BCC Minutes 03/11/2003 R
March 11,2003
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, March 11, 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: Torn Henning
Frank Halas
Donna Fiala
Fred W. Coyle
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Dwight Brock, Clerk of Court
Jim Mitchell, Clerk's Office
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
~
AGENDA
March 11, 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
March 11, 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 IMP AIRED ARE A V AILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Tony Stewart, Parkway Community Church of God
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. February 11,2003 - Regular Meeting
C. February 18,2003 - 2001 Wastewater and Water Master Plan Workshop
D. February 18,2003 - BCC Special meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation to recognize the week of March 16th as Invasive Exotics
Control Week. To be accepted by Melissa Hennig, Environment Specialist
for Collier County.
B. Proclamation to support the Department of Elder Affairs' initiative to make
Florida a healthy environment for a lifetime. To be accepted by Gary
Kluckhuhn, Director, Center for Assisted Living Innovation.
C. Proclamation to recognize the Parks and Recreation staff, Beach
Maintenance staff and Park Rangers for their hard efforts in making
Barefoot Beach "Healthy Beach of2002". To be accepted by Murdo Smith,
The Beach Maintenance Crew and Park Rangers.
2
March 11, 2003
5. PRESENTATIONS
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. This item continued from the Februarv 11~ 2003 BCC Meetin2. Public
Petition request by Dr. Theodore Raia to discuss site plan for Cap d' Antibes
at Waterpark Place in Pelican Bay.
B. Public Petition request by Mr. Gregory C. Cardamone to waive impact fees
for the Ag Warehouse and Packing, Inc., Immokalee, FL.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item is continued to the April 8~ 2003 BCC meetin2. An Ordinance
amending Ordinance No. 99-76, relating to Mandatory Street Numbering of
all structures and the establishing of a grid pattern for street numbering;
providing for statutory authorization; providing for findings of fact;
providing a statement of intent and purpose; providing for definitions;
providing for requirements for posting of official address number; providing
for specifications for posting official address number; providing for
application for new official address number; providing for compliance
relating to new construction of building repairs; providing for an amended
procedure for establishing a uniform grid numbering pattern for assignment
of addresses or change of confirming addresses; providing for duly
advertised public hearings to rename a street; providing for monitoring of
the naming of streets, developments, buildings or subdivisions; providing
amended procedures for street naming; providing amended private streets;
providing an appeal procedure; providing for abrogation and greater
restrictions; providing a warning and disclaimer of liability; providing for
enforcement and penalties; providing for repeal of Collier County Ordinance
No. 97-9; providing for conflict and severability; providing for inclusion in
Code of Laws and Ordinances; and providing an effective date.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
3
March 11, 2003
A. Appointment of member to the Bayshore/ Avalon Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
B. Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory
Committee.
C. Appointment of member to the Historical/Archaeological Preservation
Board.
D. Appointment of member to the Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee.
E. Appointment of members to the Tourist Development Council.
F. Discussion regarding procurement and contract reviews by the Clerk of
Courts. (Commissioner Coyle)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Present the results of three Solid Waste
RFP Initiatives, Status of Landfill Gas Project, Options for a Long-Range
Integrated Solid Waste Management Program, and Recommendation for
Further Action. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities)
B. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Review the written and oral reports of
the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, County Government Productivity
Committee, Development Services Advisory Committee, Emergency
Medical Services Advisory Council and the Environmental Advisory
Council Advisory Boards scheduled for review in 2003 in accordance with
Ordinance No. 2001-55. (Winona Stone, Assistant to the County Manager)
C. Request Board to authorize staff to negotiate a Local Agency Program
(LAP) Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
for the installation of highway lighting along US 41 East from Broward
Street to Collier Boulevard (CR 951) for a total cost estimated to be about
$500,000. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation)
D. This item to be heard at 2:00 p.m. Consideration of Hispanic Affairs
Advisory Board Report of Goals and Objectives as requested by the Board
4
March 11, 2003
of County Commissioners. (Ramiro Manalich, Staff Liaison)
E. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Approval of a request by the Black
Affairs Advisory Board that the Board adopt a Resolution to support the
name of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School located at 4095 18th
Avenue NE, Naples, FL. (John Dunnuck, Staff Liaison)
F. This item has been deleted.
G. Review of Preparedness Planning Activities in the event that the Department
of Homeland Security places the Nation under a Severe Risk of Domestic
Terrorism (Threat Level Red). (Ken Pineau, Director, Emergency
Management)
H. Authorization for the County Attorney to prepare and advertise Ordinances
authorizing the Extension of the Five and Six Cents Local Option Gas Taxes
and the Voted (9th Cent) Gas Tax. (Mike Smykowski, Director, Office of
Management and Budget)
I. Proposed amendment to Resolution 2000-455 which established a fee
schedule of development related review and processing fees as provided for
in Division 1.10 of the Collier County Land Development Code. (Joe
Schmitt, CD&ES Administrator)
J. Request Board approval of Joint Participation Agreement with the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) for advancement of construction
funds and allocation of urbanized area funds from FDOT FY 2004 and 2005
in the amount $1,080,000 for use on the SR 84 (Davis Boulevard)/CR 951
(Collier Boulevard) intersection improvement project.
K. Conceptual Agreement with Lely Resorts and Stock Development
Corporation regarding the extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard between
Davis Boulevard and Rattnesnake-Hammock Road. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
L. Presentation of options regarding Livingston Woods neighborhood park.
(John Dunnuck, Public Services Administrator)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
5
March 11, 2003
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners agree to stay
proceedings in Collier County v. Marshall, et aI, Case No. 99-2009-CA- TB,
now pending in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for
Collier County, Florida in view of Eminent Domain proceedings to be
commenced by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust
Fund of the State of Florida.
B. Adopt a Resolution creating the Collier County Revenue Commission, an
Ad Hoc Advisory Body.
C. Adopt a Resolution improving the efficiency of Local Government by
limiting unduly repetitious public petitions.
D. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, in accordance
with the requirements of Section 70.00 1 (4)(c), FLA. Stat., ("Bert J. Harris,
Jr., Private Property Rights Protection AcC), consider written settlement
offer options for Bert Harris Act claim of Aquaport, L.C., Norman Burke
and Jim Allen.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
15. 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Code Enforcement Lien Resolution Approvals.
2) Approve a three-year Lease Agreement with C.P.O.C. Realty, an
Illinois Limited Liability Company, for office space to be utilized by
6
March 11, 2003
the Tourism Development Department at a first year's cost of
$37,067.34.
3) Request to grant Final Acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water
and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Carlton Lakes Unit No.
3A".
4) Request to grant Final Acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water
and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Pelican Marsh Unit
Seven Replat".
5) Request to grant Final Acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water
and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Pelican Marsh Unit
Eight" .
6) Request to grant Final Acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water
and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Pelican Marsh Unit
Fifteen" .
7) Final acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for Bermuda Bay
Two, Lot 20.
8) Approval of one (1) impact fee reimbursement due to an overpayment
totaling $795.78.
9) Approval of one (1) impact fee reimbursement of $1 73 .28 due to
building permit cancellation.
10) Final acceptance of water utility facilities for Carlton Lakes, Tract D.
11) Final acceptance of water utility facilities for Carlton Lakes, Tract U.
12) Final acceptance of water utility facilities for Lakeview SE, Tract G at
Carlton Lakes.
13) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Majors", and
approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
7
March 11, 2003
14) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Twin Eagles Phase
Two A-I" and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Performance Security.
15) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Twin Eagles Phase
Two A-2" and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Performance Security.
16) Approve budget amendment in the amount of $52,000 to support
court-appointed receivership operation of the Lee Cypress Water and
Sewer Cooperative ($10,000) and reimbursement of Public Utilities
Division (approximately $42,000) for personnel, equipment and
material costs related to the emergency operation, repair and water
quality testing performed at the Lee cypress Water and Sewer
Cooperative, as recommended by the Collier County Water and
Wastewater Authority.
17) Petition CARNY-2003-AR-372l, Peg Ruby, Special Events
Coordinator, Collier County Parks and Recreation, requesting a
Permit to conduct a carnival on March 14, 15 and 16,2003 in the
Vineyards Community Park at 6231 Arbor Boulevard. (Joseph K.
Schmitt, Administrator, CD&ES)
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Approve Professional Services Agreement No. 03-3446 in the amount
of $986,360 for engineering and permitting services to be providing
by Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, Inc. for proposed roadway
improvements to Rattlesnake Hammock Road from Polly Avenue to
Collier Boulevard, Project No. 60169.
2) Accept a Grant of a perpetual, non-exclusive access and maintenance
easement to provide for access and regular maintenance by County
staff to one of the canals in the Lely Canal Basis, located in Section
19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East.
3) Approval of a Reciprocal Agreement, Assignment and Assumption
Agreement, and Release and Waiver Agreement between Collier
8
March 11, 2003
County and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)
Incident to the Four Lane Construction of Immokalee Road (Project
No. 60018). Fiscal Impact: $51.00.
4) Approve reallocation of funding for Professional Services Agreement
No. 02-3398 in the amount of$116,690.00 to provide for design for
water and sewer relocations related to the roadway improvements to
Collier Boulevard between Golden Gate Boulevard and Immokalee
Road, Project No. 65061.
5) A Resolution authorizing the execution of a supplemental agreement
from the State of Florida Department of Transportation for the
Countywide Paved Shoulders Project.
6) Approve the piggybacking of a Pensacola, Florida (Escambia County)
Contract to purchase lay in place polymer modified cold mix paving
system (micro-surfacing) for the Road Maintenance Department,
annual amount is estimated to be $50,000.
7) Approve a Budget Amendment request to transfer $267,641.78 from
Transportation Gas Tax Reserves for a cash payment to First Baptist
Church of Naples, Inc., for the Developer Contribution Agreement,
approved by the Board of County Commissioners on October 22,
2002.
8) Award Work Order No. DBA-FT-03-0l in the amount of$165,500 to
Aquagenix for the 2003 Australian Pine Removal Project (Project No.
51501) and approve a Budget Amendment to transfer funds in the
amount of $50,000 from Fund 325 Reserves to Fund 325 Australian
Pine Removal Program Cost Center 172940.
9) Recommendation to award Bid No. 03-3459 Purchase of one (1)
trailer mounted towable aerial lift to Nations Rent in the amount of
$30,495. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Approve Change Order 1 to Work Order UC-004 for the relocation of
water and sewer mains related to the Florida Department of
Transportation's widening of U.S. 41 from Barefoot Williams Road to
9
March 11, 2003
East ofSR 951, in the amount of$34,120.
2) Accept a temporary Construction Easement from Winterpark
Recreation Association Inc., and Naples Winterpark III, Inc., for
construction of a l2-inch sewer force main for the Palm Drive/Davis
Boulevard Force Main Project (Project 73158) at a cost not to exceed
$50.00.
3) Approve a Work Order for a re-nourishment engineering report as part
of County-Wide Sand Search, Project 90527, in the amount of
$89,678.
4) Approve Change Order 1 to Work Order 61 for construction of the
Western Interconnect for Wastewater Collection Systems, in the
amount of $109,486.
5) Affirm execution of time extension to Grant Agreement of United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) Grant HS-
8320501-1 for Water System Vulnerability Assessment at Collier
County Water Facilities, Project 70170.
6) Authorize and reaffirm execution of agreement and amendments for
time extension to the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD) Grant Contract C-13978 for brackish water supply wells
for the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant (SCRWTP)
Reverse Osmosis Expansion, Project 70054.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Request Board approval to apply for Library Services and Technology
Act (LST A) Grant to upgrade the Library Automation System and
purchase two self-check units.
2) Approve an Agreement with respect to Contract Rights and
Obligations for the Sanctuary Skate Park Concession.
3) Award ofRFP #03-3445, "Vanderbilt Beach Concession" with
anticipated revenue of $4200 for the remainder of FY03.
10
March 11, 2003
4) Approve Change Order #2 in the amount of$1,868.25 for additional
work at Gulf Shore Beach Access.
5) Consideration of a request by Willough Health Care, Inc., d/b/a The
Willough at Naples for the Board of County Commissioners to
provide a letter of support to the agency for Health Care
Administration (AHCA) for their request to lift the restrictions on the
Willough's current license to allow 24 of 42 existing beds for general
inpatient psychiatric care.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Request Board approval for a First Amendment to Lease Agreement
between Collier County and Crown Castle GT Company at an annual
cost of $8,400.
2) Authorize Termination for Convenience of Contract #01-3287 "Office
Supplies and Furniture".
3) Approval to award Bid #03-3439 "Annual Contract for Painting
Contractors" to Spectrum Paint, Wm. T. Decker Painting and Tropex
Construction.
4) Approval to Award Bid #03-3464 for "Full Service for Professional
Movers" to Suncoast Mayflower, Best Moving and Storage of Naples
and Naples Moving and Storage.
5) Approve Staffs Short List for Architectural Services for the design of
the Emergency Operations Center, RFP 03-3448.
6) Approval to award Work Order #VC-02-05 under RFP #02-3349
General Contractors Services with Varian Construction Company for
the renovations of the 5th Floor Courthouse (former Law Library area)
in the amount of $172,795 for new office space for the Clerk of
Courts.
7) Approve Change Order No.2 (Work Order No. SC 02-07) with
Surety Construction Company in the amount of$60,013.08 for
additional work relating to the renovation of the Property Appraiser's
leased building increasing the total amount of Change Orders to
11
March 11, 2003
$96,915.71.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Approval to submit a grant application in the amount of $41,802 to
purchase supplies and equipment for the Community Emergency
Response Team Program (CERT) and to fund Citizens Corps
Programs.
2) Approve a cost-reimbursement agreement, not to exceed $75,000,
between the Florida Department of Community Affairs and Collier
County to update the terrorism annex of the County Comprehensive
Emergency Management Plan and for the development of a Collier
County Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) and approve a budget
amendment to recognize and appropriate the $75,000 as revenue.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner request for payment to attend the EDC membership
meeting and mixer. (Commissioner Halas)
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of
whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the
detailed report of Open Purchase Orders serve a valid public purpose
and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said
purchases.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Authorize the Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents John
Vassaras and Joan P. Vassaras, for the fee taking of Parcel No. 211A
in the amount of $8,400 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. Efrain
12
March 11, 2003
Arce, et aI, Case No. 02-2ll9-CA (Immokalee Road Project #60018).
2) Authorize the Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents
Armando A. Lambert and Algis L. Mados, for the fee taking of Parcel
No. 208 in the amount of$7,150 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County
v. Armando A. Lambert, et aI, Case No. 02-2l32-CA (Immokalee
Road Project #60018).
3) Authorize the Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents
Zunilda G. Conforte and Shelva Z. Conforte, as Trustees of the
Conforte Residual Credit Shelter Trust of Rodolfo R. Conforte U/ AID
2/08/01, for the fee taking of Parcel No. 206 in the amount of $7,250
in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. Armando A. Lambert, et aI,
Case No. 02-2l32-CA (Immokalee Road Project #60018).
4) Authorize the Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondent Juliann
S. Boback, for the fee taking of Parcel No. 196 in the amount of
$6,900 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. Robert W. Pieplow, et
ai, Case No. 02-2l33-CA (Immokalee Road Project #60018).
5) Authorize the Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents
Medaro T. Sanchez and Oliva Sanchez for the fee taking of Parcel
NO. 201 in the amount of $7,000 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County
v. Jeffrey A. Richardson, et aI, Case No. 02-2l88-CA (Immokalee
Road Project #60018).
6) Authorize the Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents Tim
Cherrington and Max Cherrington for the fee taking of Parcel No. 202
in the amount of $7,000 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Jeffrey A. Richardson, et aI, Case No. 02-21 88-CA (Immokalee Road
Project #60018).
7) Authorize the Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents
Zunilda G. Conforte and Sheyla Z. Conforte, as Trustees of the
Rodolfo Conforte Residual Credit Shelter Trust of Rodolfo R.
Conforte V/ AID 2/08/01 the fee taking of Parcel No. 203 in the
amount of $6,300 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. Jeffrey A.
Richardson, et aI, Case No. 02-2l88-CA (Immokalee Road Project
#60018).
13
March 11, 2003
8) To approve the subordination of County's Sidewalk Easement
Interests to the State of Florida Department of Transportation and
waive County's apportionment claim against the property owners.
9) Approve the Agreed Order awarding Expert Fees relative to the
Easement Acquisition of Parcels 733A, 733B, 733C, 733D, 733E,
733F, 833A, 833B, 933A and 933B in the Lawsuit entitled Collier
County v. McAlpine Briarwood, Inc., et aI, Case No. 98-l635-CA
(Livingston Road, Project No. 60061).
10) Recommendation that the Board authorize the payment of adjusted
hourly rates for outside counsel in Vanderbilt Shores Condominium
Association, Inc., et al. v. Collier County, Aquaport, LC, et al. v.
Collier County, et al., and the Bert Harris Act Claim and ratify the
adjusted rates effective as of January 1,2003.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. SHOULD ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
ITEMS BE MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA ALL PARTICIPANTS
MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item continued from the February 25~ 2003 BCC Meetin2. Petition
A VROW2002-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 3rd Avenue 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.
14
March 11, 2003
B. CUE-2002-AR-322l, James J. Soper, representing Heron Senior Housing
LLC, requesting a one-year extension of an approved Conditional Use for an
Assisted Living Facility located at 5179 Tamiami Trail East, in Section 19,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of
approximately 4.74 acres.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
15
March 11, 2003
March 11,2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call the Board of Commissioner's
meeting to order. We are going to have invocation led by Todd
McDowell of Trinity by the Cove. Followed by that, we'll have the
pledge of allegiance led by Kristine (sic) Anthony.
Would you all rise, please.
MR. McDOWELL: Let us pray. Oh, Lord, our governor, bless
the leaders of our land that we may be a people at peace among
ourselves and a blessing to other nations of the earth.
To the President and members of the cabinet, to governors of
the states, mayors of cities, to all in administrative authority, and
especially to this commission of Collier County, grant wisdom and
grace in the exercise of their duties.
To the senators and representatives, to those who make our laws
in states, cities and towns, give courage, wisdom and foresight to
provide for the needs of all our people and to fulfill our obligations to
the community of nations.
To the judges and officials of the courts, give understanding and
integrity that human rights may be safeguarded and justice served.
And finally, teach our people to rely on your strength and to
accept the responsibilities to their fellow citizens, that they may elect
trustworthy leaders and make wise decisions for the well-being of
our society, that we may serve you faithfully in our generation and
honor your holy name.
In God's name we pray. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in
unison. )
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning.
Item #2A
REGULAR, SUMMARY AND CONSENT AGENDA-
Page 2
March 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to go through our
change sheet.
First we want to ask our county attorney, David Weigel, ifhe
has any additions, corrections, or deletions.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning,
Commissioners. None from the county attorney. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Jim Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, good morning. First of all, I'd like
to recognize some folks that are in the audience today. They're our
future county government-type folks that are here, and you'll notice
that we have an influx of rather young adults sitting in the first four
rows on the right side, and that's basically Know Your County
Government Teen Citizenship Program, and we're going -- they're
here this morning to monitor the meeting, and I've talked about the
agenda with them this morning and talked about what districts you
are and kind of where your boundaries are.
So they're prepared to do that, and they're learning about
government, and this is their last -- kind of like graduation day. And
at lunchtime, we'll meet with them, and no doubt, they'll have lots of
questions for us, but we're glad to have them here today --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good.
MR. MUDD: -- in this chamber to learn a little bit about their
county government.
Now to the agenda changes for 11 March, 2003.
First item is add item 4(D), and -- that's 4(D), which is a
proclamation recognizing the week of March 10th through March
15th, 2003, as Brain Awareness Week to be accepted by Torn
O'Reilly, president of On- The-Gulf Kiwanis Club.
The next item is item -- is an add item, 4(E), again, 4(E), and
that's a proclamation recognizing the week of March 9th through
Page 3
March 11, 2003
March 15th, 2003, as the 25th anniversary of Know Your County
Government Week to be accepted by Anthony Will.
Next item is an add item, and that's item 9(G), and that's request
board to set the place and time for the clerk with the assistance of the
county attorney's office to open and count the mail ballots of the
nominees to fill the vacancies of the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory
Committee.
The next item is to add item 16(F)3, which is to approve Isle of
Capri Fire and Rescue application for a matching 50/50 grant offer
by the Florida Division of Forestry in the amount of $2,749 and
approve the necessary budget amendments, and that's at staffs
request.
And that's all the changes I have, but we do have some notes
with some time certains, and I'd like to go over those for clarity for
the board.
First item is item 10(1). No changes to fee schedule, D7, K2 --
26, and N 1, and those items have been provided to the board and will
be talked about by the presenter at the podium.
Item 10(L). This item is not to be heard before three p.m. It's
the last item. The constituents and people of interest wanted to
know, and I basically said, I know it's the last item, and I don't think
it will be heard before three p.m., so I gave them a
no-earlier-than-three-p.m. time for that item.
Next item is 16(A)2. The title should read, approve a three-year
lease agreement with C.P.O.C. Realty, an Illinois limited liability
company, for office space to be utilized by the Tourism Development
Department for a first year's cost of $30,207.42 rather than the
amount that was there, which was 37,067.34. So there's been a
change to the price, and it should read a three-year term, and it didn't
say three years at the beginning. It just said a term, but it's a
three-year lease. First -- first year cost is $30,000 and change.
Then some other time certain items; at 10 a.m. we'll hear item
Page 4
March 11,2003
10(E), and that's a request by the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
At 11 a.m. we'll hear item 10(B), which is a review and written
oral reports of the board -- for the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals, the County Government Productivity Committee, the
Development Services Advisory Committee, the Emergency Medical
Services Advisory Committee ( sic), and the Environmental Advisory
Committee (sic) Advisory Boards, and this is your annual chance to
listen to the boards tell you what they do and what their plans are for
the future.
You review every one of those advisory boards on a four --
every four years, and you will do 10 this month. We have five this
meeting and five next meeting.
The next time certain item is at one p.m., and that's item 10(A),
and that's a discussion of the long-range solid waste plan for Collier
County.
And the last item is a two p.m. time concern, and that's item
10(D), and that's the consideration of reports submitted by the
Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
Mr. Chairman, that's all I have for today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great.
