.
MR. MANNING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm John Manning
representing Malcolm Pirnie and the Florida Governmental Utility
Authority. If you have any questions of me, I'd be happy to answer
them for you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Seeing none, any action, that
-- direction you want to give to the Health Department. I don't see --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Keep doing what you're doing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I see that what we're going to have to
do is a budget amendment.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Dunnuck will have that for you.
MR. DUNNUCK: Absolutely, Commissioners, I'll bring back a
budget amendment, and I'll look at options of what we can do in our
existing budget, and where we may need extra funds.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have one last question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please.
Page 169
February 25, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You were mentioning that in many
cases it isn't that the water is bad, it's that their system is bad, and
maybe -- maybe some people have a problem paying for-- for
something because they're on such low income. Do you have
something at the Health Department that has some kind of-- not
scholarships, but help available to people who need their wells or
their --
DR. COLFER: No. No, nothing like that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there any grant money?
DR. COLFER: And I think that that's part -- that's part of why
I'm interested in looking at other options or options for these folks.
We're asking them to do a lot to get clean water out of that -- out of
that aquifer we truly are. Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we have any grant money -- is
there any grant money, do you know of, available that could be gone
after?
DR. COLFER: For?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Water, clean water for wells?
DR. COLFER: Not for wells, no. I'm not aware of that. If you
wanted to look at assistance in extending a supply, putting supply
lines in, we have at least started some discussions along those lines,
but if that's not the pleasure of the Board, you-all need to tell me so.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that's the pleasure of the
Conunissioner of the district. So -- and let me just tell you the
Community of Golden Gate City is a very diverse community. We
have a lot of residents moving out -- in and out all the time. The
homeowners there are more predominantly minorities, and don't
speak English. So I think that what we need to do first and foremost
is educate the people on the equipment that they have, and the
importance of maintaining that commitment for their health and
safety.
And I can tell you my concern is where we might go with this,
Page 170
February 25, 2003
is the same thing that happened in East Naples in the 1980's, is
government forced people to hook up to the system and forced them
into foreclosure. And if we can avoid that through education, I think
that's the best thing that we could do for the citizens.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask this, then, is this door
knocker going to be in Spanish?
DR. COLFER: That was going to be my next comment. Yes,
we are going to put it in Spanish and Creole.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
DR. COLFER: Thank you.
MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Wallace.
MR. WALLACE: For the record Bleu Wallace, Director of
Community Development Operations. Our department oversees the
Florida Governmental Utility Authority that provides potable water
and sewer service in Golden Gate. So we do monitor the quality of
service out there. FGUA, not to steal any thunder from Mr.
Manning, but they did provide at the Civic Center a rundown of the
problem they've had with their own wells, and also provided us an
update on their future plans to provide potable water to the northwest
quadrant of Golden Gate City. That's in their plan in the future.
Right now they are designing a distribution system for water only in
that area. And I just thought I'd provide that information to the
Board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And it's a willing hook up, I
mean, the residents are not forced to hook up to that. But FGUAC is
looking to do a lot more loops in that system for a better -- in my
understanding, a better flushing of that.
MR. WALLACE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Dr. Colfer.
DR. COLFER: And I was at the same meeting. I think hooking
up the loops was going to provide public water to 50 people, and I
Page 171
February 25, 2003
believe they've got expansion plans for another 200. I would just
point out that that leaves 1,700 people still on private wells.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I think what we need to do is
the data that you provided us today is a good background. It's a good
baseline. But I think we need to go back and look at the data in the
wet season to see if there's any additional problems with the wells in
that particular area, especially when we end up with -- that there's --
if we end up with a lot of septic tanks in that area that may be
causing this problem. So I think that what we need to do is look at
some data also from the wet season.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, if I could just
tell you, FGAC, the utility company, their well is over by the golf
course, so that is on the southeast side, and the water flows from the
Tamiami aquifer comes from the north, northeast, and flows
southwest. So it would seem like the problem is coming from
Golden Gate Estates.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, but what I'm saying, I'm not
trying to infer that we look at hooking these people up. What I'm
inferring is that as a commissioner we have a responsibility to make
sure that the safety and welfare of the people are okay, and that we
just need to get some more data, whether -- however we get water to
those people, if that needs to happen. And I wasn't trying to infer
anything, as far as where the water supply was.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I'm just saying where --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I appreciate your--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- fecal matter might be coming
from, and maybe it's a bigger problem than just in Golden Gate City.
Maybe it's in Golden Gate Estates.
And with that, we'll go ahead and continue on to the next item.
Thank you.
DR. COLFER: Thank you.
Page 172
February 25, 2003
Item #1 OF
FUND1NG FOR DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND PERMITS FOR
THE HALDEMAN CREEK BASIN RESTORATION PROJECT TO
WOODS HOI.E GROIIP-APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. The next item is 10-F
formerly 16-B(4). That's funding of Haldeman Creek Basin
Restoration.
MR. WILEY: Commissioner, for the record, my name is Robert
Wiley, I'm with your stormwater management section.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Wiley, I asked for this item to
pulled, and I just have specific questions. I'm not sure if this is part
of the Lely drainage basin, or if the funding source is the proper
funding source.
MR. WILEY: Okay. This is not a part of the Lely drainage
basin. This is a totally separate study that's going on. What we have
on the visualizer shows you the area that is being studied. This is for
the Haldeman Creek Restoration, which is known as the dredging
project. It goes up to US 41. The source of funding we're using right
now is coming from-- from Water Management, which is collected
via ad valorem taxes. What is going to be done as a result of the
study, is one of the tests will identify the recommendations that are
out there for available sources of funding. For years you've been
talking about setting up an MSTU to fund this project, and that is one
of the issues that will be discussed by this consultant's report coming
back.
So we don't have anything right now, other than doing the
preliminary work getting ready to bring out the report.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And this is for recreation --
recreational use?
Page 173
February 25, 2003
MR. WILEY: There's a two-fold purpose for it. Predominantly
it would be for opening up for the boater access. There is a portion
of it which could be attributed to providing better stormwater
discharge areas. Most of our stormwater areas we have through
there, because it's being tidaled, are subject to the levels of the tide,
obviously, but because there's some restriction in the channel, there
are some areas where you -- if you could remove some restrictions,
we could get the water to flow out at lower tide quicker. We do have
-- like US 41 is a good example. Just right there it has silted in quite
heavily, and so we actually have an invertible weir, which sits lower
than the downstream channel. So there's a small portion of it that's
for stormwater, but the majority of it would be for boat access.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I know that for years we've
been talking about an MSTU to put in place, but I was hoping that
you would also be seeking any grants that might be available.
MR. WILEY: We will be looking at every source of funding
that we can possibly find at that time. That's all in the package of the
consultant when they bring it back to us.
So we don't have any grants yet, but that's one of the issues we
will be looking for that, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I guess the -- Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'd like to just point out a
couple of things. It's my understanding that the main flow way of
Haldeman Creek is a state waterway, and it's very, very clear to me
that the finger canals, if they are to be dredged, would have to be
done under an MSTU, or some other funding, I would presume.
Now, in talking with the residents there, they have presented me
with information which suggests they have, on at least two occasions,
surveyed residents and on each occasion they have gotten a positive
response about establishing an MSTU for that purpose. They wanted
it established for $179 a year, in case you've forgotten. I'm just
Page 174
February 25, 2003
kidding you. But in any event, I would like to see this project go
forward as quickly as possible. And I'm concerned about the
completion date for, let's say, getting through task nine. What are you
projecting for that?