Commissioner Coletta, do you have any changes or ex parte
communications on the summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I have none.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have none.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no ex parte or changes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have nothing either, so I'll entertain
a motion to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So move.
Page 5
March 11,2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- accept the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- the agenda today, the regular
agenda, the consent agenda, and the summary agenda as amended.
A motion was made by Commissioner Coletta, second by
Commissioner Halas.
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 6
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
March 11. 2003
Add Item 40: Proclamation recognizing the week of March 10 through March 15,
2003 as Brain Awareness Week, to be accepted by Tom, O'Reilly, President On-
the-Gulf Kiwanis Club.
Add Item 4E: Proclamation recognizing the week of March 9 through March 15,
2003, as The 25th Anniversary of the Know Your County Government Week, to be
accepted by Anthony Will.
Add Item 9G: Request Board to set the place and time for the Clerk, with the
assistance of the County Attorney's Office, to open and count the mail ballots of
the nominees to fill the vacancies on the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee.
(Sue Filson, Executive Manager, BCC)
Add Item 16F3: A pprove Isles of Capri Fire/Rescue application for a matching
(50/50) grant offered by the Florida Division of Forestry in the amount of $2,749
and approve the necessary budget amendments. (Staff request)
NOTES:
Item 101- Note changes on fee schedule 07, K26 and N1.
Item 1 OL - This item is not to be heard before 3:00 p.m. (Livingston Woods Park)
Item 16(Al2: Title should read: Approve a three-year Lease Agreement with
C.P.O.C. Realty, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, for office space to be
utilized by the Tourism Development Department for a first year's cost of
$30,207.42 (rather than $37,067.34).
Time Certain Items:
10:00 a.m. Item 10E: Approval of a request by the Black Affairs Advisory Board
that the Board adopt a Resolution to support the name of Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr. Elementary School located at 4095 18th Avenue NE, Naples, FL. (John
Dunnuck, Staff Liaison)
11 :00 a.m. Item 10B: Review the written and oral reports of the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals, County Government Productivity Committee,
Development Services Advisory Committee, Emergency Medical Services
Advisory Council and the Environmental Advisory Council Advisory Boards
scheduled for review in 2003 in accordance with Ordinance No. 2001-55. (Winona
Stone, Assistant to the County Manager)
1 :00 D.m. Item 10A: Present the results of three Solid Waste RFP Initiatives,
Status of Landfill Gas Project, Options for a Long-Range Integrated Solid Waste
Management Program, and Recommendation for Further Action. (Jim DeLony,
Administrator, Public Services)
2:00 D.m. Item 100: Consideration of a report submitted by the Hispanic Affairs
Advisory Board that includes its goals and objectives. (Ramiro Manalich, Staff
Liaison)
March 11, 2003
Item #2B
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2003 -
AEER OVEn AS ERE.S.ENIED
Entertain a motion to accept the February 11, 2003, regular
meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion to accept the
meeting minutes by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner
Fiala.
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 #2C
WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18, 2003 -
AEEROVED AS ffiESENIED
Entertain a motion to accept the February 18th, 2003,
Wastewater Workshop.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner -- motion by
Page 7
March 11, 2003
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala to accept the
workshop minutes.
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 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Item #2D
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18,2003-
AEER OVEn AS ffiE.SENIED
Entertain a motion to accept the February 18th, '03, BCC special
meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala to accept the meeting minutes.
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.
Page 8
March 11, 2003
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE WEEK OF MARCH 16TH
I'm going to go to proclamation. First one is 4(A), and I'm
going to read this proclamation, and it will be accepted by Melissa
Hennig. Is Melissa here? Please corne up front, please.
Whereas, the quality of life of ( sic) economic and ecological
well-being of Collier County is a significant dependent of Collier
County natural resources; and,
Whereas, invasive exotic plants pose a significant threat to
Collier County's natural resources with certain plants causing safety
and health problems for -- to the county residents; and,
Whereas, the county facilities management, parks and rec., solid
waste, and environmental service departments will be removing
invasive exotic plants from Collier County's own property during the
week of March 16th through March 22nd, 2003; and,
Whereas, the month of March 2003, seven Collier County
libraries will host education displays about invasive exotic plant
control.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of March
16, 2003, be designated as Invasive Exotics Control Week.
Done in this order, 11 day of March, 2003. Signed by the
chairman, Torn Henning.
I'll make a motion that we move this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion made by myself, second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Page 9
March 11, 2003
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.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you like to say a few words?
MR. MUDD: You need to get your picture.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Squeeze in.
MS. HENNIG: Thank you. Our department would like to thank
the commissioners for their support of invasive exotic week. We'd
also like to take the time to recognize the Solid Waste Department,
facilities management, and parks and rec. for their involvement with
exotic control week. Also, the libraries. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4 B
PROCLAMATION SUPPORTING THE DEPARTMENT OF
ELDER AFFAIRS' INITIATIVE TO MAKE FLORIDA A
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next proclamation will be read by
Commissioner Coletta. This proclamation supporting the department
of elder affairs.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner
Henning.
Page 10
March 11, 2003
Would Gary Kluckhuna (sic), the director of Center for Assisted
Living Innovation please corne forward. And forgive me for
probably pronouncing your name wrong. And when we get a chance
to hear a couple words from you, you'll correct me on that, I'm sure.
Whereas -- face the audience, sir.
Whereas, the community consists of a broad range of the
stakeholders, hereafter referred to as the community, will share the
responsibility and support the department of elderly (sic) affairs'
initiative to make Florida a healthy environment for a lifetime, so all
persons can enjoy living and aging in a place and in a community
they love; and,
Whereas, the State of Florida has the highest percentage of
elderly of any state in the nation, and our elderly population will
continue to increase, reaching numbers without precedence in the
first part of the 21 st century; and,
Whereas, in order to allow elderly to maintain their dignity,
security and independence, community (sic) must evaluate their
infrastructure and service to develop and implement a local
community for a lifetime plan; and,
Whereas, the community will assist and identify the needs of
housing, health care, and transportation and develop strategies for
meeting the needs that are most critical to the community.
And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that it will encourage and
endorse the community in making every effort to coordinate and
collaborate, utilize the diverse resources of its members to become a
community for a lifetime.
Done and ordered this, the 11th day of March, 2003, Torn
Henning, chairman.
And I'd like to make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion made by Commissioner
Page 11
March 11,2003
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
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 COLETTA: Thank you. What we need is
for you to face the camera, take a picture. If you've got a few words
to say, we'd love to hear from you.
Sir, right there at the podium.
MR. KLUCKHUHN: On behalf of the entire community, I
want to thank this commission. This is an extremely important and
wonderful thing for the community. This makes Collier County
among a few communities in the state that are committed to this
proclamation, although it was just released in this format -- I think
the ink is probably dry on the document -- but it's a revision from the
elder ready community program that was presented a couple years
ago.
The support for this is phenomenal. I know we're going to
enjoy watching the community become what we refer to as
elder- friendly. It is economically strong for the community. It
recognizes all the residents in the community and it's a wonderful
thing you folks have done today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. KLUCKHUHN: Thank you, sir.
Page 12
March 11,2003
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE PARKS AND
RECREATION STAFF, BEACH MAINTENANCE STAFF AND
P ARK RANGERS FOR THEIR HARD EFFORTS IN MAKING
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next proclamation will be read by
Commissioner Fiala, and this proclamation is to recognized parks
and recs. staff, beach maintenance staff, and park rangers for their
hard efforts in making Barefoot Beach such a wonderful place to
visit.
Would you all corne up, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Marla Ramsey, is she here to
accept? Okay.
I'm just so pleased that I get to read this proclamation, because
as most of you know, I have a real tender spot in my heart for the
parks and rec. group and rangers and so forth, and I'm just so proud
of all that they do for our community.
So as I say, it's my pleasure to read.
Proclamation: Whereas, the Laboratory of Coastal Research of
Florida International University has established the National Healthy
Beaches Campaign dedicated to creating a balance between the
recreational use of our nation's beaches and maintaining the
environmental quality and safety of this prized resource; and,
Whereas, the Collier County Parks and Recreation staff, public
services division administration, and the Board of County
Commissioners recognize, as does the campaign, that the quality of
life in Collier County is predicated on the enj oyment and health of
our natural environmental; and,
Whereas, Barefoot Beach Preserve Park, the crown jewel of the
Page 13
March 11, 2003
county parks system, and a place beloved by thousand has been
recognized by the campaign as a 2002 healthy beach; and,
Whereas, as custodian of the certified healthy beach Collier
County Parks and Recreation pledges to maintain the beach's current
level of good health and safety, continuously evaluate the beach's
water quality and other standards of good health, and to notify the
public and the National Healthy Beach Campaign of any substandard
conditions; and,
Whereas, parks and recreation park rangers and beach and water
maintenance staff are directly responsible for Barefoot Beach
Preserve Park's current and continuing health in good standing.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that gratitude and
appreciation is extended to the Parks and Recreation Department and
its staff for vigilance and hard work in maintaining Barefoot Beach
Preserve Park as the accessible yet pristine place that it is.
Done and ordered this 11th day of March, 2003, Torn Henning,
chairman, signed.
Thank you. I'd like to make the motion to -- to accept this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Fiala, and a second by Commissioner Halas to move 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?
(No response.)
Page 14
March 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I was at East Naples -- yeah, the
flag. You did an excellent job.
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioners, for the record, Marla Ramsey,
director of parks and recreation.
It's my honor today to present you with the certificate and
plaque that we received for the Barefoot Beach Preserve Park.
There was a -- healthy beaches is a campaign. It has a criteria
that has to do with complying with the standards of cleanliness,
safety and environmental protection of beaches. And we received the
2002 Healthy Beach Award presented to us by Stephen Leatherman,
also known as Dr. Beach. And it's my pleasure to present that to you
today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wow, thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Thank you.
MS. RAMSEY: Thank you very much.
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE WEEK OF MARCH 10-
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Next proclamation will be
read by Commissioner Halas, and this proclamation is Brain
Awareness Week.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Would Torn O'Reilly please
step forward, please. And I'd like to thank Mr. O'Reilly for coming
this morning in regards to Brain Awareness Week. And I think one
of the real important aspects is teaching young children to make sure
Page 15
March 11, 2003
that they wear their helmets when they're riding their bikes.
And this proclamation starts as, whereas, the week of March
10th through March 16th has been designated as Brain Awareness
Week, an international campaign to increase public awareness of the
progress, promise and benefits of brain research; and,
Whereas, numerous non-profit agencies and community
organizations join together in Collier County in an effort to promote
brain development, protection, and health; and,
Whereas, this week-long celebration reflects a year-round
commitment to educating the public about the development of the
brain, health of the brain, and the importance of protecting this vital
organ; and,
Whereas, Brain Awareness Day, to be held Saturday, March
15th at River Park Community Center, will showcase educational
exhibits, entertainment, and fun; and,
Whereas, participating organizations and individuals are to be
commended for joining in the celebration of Brain Awareness Day as
a special time to unite people in pursuit of brain education, health,
and protection; and,
Whereas, the Kiwanis Club of Naples on the Bay -- on the Gulf
and key clubs of Collier County will be serving as host organizations
for this community-wide celebration and will be promoting this day
of brain awareness and child literacy.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this week of March 10th
through March 16th be designated as Brain Awareness Week and
that on Saturday, March 15th, River Park Community Center will be
designated as Brain Awareness Day headquarters.
As done and ordered this 11th day of March, 2003, signed by
Torn Henning and sealed.
Mr. O'Reilly, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve the proclamation.
Page 16
March 11,2003
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Fiala, first
by me.
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: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Torn, good to see you again.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Last but not least is a proclamation read by Commissioner
Coyle, and it's to know your --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wait.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry.
MR. O'REILLY: I apologize. I just want to make one small
comment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry, sir.
MR. O'REILLY: Kiwanis International's major emphasis this
year is children, priority one. And the main function the club has
undertaken is to educate the public of children under five, their
intellectual development and potential, and giving information out to
their parents on how to assist in that development of the intellect, and
also, as Commissioner Halas brought up, is the physical protection of
the children through the implementation of wearing safety helmets on
bicycles and also car seats, so -- and I thank the commission for
joining in our efforts in promoting that. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask a question, just one fast
Page 1 7
March 11, 2003
one?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is it -- is it a state law now to wear
helmets when you ride bikes?
MR. O'REILLY: Yes, all children -- I don't know what the age
limit is, but I know all grammar school children must wear safety
helmets.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
MR. O'REILLY: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4E
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE WEEK OF MARCH 9-
15,2003, AS THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE KNOW YOUR
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next proclamation will be read by
Commissioner Coyle, Know Your County Government Week.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Would Kristine (sic) Anthony please corne forward. I'm going
to ask you to turn around and face the audience, please.
Whereas, Collier -- county government is a complex and
multifaceted process which affects the lives of all residents of Collier
County; and,
Whereas, an increased knowledge of how various aspects of
county government work can enhance an individual's quality of life
in Collier County; and,
Whereas, it is desirable for all county residents to be
knowledgeable of county's government and how it works; and,
Whereas, the League of Women Voters of Collier County,
Page 18
March 11,2003
Collier County 4- H, and the Collier County Public Schools have
co-sponsored the Know Your Government Teen Citizenship Program
for 24 years.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of March
9th through 15th, 2003, be designated as the 24th anniversary of the
Know Your County Government Week.
Done and ordered this 11th day of March 2003, Board of
County Commissioners, Torn Henning, chairman.
I move the acceptance of this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, and second by Commissioner Fiala to move 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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. ANTHONY: Good morning. I'm Kristin Anthony, a junior
from Barron Collier High School representing the Know Your
County Government Program.
We wish to thank you, the commission, county administrator,
and all of the county division department heads, the constitutional
officers, adults from the 4-H Club, the League of Women Voters, and
Collier County Public Schools who have worked together to make
the Know Your County Government Program possible.
Page 19
March 11,2003
High school students from throughout the county are
participating, representing Lely, Naples, Barron Collier, Immokalee,
Gulf Coast, St. John Newman, as well as home schoolers.
Picture, if you will, a sleepy little town with tree-lined dirt roads
and horse drawn carriages. Now travel to over 75 years later, and
that sleepy little town has become the second largest growing county
in the United States.
Throughout the years, Collier County has improved its standards
and values. The present-day county has well developed roads, a
large amount of growing neighborhoods, and a steadily growing
population.
The county government provides services to our community,
and that is what the students before you today have been learning
about for the past three weeks. Some of our ventures include trips to
the local sheriffs office, health department, domestic animal
services, the landfill, the water treatment plant, and the county
museum.
During our trips, we have learned many things, from how
Sheriff Don Hunter is put into office to how the water treatment --
water is treated for county use.
Through our visit to the landfill, we learned that due to
recycling, there is a two-year extension on the life of the landfill.
After our visit to the water treatment plant, we were aware that
our shortage on water is going to force us to use brackish ground
water, which will be more expensive to desalinate.
Another problem we are facing as a community is growth. The
population is increasing so quickly that we are using our land
resources faster than expected. With teaching the few students
involved in the Know Your County Government Program, it is hoped
that we can spread our knowledge to the community and try to
conserve our preCiOUS resources.
Weare looking forward to this morning's events, including
Page 20
March 11,2003
eating lunch with the commissioners, visiting the clerk of courts, and
seeing the events in the courtroom. We also enjoyed meeting the
county manager and meeting the county attorney.
In the future, we are looking forward to creating opportunities
for student interns at most of the county facilities teaching the
newcomers to the Know Your County Government Program about
our program and spreading our learned information to our
community.
So although we can't return to that sleepy little town, with the
aid of our county government, we can help to create a safe and
healthy environment with our already large and quickly growing
population.
In addressing the board, we are able to add another component
to our learning process.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to take part in this program
and for your support.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we have the opportunity to eat
lunch with them today, so that's going to be a real joy.
Commissioner Halas, you will thoroughly enjoy that.
Before we continue on, I'd like to recognize our Clerk of Court,
Dwight Brock, with us today to help us provide -- guide us along
good government, and also his financial director, Jim Mitchell.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION BY DR. THEODORE RAIA REGARDING
THE SITE PLAN FOR CAP D' ANTIBES AT W A TERP ARK
Page 21
March 11,2003
The next item is public petition. The first one is 6(A), and this
public petition is requested by Dr. Theodore Raia to discuss the site
plan for Cap d'Antibes, I believe it is, at Waterpark Place.
DR. RAIA: Cap d'Antibes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Doctor?
DR. RAIA: Thank you.
I appreciate this opportunity to bring this matter of grave
concern to the residents of Pelican Bay to the attention of the Board
of County Commissioners.
My name is Ted Raia. I am a member of the board of the
Pelican Bay Property Owners' Association, representing over 3,000
families in that community. I am not a lawyer. These are personal
opinions. Any conversations I relate to you are direct conversations.
They're not hearsay.
Section 2.05 of the PUD requires that a developer submit
sufficient material so that a correct determination can be made in a
site plan approval. We are stating that some inaccuracies were
submitted, and we are also stating that there was a misapplication of
the section 7.0403 that relates to site plan development. And because
of that, we are requesting that the site plan approval be revoked.
Now, the two -- there are two factors that affect the developer
directly that we feel misrepresented the facts.
I've interviewed the planning manager at the time, and the
planning manager explained to me that he was not aware of the
location of the condominium of St. Raphael. And when he was
asked what was north of the Cap d'Antibes, the reply was mangroves.
This is the -- this is the original plan. You'll notice that there's
nothing -- there is nothing on the -- that is outside of this plan. The
original plan shows the existing St. Pierre and St. Laurent and the
proposed 8t. Margaux and St. Armands.
The new -- the new plan that was submitted shows what is the
Cap d'Antibes, one large building, 650 feet long, but now the
Page 22
March 11,2003
developer did add something. He adds the parking spaces of a
community parking lot there, which is really not required, but goes to
(sic) adding that. But north of the Cap d'Antibes where there is
already existing a building, and which I pointed out here with these
little marks, he does not show it on the plan. This leads me to
believe the information gave (sic) me by the planning manager was
true.
This is another plan that shows where the Cap d'Antibes is, and
I have taken the liberty to show you exactly where the location of the
St. Raphael condominium is.
This massive building now obviously obscures the view of the
St. Raphael, not only because of its size, but because it was moved
over. This vertical line here is the 100 foot setback where __ it should
be the limitations for buildings. The developer arbitrarily moved that
over.
This is a rendition of the shadow effect of this building. So it's
not only the view that -- that is injured in building a building like
this, but you'll notice the shadow cast by this building is going to
cover a swimming pool at prime season when you really need the sun
to heat that water.
This is a -- my own rendition of a schematic that I've seen. I
haven't been able to get my hands on the original. The people at
planning are working on getting that for me.
But at any rate, the developer was required to submit a
schematic drawing of setbacks. This is his presentation here. He
shows the 150 feet (sic) setback between St. Laurent, Cap d'Antibes,
he shows the property line, he shows the lOa-foot setback between
the St. Raphael and its property line. He also shows the distances
between the St. Raphael and the Cap d'Antibes.
What is not shown here is the actual distance between the Cap
d'Antibes and the property line. Visually, if you look at it, it looks
like the same distance as that shown between the property line and
Page 23
-'"--~-_._..._---_.._....,-~
March 11, 2003
the St. Raphael, the 100 feet. But in actuality, it's just 50-foot.
Furthermore, he shows the alignment as the building's all lined
up perfectly well so that any change would really not be such an
effect on either of the condominiums. But in reality, if you look at
the bottom, this is more of what -- or less what the alignment should
have shown if someone is submitting a schematic sketch to show
setbacks. He should have shown a 50-foot setback, a setback that
should have shown that the movement of this building over was
going to obscure the view of the St. Raphael.
So that's one area where we felt the developer was not honest
and forthright in presenting information necessary for your planning
people to make the correct determination.
Next is a letter dated July 18th, 2001. The letter states, and I'll
read, please find one set of approved plans for the above-referenced
project. This is a letter from the division administrator for the
Pelican Bay Services Division, our MSBTU.
The problem with this is that this division administrator who at
the time worked underneath the county manager was also employed
by the developer. When this administrator received the plans, he sent
this letter.
Now, the approval-- we realize the approval-- when the plans
are sent to Pelican Bay Services Division, it's only for water
management. Nonetheless, the planning -- the services division gets
an entire set of plans. At no time did the board have an opportunity
to see these plans.
Now, we, as members of the Pelican Bay Property Owners'
Association, attend all these meetings, because things they do affect
the community and we want to keep the community informed. When
something like this is not brought before the board, we are denied an
opportunity to review it and comment on it.
If this was done correctly, we could have addressed this problem
before it was approved. Unfortunately, due to the system of no public
Page 24
March 11, 2003
hearings, we're just learning about this now.
Now, this person is still the administrator for the service
division and he is still involved in handling the affairs of the Cap
d'Antibes, this man should have recused himself. He should have
disqualified himself as being involved with this approval plan. It is
similar to -- at this development, gave the plan to his employee and
asked him to approve it. That's just wrong.
I'm not saying that he did anything like that. But I've worked
for the government for many years, and it is the appearance of this
that has to be avoided.
I'm now going to move on to section .0403. This deals with
setbacks, which is at the core of the problem. Paragraph A clearly
sets setback distances between a building and a property line.
Paragraph B clearly sets distances between buildings in
numbers. Very easy to understand.
Paragraph C is the problem. In the case of clustered buildings
with the common architectural theme, these distances may be less
provided that a site plan is approved in accordance with section 2.05.
These distances may be less. Less, they can go down to zero.
Now, what distances is referred to here? Is it the distances in
paragraph B or the distances in paragraph A and B? I maintain it's
the distances in paragraph B, because paragraph A has to do with
distances between buildings and property lines.
Those setbacks from property lines are for the benefit and
protection of the neighbor of the abutter. You don't change those.
Those are only changed if the owner has loss of use of his land for
some reason or other and he's going to suffer economic hardship.
This developer is not suffering economic hardship that should entitle
him to move that setback requirement.
So it stands to reason, any -- any director knows what the reason
is for a setback from a property line. You don't move it unless you
have a public hearing and notification. In this case it was arbitrarily
Page 25
March 11,2003
removed.
I just want to go back to this diagram once more because the
county is also involved in setbacks here. The county owns property
to the west, owns property to the east, Pelican Bay Boulevard, and
the mangroves. These are carefully kept at 100 feet or more. If the
developer is going to observe your rights, I think he should also be
concerned about our rights.
This just gives you an example of the section that refers to __
that you can do this ifit's clustered. Now, when you cluster, you
create open space. The Land Development Code clearly states that
the open space created must be owned by the developer. Is that my
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's your time, sir.
DR. RAIA: I'm sorry. I have a lot more, but I realize I'm
limited. I'm going to leave you a packet of information, if I may.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
MR. MUDD: You have a couple seconds to sum up.
DR. RAIA: Well, we feel -- thank you.
We feel that they're not observing the setback rules.
Let me just get my sheet here and I can sum up real fast.
The approval letter -- just the nature of the request for building
setback reduction does not exceed the amount of the reduction
granted to other similar projects within the PUD under the common
architectural theme.
Other similar project -- this is the first time that high-rise
buildings have had their setbacks reduced to zero. Never before has
that happened. This is the first time we're substituting buildings that
are usually 215 feet in width with one building that's an eighth of a
mile long. This is the first time these things are occurring. He says
that he is responding because these things have happened in the past.
They haven't happened in the past. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Dr.--
Page 26
March 11, 2003
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wow, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Dr. Raia, I think there's two ways
that this could he resolved -- is to have a dialogue with the developer,
or there's another route that you might want to take -- is the official
interpretation of the Land Development Code, which drives setbacks
and other issues that you have brought up.
I think it's improper for the board to make that determination.
Prom what I read in the Land Development Code, the planning
director needs to make that determination. So I think there's ways
that resolution can be had in this case, and I understand your
concerns.
Commissioners?
DR. RAIA: May I respond to that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
DR. RAIA: We are not against development. The developer can
have his original plan. Weare even willing to discuss some
modification, but definitely not a building 650-foot long and __ now
as far as the director, the director at the time this was approved is no
longer the director. He's working for a developer. Now, the new
developer is going to -- will probably pass on this. The problem is
that a Planning Commissioner is also a vice-president to this __ for
this developer.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, it has nothing to do with that.
DR. RAIA: He's the consultant, sir, and -- there's just a conflict
of interest there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think he was on the Planning
Commission when this -- the Pelican Bay PUD __
DR. RAIA: No, he wasn't, definitely not, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- DR! -- okay.
DR. RAIA: I don't want to imply that at all. But what I'm
saying is that since then he has been appointed, he is a recognized
Page 27
-...---,..._----~".
March 11,2003
authority on the Land Development Code. The present staff knows
that he is the person who submitted this plan, and he is an authority,
and he is the person they asked for advice on things. Now they're
going to evaluate his plan and I'm going to get a fair hearing in that?
There's a problem there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have experts within community
development that makes the determination on whether the Site
Development Plan fits the DR! in this case.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think this is an important
point. I understand the concern of the neighborhood about a
commissioner who is in this position. But let me tell you something.
I know Mark Strain personally, and he probably is one of the most
unbiased, most objective people we've got on our county
commission. He is a man I would trust to give you a fair and honest
appraisal.
Now, because you don't agree, that does not mean that you have
the right to try to impugn Mark Strain's integrity here. And I
understand that you're not going to say that, but essentially that's
exactly what you're saying.
But I have utmost confidence in him, and I think you've raised
some good points, and I think they should be considered. And -- but
let's leave the individual members of the commission out of it,
because I have seen this particular commissioner vote against
development issues time and time and time again, so -- you don't
know him personally.
DR. RAIA: I do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I think --
DR. RAIA: No, and I agree with everything you're saying.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
DR. RAIA: Except that he is the one that looked at this plan
and told the developer that he believes it will pass the staffers. Now,
Page 28
March 11, 2003
anybody -- I'm sorry. I lose a little stature for somebody who tries to
squeeze in a building 650 feet long into Pelican Bay where it never
existed before.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand.
DR. RAIA: I know he's -- it's his job. He's working for
somebody. The only other problem I have is ifI'm on the Planning
Commission, I'm there on my time. This man is being paid by the
developer. The developer wouldn't mind if he stays there 40 hours a
week.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, I'm not going to let this
continue. I mean, the credibility of one of the planning
commissioners is what you're attacking, and I will not put up with
that.
And like Commissioner Coyle, I think it's unfair. And I think
what you're saying is, Mark Strain has, in your own words, I think,
squeezed this development into -- into the setting. I think you have
opportunities to sit down with the developer and work this out.
DR. RAIA: I'm willing to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great.
DR. RAIA: Absolutely. I agree 100 percent with that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. And Commissioner Coletta
wants -- has something to add.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
I just want to go on the record. Mark Strain has been my
selection for the Planning Commission, I don't regret my choice at
all. This man have been above everything that came down. I've seen
him make decisions that were very hard decisions. He's very
methodical in what he does. And because he's an expert, I'm not
going to fault him for that. He is an expert, he's recognized.
And as far as I'm concerned, you know, I don't -_ I don't
appreciate maligning his character in the way that it's happening. I
know it's not direct, but it's direct enough that it can't do him any
Page 29
---"'------.--.-.-
March 11,2003
good.
DR. RAIA: It's not even indirect, and I take exception to that,
I'm sorry. That's not my character to malign anybody. I'm making a
statement of fact.
And I'm not saying that he had anything to do with approving
this plan. Absolutely not. And I'm just saying, what the problem
now is that the people who do work with him and respect him are
going to be asked to review, essentially, his plan.
And I'm not maligning him. He has really nothing to do with
that right now. It just happened. That's the way it is.
So please don't say I'm maligning him, because I'm not.
Personally, I've had lunch with him. I think he's a great person. I
would enjoy working with him.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner--
DR. RAIA: But the fact is, we have a unique problem.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, and then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Raia, I know we've gone
through this many times. We spent staff on this, many hours, going
through a lot of this stuff, and I think the best recourse right now is
that you -- that you and the people in Pelican Bay approach the
builder there and see what recourse that maybe the builder and you,
and along with the residents there, can open up some dialogue there.
Because from what we can see, the county is basically -- stands fast
in what was accomplished there because that was the laws at that
particular time.
And I think the best recourse of action is to work with the
developer, and hopefully he can help you on -- in regards to your
situation there.
DR. RAIA: Well, I want to thank you, Commissioner, for the
time that you always open your office to me. But I'm sorry, I just
disagree that you have to have a closed opinion right now on this in
Page 30
March 11, 2003
the light of presenting new evidence.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, sir. You may sit down.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. 1--
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to say to you that --
Dr. Raia?
DR. RAIA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to say to you that I
think that you have made a good point with respect to the clustering
issue. I would like to learn more about it. I'm going to learn more
about it. And I wonder if we could serve as a facilitator for the
residents meeting with the developer to discuss these issues. I think
it's an issue that needs to be discussed, and I need to learn more about
it because I think you've raised a good point, so if you could --
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That doesn't mean that I'm going
to vote to overturn this, okay?
DR. RAIA: No, no, absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it's worth investigating, and
it's worth investigating with the developer, as Commissioner Henning
has suggested. And I'm just asking if -- from the legal counsel, if it
would be proper that we would serve as a facilitator to get this
dialogue started.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, for clarity, if you're asking if you
might serve as just a facilitator for your own edification as opposed
to a board collective directive or approval here, I think that's less
pro b lematical.
As Chairman Henning indicated early on, this petitioner today,
Dr. Raia, and any others similarly situated, have the opportunity to
corne eventually, potentially, corne back before this board where the
board would have to review very carefully an interpretation if they
Page 31
March 11, 2003
officially asked for an interpretation from the planning director,
which is different now than the planning director in place two years
ago.
So I think if you, as an individual, who happens to be on the
commission wish to review and to some degree facilitate the process
of communication, I don't think that's problematical. County attorney
will keep you advised as well as the board advised if and when there
are further proceedings to be had back in this boardroom if the
petitioner proceeds through the procedures that are available to them
or not, to bring it back forward. So yes, you may.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, actually my question was
somewhat different. I'm very reluctant to start stepping into
Commissioner Halas's turf and start trying to facilitate something that
concerns his district. I really don't want to do that, Commissioner
Halas.
But I was wondering if it would be proper if the attorney's office
could somehow facilitate it, but you're telling me probably not in
view of the fact this thing might turn into some kind of legal dispute?
MR. WEIGEL: That's exactly right. And if they should, in fact,
go the legal interpretation route, which is procedurally available to a
-- in this case petitioner, on these land use circumstances, the county
attorney actually will be involved in reviewing the opinion of the
planning director prior to it becoming final.
So I think we all will be careful here. That doesn't mean we
can't have dialogue from the staff standpoint or the county attorney
standpoint, ask and answer questions to the best of our ability. But I
think there are some limitations as to our participation at this point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning
has also recommended another course of action for the petitioners,
and that is to ask for an official interpretation.
MR. WEIGEL: That's what I was referring as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And I just wanted to make
Page 32
-_.'_.""-"-__..._.__.,_.,,>o..,_..,_..,~.
March 11,2003
sure that they understood what Commissioner Henning was
proposing for you. It would be beneficial for you to do that __
DR. RAIA: Appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to request an official
interpretation, and by all means sit down with the developers and
discuss some of these issues.
DR. RAIA: I certainly will.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Our experience has been that
many times developers are willing to compromise on issues.
DR. RAIA: We're willing to compromise also. I appreciate that.
I just wanted the board to know, my name, phone number is in there,
if anybody wants to contact me personally, individually.
I also want you to know that I've been on the planning board for
10 years, Zoning Board of Appeal for three years. I'm not a novice at
looking at records and plans. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next petition __
(Applause. )
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION BY MR. GREGORY C. CARDAMONE TO
WAIVE IMPACT FEES FOR THE AG WAREHOUSE AND
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next public petition is requested by
Gregory Cardamone to waive impact fees for the Ag Warehouse and
Packing Plant in lmmokalee. Sir, I'm sure I -- if you want to state
your name for the record so we have it correct.
MR. CARDAMONE: Yes. My name is Greg Cardamone, and
I'm with Property and Construction Management out of Raleigh,
Page 33
-. _.".,,_.__._---,~_.,..
-----.-.--~---,.-,~.."~'_..__m.__.._...~"._..,,.,o._.._^ .' __...__~.___
March 11, 2003
North Carolina, and I'd like to thank you for extending the time to me
today to talk to you about the impact fees on our project in
Immokalee.
Ag Warehouse and Packing -_
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just a minute.
Folks, if you could exit the room quietly, we would appreciate
it. Thank you.
Please.
MR. CARDAMONE: Okay. Ag Warehouse and Packing has a
sister company called L&M Companies, Incorporated, both are out of
Raleigh, North Carolina. They specialize in buying produce from
farmers, packaging it, warehousing it for a short amount of time, and
then shipping it to supermarket chains for food distributors. Ag
Warehouse and Packing, as indicated earlier, has a facility such as
that in Immokalee.
Last year we started a proj ect for a 15,000 square foot open shed
expansion in Immokalee. We had the designs done, we had the
engineering performed, we had ordered the steel for the building, we
had contracted with general contractors and some other contractors,
and we were prepared to submit our permits when we learned that the
impact fees for our building were going to be $70,000.
Now, to put that in reference for you for the entire proj ect, the
steel for the building was going to cost $33,000. The concrete slab
and block work was a little over $50,000. So as you can see, the
impact fees were quite a substantial portion of what our project was
going to be.
Also, along those time frames, as we were doing all this, we
were talking about even expanding our expansion even further, as we
had some new business opportunities come up. So if we do work
something out, I wanted to be up-front that, you know, the expansion
proj ect may be larger than 15,000 square feet.
We understand that the commission has worked hard in
Page 34
,.------,~_.._.._._,.."..,,_..__...._..M._.'_"..
March 11,2003
Immokalee to set up a -- some economical development. They've
been in contact and worked closely with us. We appreciate that.
There's been some downtown beautification that has gone on
down there. But I think we all know that Immokalee is not
experiencing the type of growth that other coastal communities are,
and they don't have quite the same structural problems that
communities such as Naples would have.
And so that's why we were concerned that the impact fees might
affect the great work that has been done in Immokalee and actually
maybe even reverse some of that work.
We also understand that there's some studying going on on the
impact fees and the effect they're having on lmmokalee. Our
problem is, is that given the design time, the permitting time, and the
construction time and the fact that our proj ect needs to be completed
by the end of the year, we are running out of time.
So although there is -- there is some conversation between the
staff and the EDC and the commissioners, we just can't afford to wait
much longer. We've put off this season. We're doing some packing
at the Immokalee Farmers' Market, but we really cannot wait another
year.
So we are respectfully requesting that you waive the impact fees
for our agricultural facility in Immokalee for several reasons.
First of all, we're working off a very small growth margin in the
produce industry, and so $70,000 takes a tremendous amount of time
to make back up.
Secondly, our competitors could move to a neighboring county
not very far away and not pay any impact fees, and that's a concern.
And third, the EDC estimates that our direct economic impact
will be $2,349,000 to the community of Immokalee, and that the
direct employment impact will be 20 jobs and the indirect
employment will be 24 jobs. So we feel like the project is a
substantial increase to the economic development of Immokalee, and
Page 35
March 11, 2003
we would like for you to consider waiving impact fees for our
proj ect.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate you corning here
today. Regrettably, even if this commission was in total agreement
and they could make exceptions, the only thing they could do is refer
it to staff, and the process would be long. At the Wednesday meeting
-- is that correct, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're going to be talking about
these economic incentives that we're coming up with. And I seen the
package, and it's quite attractive. If -- I would urge you to please
come back on Wednesday and sit through that part of the process and
see what we can do to implement that, maybe offer your expertise
and your direction.
Now, you're not the first person that I've heard from from
Immokalee that's missed out on an opportunity. I would like to talk
to you about some alternatives in the meantime that you might be
able to hold your own for where you are until we get something in
place.
MR. CARDAMONE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do know that trying to make
special exception for one -- one business would be extremely
difficult at this point in time.
I do appreciate and I encourage you to come out today, because
I wanted to get the message across one more time so it isn't lost to
my fellow commissioners, the staff and public, but there is
considerable amount of work heading in the direction -- much of
what you're talking about. I don't think we're ever going to see the
point where impact fees will be totally eliminated in Immokalee, but
there are some extremely interesting incentives that will be coming
back to us on Wednesday. And, please, try to make it back then and
Page 36
March 11, 2003
take part in the discussion.
MR. CARDAMONE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Item #10E
REQUEST BY THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD TO
SUPPORT THE NAME OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LOCATED AT 4095 18TH AVENUE
NE, NAPLES, FL - STAFF TO FORWARD RECOMMENDATION
BACK TO THE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHOOL
BOARD - AEEROVED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item, we have a 10 o'clock time
certain. We're only a minute away, so why don't we go to that one.
That one is 10(E), approval of request by the Black Advisory Affair
(sic) Board, that the board adopts a resolution supporting the name
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School located -- 18th
Avenue Northeast.
John Dunnuck?
MR. DUNNUCK: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm just
going to play the role of the officer this morning. I'd like to
introduce Marian Thompson, who is your chairwoman of the Black
Affairs Advisory Board, who will make the presentation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. THOMPSON: Good morning, I'm Marian Thompson, the
chairwoman of the Black Advisory Affairs Board, and I'm here today
to ask you to adopt a resolution in support of retaining the name of
the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School.
We realize this is a school board issue, but your charge to our
board is to bring you issues that are unique to the black community.
We feel that the name of the school in honor of Dr. King is very
Page 37
March 11,2003
important to our community.
We feel that there is a great deal of racial discrimination in
Collier County, and we saw the naming of the school as a step
towards easing that discrimination, and we were very hopeful when
this happened, but now they are considering renaming the school,
and our community is quite downheartened (phonetic) by this action.
We feel as though Martin Luther King was a man who dedicated
his life to equality for all people. He was a Noble Peace Prize
winner, and his stature is well known to all.
We endorse the renaming of -- the retaining the name of the
school of Dr. Martin Luther King as a means of keeping his dream
alive; therefore, we are requesting that you, the Board of County
Commissioners, adopt a resolution which outlines its support for
retaining the name of the school.
I thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioners?
My perspective, Dr. Martin Luther King was about education,
equal education for all; therefore, if we're going to name a school
after Dr. Martin Luther King, we should name them all after Dr.
Martin Luther King, or my perspective is, one of the school board
members recommended the administration -- naming the
administration after the building -- administration center after Dr.
Martin Luther King. But you know, I don't know if the
commissioners want to get involved in school board issues or not.
But anyways, that's my perspective.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to understand where the
school board is with this.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it is extremely
disconcerting to people in the community that someone make a
Page 38
March 11, 2003
decision to do it one way and then decide later they're not going to do
it. I think that causes more conflict than it's worth. But I'd
appreciate it if somebody could tell me where the school board is
with this. What is their decision-making process? Are they going to
have a public hearing on this soon?
MS. THOMPSON: Yes. They're going to have a public
hearing on Thursday on the issue of renaming the schools.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me give you my
perspective on this. And this is not an issue that -- the school is not
located in District 4. But I think we should establish some kind of
consistent naming procedure in Collier County, and I think we should
generally recognize people who are local, who are well known and
commemorate their memory. But once a decision was made to make
-- to name this school Martin Luther King, I think the school board
should have stuck with it. But I don't know how that's going to go,
but those are my personal sentiments.
But I certainly would -- would be willing to support an action of
forwarding the request to the school board for action in an
encouragement in the future that they give consideration to a
standard, consistent naming process for the schools, either name
them for the community they're in or something -- and that will solve
some of these problems of people debating about whether or not it
should be Martin Luther King or something else. But so that's where
I am on this issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, Commissioner Halas --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I commend the stand that
Commissioner Coyle takes, and I feel the same way, that I believe
that this is -- the reason that we elect a school board is for the school
board to take action on something of this nature, and I feel that we
just should forward this recommendation back to the school board.
Page 39
March 11,2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm in agreement about moving
the recommendation. I very much appreciate the Black Affairs
Advisory Board taking a position, and it's great that they're bringing
it to us, and I think we ought to take their suggestion that they have,
but forward the suggestion, forward it to the school board for their
action, because we do elect the school board members to represent us
on school board matters, and I'm a little bit hesitant about jumping in
front of them on this and saying, you will do this or you won't do
that.
I know I would resent it very much if all of a sudden I got a
directive from the school board saying, you know what, we really
don't like your plans for the roads. We want you to overturn it and
go back and do this, or possibly the location of a park is totally
wrong. We like to have their input when it's taking place maybe.
But once a decision's made, it should be theirs in their domain. But I
do believe -- and I would recommend that we follow Commissioner
Coyle's advice to move this recommendation on to the school board
as the Black Affairs Advisory Board's recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And, of course, I wouldn't be
-- I agree with Commissioner Coyle also. I would hope that maybe
this -- the school system would think of -- as they did, they took a
poll of the children and they got their input, and then they didn't
follow the input.
And I like the idea of letting people know where the school is
located, like Lely or Lake Park or whatever so you know where the
schools are located. But for this particular instance -- and I guess we
can't tell them to do that. But somebody was making a suggestion
here that possibly we could encourage them to, you know, not get
into this predicament again. But I agree with forwarding this with
the recommendation.
Page 40
March 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So what I'm hearing is you want to
move this resolution? Is that what I'm hearing from the board?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With the recommendations of
the black advisory board, move them on to the school board for their
consideration.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'll entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make the motion then.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion made by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas, to move this
resolution -- forward this resolution? No?
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is prepared for
the Board of County Commissioners. If I understand correctly, the
discussion and direction may be for the Black Affairs Advisory
Board, considerations and concerns in this regard, be forwarded by
this board to the school board and that the board is -- this board itself
is not taking a position through its resolution to do so. If that makes
the record clear in regard to the action you're discussing right now.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that correct, Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The only part I've got
concerned is -- is the last phrasing of that statement you just made,
that what we're doing is we're moving the recommendation on to
them as it is. We're not saying that we're opposed to it or for it. I
don't want to leave any --
MR. WEIGEL: Correct. Yes, I understand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- misapprehensions about
which direction we're going in.
MR. WEIGEL: I think if the board goes forward as you're
discussing right now, a document different than this resolution as it
Page 41
March 11, 2003
appears in the agenda book will be created and transmitted. You will
not be adopting a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners
to do so. And I hope that correctly states what appears to be the
discussion here and synthesized it so that we, as staff, county
manager and county attorney, will assist the Black Affairs Advisory
Board at your direction to have a transmittal to the school board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be my motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Any--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I still second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Commissioner Halas.
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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Thank you.
MS. THOMPSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item -- we've got to skip these
time certains -- is item 1 O( C), if I'm correct.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we go to Item 9.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, let's go -- yeah, let's go to 9. We
get through those fairly quick.
Item #9 A
Page 42
March 11,2003
RESOLUTION 2003-112 RE: APPOINTMENT OF THOMAS E.
FINN TO THE BA YSHOREI A V ALON BEAUTIFICATION MSTU
9(A) is an appointment of member to the Bayshorel Avalon
Beautification MSTU.
Commissioner Fiala's getting to her place.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Slowly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm looking for Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Make a motion, yeah, okay, go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that we accept Thomas Finn as --
who has been recommended by the committee as the member to fill
the Bayshorel Avalon MSTU Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle.
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.
Item #9B
Page 43
March 11, 2003
RESOLUTION 2003-113 RE: APPOINTMENT OF PATRICIA
SPENCER TO THE GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION
Next one is appoint a member to the Golden Gate Beautification
Advisory Committee, and I make a motion that we accept Patricia
Spencer.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion made by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Halas.
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 carries, 5-0.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2003-114 RE: APPOINTMENT OF JOHN W.
THOMPSON TO THE HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL
Next is to appoint members to the historical ecological (sic)
preservation board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make --
MS. FILSON: Commissioner, Chairman, if I may, the
committee has recommended Mr. John W. Thompson. Ifhe, indeed,
is the one appointed, you'll have to waive section 7(B) of2001-55.