MR. WILEY: What we're looking at is the consultant's contract
gave them 30 months to complete the entire event, which would put
us up into, basically mid 2004 by the time we go through the entire
consultant's series of tests he has to do to complete it, and we're in
the permitting a bunch of stuff to take place in that time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there any way to get the
consultant to do this quicker? What takes so long?
MR. WILEY: Well, what is happening right now is they're
preparing what's called a feasibility report. That will come back to
us. In fact, that's due to us next month. We look at the feasibility
report, take that information back to the DEP, the agency that would
be doing the dredging permitting with us. If we get a good clear
indication that they feel like this is still a feasible project, we've had
the preliminary meeting with them, if things go well with it, then
we'll go full board, which is really what this funding is for, to get us
headed into -- we're getting it so we don't want to have delays to keep
things rolling.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're going to get depth
measurements?
MR. WILEY: We already have --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You already have depth
measurements?
MR. WILEY: We have depth measurements. We have
sediments taken. We've had analysis done on them. This is pulling
the entire feasibility report together to take to the agency, basically
like a preempt meeting to look at it in that perspective to get their
direction of what they want to see from what we have, so we can pull
it together and go forward.
Page 175
February 25, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But I just wanted to make
sure that if we -- if we go forward with the main channel at the
Haldeman Creek thing, I'd like to coordinate that with the MSTU for
the residents who want to dredge out the finger canals. And
somehow I'd like to make sure these things march in tandem along --
along this path.
MR. WILEY: That is our intention, in fact, just to keep it all
together. We don't really intend to just do one or the other. We
figured that everything you see in color here, the yellow or the red,
those are the areas we are investigating right now for potential
dredging.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, it
seems like you got some answers what I need to move on this item, if
I could-- if you could help me out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me tell you what's happening,
and I think the property owner might've met with some of you. But
there's some property located somewhere -- I don't know, in this area
here, you're got it there, that this developer is offering a place to
dump this fill. Now, dumping fill is a, you know, very important
issue, I mean, it gets expensive when we have to carry it off some
distance, and if we work these things simultaneously, and take
advantage of an opportunity to dump the fill fairly close by, we
might be able to reduce the cost of this project so that the people who
are cleaning out private canals could benefit just as much as we could
at Collier County Government. And every indication I get is that
there's strong resident support for an MSTU to clean out those canals.
But they don't have a cost yet. And if we could move this process
along, get that cost done quickly, then it appears to me we could
begin setting up that entire process a little more quickly. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I have some questions. Since
you've been talking to the residents in the area, are they willing to
Page 176
February 25, 2003
create a MSTU to dredge the whole canal besides the private?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. The understanding of the
residents is that they would -- they would dredge the -- pay for the
dredging of the private canals, but the main flow way of Haldeman
Creek is a state waterway, and should -- should be subject to
maintenance dredging, since it has been dredged in the past, as I
understand it. And that it should qualify for maintenance dredging
permission-- permits.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But where -- are we taking those --
that money out of the general fund, or have we identified a source to
make that happen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what staff is going to be
working on as part of this consultant study. They'll come back with a
recommendation of a whole range of funding options, and then we
can decide whether we have the money to do it, or if we don't, we
maybe get some grants or some other source of funding. But that's
what this study, as I understand it, is supposed to produce.
MR. MUDD: And this $116,000 is in their budget. Okay. And
was planned for as they prepared the budget for this year,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And I'm sure that we could
find the sources for that. My concern is coming out of the general
fund, or a countywide MSTU, is where is the countywide benefit
from it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not talking about a
countywide MSTU. This is a MSTU for the residents.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we do have a countywide
MSTU.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I just say --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But not for this purpose. Okay.
Page 177
February 25, 2003
Not for this purpose.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I interject that about four
years ago the residents or the owners of all of the properties in the
area were distributed by Harry Huber (phonetic), when he was there
-- here, a survey. First of all, do you want to dredge these or don't
you. And if you do, will you want to pay for it. Yes. The
overwhelming response was yes, we want to dredge them. And, yes,
we'll pay. So then he sent back another letter and asked to what
depth do you what them, and here's how much it's going to cost you.
If you go to this depth, that depth or the other depth. They all voted
on what they wanted, and they were told then within three years this
would be done. That was about four years ago, five years ago.
Anyway, it's still sitting there. Last year we were told as
County Commissioners on this Board, I don't know that you were
here, yet, Commissioner Coyle, I know you weren't here, that it
would be 30 months from that point in time until they started
dredging, and now we're told, again, that it's 30 months.
MR. WILEY: No, ma'am, you misunderstood. The 30 months
was when we came with the original contract. We are over a year
into this thing right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's good. Okay.
MR. WILEY: I don't mean 30 months from today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no, that's all right. But I
just wanted Commissioner Henning to also know that the people in
the area voted to tax themselves. It never -- it never came to a
countywide. They knew full well that this -- and they even decided
what depth they wanted it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I feel a lot better from
your input on this item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nothing.
Page 178
February 25, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All set. Thank you. Okay. Entertain
a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
seconded by Commissioner Fiala to approve this item. All in favor
of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
HALAS: Aye.
HENNING: Aye.
COYLE: Aye
COLETTA: Aye.
Motion carries 4-0 -- no 5-0 5-0.
Item #10G
BID #03-3475 FOR TEMPORARY LABORERS FOR COLLIER
COUNTY TO ABLE BODY LABOR AS PRIMARY VENDOR
AND TANDEM STAFFING AND MANPOWER OF NAPLES AS
SECONDARY VENDORS- REJECTED AND TO BE BID OUT
AGAIN
Next item is item 16(E)1, temporary laborers, I think
Commissioner Fiala asked this to put on the agenda?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you, Commissioners,
and I appreciate your indulgence. This was -- this particular subject
was choosing Able Body Labor as the primary vendor for the -- for
the County to use when they need labor.
My problems with this particular vendor, and I'm hoping to
bring that to light here today, maybe we can solve that problem, is
Page 179
February 25, 2003
they're right across the street here from the court -- from the
Government Complex. We get numerous complaints from the
residents there about people hanging around during the night hours,
sleeping in the area, fecal matter on their lawns, beer bottles, people
sleeping -- people begging at their doors for foods -- for food, who
work for Able Body. I'm fine with hiring Able Body as long as they
protect those neighbors. They need to clean up their act, before we
fund them. And this is a perfect opportunity for us to do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Mudd, can we do anything on
this item?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, the bid went out and that wasn't
part of the bid document. I mean, the commissioner makes a good
point, and she would know what the neighborhood is basically saying
about the particular person or business that's across the street. We
basically sent this thing out for low bid to find temporary day labor
to fit in where we need them in Collier County Government. And
these folks just happened to be the -- one of the bid winners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'm sorry, I thought you
pulled it for a different reason. I was going to pull it myself. My
concern was once again we had this discussion before about us hiring
laborers to come in here to Collier County Government to work at
the center here, and the low cost is always attractive, but also too we
were talking about the possibilities of requiring their employers to
provide some basic health insurance, so they wouldn't become a
burden on the system, and we're not part of that process where they
are the burden. I was told to wait until the contract came back.