He has served two terms.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
Page 44
March 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we reappoint
John W. Thompson to that board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
MS. FILSON: With the waiver?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I will waive the extension so
that he can continue on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With my second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion by Commissioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
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.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2003-115 RE: RE-APPOINTMENT OF SHARON
K. TIMS TO THE IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU
Next one is appoint members to the Immokalee Beautification
MSTU.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion that we
reappoint Sharon Tims.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Page 45
March 11, 2003
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
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.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2003-116 RE: APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO
THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: DAVID LOVING,
REPRESENTING EVERGLADES CITY; ROBERT J. DICTOR,
REPRESENTING OWNER/OPERATOR; AND RE-
APPOINTMENT OF H. KENT STANNER, REPRESENTING AD
HOC A DYI.S.OR - A Dill.IED
We're going to appoint three members, one representing one
owner/operator, one representing Everglades City, and one
representing the Ad Hoc Advisory (sic) with the terms commencing
on April 21st, '03, expiring April 21st, '06, on the Tourist
Development Council.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion that we --
we appoint David Loving, Robert Dictor, and Kent Stanner. I read
his -- boy, did he have an impressive background with tourism, and I
thought, oh, my goodness, as we form this committee, that's going to
be vital. So I don't know the gentleman.
MS. FILSON: He's a reappointment, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
Page 46
March 11,2003
MS. FILSON: He's on the committee now. That will be a
reappointment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Stanner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to nominate those three.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, I was kind of
hoping I might be able to get in consideration for Ann Olesky, who's
done an awful lot for the area and been one heck of a promotor. She's
out there, continuously been involved with everything from the
Chamber of Commerce right on through to -- I'd like to give
consideration for her name also.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: As?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As the ad hoc advisor.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. FILSON: And if I may make one more comment. Ann
Olesky, if appointed, currently serves on two boards, so you'll have
to waive that section of the ordinance as well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd be willing to do that, but
there's still a motion from Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, if -- I would certainly bow to
your --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thank you so much,
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And she's a wonderful
person.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think she'd be a positive
addition.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'll withdraw Kent Stanner
and add Ann Olesky.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll second your motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
Page 47
March 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just so that you understand the
implications there. I know that Ann Olesky has done a lot for the
area, but Kent Starmer is an existing member of the board. You're
essentially saying that you don't want Kent Stanner on the board
anymore. You're going to replace him with somebody else.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I don't--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't -- I don't know that -- if
that's what you want to do. I would recommend against it, and I
would recommend that Kent Stanner continue to be the ad hoc
advisor. But nevertheless, the motion is on the floor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He did have impressive credentials.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's why I nominated him, and
yet I hate to -- I hate to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's vote on the motion, see if it
flies.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does anybody have any qualms
about that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was just going to add that I
looked also at Kent Stanner's credentials, and I was very much
impressed with this -- what this gentleman's been doing in the
community.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think that David Loving is
also another good person, and I believe that Ann Olesky is. That's
kind of what my feeling is on this. But, of course, we'll have to wait
and see how this all thrashes out.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I just point out, we can't have
Kent Stanner and Ann Olesky both. We have to choose between
Page 48
March 11, 2003
them because they're both being appointed to the same position, the
ad hoc advisor. So just so there's no confusion with respect to the
vote on the motion, we must -- we must choose between Kent
Stanner and Ann Olesky on this issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So there's a motion by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion fails, 2-3.
1'd entertain another motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd make a motion that we go
with David Loving, Kent Stanner, and -- I don't have my glasses on.
Who was the other -- Dick --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Robert Dictor.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor. Is
there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second to that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
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?
Page 49
March 11, 2003
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Good work.
Item #9F
DISCUSSION REGARDING PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACT
REVIEWS BY THE CLERK OF COURTS - REQUEST THAT
DWIGHT E. BROCK AND/OR REPRESENTATIVE ATTEND
BCC MEETINGS/WORKSHOPS; BE A PART OF
PROCUREMENT BOARD AND REVIEW CONTRACT AWARD
PROCESS; CONTRACTS TO BE REVISED TO SUBMIT ALL
DOCUMENTATION IN ORDER FOR CLERK TO REVIEW
Next item is -- now we're going to item 10, right?
MS. FILSON: 9(G), it's an add on.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 9(G) is an add on. I'm sorry.
MR. MUDD: Are we talking 9(F)?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. What are you going to do
with 9(F)?
MS. FILSON: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're going to skip that one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That, for some reason, is not in my --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's not in mine either.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's on the agenda. There was no
backup material.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you assist me, county manager?
You said 9(F)?
MR. MUDD: 9(F), sir. Commissioner Coyle had made a
request that there be some discussion regarding procurement contract
reviews by the clerk of courts on this particular item, and what we
Page 50
March 11, 2003
had relayed was he didn't want to have the board be in a position
where they were two weeks ago with the clerk, and he wanted to
make sure that there were -- there were actions and checks and
balances that were in the works and -- as far as change was
concerned so that we could head those particular disagreements off
before they become disagreements so that we could get those
invoices squared away prior to that time.
I think I pretty basically captured the particular item as
Commissioner Coy Ie had relayed it to me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That essentially is it, and
I'm sure, reasonably sure at least, that the clerk would not obj ect to
trying to deal with these things at the time the decisions are made
rather than deal with them retroactively, in this case, almost two
years after the decision was made.
That particular disagreement between the two organizations had
the potential for being very costly to the citizens of Collier County,
and that -- it's my belief that the clerk's concerns have now been
allayed and everything is okay with that.
But I believe that when we have a problem, we not only solve
the problem, but we try to take some action to keep it from occurring
again in the future. So there are a series of actions I'd like to
consider -- the board to consider, and these are mostly requests of
staff and requests of the clerk.
The first is that Commissioner Coletta has in the past suggested
that the clerk be part of this board. And certainly, I believe, had the
clerk been part of this board at the time that the decision was made to
declare an e.mergency two years ago for the water sewer facility
plant, that there might well have been some detection of the problem
at the time, and if there was a disagreement, we could have resolved
it at that time rather than getting into a dispute about it two years
Page 51
March 11,2003
later.
But it goes beyond that. There are ongoing problems with
respect to procurement and contract awards and billing verifications.
And I -- and many of those are valid concerns, and I think that what
we need to do is to take some action to see if we can't solve these
problems before they become a crisis.
And I would suggest that we have a clerk's representative
involved in the procurement process and the contract award process
for the purpose of determining the legality of the actions and the
fairness of the actions, because the clerk's perspective is somewhat
unique as the auditor for the county. He views these things slightly
differently than we do, and that's good. We need to have that
viewpoint early in the process.
And then finally, I would -- I would recommend that we -- we
revise our contracts in a way that requires any contractor to submit
all the necessary backup information essential for the clerk to review
the accuracy and completeness of any billing prior to the time the bill
is paid.
This does not mean that we'll -- we can eliminate audits after the
fact. They'll always be necessary. But it is far easier in my
experience to audit something up front than it is to do it at the end
and try to get it cleaned up and corrected.
So we should place the responsibility on the contractors to
provide the clerk with the sufficient information to permit that to be
done at the time they submit the bill.
So in summary, there are three things I'm suggesting. Number
one is that we ask the clerk to be a part of this meeting, to attend the
meeting to address any concerns about the legality of actions being
taken by the Board of County Commissioners at the time those
decisions are being made.
Secondly, that a clerk's representative be placed on our
procurement board and that they review the contract award process.
Page 52
March 11,2003
And thirdly, that we change our contracts to require that all
contractors submit all supporting documentation necessary to verify
the accuracy and completeness of the bill before it is paid.
So that's the essence of my suggestion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, I think that we
can ask the clerk if he would provide a staff member to the
procurement process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was going to say I agree. I'm
glad that you elaborated on my original idea and added some real
substance to it. I do appreciate that.
I might also include the fact that there's numerous workshops
that corne up that would have a direct bearing on future decisions,
and I would like to see that those workshops that -- would have the
clerk's input also so that we can make our decisions well in advance
with the clerk's input or his office input.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I totally --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll just go right down the line.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I totally agree. I'm delighted
to see them here today, and I feel much more confident if they're
sitting here working with us beforehand during the procurement
process and the invoicing process. And I think it's going to help us
along.
As commissioners, we -- we have this put before us as a vote,
yet we don't know all of the things that have already happened to get
us here, and so I really appreciate both your suggestions,
Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Coy Ie, to make this
happen, and I'm delighted to see Jim Mitchell and Dwight Brock here
today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
Page 53
March 11,2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I think that -- I think this
also addresses to the community that the Clerk of the Court and the
county's commissioners are trying to work together and resolve the
issues that have been -- that have corne before us in the past.
And I believe that in order to make government more effective
and more efficient, that we need to have a great marriage between
these two organizations to -- whereby we can work together and
address these issues before they become big problems.
And I think it's only -- it benefits not only the two organizations
that are trying to work together, but also all the people in Collier
County here, and I think that's who we're trying to address is the
constituents here in Collier County.
Thank you very much for showing up here today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Jim Mitchell, the clerk's financial
director.
MR. MITCHELL: Although I'm not the clerk, I think I speak
for him when I say that we are definitely in favor of improving
government, making government better.
And the things that Commissioner Coy Ie has put on -- out there,
we agree with. The only thing that we have to be careful of is that
we do not cross that line of independence.
But let me give you a little background of some things that are
already happening. Under the direction of Jim Mudd, we're already
participating in a committee that's looking at the entire procurement
process. Everything down from the contracts themselves, the
verbiage in the contracts, to how they're actually let, and we
appreciate that.
Mr. Mudd has also started including us in his division staff
meetings where we basically address everything that's in the agenda
packages.
So I think a lot of the things that are already happening are
going to address some of the issues that you have on the table. You
Page 54
March 11, 2003
know, we look forward to that. We want to definitely make this
marriage work, so we certainly appreciate what Mr. Mudd has done,
and we look forward to working with you guys.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could -- we went all the way
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner (sic) Mudd?
MR. MUDD: If I could -- if I could just pipe in for a second.
One of the other things that the clerk has done is he has a
contract section. And one of the things that Commissioner Coyle had
mentioned as far as a clerk rep. on the procurement board, he -- the
clerk has representation on our strategic plan for contracts, and that --
this document right here that I'll put up, and that's basically their
game plan that we have to get at the contracts because we know it's a
big issue, and he and his representative is thoroughly involved in that
process with us.
The contract section that the Clerk of Courts, Mr. Brock, has
instituted here over the last couple of months is involved in looking
at our contracts and trying to look at the invoices to make sure and
get at the heart of the matter.
Now, we have to change our contract language a little bit to get
the contractor to give us the invoices backup documentation from
subs and whatnot so that we don't have to go through an official
audit, and we need to get at that. We know -- we'll make that change
as fast as we can after we get legal review to make sure that we
haven't violated somebody's rights. But I don't think we'll have a
problem with that, but I think that's a needed change that we need to
put in there.
Right now we have contract language that says the clerk has the
right to audit the contract at any time during the contract term and
even after the contract has ended. We have found that reviewing the
contract at the end is a very difficult process, especially when you get
Page 55
March 11, 2003
contracts that are in the multi million dollar range and those kind of
increments.
And those are very difficult to go back and recreate every --
every movement, every decision that's made, and it's
time-consuming, and I think we've -- both agencies have corne to that
conclusion, and we've -- we've chose to try to get at that early on so
that we don't get ourselves at the end.
Because I will tell you, what you finally recover at the end
versus the time that you put in, it's probably a 3-to-l ratio; you get a
dollar back for every three dollars that you put in there trying to find
it. That's not a good return on investment, and we definitely need to
get better and I think we'll do that.
The other piece I would -- I would ask the board to consider is, I
would also say that we have to be appreciative of the clerk's -- of the
clerk's time, and Mr. Mitchell sat through some things today already
and Dwight did that don't really get at the heart of their business and
their function.
And I would ask the board that -- if we could consider the clerk
-- the clerk will always have a seat there. His name is on the front.
He'll be at that dais for those issues. But at the beginning of the
meeting, for instance, when we did the consent agenda today, if the
chair or the representatives of the board could look over to the board
and say, do you have any issues with the consent agenda and -- as far
as payments or whatever, and -- because it went kind of by that today
and it was a little cumbersome.
But to ask if -- and basically get, no, we don't have an issue
from the clerk's side of the house, and then give the clerk an
opportunity after the agenda time as it's being developed, do you
have issues based on what's represented on the regular agenda, and
maybe we can have the clerk --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Time certain.
MR. MUDD: -- bust out of here early enough, but you still
Page 56
March 11, 2003
have his comments on the record and his review up front of your
documents. And then if an item is of a controversial nature as it
comes up, I can give him a call or he can see it on his monitor and
corne back over here and become part of that discussion. And I think
we can, at that particular juncture, get what we want accomplished be
good stewards of his time and taxpayers' dollars, ultimately.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
MR. MUDD: That's all I have to say, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. A couple points. I want to
make sure that there's an understanding that there's a difference
between the process and the execution, that there's discussion about
us working to develop a better process.
The point is, we've got a process right now and sometimes we
are not following the process. We need somebody who is going to
recognize that and alert us if we are not following policy. And I
think we have determined a number of issues in the past where things
didn't go exactly the way they should have according to our policy.
So I'd like to make sure that we separate the issue of jointly
establishing a policy from the actual participation and
decision-making process. And I think that's very important,
particularly in the competitive procurement process.
The other thing is that I believe that it's very difficult for us or
the clerk to determine where the clerk might best have to participate.
It could be in a development agreement that we're sitting here
discussing with a developer, it could be an impact fee collections, it
could be a procurement decision, it could be a contract award
decision, it could be a decision whether or not we were going to
provide a refund of an impact fee that was overpaid.
There are a whole host of issues that have to be viewed not only
Page 57
March 11,2003
from the standpoint of the board but also from the standpoint of the
clerk. And I do believe that they -- there are things that we can do to
minimize the commitment of the clerk's time. But my personal
feeling is that time committed to this particular function will save us
all a lot of time later on, and I think it's well worth --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- I mean, it's time well spent.
I do not propose that we drag the clerk through all the
proclamations and all the other things that we have to do that take up
a lot of time. But I really do believe, and we can arrange the agenda
in this way is, perhaps, that the meat of the entire board meeting
should be reviewed by the clerk, and he would be in a position to
advise us if he has any concerns about the legality of what we are
doing or whatever.
So basically, those are my two concerns. I would urge you not
to try to scrimp on time for review, because I think time for review
up front is far better spent than time for review on the back end.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Do we have sufficient
direction to the county manager?
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one more time. I want to
emphasize what Commissioner Coyle just said. I also, too, even
though I don't think it's necessary to be here for the proclamations
and the awards that corne at the beginning, I really would appreciate
the clerk's presence or his designee for as much of the meeting as
possible because the subjects as so complex. You never know which
direction they're going to go.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think what Commissioner Coyle
stated is the items that the clerk has concerns or issues with is to be
there for those items and not through the whole meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I just -- just concerned
that we may be touching on other avenues when we start to got into
Page 58
March 11,2003
discussion where the clerk's input would be very valuable, so I leave
it to be -- remain to be seen what's going to happen. We can modify
the schedule to work for everybody as we get into it. I'm just -- I'm
just as pleased as anything that we reached this point where we seem
to have a working model that's going to make a big difference in the
future. I don't want to dilute it too soon so that all of a sudden we've
found that we put something together and then it immediately
disassembles to the point that we've got a gaping hole, so -- but I'm
sure we'll do the right thing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And just to remind everybody, the
clerk is an elected official that doesn't take direction from the board,
and what his representative said today is, we want to work together
for a better government.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I was just going to ask for
comments from Jim Mitchell.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. MITCHELL: As I stated before, we certainly appreciate
the opportunity to work with you guys.
Our main focus is to ensure that the clerk does his constitutional
duties. And I think that working with this board and with the county
manager's office, we can definitely accomplish that.
As far as attendance in the meetings, I'm -- I don't think the
clerk would have a problem with either he or his designee being here.
We've got to look at this thing from the standpoint, we've got to
learn to walk before we can run. So if that means that we need to be
here and attend these meetings in their entity at the beginning until
we get these things worked out, we're not going to have a problem
with that. I mean, it's -- our focus is very clear, and that is that we
want to do the best thing for the taxpayers, and if that's what it
includes, we are here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. What that really boils down
Page 59
March 11, 2003
to to me is, sit in and get a feel of it, see where -- where you feel --
after you get the feel of all of the meetings, and then you -- we can
bring it back, but you can decide where you feel you don't need, you
know --
MR. MITCHELL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- there's no need to be here. I
think that's great.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Well, super. Thank you.
We're going to take a 10-minute break for the court reporter to
rest her weary fingers.
And just to remind the commissioners and everybody else, the
Board of Commissioners has a luncheon with the 4- H crowd, Get to
Know Your Government, just before noon, if time permitting, and
we'll be back at 1 :30. Okay? Ten minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would everybody take their seats,
please.
Item #10B
REVIEW OF THE WRITTEN AND ORAL REPORTS OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE,
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
ADVISORY BOARDS SCHEDULED FOR REVIEW IN 2003 IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE NO. 2001-55 - REVIEWED
AS PRESENTED: EM SAC REPORT - APPROVED;
ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS REPORT - APPROVED;
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE REPORT - APPROVED; DSAC
Page 60
March 11, 2003
We're going to go to item 10(B), that's the review of the written
and oral reports of the board's advisory boards. First we're going to
go to -- is Emergency Medical Service Advisory Council.
But before that, we're going to hear from Winona Stone.
MS. STONE: Good morning, Commissioners. As you're
aware, your advisory boards and committees are up for review every
fourth year based on a rotating schedule. This year you have 10 that
you're going to review.
Today we'll review the first five listed on your agenda packet
item, and then your next meeting, March 25th, we'll review the
remaining five.
The purpose today is for you to determine if the existing board
or committee is continuing to address the issues for which it was
established and to give any directive on any changes that you want to
make to make it operate more efficiently and effectively.
Today you're going to be reviewing the Board of Adjustment
and Appeals, the Productivity Committee, the Development Services
Advisory Committee, the Emergency Medical Services Advisory
Council, and the Environmental Advisory Council, in that order with
the exception of -- Dr. Fay Biles will be presenting first on
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council.
Dr. Biles?
DR. BILES: Yes.
Thank you so much for letting me go first. I'm giving a speech
to a luncheon group on Marco Island. So as soon as I'm finished
here, I'm going to whip out of here.
Fay Biles, and I'm the chairperson of EMSAC, which is, of
course, as you know, the Emergency Medical Services Advisory
Council. We -- I'm going to answer them in the questions that were
asked on the outline, if you don't mind.
And you do have the review; do you not?
Page 61
March 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, ma'am.
DR. BILES: Okay. The first question was, is EMSAC serving
its purpose. We feel that we have served the purpose as quoted in
our bylaws and set forth in the county ordinance 80-80. Sections 50
through (sic) 27 outline the purpose, objectives and functions of
EMSAC, and that is -- and I'm going to quote -- to act as an advisory
board to the Board of County Commissioners on all aspects of
emergency and medical services in the county. And I emphasize all,
because that is our purpose.
To review also all complaints received by EMSAC concerning
the quality of the emergency medical services being rendered and to
recommend to the Board of County Commissioners any action, if
necessary .
There are some other purposes, but those, we feel, are the main,
major ones.
Then question two, whether EMSAC is adequately serving
current community needs. I gave you a whole list of things that
we're doing just to meet that second question.
So in EMSAC in 2002, we have reviewed, discussed, and
approved all items, issues, and actions prior to being submitted to the
Board of County Commissioners, including items related to the
budget, all leases and agreements with other agencies, educational
priorities, productivity, levels of performance, reorganization and
training, by laws, grant applications, new equipment and new terri -- I
should say -- terrorism (sic), relations with other organization. So
those are just some of the items that we have looked at in 2002.
Our mission is and always has been -- and we quote this every
year at the beginning of the year and many times at the first part of
our meetings -- to provide the same advanced medical patient care
and services to the entire community in an effective and efficient
manner in all parts of the county. And we stress, all parts of the
county, because sometimes people think if they're closer, whatever,
Page 62
March 11, 2003
they get more service. But that is not true. We try to serve
everybody in the county.
Highlights. And I'm just going to give just a few. After two
years of work and discussion, our bylaws have finally been revised
and approved by the legal department and the Board of County
Commissioners. And this is the first time since 1990. Two new
agencies have been added in the county and, therefore, to our
council.
The City of Marco Island now has -- is officially represented,
and Cleveland Clinic is officially represented -- Cleveland Clinic and
Hospital.
Finally, we have all five districts represented plus two members
at large. In addition, representation from all related agencies is a
positive.
We have Naples Community Hospital and Cleveland Clinic, the
sheriffs department, Collier County Health Department, the City of
Naples and the City of Marco Island, and the Collier County Fire
Chiefs Association. So we feel we've covered a broad representation
within the county.
Interlocal agreements were approved for the advanced life
support, ALS, with the cities of Naples, Marco Island, East Naples,
Fire Control and Rescue District, Board of Commissioners, and we
had thought we had it with North Naples, but we don't, so we're still
working on that.
EMSAC approved interlocal agreements for first responder
training between Collier County and Golden Gate, Immokalee and
East Naples. It's the first time that all fire departments have signed
the agreement and we're all working together.
The AEDs with training for 4,000 people were distributed to
344 at 178 different locations. Our goal, of course, is 500 with the
training that goes with it. Haz Mat training for 18 EMS personnel to
level two has been completed.
Page 63
March 11, 2003
A new program that we approved is the Safe Haven for
newborns. It's approved for fire, EMS, or law enforcement stations
to now accept newborn babies left abandoned, and then those babies
will be transported to a hospital. So no longer does anybody have to
__ what am I going to do with this baby. There is a place and they'll
be taken care of.
Number three, list of major accomplishments for 2002 in
addition to the above. And I must say, again, just a few.
Reorganization when new leadership was announced. We've gone
through that, and we've corne out, we think, smelling like roses.
Budget issues were addressed, and we went over the budget
very carefully. It was suggested that we could save $24,000 by
charging for the presence of EMS paramedics at events in Collier
County. Maybe pursue the same type of a contract that -- as we have
in North -- North Naples -- Naples Community Hospital.
Study levels of performance based on response times. And I
think you all know what we went through with that. The decision
was made to do more research on how they are figured, comparing
national averages, neighboring counties, and we want to work with
the Productivity Committee again on what Growth Management Plan
called for. We went to every meeting where the EMS program was
discussed; we were present.
We did verify that we didn't think more were needed, but we're
going to keep a real strict look at that.
Finalized and approved the contract with Naples Community
Hospital to provide transportation services for the transfer of patients
between NCH facilities. It provided funding for three additional
employees, reduced response time, enables the units to be kept in
their assigned zones and available for interfacility transport. They
don't have to go from all the zones now. They're right up there and
they can -- they're right on call. Medic 80 won't have to go from
designated zones. It saves time and money.
Page 64
March 11, 2003
We looked at everything. I think this is the only program that
we can say makes a little bit of money for the system, so we feel
good about that. We spent an awful lot of time on that contract with
representation from Naples Community Hospital and our staff.
EMS bought five new ambulances using the Sterling models at
$6,500, resulting in saving $9,000 per unit.
We also suggested -- we had to because of Medicare costs and
so forth, increased the helicopter fees, and I think you people
approved that. The agreement was reached to eliminate EMS units
being called to all fire calls. They're called when needed, but we're
trying to save everything if they're not needed.
And also, we're working on with -- the fire departments have
been very cooperative, saying that they don't have to respond when
it's strictly a medical call and it's a minor one, or -- unless there's an
accident, they have to use the Jaws of Life or something like that. So
we're trying to prevent three sirens all going to the same thing if
they're not needed. Now, if they're needed, no, that's something else.
But like on Marco, for example, we have Collier Boulevard,
which is one boulevard, and when we have a call there, all three go,
the ambulance, the fire department, and the police department. And
those people that live right there where 92 comes into Collier
Boulevard have told us -- the one man said, when they use that horn
going through that light, it hurts my teeth. So we're trying to cut
down and make it very efficient.
Grant applications suggested and approved weapons for mass
destruction equipment. EMS's part was $44,724, and we had a grant
for mobile data terminals to provide computers that they can take to
calls with them and record everything right there.
All bargaining sessions were attended by the chairperson in
order to hear everything that went on so that we would know all the
details.
But those are some of the highlights. I know you have the
Page 65
March 11, 2003
report and there are others, but I felt that those were particularly the
highlights.
Now, I feel I must address the most pressing issue for EM SAC
right now. It is the fact that we are losing our good EMS paramedics
to other counties due to their being able to earn more money. And
when I say more money, approximately 30 percent higher than what
we're paying.
We've tracked it. And I have all the data here, although because
we're going into bargaining, I can't really divulge a lot of it, but we
have lost 15 paramedics, and in some cases they went from 32,000 to
64,000, or $46,000. And how Lee County and Bonita Springs and
Estero can pay that amount, I'm not sure, but that's what's happening.
In addition to that, they're getting more overtime here and
mandatory overtime, which is hard on people. When they serve their
regular shift, then they're given overtime and then mandatory
overtime, that's rough. Health-wise, we don't want to continue that if
we can avoid it.
Quick decisions must be made, and they're too important in
order -- we must work on that overtime.
Now, let's see. They have better health coverage for entire
families, a hundred percent medical, free disability. They've told us
-- we've done exit interviews and I have the record here of all of them
that have left and their reasons for leaving right down to --
everything.
One was less expensive housing. They have to drive from Lee
County and above because they can't afford to live in Collier County.
Of course, we know that, don't we?
And then with the gasoline hikes and the traffic, it means more
time, higher costs. And so they just feel that they're better off. And
oddly enough, a lot of them are going to fire districts, not to other
paramedic EMS, but to fire districts.
And it's true, everybody's recruiting from each other all up and
Page 66
March 11,2003
down this west coast. It's a buyer's market for EMS paramedics, and
so we're facing a real challenge.
As I say, I have all the facts, figures and impacts that EMSAC is
studying so that we can recommend changes to you when they are
needed. Perhaps the 2.1 millage rate is not enough. We don't know.
It would help to -- for us maybe to help recruits locate
affordable housing. And we're working on that in the front of the
whole procedure.
So EMSAC has worked hard this year to try to keep our EMS
system the best in the state and the best in the nation, but others are
stealing our outstanding paramedics. We will make suggestions to
you, which is our mandate, but then it is up to you and your role to
make the necessary changes. EMSAC is the committee, and we know
-- we're right on top of things and we know you are too.
So, any questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just so impressed, I really am.
I had no idea they had done all of those things this year. So many
benefits to our community, and I look forward to receiving your
recommendation as far as pay scales.
DR. BILES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
DR. BILES: I wish I could go on and tell you what's happening
now because here are some brand new programs for 2003 that we're
already working on. We have an intermediate -- well, I won't -- I'll
tell you that next year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
DR. BILES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I appreciate your time and your
candor in regards to some of the issues that are corning forward, and
I know that losing those well-trained people are foremost in our
Page 67
March 11, 2003
minds, but also that one of the foremost things that are really in our
mind is to make sure that we've got good control of the budget.
As you know, there's going to be an awful lot of mandates that
are going to be directed down to us from the state, and these
communities that are offering these large amounts of -- sums of
money, I feel they're going to run into a problem with their budget.
So it may sound rosy now, but when it comes down to the point
of, do they have the money to corne forth to pay those salaries after
they negotiate something, that's another matter. And I think Collier
County, we look at the concerns of the employees, and we have to
make a real stern judgment of value received for the taxpayers of this
community.
DR. BILES: Of course.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They're the shareholders in this
community.
DR. BILES: Of course.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So there's a lot of things that
weigh, and we realize that it is a problem, but we are addressing it.
The other thing I'd like to bring forth is, I think your group is a
group that is needed in the community. I feel that you address a lot
of issues and you look for ways and you direct the county
commission in ways to -- for the -- the fire people and the EMS to be
more efficient, and I think that's -- we commend you for directing us
in those areas, because that's the other concern that we have, is to
make sure that we have efficient operation.
Thank you very much for your time.
DR. BILES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County manager, Jim Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just to help Fay a little bit on that,
those folks that are leaving are going to independent fire districts --
DR. BILES: Yes.
MR. MUDD: -- that are pretty much isolated from any state
Page 68
March 11,2003
mandates, and they basically raise their own revenues. And she
mentioned that in the thing, and I have that sheet and spent about two
hours last night discussing that with staff. We're meeting with the
union at three o'clock today --
DR. BILES: Yes, I'll be here.
MR. MUDD: -- in that process, and we do have -- and we will
be coming back to the board in the relatively near future to try to -- to
stop some of the exodus that's transpiring, but we'll bring you into
speed. And I don't want to take anything away from what we're
talking to the union this afternoon about.
Commissioner, I would ask you, before these representatives
leave, that the board basically make a motion to ratify or approve the
presentation of the committee and make a determination if the
committee, the advisory committee, is going to stay in existence.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make that motion. With
a committee this vibrant and doing so much for our community we
must keep them in place from here on in. So I make a motion that we
accept your report as presented and that we continue to support your
efforts as the EMSAC.
DR. BILES: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd be happy to second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And there's a motion by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
And I just want to say, before we take the vote, that I appreciate
looking at the fee schedule last year, and it does help. And if we can
address Commissioner Halas's concerns to stay on top of --
DR. BILES: We will.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- those fee schedules. And God
bless for everything you do.
DR. BILES: We shall.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
Page 69
March 11, 2003
.
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.
DR. BILES: Thank you very much. We appreciate all your
help, too, and --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Stone.
MS. STONE: Your next presenter is Mr. Jerry Ballard, chief
building inspector with Community Development, and he'll be
discussing the board of Adjustments and Appeals.
MR. BALLARD: Good morning. The Board of Adjustments
and Appeals only meet when there is an interpretation of the building
codes. They formally don't meet like regular committees.
If there is an interpretation, a final interpretation will corne from
the board of rules and appeals, if there's a conflict in the building
department or with the fire department.
Outside of that, the board met, last time was in February of
2000. We normally try to settle everything in-house with all the
code-calling questions. But for the final interpretation, it comes to
the building official. Then if the client does not like that, then it goes
to the board of rules and appeals only.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Questions, comments?
A very needed committee. Move that we accept the oral report
and find that the Board of Adjusting (sic) Appeals is an important
process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
Page 70
March 11,2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Basically, how much staff time do
you use on a yearly basis? Do you have any feeling on that, sir?
MR. BALLARD: For the board of rules and appeals, no, I
don't, because the last time it took one of my people approximately
four hours to do it, and that was two years ago or three years ago.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'm talking about staff
time, county staff time that you would use in regards to facilitating
your board in your meetings and stuff.
MR. BALLARD: Well, that's the only time the meeting is held,
when there is a conflict --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. BALLARD: -- in there. There's not regular meetings held
with them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any more discussion?
Motion made by yours truly, second by Commissioner Coyle.
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.
Ms. Stone?
MS. STONE: Commissioner, it's my privilege to introduce Mr.
Jim Gibson. He's the former chairman of the Productivity Committee
and is a current member of that committee.
Mr. Gibson?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did you say he's a chronic member?
MR. GIBSON: I think, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 71
March 11, 2003
Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Jim Gibson
representing the Productivity Committee. In accordance with
requirements of code section 2-113, I believe you have in your
possession written representations to Mr. Mudd as well as the staff
recommendation from Ms. Stone to Mr. Ochs detailing the activities
of the committee for the past two years. I have no prepared
statement at this time, but I'm certainly willing to take any questions
you may have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question. What is the work
project -- project or product for '03?
MR. GIBSON: '03 we are undertaking a number of things. I've
worked with Mr. Mudd. We have significant activities going on. As
I believe you know, we review all impact fee adjustments, all
revenue -- major revenue fee changes, as well as master plan
changes. We are looking -- working with Mr. Smykowski in terms
of several fund consolidation issues.
I know the commission has an outstanding request to us. We'll
be getting back to you shortly on that regarding detailed performance
assessments.
And quite candidly, it's the position -- again, you'll be seeing
something formally from us, I think, shortly -- that detailed
performance assessments are something that is beyond the capacity
of a lay board to undertake. For it is time intensive, it is very labor
intensive. There are issues with regard to constraints of sunshine in
terms of how sub working groups of a committee can function. So
for that reason, I think that is something that we will not be able to
undertake, if that is the nature of your question, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Yes, thank you.
Any other questions? And, of course, your commission liaison
is Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I find that the Productivity
Page 72
March 11, 2003
Committee complies with the ordinance and is a valued asset to the
Board of Commissioners and the community.
Jim Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would also tell you that what
I've tried to do from the county manager's office is based on your
guidance to us -- is to get out there, and when you talk about impact
fees or any impact fee increases, to get that in front of an
organization from the community to let them hammer it about so that
we have a sounding board as that -- as that process transpires. And
that's what Jim was alluding to.
And I mean, we're corning at those folks with every fee increase
proposal. When it's -- when it's in its infancy as far as the thought
process is concerned and as that procedure transpires, we continue to
keep them informed and abreast of those particular issues from the
very beginning to the very end.
I mean, the landfill issue that you're going to hear today on
10(A), I remember going to them when we were talking about the
short term, intermediate term and the long range process two years
ago and they received numerous reports on that particular thing from
recycling to whatnot, and they give us some great ideas, and they cut
to the chase. When they don't think our recommendations are on the
mark, they're pretty blunt about corning back at us and saying, you
know, I don't think you should do this in digestible doses. I think
you should corne at it at one time with an increase and get it resolved
and get through that to that process.
So we -- we, the county manager's organization, basically
cherish their particular advice in all the particular issues, and we're
using them more and more as that sounding board to the community
to make sure that we are being very good stewards of taxpayers'
dollars and being as productive as we possibly can in all our
procedures and business practices.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor. Is
Page 73
March 11, 2003
there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Commissioner Fiala, you have
something to add?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I was going to make the
motion. I didn't realize it was made. I'm so sorry. But I did want to
say that it's a pleasure sitting on this committee, and I just feel that
they're a vital link between the community, the staff and the board,
and we could never lose them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Great.
MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing no more discussion, 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.
MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Gibson.
MS. STONE: Commissioners, your fourth presenter is Mr.
Peter VanArsdale. He's the -- discussing the Development Services
Advisory Committee or DSAC.
MR. VanARSDALE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to report
on the Development Services Advisory Committee, which I'm
chairman.
As you know, this is the quadra-annual review really to analyze
and determine whether the committee has a -- serves a purpose and
Page 74
March 11, 2003
whether it should be continued.
I won't read you all the comments in our report, but I think it is
evident that the committee does serve a purpose and that we would
certainly urge that it be continued.
As you read the report it pretty much outlines its, you know,
businesses going along and really doing what we should be doing.
But to just give you an update, the bigger issues for us on the
Development Services Advisory Committee is what we do in the
future, the immediate future and the long-term future, because we've
really corne -- we're at a crisis stage in development services in terms
of providing services to the public and what it's costing. You're
going to see an item on your agenda later on that deals with a
significant rate increase in both building and permit fees that,
frankly, we don't feel that the DSAC are entirely related to the costs
to provide service to our customers, and that's an issue that we hope
to focus on very heavily in the next few months and hopefully see
some changes to the upcoming budget that deal with those inequities.
In general what's happening is, there's a commingling of funds.
As you know, the building permit fees and planning fees or
enterprise funds with revenue that's charged to provide services, the
simple truth is that a lot of those funds are going to other uses that,
frankly, are more than likely general fund obligations, so we're going
to deal with the issue more specifically and find ways to keep it so
that the funds stay in their proper accounts.
The other major issue that we have is certainly the time that it
takes for us to just do our work, and we're not sure exactly what the
time frame is. We don't have sufficient standards to get the work out,
and frankly most of the comments I am making are related to
planning services, which is -- you know, simple permits take
anywhere from two to three to four months to turn around, which it's
hard to justify them taking any longer than two weeks.
But that has a severe impact on our customers being, in the
Page 75
March 11, 2003
building industry, but, frankly, our customers are property owners,
taxpayers, citizens of Collier County that endure these lengthy
hardships. So that's another issue that we hope to corne back
certainly by the -- before the sort of malices (sic) of the current
budget year with recommendations on how to deal with that process.
We have a meeting later in this month with a number of industry
groups that deal with the -- these services all the time, and hopefully
we'll be able to corne up with some very clear recommendations to
the board that will help us solve these problems.
But I think the need for having the DSAC is as great as ever. It
serves a vital purpose. It's going to be our job to make sure that we
do some positive things, come back with some meaningful,
constructive recommendations to the board, ones that we know that
you can live with that help us solve our problems and serve the
community.
So with that, I'd like to ask that you give us another four years to
do what we do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, there's a
motion and a second on the floor to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I just have a couple of
questions I'd like to direct to you, Mr. VanArsdale, and that's in
regards to, you're saying that planning services presently is taking
three to four months to process information in regards to permits, and
you feel it should be done in two weeks. I think we had this in the
past, three, four years ago, and I think we've seen where that led us.
That led us into a lot of violations, that led us into a lot of questions.
We had something earlier this morning that carne up in front of
the commission, and I feel that the planning staff now is -- I know
that they're pressed for people there because of the amount of
building that's going on, but I also feel that they're doing due
Page 76
March 11,2003
diligence to make sure that when they do issue these building
permits, they're done in the manner in which we hope we don't run
into problems that we've had in the past. And I just wanted to make
that point clear.
MR. VanARSDALE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's very important that we
make sure we address all the issues that take place when permits are
made.
MR. VanARSDALE: And I appreciate your comments, sir.
And the only thing that I will comment, that certainly in my time,
being on the DSAC and dealing with the department before that, the
process has never been simple. This is not a new problem. This is an
ongoing problem that's been in place for a number of years, and with
my experience an issue that I often -- a way that I analyze these
issues is I make a comparison to what we used to do or what we do
do now at the City of Naples, and they have projects that are
certainly as complex and as technical and as demanding as ones in
Collier County, and the work is getting done with just -- it's not so
much the amount of work that has to be done on the review, it's the
fact that very little work gets done over this longer period of time.
And so oftentimes, the simple commercial proj ect, which will
go for review in Collier County in two weeks -- and I'm not talking
about large projects or things that are bigger than that. But when a
simple commercial renovation takes two to four months to go
through the review process when, for example, in the City of Naples,
the same kind of review takes two weeks, it begs to ask the question,
what's the difference?
And certainly, the quality of review and analysis and certainly
inspections and everything in the city, I think is every bit as good as
Collier County.
So as a DSAC, we ask that question of the staff, and I think it's a
-- we expect them to corne back with a rational answer. And so just
Page 77
March 11, 2003
having a long review, in our mind, doesn't necessarily make for a
good product, and that's -- and people are paying a very, very hefty
sum to get high quality -- you know, fast and good service.
One of the things, that just because we're government doesn't
mean that we have to provide bad service. And the truth is, that in
many, many areas, we are providing bad service, and hopefully the
DSAC will be able to corne up with some good recommendations to
take care of that problem.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. VanArsdale, I share your
concerns. I have seen it, correspondence and comments back. I'm
aware of the problem, and I know that county manager's office is
along (sic) with community development, so I commend you on your
efforts to resolve this problem posthaste.
There's a motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by
Commissioner Fiala finding of -- the DSAC committee a valuable
asset to the community.
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: Thank you.
MR. VanARSDALE: Thank you. And just one comment. It's
-- I believe we have a very competent staff, and part of the problem
that we're dealing with now is a result of, frankly, the turnover and
the changes that have undergone -- that we've undergone over the
past two years, and so we're all pulling together to solve things.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Stone?
Page 78
March 11, 2003
MS. STONE: Commissioners, your last presenter today is Mr.
Torn Sansbury. He's the chairman of the Environmental Advisory
Council.
MR. SANSBURY: Good morning. Torn Sansbury of the
Environmental Advisory Council for Mr. Colonel (sic) Mickey (sic)
Coe, our Vice Chairman, and the other seven members, we'd like to
thank the commission for allowing us to serve the county for the past
year on the EAC.
During the past year, we have processed approximately 11
development approvals, we've made recommendations to the
commission regarding things such as the eastern lands and the rural
fringe, we've held workshops and reviewed LDC amendments
involving things such as the wetland, gopher turtle protection, beach
raking, sea turtle protection, various things of that sort.
We do have one request for you today, because there's one item
within the way that our rules and regulations are set up that differs
from all or county corn -- county advisory committees, and that is the
EAC -- and we believe it's left over from the days of the combination
of the two environmental committees -- has nine members and
requires five of those nine members to be there for a quorum;
however, it also requires to take action on an item, there has to be a
majority of five member voting in favor.
So many of the times you'll see reports corning from the EAC
that say, no action was taken, and that is the reason, because maybe
only five of us were there or maybe only seven of us were there and
five -- four people were in the majority. So we would like you to
consider revising those rules so we operate in the same manner as all
other advisory councils do, so that, yes, the quorum requirements
would be the same, and a simple majority of that quorum would be
required to take action.
So other than that, again, thank you, and we do believe we're
serving a purpose, and we look forward to working with staff. I'll
Page 79
March 11, 2003
just say that Bill Lorenz, Barbara Bergenson (phonetic), I always
pronounce Stan's name wrong, Stan Chrzanowski, from community
development, environmental services, and Patrick White, assistant
county attorney, have always been very, very, very helpful to us
during the year. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is the board entertaining the change
of the ordinance for a simple majority by the EAC to forward
comments to the board? Are we in favor of that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll move.
MR. MUDD: Sir, if you could -- if you could vote to either
continue the committee before you change the ordinance, I think
we'd get it in the right order.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thanks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we do that all in one motion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. Let's do it as two separate
motions. Is there a -- entertain a motion to continue the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So move.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- environmental advisory
committee? There's a motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by
Commissioner Halas.
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 80
March 11,2003
Is there direction to county manager?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just have a question. I'd like to
understand the practical impact of doing this. How many total
members are on the board?
MR. SANSBURY: Nine, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nine people. So a simple majority
of the quorum --
MR. SANSBURY: Quorum, could be as -- could be a minimum
number of three people potentially.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So as few as three people could be
making decisions with respect to approvals or disapprovals of
requests corning before the board.
Tom, my feeling is that three people is not a broad enough --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- range to really provide us with a
good indication of what is best for the community, and my feeling
would be not to do that. But--
MR. SANSBURY: We do -- we do transmit -- staff does
transmit to you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. SANSBURY: -- what the vote is in each case.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. SANSBURY: So it would show a majority for or a
majority against a particular item; however, they also have to
transmit the statement that no action was taken. And that's the only
questionable area we had, the note, yes, we did do something on it,
yes, a majority voted, however, that majority was not sufficient to
meet that five-vote requirement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would think, I would hope
Page 81
March 11, 2003
anyway, that the people that want to get involved in this committee
would have enough interest to make sure that they would make --
meet the meeting requirements, to make sure that there's a quorum
there, to take care of issues that confront the environmental
community.
This is very, very important. And if those people do not have
that type of interest, I feel that we should probably look at addressing
that and maybe getting some people on there that would take an
interest in this and would make the meetings. And I think that's the
most important thing.
MR. SANSBURY: If I could comment, sir, that in the past we
have had some individuals that did not attend. I think the group that
we have put together has a very, very good attendance record, so I
concur completely with your position.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was going to say the same thing.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All right.
Thank you, Mr. Sansbury.
MR. SANSBURY: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County manager, Jim Mudd, do we
have time to get one more item in?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, I think -- I think we do.
Item # 1 OC
NEGOTIATION OF A LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM (LAP)
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
HIGHWAY LIGHTING ALONG US 41 EAST FROM BROW ARD
STREET TO COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) FOR A TOTAL
COST ESTIMATED TO BE ABOUT $500,000 - MOTION
Page 82
March 11, 2003
F AILED; MOTION TO REDUCE COST AND REEVALUATE
Commissioner, I'd suggest that we go to 10(C), which is a local
area program agreement for the Florida Department of
Transportation for the installation of highway lighting along U.S. 41
from Broward -- from Broward Street to Collier Boulevard for a total
cost to be about $500,000.
Before you entertain that vote, I want to -- and before we start
talking about expenditures of dollars today -- and I won't -- and I
won't keep bringing it up and hounding you with it all the time.