When I seen it was already pulled, I didn't go any farther with it. But
I would like to discuss that issue too, if we may.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, I believe at that item
-- I remember that item that you were asking for the vendors that we
use to provide health insurance to their employees, but I don't
Page 180
February 25, 2003
remember if it was the majority of the commissioners that wanted
that too, because that is a cost passed on to the taxpayers, but I know
it was your concern. So I do recognize it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the taxpayer is paying for
it one way or another at the medical centers, or social service
agencies. It just seems like it should be, we always talked about the
responsibility of an employer, and Collier County Government can
be very proud of the fact that it does provide health insurance for its
employees.
Now, I realize by using an outside service that we can avoid that
cost. But I'm asking you to take a look at this and your social
conscience to come into play here, is this what you really want to
see.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, being a conservative
Republican, yes.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think these two issues are
separate. We're being asked to approve an award of a bid. What
Commission Coletta is suggesting is a change in policy perhaps an
ordinance, which if it is to be done, would have to be done after it
has been properly advertised.
So I would suggest that, although you might feel that we should
address it, I don't think we can address it under this particular item,
because it would be discriminatory if we say to these three
organizations you've got to provide this service without taking into
consideration all of the other organizations are providing services to
us. So I think that's an item that must be -- must be considered in its
entirety under an agenda item at some point in time to be publicly
advertised.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for the ability to
give me a come back on it. The last time I brought it up I was told to
Page 181
February 25, 2003
wait until we bring in the contracts forward to be able to discuss it,
and that's what I was doing at this time. Obviously, there will never
be an appropriate time to discuss this measure from what I can see.
But I want you at all times to weigh the consequences of what we're
doing here for all our citizens out there. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Any more discussion?
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Back to me, again, and the
reason I pulled it is because I feel that they're a public nuisance in the
area. And I either do not want to hire them, or only want to hire them
on the condition that they -- that they operate their business in a
manner that is -- that is beneficiary--
MR. MUDD: Conducive to being a good neighbor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- in their neighborhood. They're
located right in the middle of homes, and it's not fair to these
neighbors who never had them there before, to have to put up with
some of things that they've had to put up with.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Mudd, can we help out
Commissioner Fiala with this item? It was a bid process, correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: We can inform the owner of the property or the
business that, you know, we can -- the Board awarded the contract,
and they were concerned about -- about their workers, after normal
duty hours, loitering in the neighborhood, and they would like -- we
would like them to take steps to try to prevent that from happening.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't mean to interrupt you but,
sir, we've sent the Sheriffs Office over, over and over and over
again. We've sent Code Enforcement over there. They're fully
aware that they're a nuisance to the neighborhood, and they've done
nothing to clean that up. I thought maybe we could have an upper
hand now to force them to do that.
Page 182
February 25, 2003
MR. MUDD: David, I'm going to need some help on this one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
these manpower agencies.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
Yeah, can I ask a question,
Certainly.
Does this pertain to one or all of
Just the one, just the Able Body. I
don't know the other ones, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then, if this is causing so much of
a problem, I would -- I would be willing to have them removed from
the list, if it's been established by record that they have not conducted
their business in a way that's conducive to the neighborhood. Is there a legal problem here?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, there may be. The specifications and
whatnot are probably based on price and performance, and they're
probably not based upon past record of adhering to zoning codes,
public nuisance or health violations, and if the Sheriff has been
called, and, in fact, made a call upon the premises at various times,
and/or if Code Enforcement have made calls based on complaints or
other reasons to the sites, the question that I have, and I don't have
answered here is, have violations issued, or have they come away not
issuing a violation, because the rule is in place, whether it's code
compliance, or the statutes the Sheriff is looking at, or rules of
general application to all -- all properties, wherever they may be
located, and if this particular business is passing muster even with the
scrutiny of the state law review of the Sheriffs Department, and the
code of laws and ordinances review and zoning code review of the
Board of-- well, the Board of the County, then I find it a little
difficult at this juncture to say, no, they can't perform at the price
they're being charged at, but if they breach the contract, and we can
look at the contract very closely, if they breach in the performance of
Page 183
February 25, 2003
the contract, they would recognize that they are at risk at that point,
if the contract were to be awarded to them.
I'm a little bit concerned about changing the rules for award,
when they technically weren't part of the process that was out there
for everyone.
MR. MUDD: David, I would --just a suggestion,
Commissioners, if you want to do that, I would just null and void this
bid and send it back out again without starting to pick people out for
particular items.
MR. WEIGEL: If the timing allows, I think that's a very good
suggestion.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And I'll get back with Mr. Carnell and if it
causes a problem, I'll get back with you next meeting, or -- but I
would -- I would null and void this one and send her back out for bid.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The preferred vendor is Able Body
Labor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They're in Palm Harbor. They're out
of Palm Harbor. Do they have an office --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This must be an ancillary office
here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I would hope that we're not
assuming, and we know that for sure and it's just another company.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is it Able Body right here?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All right. So we're going to
continue this -- no. We want not to approve the contract. MR. MUDD: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And if we have a problem we're
going to bring it back on the next agenda.
MR. MUDD: Yeah, just reject the bids for the time being,
Commissioner, and if I have a problem, I'll come back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make that motion, thank
Page 184
February 25, 2003
you, that we reject this bid and go out for new bids.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
seconded by Commissioner Halas. All in favor of the motion, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you fellow commissioners.
Item #1 OH
F1NAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
VISTA GARDF. NS-APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next item is formerly 16(A)6. It
is not 10-H, the final acceptance of water utility facilities for Vista
Gardens.
Commissioner Fiala, you pulled this one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, this is another problem for me.
I've spoken to Jim Mudd about this already, and I'm going to bring
this forward again. Vista Gardens is another nuisance area that we
have off Rattlesnake Hammock Road. The owner of this facility
does not seem to feel that it needs to be managed properly. They
have become a nuisance to their neighborhood. The neighborhood
people cannot -- cannot get them to clean up the property. Code
enforcement and the Sheriff's Office, again, who go out there
Page 185
February 25, 2003
repeatedly, plus our road and bridge guys, who have to go out and
clean up the mess they strew all over. They've become a terrible
nuisance to that Parkers Hammock area. So I thought, as long as
they wanted -- this is coming before us, I would bring this out and
see what we could do as a County to, again, strong arm them to
manage their property, to enhance their community, rather than
destroy it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not sure that we can do that, but
I'm sure with the county attorney, and then with Mr. Tom Kuck here
from engineering --
MR. Kuck: For the record, Tom Kuck, Engineering Director,
and I wasn't sure either why you pulled this -- this item, that's why
I'm here, because this was really just the final acceptance of their
waterline that was being dedicated to Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we want to accept that, Tom? I
mean, is that something to our benefit or to theirs?
MR. KUCK: Well, I think we're somewhat obligated. We gave
preliminary acceptance to it like a year ago, and then they posted a
one-year maintenance bond. That maintenance bond is now up
because we've held it one year and we haven't had a problem with the
waterline facility. I was not aware that we're having a little bit of a
problem with policing the area, because it is all built out. I believe
there's six buildings with four units out there -- 24 units.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, our people are fully aware in
code and road and bridge.