There's some things we just need to -- we need to talk about as far as
funding shortfalls for the budget and things like that that are on my
plate right now that I'm trying to get at.
And one of the things you're going to talk to Norman about is
this $500,000. One of the things you really need to corne across in
there, do we have a good faith agreement with the state that those
dollars are going to be there in the future, because if they're not, then
Norman's bonding, okay, and we're paying interest on bonds, and it's
-- ad valorem dollars are being used to do that, and so -- and I'm not
saying the project's not (sic) good or bad, I'm just -- I'm just saying,
you need to corne away from those decisions.
Why? I've got a three million dollar shortfall, okay, on claims
for our medical plan. We've had -- and I've met with all the
constitutionals the other day, and I laid out their fair share of that
process and what we need to do in order to keep our medical plan to
be solvent for the remainder of the year.
We've had a series of about 20 claims that have all been over the
$100,000 mark that have caused us to have to pay those claims that
weren't in the budget. And that -- and that's something that you can't
foresee when they corne.
We've had some preemies, one of which was Mr. Dunnuck's.
Page 83
March 11, 2003
The bill to that was over $400,000, and one was the chair's, okay, and
I won't talk about how much that one cost, okay, but it wasn't
$400,000.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was a bargain.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, it was an absolute bargain, okay, and the
baby's doing well, because when you're on the phone and you're
feeding him, you're telling me some issues, and I'm hearing the baby
in the background, and no doubt that baby's got a good set of lungs
and it's healthy.
But that, we've had a liver transfer, we've had some other issues
that have come up. I will tell you one of the pillars of why people
work for Collier County in government is because of the medical and
dental program.
You heard Fay just a little while ago talk about how other
counties were offering a hundred percent. I'm not too sure we can
afford a hundred percent, but we have a good program and one of the
better programs in the area, and we're going to have to find those
dollars, and I've asked our administrators to pull that out of their
budget items instead of going into a reserve, which there isn't that
money there in the reserve in order to get that.
You've -- every day you get emails from FAC (sic) and from our
lobbyists and talking about bills on the floor of the Senate or the
House in Tallahassee whereby they are revenue-shifting dollars and
responsibilities to the county.
And I've asked Mike Smykowski to find $2 million in our
budget that will offset that just this year, okay? Because remember,
the state budget comes into effect the first of July. So that leaves us
uncovered with unfunded mandates for July, August and September,
okay? All unanticipated in our budget process and that -- and we can
talk about the pros and cons of having offset budget processes
between counties and states, and it's always been an issue that's been
debated. But those are some of the things that I'm looking for as we
Page 84
March 11, 2003
go along.
Fay alluded to paramedics leaving going to independent fire
districts. We're meeting with the union this afternoon. We will come
back with something that will cost us money, okay, to try to offset
exodus of those folks trying to go get those jobs. There are a
shortage of paramedics all over the country. You're not in a situation
that's by yourself, and there's only so many of them.
And so we've got to at least be competitive in the market to lure
those folks in, but we will come back to you with a plan after we talk
to that union here in the next two to three weeks to talk about that.
I'll meet you one on one and then we'll bring it back to the board
meeting.
But I just want you to understand there's several items today on
the agenda that are going to talk for dollars that are unbudgeted in
our budget that are -- I call them -- I call them Whimpies. I'm a
Popeye fan. You know, Whimpy always was looking for that
hamburger today and he was going to pay you back tomorrow. And
so I want to make sure that -- you know, and Whimpy did it on a--
he never gave you an IOU, he just did it on good faith. I think we
need to be cognizant of those and make sure that we've got those
agreements in place that basically -- and we've got a good promise
that that stuff will come to us if we're going to pay for something and
get the money back in 2007.
And I won't bring that up again, but I just wanted to make sure
that you understand what I'm trying to work with right now within
budget on things that were unexpected that showed up and what
we're trying to do in order to get them resolved.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's -- I think that's why I
always say, well, what are we going to cut out of the budget in order
to make that happen. I hope everybody understands that is -- you
know, we have a balance in our register that we need to deal with, so
-- I'm sorry, Mr. Feder.
Page 85
March 11, 2003
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Norman Feder.
And Jim, I appreciate that introduction.
What I will tell you is we're not proposing that we proceed on
this issue or any other issue without a very strong IOU.
The issue that you have right now is the question of trying to
advance the installation of streetlighting on U.S. 41, as Jim noted,
from Broward to Rattlesnake Hammock, that section of roadway
already completed, and also on a section of roadway that Florida
DOT is currently working on from Rattlesnake Hammock over to
951.
At two recent MPO, or Metropolitan Planning Organization
meetings, we were requested as county staff to come back to you and
identify what in the program we would have to defer in order to
provide the funds to fund approximately 500,000, which is the cost of
the streetlighting and then get paid back by the state in their fiscal
year 2006/2007.
The funds to be paid back from are the urbanized area funds
placed into the state's work program, or five-year work program just
recently based on Collier County becoming an urbanized area, over
200,000 population and having these attributable or urbanized funds
specifically earmarked for this area.
The dollars earmarked at this point that are not programmed in
the state's work program for Collier County is about 2.5 million in
2006 and 7, and the recommendation is that we go into a LAP or a
Local Agency Program agreement, specifically that if we are to
proceed on this, that we provide that funding, the 500,000 up front.
And I'll mention the projects and issues that we would be pulling
from the program to do that, and then get paid back in 2006 and 7
specifically out of that urbanized area funds; therefore, limiting what
we could do out of that funds in that fiscal year by earmarking, as I
said, a half a million of that 2.4 specifically for this project.
What we're proposing is that we -- your staff has requested
Page 86
March 11,2003
along with the Florida DOT staff, met with our individual contractor.
You have the information in front of you. We could move on this
section if the board so directed from Broward over to Rattlesnake
Hammock within, basically, the next couple of months.
There -- our contract with the county does have the light poles
and the ability to proceed. The section from Rattlesnake to 951
would probably be eight or nine months even if you proceed today,
because it would be done as part of the state's project with their
contractor. The state's contractor would design all of it to ensure
uniformity and application.
The projects -- and back to Jim's point that you need to look at
what we would be deferring from the current approved budget in
order to secure the 500,000 to advance this.
First of all, you've got a portion of dollars, 275,000, just over
half of the dollars, would come out of improvements on Radio Road
between Livingston and Airport. Median modifications, as you
know, we've proceeded on that previously. We were able to get
basically all the work done in that, including a modification. These
dollars were anticipated as being needed for that modification, but
we got it done with last year's dollars, and we've found that it's
working very well and we don't need to do more on that segment, so
those dollars are, in fact, available, and that would not be problematic
to that proj ect.
I'll skip down on the list to -- the next largest would be 95,000
in the advanced right-of-way program. You've got a portion of funds
that are annually programmed for advanced right-of-way acquisition,
and we propose some of that.
The others would be funding from 100,000 from the Corkscrew
Road culvert pipe projects. That is a repayment back on that one to
Lee County on a project that they're doing right at the county line. It
was cheaper for us to provide the funds to Lee County and let them
do the project. They haven't proceeded on that. It would have to be
Page 87
March 11, 2003
reprogrammed next year consistent with our commitment to pay
them back once they do the proj ect.
And so as you see, at least in this case, we've gone through our
program with a bit of a fine toothed comb, and we believe we can
pull together that 500,000 that's needed in order to try to advance, if
that's still the board's direction.
And I'm available for any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, I wanted to say, it
was truly a shame that this road was even deleted in the first place.
None of us were even here to see that that happened.
But I can't tell you how much I appreciate you jumping into this
situation, finding the money to do it, considering the safety of the
residents and citizens in that area, and I just truly admire you for
doing that. And if -- unless there's further discussion, I'd like to
make a motion to move forward with this project and accept your
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll accept your motion, and we'll
definitely have further discussion. Is there a second on the motion?
I'll second the motion.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'd just like to review
something, and summarize. I'm not really sure what you just told us,
but I would like to say that it is extremely dangerous under our
current circumstances to advance money that we are likely to get
paid back sometime in the future.
We've got to find a way to meet our budget requirements over
the next three to five years, and they're going to get increasingly
difficult for us, particularly this year. And any allocation of funds
that's based upon some future repayment by the state is not really a
good idea because we need the money now. We don't need it in
2007, 2008, whenever they're going to give it to us.
Page 88
March 11, 2003
But I understand -- correct me if I misunderstand. But you're
saying that you're not going to -- to utilize any of that payback
money in order to fund this particular proj ect? You have cut money
out of other projects that will not be done, and then you expect
payment from the state sometime in the future?
MR. FEDER: That is correct. It's gas tax on projects that
probably won't proceed this year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And -- but what I would
say to you is, that if you can cut those proj ects, is this the highest
priority project that you can find?
MR. FEDER: With all due respect, Commissioner, I was asked
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand.
MR. FEDER: -- at the MPO meeting to do just what I presented
to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand. I'm not
arguing against this proj ect. I'm merely trying to sort through a
budgeting strategy which will be important for us as we begin to
address the budget a little later on.
MR. FEDER: So we're clear.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And let me -- let me go to this
particular issue. It's an issue of priorities. We have $700,000 locked
up in a reserve for trauma center funding. Why do we have that
locked up in a reserve? Why don't we just take that and fund some of
these projects? Is there a reason we can't do that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think what we're going to find from
the county manager is he's going to ask that for -- to pay some of our
medical bills.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's okay too. That's
okay too.
But I guess that's one of my concerns, is that -- is that we need
to make sure, with what little money we're going to have, that we use
Page 89
March 11, 2003
it as wisely as possible and not take any action which is dependent
upon some future payback from the Department of Transportation.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, very definitely. And what I
would say is, what we've identified as projects that we feel would not
hurt the current program are not higher program than this. I won't
speak to every other possible proj ect application.
There are gas taxes that could be used for this proj ect as a
higher priority, and they would not infringe on some of the other
issues which Jim is raising, being that they are gas taxes.
The repayment is from a funding source that could be used out
in six, seven on some other proj ects, but as of today, it has not been
identified specifically for the applications.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, and then I
have a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'd like to probably look at
this and prioritize this, because I think we have some -- one other
thing on the agenda in regards to roads. And I'm concerned if we
were going to prioritize this, is this a higher priority than what else is
going to be coming up on the agenda, because I'm really concerned
about the state of the art -- or the state of the economy right now in
this country and where we might be in a few more weeks here.
And I really feel that we maybe ought to take and make a true
assessment of where we want to spend all these -- all this money --
excuse me -- because of the fact that we may have an emergency,
God forbid, whatever it may be, but we may -- we might want to look
and say, is this something that we can put off, and if the state of the
economy gets better, then we can come back and look at this?
Because I feel that -- I think we need to kind of cut back and make
sure that we have reserved resources, and then we can address this at
a later date.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, if I could, the other one you're
referring to -- and I don't want to get ahead of the agenda -- but is the
Page 90
March 11,2003
Davis and 951. That is one where we're requesting use of budget that
won't get used this year as opposed to dollars. The dollars are in the
state's work program. We wouldn't proceed on that. We'd, in fact,
use their money rather than advancing dollars, but we are using
budget on the project that probably wouldn't move. So that one's not
so much dollars, but your -- the rest of your statement is obviously
very valid and for the board to give us direction on.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your opinion, is this a health and
safety issue, or is it a want issue by the board?
MR. FEDER: I think it's a very strong community desire. I'm
not sure that, unfortunately, the very tragic event recently could have
been stopped by having lighting. I've made that statement before.
That was a situation that needed other controls and other concerns to
address, but at the same time you do have a very, very dark area.
Most of that corridor is lighted, as is other corridors in the area, and
there's a lot of desire in the community, is the way I would answer
your question, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That's the way that you're not
going to answer my question.
MR. MUDD: Norm also told you -- Commissioner, Jim Mudd,
for the record.
Norm also told you that three-fifths -- three-fifths of the cost of
this project he has basically done on a savings because of the Radio
median project that he shifted. The only -- the only thing that he
mentioned that has any concern for me is what I call slippage, and
that has to do with that culvert project where we're going to have to
pay Lee County next year for, and he's going to have to budget that
process, so --
MR. FEDER: And that slippage is on Lee County part. We're
paying them those dollars for their work.
Page 91
March 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- let me make a general
observation, not specifically to this project. But you have -- you're
finding money you can save in order to fund this particular proj ect,
so you're closing out some other proj ects or you're at least postponing
them.
Now, that's a process we're going to ask you to do -- to do all
the time, that's exactly right. We're going to go through a budgeting
process and we're going to say to you, cut out all these projects so we
can meet our budget. You're already doing that.
And the question is, when we cut this money out of our budget,
are we allocating it to the most -- the highest priority projects that we
have in the county? That really is my question.
And if you find some money and you use it on another project
that isn't high priority, and then somebody else finds some money
and they use it on a project that's not necessarily high priority, at the
end of the day, we will find we've already cut the budget but we used
it on items that were not necessarily high priority.
And so I'm talking about a budgeting issue here less than I'm
talking about this particular proj ect, because I know how badly
Commissioner Fiala wants this project.
But I don't want us to get into a position that when we finish up
the budget review you say to us, well, we've already cut out all the
money we can cut out, and we've used it on these projects you told
me to use it on because we --
MR. FEDER: Well--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're going to have some big
shortfalls, and we need to figure out ways to deal with that.
MR. FEDER: To your question, there's not a lot of other things
we can find. We pushed hard, and you notice a number of proj ects
that identified 500,000. So as part of the answer to your question, if
Page 92
March 11, 2003
you're asking me to continue doing that, we're going to continue all
the time trying to do that with every project individually and with the
whole program.
The issue first and foremost is always safety. But a lot of this
lighting project is not necessarily safety driven. It is community
desire and basically treatment, much like other sections of the system
have been treated.
The first and foremost issue is always capacity, and in funds of
this nature trying to do the turn lanes at intersections, intersection
improvements, turn lanes and capacity is always the top priority, at
least for the funds that, you know, the public is asking me to utilize.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it possible to do this project in
phases and take the lighting and put it in immediately where the --
where the greatest population exists and the greatest potential danger
might exist, and then phase in some of the other sections a little later
on; does that make sense?
MR. FEDER: Well, all things are possible, Commissioner. And
at your direction, obviously we'll proceed. But my advice to you
would be, you don't want to establish light and dark sections. That's
even more dangerous.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I like all dark sections. That's
why I've got headlights on my car. But nevertheless, I've lost that
argument.
MR. FEDER: It would have to be a full moon night that night.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Then Commissioner Fiala,
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. First of all, by installing
them now rather than when the money becomes available in three or
four more years, do we not save money?
MR. FEDER: Yes. Your costs is probably less, but you're also
Page 93
March 11, 2003
carrying the carrying cost for that until moneys are available. But
having said that, you have use of them. Usually the advancement
reimbursement is done even though you're providing the carrying
costs because you get the use of that facility, that service, that
lighting throughout that period of time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it might be difficult for some
of my fellow commissioners to note the need for this because they
have the lights on their side of the U.S. 41 area, and they don't maybe
have a habitat village located right there or maybe Naples Manor or a
park, a huge park, where people ride their bikes and walk -- and
without any lights in this area -- and there are a lot of bike riders in
the area who have that as their only mode of transportation. I almost
hit one the other day, I'm sorry to say, that the importance in this --
of this issue isn't just that I want it. I don't even live there. I just feel
it's important for the safety of the residents, the people that are using
the park, the people that don't have a vehicle to drive with. So I'm
just looking out for the safety of our residents. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm very concerned about the
safety of the residents in Commissioner Fiala's area, but I'm also
concerned about our budget constraints and things. And I -- I'm
wondering if -- and I don't want to put you on the spot, but if we
could bring this back at a later date.
I think this is -- it's a very important issue because I -- because
of the fact that a young child was killed here, but I think we also
need to look at what is going to be confronting us here in the next
few months as far as budget requirements, and I'd just like to see if
we can bring this back at a later date maybe.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Jim Mitchell wants to chime in here.
MR. MITCHELL: Norm, you may not know the answer to this,
but the annual appropriation for the FDOT urban area, it is an annual
legislative appropriation that has to take place?
Page 94
March 11, 2003
MR. FEDER: Yes.
MR. MITCHELL: So could -- my concern is, could we find
ourselves in '06, '07 expecting to receive $500,000 but the
legislature's not appropriated that money during that fiscal cycle?
MR. FEDER: It is a condition always on an annual
appropriation, but at the same time, having been on the other shoe,
Florida DOT is going to honor the LAP, or Local Agency Program,
and Joint Participation Agreement before they do anything else with
the funds. So it's unlikely that 500,000 would be a constraining
factor in that year. But yes, it has to be annually authorized, you're
correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I know we're
asking Norm to make decisions and we're asking to put him on the
line there saying, you know, give us a priority. The truth of the
matter is, that's our responsibility, and we're going to continue to
make priorities. And when it comes down to the budget itself, we're
going to take a look at all the priorities, and we're going to go down
through it. And I'm sure that we're going to consider those items that
have to do with the health, safety and welfare of the community first.
When we have to do our cutting, we're going to have to do it
where it's appropriate. We're not going to -- I don't want to get into a
deep discussion at this point in time.
I just want to say that I do support the lighting now on 41. I
think it's a necessity for the amount of traffic that's there, the amount
of people that live there. And to put it off to the future and have
more accidents that take place, more deaths take place, we bear that
responsibility. And I do see this as a health, safety, welfare issue that
-- and I would suggest that we continue forward like we have been
with authorizing Norm to go ahead and find the funding for this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
Page 95
March 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would like to address a
slightly different issue, and that's the one about the future
reimbursement by the Florida Department of Transportation.
I think it's dangerous to base our assumptions on the past
conduct and practices of FDOT, because I don't think this state has
ever found itself in the situation it's in right now. And I think there
might be some rather extraordinary measures taken.
And it's entirely likely that FDOT might find itself in a position
where it cannot honor its commitments on some of these funds, and I
really am reluctant to see us start depending upon reimbursements
sometime in the future and have us use current dollars today, because
we need the current dollars today to get us through this very, very
difficult period.
But what we're being asked to do is to decide today what is the
priority based upon one project. What we really need to do is take all
of the proj ects and decide what the priorities are and rank them and
go down them and see how we can fund these things.
So rather than disapproving this project, what would happen if
we just took the next -- we're going to be in budget negotiations soon,
or budget develop pretty soon. In fact, you should already be there.
Why don't we just, over the next couple of months, begin to
make our priority list. This will be on that list. And when we get a
chance to look at all the priorities and all the shortfalls we have, we
then will begin to make decisions about where we allocate what little
money we've really got. Is there a reason that wouldn't work for
everybody? That means that Commissioner Fiala's project is still
onboard. And if we can get the money, we'll get it done as quickly as
possible, if it's a top priority or in the priority.
MR. FEDER: One thing I do need to bring to the board's
attention. Obviously we can do that, we can come back our next
budget cycle, put this as a proposed project with advancement
reimbursement at that time.
Page 96
March 11,2003
But Florida DOT does have their contract -- and I said,
Rattlesnake. It's actually Barefoot Williams over to 951 -- onboard
right now. They're due to complete in about eight months. So if
we're going through that process, we would not be able to use their
contractor for design and installation. We've have to come in after
the fact and have new start-up costs. There would be some additional
costs. I'd have to look at that to tell you. But I didn't want you want
to be aware of that.
But obviously we could bring it back as a budget item with the
next budget, let you look at that relative to all projects.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When is the drop dead date on
that? When's the latest possible decision?
MR. FEDER: I'd have to check, but if they're talking about
eight months out to completion, we're pretty far along with that
statement because they'd have to design it, get it into their project,
order, and it takes some time to get it in.
We have some, with our contractor available, enough to do the
small section that we have. Not necessarily all of it. That's not
saying it couldn't be done. It could be done as a follow-up. I wanted
you aware that it probably wouldn't be done as part of the state's
project.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on. I haven't had a chance to
say anything --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could throw one more thing --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- after Commissioner Mudd speaks.
MR. MUDD: No, sir, that's not the case.
But it goes into the discussion that Norman just had about the
difference between, if FDOT does it with the promise of a future
payment versus missing that window and doing it ourselves without a
promise of those dollars coming from the state. And so you've got to
Page 97
March 11, 2003
-- one is, you're out $500,000, and one is, in 2007 you have -- you
have the hopes, and with past record from the state, they have
honored it, but yes, there's uncertainty in the future that that
particular item could come and you could get those dollars.
It's -- you've got to be careful. And so one is -- one is almost a
guaranteed payment based on past performance by the Florida
Department of Transportation of those dollars coming back to the
county. Yeah, we lose the use of our dollars over those -- four-year
period of time as far as if it was sitting in a bank gaining interest and
the clerk's turning that back to the general fund.
But the -- but I will tell you that they haven't -- they haven't
been a bad agreement maker in the past. They've honored the past
agreements with Collier County.
I just want to make sure that if you make the decision to wait,
that you understand that you're going to lose the ability or any hope
thereof of getting anything from the state in 2007.
MR. FEDER: Jim, there's a possibility even if you waited to try
to get an advancement reimbursement agreement. We might be able
to still possibly do that, pull that off the table.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, you had a
question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Well, just a statement.
I recognize that there is a health, safety issue here, but I also
recognize that that doesn't cover that whole span of area of U. S. 41.
And I kind of agree with Commissioner Halas that, hey, let's bring it
back to see -- address that issue of health and safety and give staff a
little bit of time to do something with that I can support.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, just a final comment. I think
the staff has to -- has to look very, very hard at what you're going to
do with the budgeting for this next year.
If we come in to you and say, we want you to cut the budget 15
Page 98
March 11,2003
percent or 20 percent, what are you going to do with that? Will you
find you've trimmed all the fat out already and used it for proj ects
that are not really covering the absolutely essential items of running
the government?
Now, that's just a comment. I don't expect an answer, but you
have to prepare yourself for a very, very tough budget year, and I
hope you're doing that.
MR. FEDER: I am, and I think we've done it the last few years
and will continue. I expect that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it wasn't tough last year.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've been thinking this as a
no-brainer. While they've got the street all torn up, of course, you
don't have to haul in any extra equipment. We've got the -- some
leftover poles that we've read in our agenda that are sitting there that
they can -- they can bring out right now.
It saves -- there's so much money saved on this project, plus the
safety of people. I can't understand you guys not concerned with the
safety of people. Everybody's got lights in their neighborhood but
this one. We have -- I just -- to me, that's a no-brainer.
So I think you're saving money right now. You've got the
equipment all there, you've got -- you're saving money again. Norm
has found the money that isn't even being used in the budget that we
can use for this. We should be moving forward.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got to agree with you,
Commissioner Fiala. But if we hold off for maybe eight months,
maybe the economy will start turning around. We've had a down
cycle in the last three years.
We know what the mandates are that have been put forth on the
state by the voters, and we know what the regards -- that we've lost a
Page 99
March 11,2003
lot of tourism in this state, and that's based on -- where that -- when
the tourism goes done, we lose tax money, revenue, and I think we
need to be really concerned about what's going to happen at home
here. And I'm concerned about the fact that the mandates are going
to be sent down to us in the next couple of months.
So I know this is safety, welfare. I don't have lights in my
neighborhood either, but I think that we need to take a look at this.
And if we can put this aside for maybe eight months, maybe the
economy will change around. I mean, really.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that's when the equipment
leaves.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, why don't you put it in
when the equipment is right there and the street's all dug up? Why
would you then have to pay to bring the equipment back in, get a
new contractor to put this in when we've got them right there? I
mean, wouldn't you want to save the money while it's available to do
that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What are we talking about? Can
staff give us an idea about how much we'd save?
MR. FEDER: Typically in mobilization, about 50,000. Yeah,
about 20 percent of the total job is what Ed's telling me. But the
section you're talking about for mobilization is not the whole job. So
between 50 and 75,000 for mobilization.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What are we talking in interest
payments if we --
MR. FEDER: You're talking about carrying on --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Four or five years.
MR. FEDER: -- 500,000 for five years, and I'll defer to
somebody else to tell you exactly that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Probably two percent.
MR. MITCHELL: Interest rates are not very favorable right
Page 100
March 11, 2003
now, especially on the short end of the curve. You can probably
figure from an SBA perspective, probably two percent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Fifty thousand, knock on wood.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have something to say,
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thank you very much.
I just want to say, once again, Commissioner Fiala makes a lot
of sense, and I hear the concerns here, justifiable concerns by the
way, about the budget process of where we're going to be.
We've got a unique opportunity to get in there now. We've got a
record from the state of past performance that's been absolutely
excellent based upon expert testimony from our Norm Feders (sic),
who is the number one man for a long time in this part of the state
when it comes to funding mechanisms that are there.
Yes, the whole world could go totally wrong. Possibly the sky
will fall. Who knows? But we have to go with the best information
we have at hand. We could withdraw back into -- our heads back
into the hole and say, well, we'll just wait for better times sometime
in the distant future when this may be possible.
I think the time is now to act. Mr. Feders (sic) has acted very
responsible in finding funds out there, and we'll have to do this over
and over again. And there's going to be times it won't work, but I
think this is one of the times that it will work. I'd like to make it a
motion that we go ahead and accept this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you already have a motion on
the floor.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me. Was there was a
second for it?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, there was.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I apologize for that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's all right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Page 101
March 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, you have
something?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, this is the last thing I'm
going to say on this. I think Commissioner Fiala's argument is a
sound one.
The only area of disagreement I have is the fact that we are
spending money up front with little assurance of -- well, we might
have assurance, but it's not likely to happen if they really get into a
big budget crunch.
But the key point here is that it is the staff who has the
responsibility for cutting the dollars for the projects. And you're
going into a budget cycle, and I would say to you, what is your
recommendation with respect to the money that you are currently
cutting out of your budget? How do you want to see it used?
Because you're the ones who are going to have to find the money to
cut out of the budget. What is it you want us to do with that money?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Boy, that's putting somebody in (sic)
a rock and a hard place.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, what I can tell you is the
technical end of it. I can tell you that we constantly are looking at
the budget, and we said it's going to be a hard budget year.
We're not talking of being five years behind and playing
catch-up. Every budget year is tough because I can't catch up. So
we are looking to do the project as economically as we can, to make
sure that each single proj ect and the proj ects in the program -- but
again, and with no due disrespect, the direction I get as to what
projects I do, and some of those issues need to come from this board.
I can provide you the technical background, I can tell you
there's merit to this lighting. We probably have more pedestrian
movement in this area than other areas of the county that are lit at
this time. I can tell you though that it probably couldn't have foresaw
or removed the tragic event recently, and I don't think it's being done
Page 102
March 11,2003
specifically for that.
I can also tell you it's not as much a safety concern as it is an
issue of concern to the neighborhood and continuity with other issues
in the county. And I can also tell you that if you're telling me to pull
back on my budget, that it is projects that I don't do and I'm playing
catch-up -- and if I can do them today they're cheaper than if I do
them tomorrow or two years from now. But we will always work
with the priorities from this board, and I hope I've honestly tried to
answer your questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I think what you're telling us,
Norm, basically is that you're catch -- you're playing catch-up, not on
the lighting, but you're playing catch-up on roads and you feel that
that's -- you think that's -- what's the most important, do you feel?
MR. FEDER: Right now the most important has to be either
providing better efficiency at intersections or lighting poles or adding
lanes. At the same time, I think we're trying to do that within an area
that makes the community sensitive.
I know we've pulled back some on landscaping. We've had to
do that. We've had to pull back in other areas. But if you ask me, it
is actually providing capacity or efficiency for movement on the
system right now as we play catch-up.
But I hope, and at least the direction I've gotten from the board
is, that while we're pulling back on some of these other things, our
intent is also to work these issues very strongly into the community
and the community needs.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what we're saying is, the most
important thing right now is moving traffic and getting the necessary
traffic lights in place and turn lanes and things of this nature; this is
the most important priority right at the present time?
MR. FEDER: I can't be moving traffic lights.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
Page 103
March 11, 2003
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me add one more thing.
Norman's got --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're running out of time here.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We have five minutes to get over to the
building.
The -- Norm has those turn lanes and traffic things within his
budget right now. Was this item in Norman's budget? Was this --
was this item even on Norman's list? No. Okay? Let's cut to the
chase. No.
If it's of public health and safety and the MPO told Norman to
go get this -- and last time I looked, you were all members of the
MPO along with some folks in the city and some other folks -- and
they told Norman to get these dollars, I would say to the board that,
if that's what you want him to do, Norman -- Norman did that.
I would say Norman has found savings of $275,000 because of
good engineering and stuff on Radio Road that he has that he could,
right now, divert and move to this particular item, okay?
And outside of that, Norman's basically diverting other funds
and putting it out into the budget out of his five-year plan that he
thought he was going to pay this year on, and that's that culvert issue
or whatever, and he would have carried forward those dollars to next
year when Lee County asked for them so that they could be there so
that he didn't have to take out of what he was going to do in the '04
budget.
I would -- I would give this to the board. If you're going to -- if
you're going to -- and I'll kind of get a sensing. If you're going to tell
Norman, go on out and make a deal with the Florida Department of
Transportation for lighting and you tell him to go work with
$275,000 that he's found on Radio Road, I think that that's a prudent
item if you're going to basically do it on neighborhood safety and
issues like that.
I don't think $500,000 is a given. I take a look at what it cost
Page 104
March 11,2003
Mr. Salisbury in order to do Livingston Road, Phase II with only
$220,000 for lighting, and he's got lights in the middle, lights on the
side, depending on where they are, and maybe there's a way with
spacing, maybe light those intersections and areas and then do it
intermediate in that process in order to do that, and then make sure
the wiring is there. And if later on we want to add lights of that
specification with county dollars, that we go do it. But I wouldn't
totally kill this either.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And I like that idea, but that's
not the motion on the floor, so if that's -- if the motion fails, I would
be happy to entertain, or myself, to make a --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- motion on your suggestion. Thank
you very much.
There's a motion on the floor and a second. Do we have a
motion by --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you repeat what the motion is
that -- can they read back what the motion is?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me tell you what --
MS. FILSON: The motion was by Commissioner Fiala,
seconded by Commissioner Henning to approve the proj ect.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: To approve this item on our agenda.
All in favor of the motion, signify, by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion fails, 3-2.
And I'll make a motion that we direct staff to work with
$275,000 with the contractor to put in whatever lighting he can for
Page 105
March 11,2003
that price.
MR. FEDER: And we will look at the issue with Florida DOT
to see how we can stretch that. The other one is, we'll look at the
section between Broward and Barefoot Williams where the highest
need is, and maybe at least be able to do that section.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If there's not going to be a second on
the motion --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's a second, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Then where was the second
at?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there a possibility we might
be able to put the sleeves in and everything so that these lights could
be added in the future?
MR. FEDER: We understand the desire. We'll go as far as we
can with the 275,000, if that's the direction of the board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Didn't you have other money
though that you had also saved? I mean, not the 75 --
MR. FEDER: Actually, there's dollars that are out of this
budget, as Jim pointed out, in particular the 100,000 on the culvert,
Corkscrew, we will have to pay back to Lee County when they do
their proj ect, so I will have to budget that as been asked.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But other than the 100,000, didn't
you have some other dollars that you'd also saved?
MR. FEDER: Well, we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, so that we could get
through the job right?
MR. FEDER: One we thought we couldn't get -- one that we
thought we couldn't get to on 92 this year, we'll probably be working
Page 106
March 11, 2003
on next year as the moneys come available. The major savings is the
275. We've got the work done and it's completed and is operating
well on Radio Road.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. No further discussion, we'll
call the motion.
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?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0. Thank you.
We're going to take a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for what little you've
offered me, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We'll do it when we can in
the future.
We're going to recess 'till 1 :30.
(A luncheon recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Everybody take their seats,
please.
Item #9G
RESOLUTION 2003-119 RE: SETTING THE PLACE AND TIME
FOR THE CLERK, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, TO OPEN AND COUNT THE MAIL
BALLOTS OF THE NOMINEES TO FILL THE VACANCIES ON
THE PELICAN BAY MSTBU ADVISORY COMMITTEE - DATE
SET FOR MARCH 17,2003 IN THE BCC CHAMBERS AT 2:30
Page 107
March 11, 2003
E.M - A D.OEIED
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, we skipped an item on 9. We
inadvertently left that out, and that has to be Sue Filson's add-on
item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: And that had to do with ballots issues for Pelican
Bay, and I think it's a pretty -- pretty simple item. If we could do that
before we go to the time certain for 10(A).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great.
MS. FILSON: This is just to establish the time for counting the
ballots recommended by the clerk, and he's recommending BCC
chambers on March 17th at 2:30 p.m.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sounds great.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a motion by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas, and a yep by Commissioner
Coyle.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Item #10A
Page 108
March 11, 2003
RESULTS OF THREE SOLID WASTE RFP INITIATIVES,
STATUS OF LANDFILL GAS PROJECT, OPTIONS FORA
LONG-RANGE INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM, AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER
ACTION - STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT WITH R&D
SOIL BUILDERS, INC. RE: ORGANIC WASTE AND
BIOSOLIDS PROCESSING; NO ACTION TAKEN ON THE
GREASE TRAP WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY; STAFF TO
HOLD OFF ON INTERSTATE WASTE TECHNOLOGIES (IWT)
UNTIL A PRICE CAN BE DETERMINED RE: SOLID WASTE
PROCESSING AND GASIFICATION; AND NO ACTION TAKEN
RE' GAS TILENERGY - AEEROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 10(A),
which is time certain at one p.m. And we talked to them earlier
because of the lunch engagement with the teen folks, that it would be
at 1 :30.
And that's the, present the results of three solid waste requests
for proposal initiatives, status of the landfill gas project, options for a
long-range integrated solid waste management program, and
recommendations for further action. And that presentation will be
provided by Mr. Jim DeLony, the administrator for public utilities.
MR. DeLaNY: For the record, I'm Jim DeLony, public utilities
administrator.
The Collier County Solid Waste Management Department is
committed to developing an integrated multifaceted solid waste
management program that provides environmentally sound and
cost-effective solid waste management services for our county.
Our goal is to map out an effective, efficient long-range strategy
to provide solid waste management for the period of three years or
more.
Page 109
March 11, 2003
As we develop this program, we never lose sight of our need to
stay in compliance, our need to meet customer demands, to remain
customer service oriented, and finally, to build an effective
high-skilled and well-trained and empowered team capable of
providing that best value that our customers demand.
The Board of County Commissioners has been involved in the
development of the solid waste management program through its
direction to staff and key prize (sic) decisions made for the past three
years.
In May 2000, the board directed staff to assist the viability of
proposed Lee Coun -- Lee/Collier County waste energy facilities
expansion proj ect.
In June 2000, the board considered the findings of Lee/Collier
County Waste to energy feasibility study, and directed staff to
explore other solid waste disposable options.
In November 2000, the board directed staff to issue a request for
expressions of interest to solicit information related to technologies,
costs, and level of interest from solid waste management firms.
The result of the request for expressions of interest was
presented to the board in April of 2001.
In December of 2000, staff was directed to identify the best
possible short, medium and long-range solid waste management
solutions.
In January of 200 1, the board authorized staff to negotiate an
expanded odor control program and a contingency disposal capacity
program with the landfill operator, and to negotiate with franchise
residential collectors to expand residential recycling.
Staff was directed to begin activities related to the
reconstruction of the Naples Landfill cells one and two and sustain an
odor-monitoring program.
These negotiations were completed in June of 200 1, and a
Landfill Operations Agreement was amended accordingly.
Page 110
March 11, 2003
In April of 2001, the board authorized staff to issue a request for
additional information for further assessment of long-range solid
waste management options and to request cooperation from Glades
County for its shared haul-out long-term solid waste management
solution. Results of the request for additional information were
presented to the board in June of 2001.
At that time, June 2001, the board directed staff to eliminate the
options of municipal mixed solid waste composting and a
waste-to-energy incineration facility for Collier County.
Staffwas also directed to make contact with the environmental
community and regulatory group related to the gasification and
technology vendor.
This option was discussed -- additionally, staff was authorized
to meet with Glades County to evaluate a joint landfill. This option
was discussed during a joint Collier/Glades County commission
workshop in July of 2001. Glades County commissioners decided
not to pursue this option.
Also in June of 2001, staffwas directed to prepare initial reports
for request for proposals dealing with gasification, organic waste
processing, grease trap waste and landfill gas utilization.
In September of2001, the board accepted staffs report on
multiple site visits, the purpose of which were to evaluate the
potential applicability or various technologies as they relate to
gasification, organic waste and grease trap waste, and I think that
Commissioner Coletta could speak to that personally.
In November 2001, request for proposals were issued reporting
commercial source separated organic wastes and biosolids
processing, grease trap waste processing, and municipal solid waste
processing and gasification.
At that time the landfill gas-to-energy project was considered a
request for proposal, but instead developed jointly with the landfill
operator, which is consistent with the requirements of the Landfill
Page 111
March 11, 2003
Operations Agreement.
The proposal period closed in April of2002 while the
evaluation of the landfill gas-to-energy project is currently ongoing.
In May of 2002, staff was directed to reissue the organic waste
to biosolids processing requests for proposal, and the county manager
and his designee was authorized to execute a Memorandum of
Understanding pursuant to the Landfill Operations Agreement.
That's a lot of history.
My intent in reciting it today is to know how much has been
accomplished over these past two plus years with regard to where
we're going and what we're doing with solid waste in Collier County.
You've seen implementation of both short and long -- and
medium range or intermediate range initiatives that have extended
our landfill by at least 15 years to date, and has diverted more than
50 percent of the waste stream for the landfill to either reuse,
recycling, or other disposal methods.
No doubt, it's a superb achievement, but there's much more that
needs to be done to achieve a long-range goal of extending the
county's landfill left out to 30 years or more.
Commissioners, we're here today to present both findings and
recommendations concerning the development of the county's
long-range integrated solid waste management program. I request
your approval of an executive summary that covers four specific
projects; commercial source separated organic waste and biosolids
processing and beneficial use; grease trap waste processing facility;
municipal solid waste processing and gasification; and finally,
landfill gas to energy.
Request for proposals were prepared and scripted in accordance
with the county's purchasing policy. Proposals were evaluated as to
experience, technical approach, business arrangement and price.
This process has involved staff from a number of areas, including
utilities engineering, operations and pollution control, the water and
Page 112
March 11, 2003
wastewater departments, the solid waste management department, the
purchasing department, the county's attorney's office, and, of course,
members of the public.
I'd like to introduce to you our proj ect team members who are
here today to present a long-range integrated solid waste
management strategy and to make recommendations related to the
four proj ects outlined in the executive summary that you have before
you. We also have staff here available to answer any questions that
you may have.
I'll begin with Steve Schwartz who will present the long-range
integrated solid waste management program and request for proposal
results. Steve?
Steve is the director of solid waste programs for Malcolm
Pirnie, Incorporated, a nationally recognized environmental
consulting firm. He is a diplomate of the American Academy of
Environmental Engineers and has been involved in the professional
practice for engineering for over 30 years.
Steve has been responsible for the respective administration,
management, design and implementation of a wide range of
planning, recycling, landfill, and composting waste to energy
proj ects.
He is a recognized international expert in solid waste as well as
a published author and lecturer in this field. He's assisted Dave --
Daniel Dietch, sitting to my right, who is a proj ect scientist for
Malcolm Pirnie.
David D., David? David is available to address any questions
you may have that require a legal perspective of the county's
integrated solid waste management program.
David is an environmental law attorney with 20 years of exper
-- 23 years of experience. He has assisted local governments
throughout Florida with a wide range of issues that affect the solid
waste management programs.
Page 113
March 11, 2003
He has obtained the environmental permits for many solid waste
management facilities within Florida, has worked extensively on
franchise agreements, collection contracts, ordinance, flow control
programs, and overall solid waste management planning.
Also available today is our staff in public utilities, Mr. George
Yilmaz, solid waste management director; Mr. Roy Anderson,
engineering director; Joe Cheatham, wastewater director; Steve
Carnell from the purchasing -- the purchasing director; and Robert
Zackary from the county attorney's office.
With that, I'll turn this presentation over to Mr. Schwartz.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Mr. Chairman, members of the
commission, staff, good afternoon. For the record, my name is Steve
Schwartz with Malcolm Pirnie, consultants for the county on solid
waste.
As Mr. DeLony indicated, we're here today to talk about the
long-range program, to report to you on the results from three RFP
processes, request for proposal processes, to bring you up to date on
the landfill gas-to-energy project, and to make recommendations for
further action.
I agree with Mr. DeLony, this program has made dramatic
progress in the last two years. It's something we collectively could all
be proud about, and I think with the recommendations we're going to
make today, we're going to move well down the road towards the
abandonment (sic) that you have given us to pursue, which is a
30-year and beyond solution for solid waste for Collier County.
Mr. DeLony outlined a number of board decisions over the past
two to three years. This overhead summarizes those decisions.
As Mr. Mudd originally described two years ago, these
decisions fall into the short-range, intermediate-range and long-range
category. The short-range objectives and goals have largely been
accomplished. The intermediate have largely been accomplished or
Page 114
March 11,2003
are underway. Today we're here about the long-range goals.
This time line shows the steps in the long-range program that
stretch back over more than two years and bring us to where we are
today.
Our purpose in showing this is not to go over each step but to
point out that this has been a deliberate, systematic, careful, thorough
and open program. It needed to be so that we could consider all the
options in an orderly way, and it also needed to be so that we could
follow the procedures of your procurement methodology. So we
spent a fair amount of time on this, but I think we have solid results
to bring you as a result.
Let's now turn to the results that we're reporting today. Again,
there are three RFP process -- three requests for proposal processes
that we have recommendations on. One is the organic waste and
biosolids processing request for proposals, the second concern is
grease trap waste, the third concerns gasification of solid waste, and
the fourth, as Mr. DeLony mentioned, concerns landfill
gas-to-energy. That started out as an RFP, but it turned out that that
work was really included in the landfill operating contract, so it
moved from being an RFP to being a joint project with the landfill
operator.
Organics, biosolids. Organics is a portion of the solid waste
stream. Organics would be food waste from restaurants, food waste
from residences, spoiled produce from supermarkets. Things like that
are organics. They're now collected as ordinary solid waste, then go
to the landfill.
Biosolids are a component of the wastewater stream, of the
sewage stream. They're the sludges that are accumulated at
wastewater treatment plants. They are now hauled and disposed of at
Okeechobee Landfill.
The purpose of this RFP is to find a better, more cost-effective,
more environmentally protective method of handling those wastes.
Page 115
March 11, 2003
First they're organic, they're amenable to biological treatment.
This RFP was issued once and then had to be reissued. The first
time we issued it, we took an aggressive approach and did not, on
your behalf, did not guarantee a waste stream but left it to the
proposer to develop a program to attract the waste to the facility. We
knew that that was aggressive. We weren't sure it would work. But
if it had worked, it would have been -- put the county in a good
position commercially. It didn't work. No proposers were willing to
take that risk issue.
So we reissued it, and in the second incarnation, the request for
proposals does have a put or pay guarantee of 30,000 tons a year, but
you have that much in biosolids, so we're very confident that it's put
or pay guarantee that the county can meet.
We got four proposals to this request for proposals, which is a
good response. Organic Soils of Collier County, R&D Soil Builders,
which is your current contractor for yard waste, Synagro, and the
Slane Company.
We evaluated these proposals over a four-month period,
including interviews with the proposers. It was a selection
committee. We considered experience, we considered management
credentials, we considered environmental protection, we considered
cost, we considered beneficial reuse, considered all the factors that
make for a good proposal.
During this process, the Slane proposal was found to be a --
nonresponsive and was rejected. But the other three proposers all met
the threshold qualifications and were judged qualified.
Here's the cost information on these -- the three qualified
proposers. Organic Soils and R&D Soil Builders are proposing a
composting technology, and Synagro is proposing a drying and
pelletizing technology. So they would produce a kind of a fertilizer.
The cost for R&D Soil Builders is clearly the lowest cost at $25
a ton, significantly lower than the other two. And the current county
Page 116
March 11, 2003
practice, as I described earlier, is 29. So the R&D Soil Builders'
approach is not only the most cost effective of the three proposed but
is cheaper than your current system.