MR. KUCK: I'm not sure if holding the utility bond is the right
way to go.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If I can help out, I'm not sure if this
is an issue that -- similar that I brought up quite a few years,
Briarwood community, it was a final plat of a subdivision. They had
some similar cases within the community about code issues, and
clubhouse issues, and so on or so forth, and I was told, no, that I
Page 186
February 25, 2003
couldn't do that. And I'm not sure if this is a parallel on that, but we
need some guidance from our legal department.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. Okay. Fine. I recall that too,
Commissioner, and, again, the issues before the Board in this
executive summary, this agenda item today, are essentially
contractual issues, where they have come forward, they have
performed their aspects of the contract in putting in basic
infrastructure and, in fact, maintenance for a year period and had a
bond in place to cover any, call it infirmities, that might occur during
the testing period of one year. As Mr. Kuck has indicated, and the
executive summary states, they have met all of the requirements of
that contract, and, again, I believe similar to the Briarwood
discussion of a few years ago, is that it's inappropriate to use this as a
mechanism of leverage for the other issues, but if there are other
issues relating to policing, health, safety, we have a -- under code
enforcement, of course, they're the typical zoning and nuisance and
I'm saying cleanliness, but in regard to keeping the property from
disease and things of that nature on it, cars and other things on the
premises. We also have, if there are problems in housing, we have a
housing ordinance that requires windows to be -- and all the related
items consistent with adequate and normal housing to be copacetic,
to be in place, to not be in disarray or broken, and these kinds of
checks can be done in the neighborhood, but I believe that I think
we'd set ourselves up for liability for imposing a standard that's not
part of our contractual arrangement before the Board today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. The reason I brought this
up, as you can tell, is it's become a terrible -- and by the way, it costs
us, the County, a lot of money, because we're sending our road and
bridge guys out there to clean up the debris that is strewn around by
these people. And so that costs us money, same with Code
Enforcement. Of course, Sheriff's Office is out there all the time.
That's their job.
Page 187
February 25, 2003
The sad thing is that the neighbors that live in the surrounding
area have been there for many, many years -- this is an old
established area, just like across the street where Able Body is, they
had -- they had a nice little neighborhood, and what happened was,
these two areas were foisted upon them with a slumlord who cares
not what the rest of the neighborhood looks like, or the Able Body
contractors who care not what happens to the neighbors, and all we
can do is put Band-aids on these, but we haven't fixed the problem,
and that's my concern.
MR. KUCK: And I will get with Michelle Arnold this
afternoon or tomorrow too, and rely the Board's concerns.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, yet, there's nothing we can
really do but keep sending these people back out, right? MR. MUDD: (Nodding.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll entertain a motion on this item?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I will second the motion. Any
more discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 3-2.
Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coletta dissenting.
Item #1 IA
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS-NELSON
WARNER REGARDING ETHICS ORDINANCE
Page 188
February 25, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So, Jim Mudd, am I missing
anything before we go to public comments?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you've done everything. We're
going to public comments.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have any -- go ahead.
MR. WARNER: In reading a newspaper article this morning --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name for the record.
MR. WARNER: Pardon me. I've written it down, Nelson
Warner. In reading a newspaper article this morning changes the
beginning of my talk. I'm assuming that ordinance 2000-58, the
ethics ordinance has not been amended. I've scribbled a few notes.
It is my regret to note the indifference encountered that the current
Weigel case is no different than last year when I recommended
amending a near useless ethics ordinance.
You now must face what was predicted. And that is the farce
involving Wastewater Director Cheatham, as described in the Naples
Daily News this morning. Both fall in the ethics area, the headline,
County staff cleared of criminal charges, and Cheatham was cleared
due to something that was slipped into the ordinance to make it,
basically, invalid. Most of you know about it, you ignored it last
year. And now you're going to have to live with it.
Mr. Chairman, Tom Davies said it best in the February 18th
letter to the editor, quote, frankly, it boggles the mind that elected
officials can ignore the will of the constituents -- their constituency,
but they do and why. Because we let them. No matter how moronic,
how sophomoric, how idiotic. We let them get away with it,
unquote. I am here to see if Mr. Davies' remarks apply to this Board.
I have provided this Board with information from the record that
may be derogatory towards County Attorney David Weigel. And
you, all five of you have chosen to do nothing constructive, that is,
for the public notice.
Page 189
February 25, 2003
The public demands a high ethical and accountable standard --
accountability standard. A zero accountability standard is hardly
acceptable. None of you felt an obligation to call and ask me about
my October 22nd drastic public recommendation that it conduct a
workshop to evaluate Weigel's retention.
Weigel misled me, as he did, then, Commissioner Norris that the
Commission on Ethics had approved the use by three commissioners
of $10,500 in golf tournament tickets. That tournament was
supported by half a million dollars in local tax funds. Yet, you
openly accept, if not encourage, that unethical and/or incompetent
behavior by your chief legal advisor. Thus in November and
December, I submitted two studies, one showed how Weigel had
approved a trip gift to then Commissioner Norris. This resulted in a
state ethics complaint by me followed by a probable cause finding by
the State Commission on Ethics.
The second study described how Weigel approved acceptance of
three $3,500 golf tickets by then commissioners. This resulted in
several indictments by the special prosecutor. To the best of my
knowledge, when the newspaper talked about golf-- pardon me, golf
play, I'm assuming they included the golf tournament. There was
other private play also, but Mr. Weigel didn't have anything to do
with it.
You have since learned not a single public record exists of the
estimated eight hours of tax paid legal work that concocted such bad
girl approvals. Yet you five commissioners remain unconcerned.
Weigel's improper behavior has wrecked havoc on the lives of those
who accepted his advice, as well as many others. More pertinent to
you, the rotten reputations of the prior Board, not immediately prior,
but the problem Board partially due to Weigel's efforts have carried
over to this Board into Collier officials in general.
I'm putting those two studies in the minutes of this meeting for
the Internet public to read. And I understand I'm to provide five
Page 190
February 25, 2003
copies to Mr. Weigel, with one copy to the recorder. These are
duplicates of what you've already received privately.
MR. WEIGEL: What are you intending to do with these?
MR. WARNER: Could you please see that they go to the
members of the commission.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Warner.
You have to wrap it up, Mr. Warner. Your time --
MR. WARNER: Pardon me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your time is up, so you have to wrap
MR. WARNER: May I have a one minute extension, please.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, please continue.
MR. WARNER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think Commissioner Coyle has
a question.
MR. WARNER: I'm sorry, sir, I don't hear well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think Commissioner Coyle has a
question, but go ahead and continue.
MR. WARNER: I'll ask for questions. Hold a workshop,
inquire why Weigel has failed to advise you in writing concerning
the many questions posed in my report. Are there any questions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Mr. Warner, I'd like to tell
you one thing, that there are some deficiencies in the ethics
ordinance, and some recommendations have been made concerning
resolving those. The reason for the delay is the fact there is an
ongoing ethics audit, which was approved by the Commission last
year. The person who is doing the ethics audit has been talking with
each of the Commissioners, and we hope that he will be winding up
that audit pretty quickly.
Now, the proposed changes to the ethics ordinance have been
delayed pending the completion of that ethics ordinance audit. And
Page 191
February 25, 2003
we hope at that point in time there will be perhaps recommendations
that we had not thought of at the time, that we can then incorporate
into a single comprehensive update of the ethics ordinance itself.
MR. WARNER: I'm well aware of that study by the professor.
But the fact remains it's only one section of the entire ordinance that
gutted the ordinance.
Now, I was informed by County -- Assistant -- Deputy County
Attorney Manalich, as you have been informed by e-mail by me, and
not questioned, but the Assistant State Attorney's Office said that
with that provision in the ordinance, the ordinance was gutted, we
now have a case. In hand today, that the gut -- ordinance was gutted,
because of this special provision that allows gifts from friends who
happen to be lobbyists. That's my definition of it. It's a very wordy
definition, but that's the result. That's because people wanted to be
public officials and still accept gifts from their friends. It was
recommended that it be taken out. The Commission has refused.
They left it in. There's no reason that ordinance couldn't be
amended, that portion -- that's the biggie, to delete that, you don't
need a professor to tell you that -- that exception is a terrible
exception in that ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Warner, it's really much more
complex than that. The issue that you just held up in your hand that
appeared in the newspaper has nothing to do with the ethics
ordinance. It has to do with employees who are not even covered
under the ethics ordinance, and they're covered under employee's
manual and a procedural manual, which does not, unfortunately,
provide for the same controls that our ethics ordinance did.
MR. WARNER: I don't have 2000-58 in front of the me, but it
includes that the elected officials reporting and procurement officials,
and in this particular case, I understand that Mr. Cheatham was a
procurement official; is that correct, Mr. Mudd, he does comes under
Page 192
February 25, 2003
MR. MUDD: Mr. Cheatham come under that ordinance, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: But the other three don't.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The other three do not.
MR. WARNER: The other three were -- the other three
employees are under the amend-- the ethics code of-- standard of
conduct that was amended in 1999. 1991 zero tolerance, 1999
allowed it intrinsic value, the only trouble is ethics 2000-58
designates that intrinsic value is $50. So there's a conflict right there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, we can debate this for a
long, long time, Mr. Warner, but, you know, if it's not being done on
your time schedule. I'm very, very sorry, but the point is that there is
an ethics ordinance going on. Whenever that ethics ordinance is
completed I will be one of the first to jump on board and see what we
can do about updating the ethics.
MR. WARNER: On the 1 l th of February, 2001 -- 2002, you
told me you were going to do it very soon. That's a year ago.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And when was the ethics
ordinance -- the ethics audit authorized?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was last year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The ethics ordinance was
authorized last year, too, wasn't it?
MR. WARNER: Meanwhile, Mr. Mudd is trying to operate
with an ordinance that's ineffective.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Warner, I have a question for
you. You said you received some advice from David Weigel along
with I think --
MR. WARNER: No, I didn't receive any advice from David.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'll review the minutes and,
but if that was --
MR. WARNER: Sorry, I'll try to hear you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I will review the minutes, but
Page 193
February 25, 2003
I distinctly thought I heard you say that you received some advice by
our County Attorney Weigel, but thank you for the correction.
MR. WARNER: The minutes that were -- all right, when I
asked for public records, I got eight documents. One of them was a
copy out of an ethics complaint that I had submitted, so there was
seven. One of the documents was an analysis of Commissioner
Norris' ethics complaint that I had filed -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I didn't--
MR. WARNER: -- in that he said that he -- I had consulted with
him, and I claimed I had not consulted with him. I asked him ques --
I queried him.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. WARNER: In fact, he gave me several no comments.
That was on the 16th of January, 1998.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Thanks for being with
us today.
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just-- I can't believe we're still
digging up all this stuff, what happened six years ago.
MR. WARNER: Commissioner Halas, we have one man,
Commissioner Hancock, who lost an election due to accepting golf
tournament tickets. As far as I'm concerned that was a very, very --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, you'll never see me accept a
golf tournament tickets, sir.
MR. WARNER: He's made a plea. He has not had a final
decision made or a final judgment made. Commissioner Norris has
still to go to court. The items determined in the record, the report of
investigation by the commission on ethics investigation is up for
legal grabs. His case is still pending. We have a man in jail now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. He's out on work release, sir.
I think he's out on work release.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. We're done with this
Page 194
February 25, 2003
discussion, Mr. Warner.
MR. WARNER: Pardon me, sir?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're done with this discussion
today. Thank you very much.
MR. WARNER: Well, I was just trying to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Weigel
(sic), do you have any comments for-- under general topics and
discussion by the staff and board members?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I have some thoughts, but I'll keep them
for the moment.
No, no comments. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No reports.
County Manager Jim Mudd.
Item # 15A
NAMING POIJICY ON PI IBIJlC l~l HTDINGS-DISCI ISSED
MR. MUDD: I'm going to try to keep this really short, because
I know my head is hurting. The Golden Gate Sheriff's Substation,
Commissioner Henning wrote me a memo that -- and the reason I
bring it in front of the Board, we don't have a naming policy. We flat
don't have a naming policy for a building. I mean, when we did this
one to the Turner Building, you know, it was kind of like, yeah, it
was the right thing to do, and poof, there it was. Or if we want to
rename a bridge, poof, there it goes. If it's not a state bridge. I mean,
there's been lots of times they wanted to change the Jolly Bridge
name to something else, and it was a state bridge and we couldn't do
that.
One of the things that I would like to do is to come out with a
naming policy so that we've got one on the record, and we know how
we can go about that, because there might be a period of time when
Page 195
February 25, 2003
that person needs to be dead before we name the building after them.
There's some things that are in laws that talk about policy or -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have some names to suggest
to you.
(Laughter.)
MR. MUDD: Dead before you name them. But -- or we might
decide that this person is so of a notoriety manner, that we might
want to name it for him or her when they're still alive, but we need to
have a policy. But in this particular case, Commissioner--
Commissioner Henning, and I'll work on that policy, and I'll get it
back to the board, and I'll get your review on it before we put it into
practice. But this one seemed to be a pretty good request, and the
request was to name the Golden Gate Sheriff's Substation after -- or
in memory -- after Captain Pat Mullens in memory -- in memory of
him and the great work that he did for Collier County. And I just
wanted to get the Board's approval to do that, and we can get a brass
plaque done, and get that done. I think it would be very appropriate,
and I think it was -- I think it was a very caring gesture, and
appropriately. It would be a great honor for him and his family. And
once we get the brass plaque we'll get another ceremony together and
get the family there so they can see it, and have some words.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning, that was a
wonderful idea. Pat was just a super, super guy, and I'm so glad you
came up with that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, he's done a lot for the Golden
Gate community. He's really taken a lead out there, or he did, and
his family, they're still near and dear to our hearts. I'm sorry --
MR. MUDD: So if I can get three nods to that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You got it.
MR. MUDD: Thank you. That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Commissioner Halas.
Page 196
February 25, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, I don't have anything else.
But I'll tell you what, it's been a real interesting day today. And I'm
glad that we still can have a few laughs up here after a long, trying
day, and thanks everybody for the fine job that we did together here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I couldn't have said it better. Good
night.
Item # 15B
FUNDING MANDATES AND WELCOME TO CIVIC
A SSOCI A TI ON S-DI SCI I SS F,D
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA. Yes, thank you. I'd just like to
address the issue of unfunded mandates, and I do have a suggestion
that I would like us to consider. There's going to be a certain
percentage of unfunded mandates no matter how diligent this
commission acts. What I'd like to see us be able to do, send out a
notice with the tax bill that notices the taxpayer, what is the millage
charge of the individual's tax bill that consists of unfunded mandates.
With that, I'll leave you with that thought.
One last thing. I'd like to welcome two new civic associations
into the county. One is the Six L's Farms Road Civic Association,
and other one there is the Sanctuary Road Civic Association, both are
alive and well, and probably will be appearing before you for all
sorts of issues in the near future.
Item # 15C
DEMOLITION AND DESTRUCTION DEBRIS BILL-STAFF TO
PRF, PARF, A RF, SOI,IITION FOR FI ITl IRF, MF, F, TING
Page 197
February 25, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one question, I'd like to direct
it to the county manager and our county attorney. David, this
involves a memo you sent to Leo in the temporary absence of Jim
Mudd, and it deals with a bill being submitted by Brown Ferris
(phonetic) Industries, which would severely limit our ability to deal
with construction and demolition debris, and you've expressed some
concerns about this bill.
Would you suggest that we have a resolution of some kind from
this Board to be sent to Tallahassee, both to the governor, as well as
to our legislative delegation, because this could place very, very
severe restrictions on our ability to reach our goals at the landfill.
MR. WEIGEL: I appreciate the question. I think the answer
would be, yes, I think that timewise we can come back at the next
meeting and do that. It gives us time to check with our outside
counsel, David Dee (phonetic), who very ably alerted up to this, and
at the same time with the commissioner attendance up at the Florida
Association of Counties and legislative session in March, that
individual commissioners and other county managers and county
attorney presence, I'll be there, may assist in this, as well as some of
the other issues of great interest here locally. The answer is, yes, I
would think at the next board meeting --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. So would there be an
agreement on the Board to have staff prepare such a resolution?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I would like to know, I think that
resolution was to recommend recycling of C & D.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. They're actually -- yeah, just
the opposite. Apparently, their proposal will restrict our ability to
control construction and demolition debris.
MR. WEIGEL: It's a statutory definition in the law is what's
being proposed at the legislature, and it would greatly enhance the C
Page 198
February 25, 2003
& D collectors to -- the definition is enlarged in such a way that we
lose some of our control that we have in our -- in our own landfill,
because C & D doesn't necessarily have to come there.
MR. MUDD: For instance, Commissioner, what they're trying
to say is C & D is not garbage. Okay. And if it's not garbage, then
you can take all of the gypsum board you want to in our landfill, and
it doesn't make a difference how bad it stinks. Okay. And right now
we take that gypsum out and we ship it to Okeechobee, because it
was the source of the odors in our landfill, and we've cleaned that up
so it doesn't smell. This particular thing says C & D. isn't garbage,
and, if it's not garbage, you can't collect the tip fees that you can for
garbage. Okay. So that's going to be a lower amount that you get,
and they can send any old thing they want to in that process, and
some of it, when it gets wet, reeks. And it's part of our problem at
the landfill in past years. We certainly don't want to go back there,
and I would be more than glad to have staff draft up a resolution to
have ready for the Board for the next meeting so we can let
Tallahassee know how we feel about it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Got it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all I have.
Item # 15D
WAIVER AND TRANSFER OF THE FLORIDA WATER
SERVICE SAI,E-DISCI ISSED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's all you have. We'll probably
have to do a lot of lobbying, not only to our delegation, but other
members of legislation in Tallahassee. One, I guess I need some
direction here, I received a memo through the County Manager's
Office from Commissioner Coletta on the Florida Water Services
Page 199
February 25, 2003
Corporation sale. They're wanting us to sign a waiver and transfer of
taking the authority out of the process. And I know that we spend
$32,000 for legal fees to fight this transfer. So I'm not sure if what
Commissioner Coletta is --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't have to read the letter
again. I'll be glad to comment on it.
MR. WEIGEL: While he's looking, Commissioner, Mr.
Chairman, I'll comment. I suppose anyone thinks that if you ask you
might get lucky and you get it, and I believe this is the matter that
has been sent to us with the idea that maybe we'd sign off,
notwithstanding that we seem to be on unalterably opposed on all the
legal issues, as well as looking after the rate payers in the area here,
and it went to -- it came to all the Commissioners and was forwarded
back to me. I had it sent to Bleu, Bleu Wallace and to Tom Palmer,
our utilities attorney. I already had my own opinion on this. They
have confirmed that and sent that back in a transmittal to you, and I
think -- I think it was maybe to Wynona of Jim's office earlier today,
and at the 10:30 or 11 o'clock break I chimed in again on that, and
our mutual staff recommendation is that no, that you would not agree
as a Board to consent to the transfer. And, additionally, the
remaining question is, is there any kind of response to be made at all,
and if so, by whom. Legally, there's no requirement for a response.
Out of courtesy, either Bleu or our office or a letter from the
Chairman, if you wish, could politely say thank you, but no thank
you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate the fact you're
letting me comment on this. I'm going to read the letter, because I
think it's very important that I do, because you indicated that I was
trying to support some sort of action, and I'm not.
I and the other commissioners recently received a tax letter from
Carl Baxter of Greenberg, attorney at law, via a facsimile from
Dwight Brock, Clerk of Courts Office regarding the Florida Water
Page 200
February 25, 2003
Service Corporation sale of assets to Florida Water Service
Authority. In this letter you will note that they are requesting the
Board of Collier County Commissioners execute their -- their
enclosed consent form to dispose or transfer of its obligations under
the Florida Water Service Corporation. I am forwarding this to you
for legal review and the appropriate response. Meaning, exactly, I
wasn't too sure what in the devil we should be doing with this. I
wasn't something I was going to sit on, but I wanted to get it to staff.
I like them. Can I keep them. Sorry about the fingerprints.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's okay. They're washable. I just --
I know that we spent $32,000, asking us to transfer this, I didn't know
if we wanted to spend any of our tax dollars for legal to respond to
this. You just take it and say, no thank you, or just wad it up and
throw it in the garbage.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That might be the appropriate
response, but I wasn't going to make that determination. That's why I
passed it on.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's why I have an attorney
that does a wonderful job. Hang in there, Dave. MR. WEIGEL: I'll try to.
MR. MUDD: For the record-- for the record, David, because
we're in a court -- in a court -- I choked up from David's comment,
you might get lucky if you ask. I won't go there, David. But for the
record, because we're in a court case with this particular firm, for the
record, it would probably be good if we sent them a letter back,
under the chairman's signature that said, no thank you. My thoughts,
David.
MR. WEIGEL: I don't have a problem with that, and I think it
would be very short and just polite, and transmitted back. And we
can help prepare that.
Page 201
February 25, 2003
MR. MUDD: Because I don't want them to come back and say,
well, we gave it to you, but there was this little thing in there that if
we don't hear anything back with you in 60 days, it's your
concurrence, and I want to make sure, just for the record, that
somebody doesn't try to pull that on us. Because they're trying to
pull that all over the state.
MR. WEIGEL: I think that's fine, if this Board wanted to go on
the record, then, either by a vote or by consensus that the reporter can
pick up on here, that would be just fine, and we'll be happy to do
that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I haven't seen any kind of
hidden little -- little wording in there, but it's the will of the board,
and I think it's a proper action, just to say on it, no, thanks and fax it
back to them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, we got three anyway.
MR. WEIGEL: You got five.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other action?
We are adjourned.
(The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.)
***** Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala and carried unanimously, that the following
items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or
adopted: *****
Item # 16A 1
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2003-03 RE PETITION CARNY-2003-AR-
3726, MR. H.B. "BENNY" STARLING, JR., PRESIDENT,
IMMOKALEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, REQUESTING A
PERMIT TO CONDUCT A FAIR FROM FEBRUARY 26TM
Page 202
February 25, 2003
THROUGH MARCH 9TM, 2003, AT 110 NORTH 1 ST STREET
AND EAST MAIN STREET (S.R. 29) IN IMMOKAI~F,F,
Item #16A2
SUBMISSION OF A GRANT APPLICATION FOR $200,000
UNDER THE FLORIDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
TRANSPORTATION FUND PROGRAM ON BEHALF OF
MARCH PERFORMANCE, PURSUANT TO S.288.106, FLORIDA
STATUTES; AND PROVIDING ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
AS I.OCAI, PARTICIPATION IN THF. PROGRAM
Item #16A3
AGREEMENT TO ACCEPT AN ARTIFICIAL REEF GRANT
FROM THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
COMMITTEE
Item #16A4
FY03/04 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT GRANT APPLICATION
FORMS FOR CATEGORY "B" (SPECIAL EVENTS) AND
CATEGORY "C" (MUSEUMS), AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
TOI JRIST DF. VF. IJOPMF, NT COl JNCII,
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2003-85 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLATS OF "PELICAN
MARSH UNIT THREE (PHASES ONE AND TWO)"- WITH
RF.I~F. ASF. OF MAINTFNANCF. SF. CI IRITY
Page 203
February 25, 2003
Item #16A6 - MOVED TO ITEM #10H
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 2003-86 GRANT1NG F1NAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "CARLTON
LAKES UNIT NO. 1"- WITH RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCFi SF. CI IRITY
Item # 16A8
RESOLUTION 2003-87 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "CARLTON
LAKES UNIT NO. 2"_- WITH RELEASE OF THE
MAINTFiNANCFJ SF. CI IRITY
Item #16A9
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES DIVISION TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE BUREAU OF SURVEYING AND
MAPPING OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO HAVE SECOND ORDER
VERTICAL CONTROL ESTABLISHED THROUGH GOLDEN
GATE ESTATES, TO SUPPORT THE FLOOD INSURANCE
RATE MAPS (FIRM) RESTUDY AND APPEAL- IN THE
AMOIINT OF $507000
Item #16Al0
Page 204
February 25, 2003
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE CITY OF
NAPLES TO ADMINISTER CONTRACTS WITH TOMASELLO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC., FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES RELATED TO FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS
(FIRM) RESTUDY AND APPEAL- IN AMOUNT NOT TO
F, XCF, F,D $243,000
Item g 16B 1
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH KEITH
BASIK AND JEFFREY BASIK, PRINCIPALS OF NAPLES BIG
CYPRESS, INC., FOR THE FUTURE LANDSCAPING AND
MAINTENANCE ON lalASIK DRIVE
Item gl 6B2
BID g02-3365, "SR45-US 41 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH PHASE II
STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT" AND AWARD
TO VILA AND SON LANDSCAPING CORPORATION IN THE
AMOI INT OF $253:925.84
Item gl 6B3 - WITHDRAWN
CHANGE ORDER WITH BETTER ROADS INC., FOR MEDIAN
MODIFICATIONS ON DAVIS BOULEVARD IN THE AMOUNT
OF $16:740 FROM PROJECT 60016
Item gl 6B4 - MOVED TO ITEM gl OF
Item g16B5
Page 205
February 25, 2003
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO MOVE $80,703 FROM THE
TRANSPORTATION MAINTENANCE ROAD & BRIDGE
OPERATING APPROPRIATIONS INTO THE CAPITAL
APPROPRIATIONS TO PURCHASE A TRACTOR PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COl JNTY COMMISSIONERS
Item #16C 1
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CATEGORY "A" GRANT
APPI.ICATION FORM
Item #16C2
RESOLUTION 2003-88 SUPPORTING CONTINUED STATE
FIJNDING OF COASTAIJ PROJECTS
Item # 16C3
AMENDMENT NO. 2, SECOND EXTENSION TO THE
AGREEMENT NO. HW465 WITH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR
EI.FiCTRONICS RECYCIJING
Item #16C4
WORK ORDER NO. UC-016 (EXHIBIT A) UNDER CONTRACT
02-3345 - ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UNDERGROUND
CONSTRUCTION FOR RELOCATION WORK IN THE AMOUNT
OF $861,421.50 TO CROSS COUNTRY PIPE AND RAIL INC.,
DBA/CROSS COUNTRY UNDERGROUND INC., FOR THE
RELOCATION OF A 16" WATER MAIN AND A 16"
Page 206
February 25, 2003
RECI.AIMED WATER IJNE
Item #16C5
ANNUAL CONTRACTS TO SELECTED FIRMS FOR
TRENCHLESS SEWER SYSTEM REHABILITATION
CONTRACTING SERVICES PER BID 03-3455, PROJECT 73050
- IN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,510,000 AWARDED TO
INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND MILLER PIPELINE
CORPORATION
Item # 16C6
THREE GRANT AGREEMENTS FROM THE SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT
OF ~ 150~000
Item # 16D 1
TRAINING AFFILIATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE CLEVELAND CLINIC HOSPITAL - NOT
TO EXCEED $25,000 AND IS APPROPRIATED WITHIN THE
EMS BI IDGF, T
Item #16D2
BID #02-3433 FOR THE PURCHASE OF EMS UNIFORMS TO
RSVP LTD., INC., FOR THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES DEPARTMENT IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL
AMOI INT OF $95~000
Item # 16D3
Page 207
February 25, 2003
CONTRACT #02-3420 "VETERINARY SUPPLIES" TO THE
FOLLOWING FIRMS' BURNES VETERINARY SUPPLY, FT.
DODGE ANIMAL HEALTH SERVICES, MERRITT
VETERINARY SUPPLY, SCHERING-PLOUGH, INC.,
SUNCOAST SURGICAL SUPPLY, INC., WEBSTER
VETERINARY SUPPLY, BAYER CORPORATION, MERIAL
LIMITED USA, NOVARTIS, INC., PFIZER ANIMAL HEALTH
(ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF TOTAL CONTRACT FOR
AT,Ii FIRMS $53~900.)
Item #16D4
CONTRACT #02-3393 TO SPARKS EXHIBITS AND
ENVIRONMENTS, INC., TO DESIGN, FABRICATE AND
INSTALL EDUCATIONAL EXHIBITS AT THE COLLIER
COl JNTY MI ISEI IM
Item #16E 1 - MOVED TO ITEM # 10G
Item #16E2
CONTRACT FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $500,000 FOR THE DESIGN OF THE NEW FLEET
FACII,ITY, RFP #02-3422
Item #16E3
DECLARATION OF CERTAIN COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY
AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZE A SALE OF THE SURPLUS
PROPERTY ON MARCH 15~ 2003
Page 208
February 25, 2003
Item #16E4
AWARD BID #03-3472 IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,000 FOR
"EXTERIOR PRESSURE STEAM CLEANING" TO PRECISION
CI.F. ANING~ INC
Item # 16F 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE
REVENUE OF $27,491 FROM ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE CONTROL
DISTRICT IMPACT FEES FOR EQUIPMENT EXPENDITURES
NECESSITATED BY NF.W GROWTH
Item #16F2
EXTENTION OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND GULF SHORE ASSOCIATES,
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, FOR PELICAN BAY SERVICES
DIVISION OFFICES AT A FIRST YEAR'S ANNUAL RENT
THAT WIT.I. NOT F. XCF. F.D $24~392
Item # 16F3
RESOLUTION 2003-89 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE BY
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA OF $120,000,000 IN
AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA GAS TAX REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2003 IN
ORDER TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE PRINCIPAL
PURPOSES OF FINANCING THE COSTS OF VARIOUS
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE COUNTY
AND REFINANCING CERTAIN INDEBTEDNESS; PLEDGING
THE MONEY'S RECEIVED BY THE COUNTY FROM THE
Page 209
February 25, 2003
HEREIN DESCRIBED GAS TAX REVENUES TO SECURE
PAYMENT AND INTEREST ON SAID BONDS; PROVIDING
FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE HOLDERS OF SAID BONDS;
PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN ADDITIONAL MATTERS IN
RESPECT TO SAID BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THIS RESOI.I ITION
Item # 1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE-FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 210
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
February 25, 2003
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
Ao
aJ
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:
Districts:
Collier County Housing Authority - Audit FYE September 30, 2002;
Management Ltr; Replay to Management Ltr; Approved Budget FY 2001-
2002; Schedule of Regular Meeting for 2001-2002; Registered Agent and
Description of Outstanding Bonds.
o
Cow Slough Water Control District - Annual Audit Report FY ending
September 30, 2002; Management Letter; Response to Management Ltr.
3. North Naples Fire Control & Rescue District - Five Year Capital Plan
°
Collier Mosquito Control District - Annual Audit Report FY ending
September 30, 2002; Management Ltr and Response to Management Ltr.
Mediterra South Community Development District - Minutes of Meeting
Held on September 25, 2002 and Unaudited Financial Statements dated
August 31, 2002.
o
Port of the Islands Community Improvement District - Minutes of
Meeting held on November 15, 2002.
o
Tuscany Reserve Community Development District - Minutes of Meeting
held on November 14, 2002 and Proposed Budget FY 2002-2003.
Minutes:
Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Notice of Special
Meeting January 30, 2003.
°
Workforce Housing Advisory Committee - Minutes of January 6, 2003
and January 13, 2003
Collier County Library Advisory Board - Agenda for January 22,
2003; Minutes of December 18, 2002.
H:Data/Format
o
o
Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes - Minutes of December 18,
2002.
Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Minutes of January 9,
2003; Agenda for February 6, 2003.
Development Services Advisory Committee - Agenda for February 5,
2003; Minutes of January 8, 2003.
Pelican Bay Advisory Board - Agenda for February 5, 2003, Minutes of
January 9, 2003.
Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. - Agenda for February 14,
2003, Minutes of January 24, 2003
Enterprise Zone Development Agency - Minutes of January 22, 2003,
Minutes of December 4, 2002
H:Data/Fdrmat
February 25,, 2003
Item #16K1
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT JEFFREY A.
RICHARDSON FOR THE FEE TAKING OF PARCEL NO. 198 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $6,300 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. JEFFREYA. RICHARDSON, ETAL, CASE NO. 02-
2188-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #60018)- $1,100
DF, POSITED INTO THF, REGISTRY OF THE COl IRT
Item # 16K2
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS JIMMIE L.
ROGERS AND BETTY L. ROGERS FOR THE FEE TAKING OF
PARCEL NO. 200 IN THE AMOUNT OF $69,000 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JEFFREY A.
RICHARDSON, ET AL, CASE NO. 02-2188-CA (IMMOKALEE
ROAD PROJECT #60018)- $7,300 DEPOSITED INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COl IRT
Item #16K3
ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES RELATIVE TO THE
LAWSUIT ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 167, 767, 867A AND
867B IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
WALLA CE L. LEWIS, JR., ET AL, CASE NO. 01-0711-CA
(LIVINGSTON ROAD, PROJECT NO. 60071) - 1N THE
AMOI INT OF $40;660
Item #16K4
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS STEVEN V.
CIARDULLO AND DEBORAH K. CIARDULLO, FOR THE FEE
Page 211
February 25, 2003
TAKING OF PARCEL NO. 197 IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,300 IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ROBERT W.
PIEPLOW, ET UX, ETAL, CASE NO. 02-2133-CA (IMMOKALEE
ROAD PROJECT #60018)- $1,200 DEPOSITED INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COl IRT
Item #16K5
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS LAWRENCE A.
KRAHN, JR. AND DEE ANN L. KRAHN, AS TRUSTEES UNDER
DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED JANUARY 31,1991,
DESIGNATED AS TRUST NO. 001, FOR THE FEE TAKING OF
PARCEL NO. 195 IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,300 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ROBERT W.
PIEPLOW, ET UX,, ETAL, CASE NO. 02-2133-CA (IMMOKALEE
ROAD PROJECT #60018)- $700 DEPOSITED INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COl IRT
Item #16K6
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT MADGE GREEN
FOR THE FEE TAKING OF PARCEL NO. 214 IN THE AMOUNT
OF $3,300 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
EFRAIN AR CE, ETAL, CASE NO. 02-2119-CA (IMMOKALEE
ROAD PROJECT #60018) - $400 DEPOSITED INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COl IRT
Item #16K7
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS DARRYL J.
DAMICO AND BRAD T. DAMICO FOR THE FEE TAKING OF
PARCEL NO. 218 IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,300 IN THE
Page 212
February 25, 2003
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. CARY B. COLLINS, ET
AL, CASE NO. 02-2134-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT
#60018) - $400 DEPOSITED INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE
COIIRT
Item #16K8
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE FEE
SIMPLE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 110C, THE ACQUISITION
OF A PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE SLOPE AND UTILITY
EASEMENT OF PARCEL 510C, AND A TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FOR PARCEL 710, IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. G-4 PARTNERSHIP,
ETAL, (GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD, PROJECT NO. 60134) -
STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF $34,955.00 INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COl IRT
Item # 16K9
RESOLUTION 2003-90 COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH
FACILITIES AUTHORITY TO ISSUE REFUNDING BONDS TO
BE USED TO REFINANCE BONDS ISSUED IN 1999 FOR
CI.EVEI JAND CI JNIC FA CII,ITIES
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2003-91 RE VA-2002-AR-3322, JERRY NEAL,
REQUESTING A 7.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED
7.5 FOOT SETBACK FOR DOCK FACILITIES TO ZERO FEET
FOR PROPERTY I~OCATED AT 86 DOIJPH1N CIRCI~E
Item #17B- Continued to March 11, 2003 Meeting
Page 213
February 25, 2003
RESOLUTION 2003-92 RE PETITION AVROW2002-AR2332 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE ROAD
RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR CORALWOOD DRIVE WHICH WAS
DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY AS 3P~ AVENUE FOR
NORTHWEST BY THE PLAT OF "GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
l JNIT NO. 95"
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2003-08 RE AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-38, AS
AMENDED, SECTION 2-950, OF THE QUORUM
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY
BOARD
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:05 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
' ~IENI~ING, C~IRMAN
TOM
Page 214
February 25, 2003
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS AND DAWN
MCCONNELL
Page 215