So we had three qualified proposers, three good systems, but
R&D, clearly the most cost effective. So the selection committee
ranked the three proposals in this order, R&D first, Organic Soils,
second, and Synagro, third.
And on this basis, R&D Soil Builders is the recommended
choice.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I just ask you -- with
Synagro, you said they reduce it to something dry and it's like
fertilizer. What does R&D reduce it to?
MR. SCHWARTZ: More of a soil amendment type material.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That farmers could use even?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, it could be used for soil or improving
soil for farmers, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Jim Mudd for the record. That's
that material that -- when we went out to Glades County that one
time, we stopped over by the compost facility in the county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah.
MR. MUDD: And that material, that dark, it looks like a humus
material in those piles; that's the material that they would produce.
That's R&D Soil Builders, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Commissioners, before you you have an
executive summary. This makes the following recommendations that
are on the slide in front of you concerning the commercial source
separated organic waste collections and biosolids processing and
beneficial use request for proposal.
N ow we're prepared at this point, of course, to answer any
questions you may have with regard to these recommendations.
Page 11 7
March 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please continue.
MR. DeLONY: Fine.
Steve, you'll please continue with the results of request for
proposal concerning grease trap waste processing facility.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. Second RFP now. Grease trap waste
is a component, again, of the sewage waste stream. It's a material
that collects that is discharged from, say, restaurants and other
facilities that have greasy, oily waste and it's collected in grease traps
in the sewer system.
This is a -- this is a material that causes problems in the sewer
system, it causes problems in the treatment plants, so it's a good
material to take out and dispose of a different way.
We -- following your instructions, in November 2001, we issued
a request for proposals for a technology to handle this waste for
400,000 gallons a year, which is the quantity that we estimate that
your department estimates the county produces.
We received only one proposal for this system from Pacific
Biodiesel. The Pacific Biodiesel system dewaters and treats the fatty
material in the grease trap waste and produces a low BTU fuel that
can be fired in commercial boilers and the like.
This was a good proposal. The selection committee found it
responsive and well thought out, good management approach, good
technology, environmentally sound. We were happy with the
proposal. However, the cost was high.
At the 400,000 tons -- gallons per year, which is the quantity we
felt comfortable guaranteeing, the cost per gallon was $4.05 per
gallon. Your current cost is about .31 a gallon. So that's nearly 10
times higher, which is -- which is much too high to do.
We did work with Pacific Biodiesel on alternate proposals, and
they were cooperative and they tried to make it work. But in order to
bring the price down into the right range, the county would have to
guarantee a much larger quantity, two million gallons a year. Too
Page 118
March 11,2003
risky to guarantee that at this point.
Perhaps in the future, as the county develops, we may have data
that justifies that, but it would be too risky right now.
So the selection committee did rank the Pacific Biodiesel as
number one. They were the only respondent, but they also were very
well qualified. But because of the cost, we don't recommend going
forward at this time. This is an area that could benefit from further
study. There are other technologies. The quantity may rise, and it's
also possible that we may be able to dispose of this material in
conjunction with the gasification project, which I'll discuss a few
minutes later.
MR. DeLONY: Before you you have an executive summary
that makes the following recommendations that you see on this slide
concerning the grease trap waste processing facility request for
proposal.
You see that it provides an avenue for us to continue to evaluate
this as an alternative, should you choose not to go into the
gasification area or were able to later on find a more competitive
methodology that would reach the cost levels that we outlined before,
because the quantities we have it's just not -- it doesn't appear the
industry can respond with a cost-effective methodology of converting
this waste, these fats and oils to grease.
There's also another part of this in the recommendation that
deals with the county's proposed fat, oil and grease ordinance, which
I'll be bringing to you in early April, and we want to take a look at
that and see how that would work in terms of quantities generated
after that ordinance comes into effect.
So if we don't go gasification, we will come back and look at
this again if you approve these recommendations. We're not shutting
it off, but we think that if we go the gasification route, it takes care of
itself. If we don't go the gasification route, we'll continue to look at
this technology and see if we can't find a -- or convert this to another
Page 119
March 11, 2003
use after we get our ordinance in effect. That's our recommendations
that you have before you.
Are there any questions at this point with regard to this
particular RFP?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none --
MR. DeLONY: With that, we'll go on and push on with the
proposal concerning municipal solid waste processing and
gasification. Steve.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you, sir.
Very good. So we turn now to the third request for proposals
for gasification. This is a key element of the long-range program.
This would divert significant quantities from the landfill.
If we do this and if this is successful, this will be a key step in
extending the life of the landfill for 30, perhaps even 40 years.
Let me just digress for just one moment and say something
about this 30-year goal. I think we all need to appreciate just how far
the county has come in a few years.
Three years ago when we started here, the county had only
months left on the landfill. The landfill was under consent order
from the state, threatened with closure, had odor problems, and there
were great difficulties. Today the odor problems are largely under
control. The county has a landfill with 15 years of life. A significant
diversion has been accomplished. Construction and demolition
debris, sludge, yard waste and others such that about 51 percent
diversion has been achieved, which is already a remarkable goal.
And these are -- these are significant accomplishments.
The goal here has always been, keep the landfill going as long
as possible because it is your key solid waste management asset.
And as long as -- as long as you have that landfill, you can afford to
do innovative things like gasification because the landfill's always
there to back it. So I congratulate you in Collier County on those
accomplishments.
Page 120
March 11,2003
Let's turn back to gasification. Let me just take a minute to just
refresh everybody's memory about what gasification is. Gasification
is not incineration. It's the opposite of incineration.
Incineration is burning. You take any organic material, paper,
plastic, rubber, coal, whatever, and you ignite it in the presence of
air, which contains oxygen, it bums. This is elementary. We all see
this every day of our lives. And then that burning energy is released,
as well as pollutants, carbon dioxide and other things. That's
conventional incineration.
Gasification is kind of the opposite process. If you take an
organic material and you seal it up in an air-tight container and now
you apply heat from the outside, the organic material at a certain
temperature will decompose. It can't bum because there's no oxygen,
there's no air. So it will decompose into its constituent elements,
carbon, carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide, hydrogen, other,
what's called reduction products.
The distinguishing thing about these reduction products is, they
are fuel, they're fuel. They're not waste gases such as incineration,
but they're materials that have BTU content. It can be burned later in
the process to generate electricity.
Now, this is new for solid waste, but it's not a new process.
Before -- before we all used natural gas, methane, in our homes for
cooking and heating, there was a thing called coal gas. Coal gas was
manufactured from ordinary coal through a gasification process very
similar to the process we're talking about here today.
So in terms of -- in terms of thermodynamics and technology,
it's not a new idea, but it is a new idea for garbage.
We described earlier the extensive process of reviewing
technologies and workshops and so on that this commission went
through to eventually arrive at a decision in June 2001 to use
gasification as one element in an integrated program.
We have limited the size of this facility to 150,000 tons per
Page 121
March 11, 2003
year, at least initially. And that's only a fraction of your waste you
have. That's probably 25 percent or so of the waste generated in
Collier County. And that's -- we've limited it in that way so as not to
put all our eggs in that one basket partially, partially to respect the
other things that the county's doing, recycling, yard waste,
compo sting and so on, and particularly because of the commitment in
your Landfill Operating Agreement to send waste to the landfill, a
certain amount of waste to the landfill.
That's the background on gasification. We issued that RFP, and
we got three proposals. One is from Brightstar Environmental, one is
from a company called Interstate Waste Technology, which is the
U. S. licensee of a German technology called thermoselect, and third
is from a company called the Slane Company, which presents a
technology called FERCO, which you've considered here before.
Again, an extensive evaluation process, including interviews.
Ultimately the Slane Company proposal was, again, found to be
nonresponsive and was eliminated, but both Brightstar and Interstate
Waste Technology were found to be qualified.
A little bit about the two technologies. Brightstar is the
Australian technology that we had considered earlier and discussed
earlier with the commissioner. Brightstar is what I would call a pure
pyrolysis system in that the -- or gasification system, rather, in that
the waste is completely enclosed and all the heat is external. It's a
good technology. It -- in our view, in view of the data they
presented, has good environmental performance, robust technology,
good on energy efficiency, good on emissions, so a sound -- a sound
technology. However, as we'll discuss more in a second, not as well
proven a technology as IWT, as the thermoselect technology.
Thermoselect is a slightly different system, higher temperature
and uses a small amount of oxygen, not air, but oxygen that is added
to the waste to produce the heat that causes the pyrolytic or the
gasification process.
Page 122
March 11, 2003
Some very nice things about this process. Because of the high
temperatures, it can handle virtually any kind of waste. It's not -- it's
not sensitive to waste characteristics. Because of the high
temperatures, it does not produce any residue that requires landfill.
Very, very nice accomplishment.
All of the residue is so reduced to elemental matter that it is
marketable. Also, excellent environmental performance, also good
technology, good equipment, good management approach. A better
proven technology than Brightstar, more experience. The earliest
facility in Fonditucci, Italy, went into operation in 1994. That
facility is no longer in operation today. It was intended to be a proof
of concept facility . Not operate long term. But there are two
operating facilities, one in Germany, and one in Italy.
MR. MUDD: Japan.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I'm sorry. One in Germany, one in Japan.
The Italian facility is the one that closed.
However, there's another side to it, and that's the cost side. At
the specified tonnage, the 150,000 tons per year that we mentioned
earlier, we've got very different price quotes from the two guys.
Brightstar is quoting a price of $45 a ton and Interstate Waste
Technology, $174 a ton. A dramatic difference. And to kind of put
it in perspective, you know, what might Collier County do if all of
these options were gone, well, you'd have a standby contract to use
the Okeechobee Landfill. Just as a benchmark, let's say. That cost is
$56 a ton.
So in comparison, Brightstar is cheaper than your standby
contract. IWT is three times as expensive.
Weighing all this information, the selection committee,
nonetheless, ranked the proposals in this order, Interstate Waste first,
Brightstar second, largely because the weighting criteria in the RFP
gave a 25 percent weight to cost. So even though Brightstar clearly
won that by a wide margin, there's only so many points you can get
Page 123
March 11, 2003
out of 25 percent.
Frankly, it may have been our mistake. We didn't expect as
wide a range in cost as we saw. Perhaps we should have given more
weight to cost. But that's water under the bridge.
In any case, we ranked them in this order, and we're asking you
to -- we're recommending that we go forward and talk to them in this
order, but it may be that even after we ask for a best and final price
from IWT, it may be that their best price is still impractical for the
county, in which case our recommendation would be to move
Brightstar to the number two proposer and negotiate with them, so
that is our recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board? I have a
question. Did you have a question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You go ahead.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The Brightstar, what
percentage of their product or byproduct needed to be landfilled?
MR. SCHWARTZ: About 25 percent by weight.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And how much would that be
per year? How many tons per year?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, if it's 150, then 20 percent would be
30,000 tons per year. Remember too, in the case of landfilling
though, density is important, because it's cubic yards that fill up the
landfill. So even though it's 20 percent by weight, because the
residue is much denser, it's probably, I'm estimating here, but 5 to 10
percent by volume.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What's that equate out to?
You kind of lost me there. But you're right. It meets with the
density. So 10 percent of their waste would be the density factor?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Ifwe turned that 150,000 tons into cubic
yards --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right, right.
MR. SCHWARTZ: -- but then applied a five to 10 percent
Page 124
March 11,2003
range in volume, we would -- we would get the cubic -- I don't -- I
don't have that number at the tip of my --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it -- should that be part of the
equation when you're taking a look at cost? Is Brightstar -- or is that
just a little nominal?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, that was -- that was a factor that
weighed in favor of IWT, because not requiring a landfill obviously
saves the cost of landfilling anything, so that did weigh in favor of
IWT.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: IWT and Brightstar, for their facility,
how many acres would it take to build that facility?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Five acres.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: On both of them? Five acres you
said?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Probably similar, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Both the technologies would be five
acres --
MR. SCHWARTZ: Five acres.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- which is very, very small.
Does either one of those call for a Dirty MuRF.
MR. SCHWARTZ: The IW -- I'm sorry. The Brightstar
Technology incorporates what you could call a Dirty MuRF as the
front end of their processing system, and that's a benefit to the
Brightstar Technology. You kind of get that murf for free and,
therefore, you get the materials recovery, if you will, for free in the
sense that the cost is included in the Brightstar Technology. So the
materials recovery that would follow from having that murf is a side
benefit of Brightstar.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And IWT, there's not a murf
included --
MR. SCHWARTZ: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- into it?
Page 125
March 11,2003
MR. DeLONY: That technology takes everything right up
front.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.
MR. DeLONY: Everything goes in the chute.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And there's no -- no byproduct? I
mean, well, the product is something that you sell or whatever?
MR. DeLONY: That's right, glass or metals.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Interesting. And -- but they can only
take 25 percent of the weight stream? How much would go to the
landfill ?
MR. DeLONY: No. They could take as much as we like. The
reason that we limited it to 150 is, these are all very new technologies
-- well, for several reasons. One is new technology is risky. We
wanted to start small. If things work well we can scale it up, so that's
one reason we limited it to 150.
The other reason is, remember the 150 is a guarantee that once
we've made, we collectively have to meet. So you have to think
about all the other things that are happening with solid waste.
There's a commitment to send a certain amount of waste to the
landfill. That's part of your Landfill Operating Agreement. There's
yard waste composting. It's more economical to compost yard waste
than gasify it, so why would we want to stop that program and do
this?
There's construction and demolition debris. It's not amenable to
this kind of treatment. So why divert that? So for all of those
reasons, we thought 150 was the place to start.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We amended Waste
Management's contract to go from specific years to tonnage, to a
total tonnage; is that what we did?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I believe the Waste Management contract is
for the life of the landfill.
MR. DeLONY: That's correct.
Page 126
March 11, 2003
MR. SCHWARTZ: Whatever that may be.
MR. DeLONY: The landfill-- they're under contract with for
the county to operate that landfill the life of the landfill.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So there is no commitment then as
far as tonnage goes?
MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, the -- you said amended,
okay? The amendment we did had nothing to do with the time frame
of the landfill. That was in the basic document --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- that said that they're in there for the life of the
landfill, and that's how we got them, based on their bid documents, to
pay the price of lining the remaining cells of that landfill, because at
one time they said it was our problem to the tune of about $30
million, and that -- we said, wrong answer.
Our amendment put some penalties in there, increased the
number of recyclables that they would collect curbside, and part of
that was to also extend their contract, which was going to end in
2002,2003, to 2006 because remember we found--
MR. DeLONY: Collections contract.
MR. MUDD: The collection contract was their basic bread and
butter contract. And we made a firm commitment at that time when
we came forward with that amendment that we would not continue
that contract and that we would go out for bid on the collection
contract in 2004, and that is still our plan. Not one that Waste
Management likes, but that is still our plan and we plan to do that
and we're firmly committed to that process.
Their contract, the original contract to the landfill, has a pay
scale per ton that goes up, that goes up depending on the volume
that's brought to the landfill. So the smaller the volume of garbage
that goes into the landfill, the more we pay per ton based on the
original Waste Management contract of 1995.
So there's a balance that these folks must do to make sure that
Page 127
March 11,2003
we get the lowest rate from Waste Management on tonnage that's
guaranteed to the landfill, and at the same time, try to work the
technology so we divert as much as we can to extend the life of that
landfill so that we can go out to the 30, 50-year time frame.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I did have another question,
but I'll let one of my other commissioners -- while I gather my
thoughts after that comment.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
A couple of things wanted to touch bases with. What do we
presently charge at -- what's the tipping fee at the landfill now?
MR. DeLONY: George?
MR. YILMAZ: For the record, George Yilmaz. Thirty-three
dollars, change.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe were to go to this
technology that's being recommended through the process of -- with
IWT and we added that $174 a ton, what would the tipping fee go to?
MR. DeLONY: Well, first of all, I don't think we'd stay at
$174. The proposal that we provided you today is to go to best and
final, and we're not sure we're there yet with regard to IWT.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, how am I supposed to
make a decision with no --
MR. DeLONY: Actually, I'm not asking you to make a solid
decision on a contractor today. I'm asking to the authority -- for the
authority to go and get that best and final price, evaluate that price.
And should it still be too high, based on a guaranteed amount of
150,000 tons per year municipal solid waste, then move on and
negotiate with Brightstar and get the best price we could, sir. And I
don't mean to -- I'm just trying to inform you as to what we're trying
to accomplish.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
Page 128
March 11,2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I've got to remind you, the
reason we were looking at Brightstar originally was the fact that the
cost is reasonably comparable to what we were paying at the present
time, $45 a ton. And when we go to $174 a ton, I'm sure the price
could be negotiated down.
But I would say we're probably looking at at least doubling the
tipping fees at the landfill. And I'm starting to have great concerns on
this. I really am. I'm willing to look at it more, but I need something
more in the way of guarantees as far as cost goes.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, and I understand exactly. Cost is
certainly, you know, an overriding, if not prominent concern at this
stage of the game. But there are other concerns I think you need to
consider as well, is that, first of all, we need to have some assurances
that this technology's going to work. And with Brightstar not having
a fully functional commercial operation yet, and the fact that it still
puts stuff into our landfill, you know, and I think it's worth our time
and effort to continue to explore technology that is proven scalable --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, and we'll --
MR. DeLONY: -- has the permits and see if we can get to that
price that I can come back to you using a blended technol -- blended
strategy of utilizing our landfill, our Landfill Operations Agreement,
and looking at how much we divert to IWT, know it's going to work,
know we can get it permitted, make that risk right. I'd like to go
through that before we -- before we shut them down altogether.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good. The reason we were
moving forward --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to be just one second
with this.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The reason we brought this
whole thing forward was because of the reasonable costs we were
Page 129
March 11,2003
looking at. At the time we were looking at it, it was the technology
that was going to emerge in a matter of days, they were going to old
capability, and it doesn't look like they ever got to that point yet.
MR. DeLONY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is something that's still
emerging technology. It's something that I don't know if Collier
County really wants to get involved with, if we're going to be
involved in experimental-type technology. It was supposed to be a
proven technology when we got to this point, and it still isn't; is that
correct?
MR. DeLONY: Steve?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. I would say it isn't. We have some
expectation, but it remains to be verified, that if we follow the path
that we are outlining here, which is, give -- give IWT one last
chance, which is what we must do under your procurement
regulations. But you're quite correct. Unless they come back,
ultimately, in the ballpark -- I'm not going to say what that is because
this is a bid situation -- but in the ballpark of what your other
alternatives are, we will not be recommending them.
Having done that, and then let's say they don't, for argument's
sake, we then move down to Brightstar. At that point we're hoping,
based on what they've told us, they will be in commercial operation
at that moment. Yes, right, my eyebrows go up too. But--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there any possibility they'll
reimburse us for the costs that they're incurring while they're going
through their process?
MR. DeLONY: I'll take that, Steve.
One of the key components of this RFP all along was to be as
risk averse as possible for the county. In other words, put a -- shift
the burden of risk not on the county but on these -- on the technology
-- of the contractors' technology in this process coming in. Certainly
that would be one of the things we would pursue in negotiations to
Page 130
March 11,2003
continue in the mode in which we were in the past where we
originally formulated the RFPs.
And there's certainly some ways we can do that in terms of
performance bonding or some other type of arrangement that can
limit the county's exposure, should we get to that point. But I will--
I will tell you this, sir. There's a point when that starts costing you
more than it's worth. And I think that that's what -- I want to stay
with the board's intent that we stay risk averse.
But at some stage of the game, we're going to have to step out
there, and I'm going to come back and talk to you about that when I
get to the point that I'm prepared to make a recommendation about
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, and then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got some concerns here. If
we go with IWT, what is the percent of success? Where do they
stand right now as far as bringing this technology online?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, as stated earlier by Mr. Schwartz, they're
fully scalable. The problem with IWT is, given the limit of 150,000
tons per year, that is what we put in our proposal, they have a hard
time finding an economical way against that low amount of waste
stream. They need something on the scale of twice that to really get
at a margin that's much more reduced than 174.
I don't know how far that can go, and I don't know if 150 in the
final analysis -- maybe there's some give and take there that goes
down. But IWT is fully scalable, is fully permittable with regard to
the operations they have currently, both in Japan and in Germany.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other question I have, you're
basing that on the tipping that we have today, 150,000, right?
MR. DeLONY: Well, that is what we put in the proposal, as
Page 131
March 11,2003
Mr. Mudd describe as the going amount.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what do you project the next
five years, 10 years and 15 years?
MR. DeLONY: I have those numbers available in terms of how
much solid waste we would bring into the county.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
MR. DeLONY: And we would certainly be able to scale up to
that amount over time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's the possibility of having
contracts from outside Collier County to bring in waste where maybe
we can make this thing more viable that we can make this as a
business?
MR. DeLONY: I absolutely believe that would be something
this board might want to take a look at. That was not the guidance I
was given in pursuing this RFP, but at some stage of the game.
As I outlined before, in the early part of 2002, or mid year 2001
and 2000, we looked at working with Lee County, we looked at
working with Glades County, and those were not fruitful at that stage
as we began this march down this road.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe we have to take the
leadership. I'm not trying to put you on the spot.
MR. DeLONY: No, no, you're not at all, no. I hope I'm
answering your questions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm just looking at, you know, to
start -- to take the initiative, to be the leader, and maybe we'll find
out that this is a viable solution, that you may be able to use this as a
capital funding for -- you know, for getting costs back in regards to
exploring this technology and bringing everything online.
MR. DeLONY: Steve, do you have any comments on that with
your experience today, working with some of those counties we've
mentioned?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. That's a potential strategy. We
Page 132
March 11, 2003
actually explored that with IWT. The point of view we explored it
from was to say to them, if Collier County is willing to be the anchor
tenant that supplies an initial 150, are you willing to take the risk of
building a bigger plant and filling it if Collier County gives you the
permission to bring in waste from out of state -- out of county? They
were not. That was a risk they would not take.
And if you think about the IWT technology, 174, of course, is
very expensive and not competitive with anything. But let's say we
could get the plant bigger, say double the size. Maybe we could get
the cost down to a hundred. I'm just estimating, very roughly. Even
at a hundred though, when you think about the landfill options that
are out there, pretty risky to try to fill up at 100.
Brightstar is a different story. They really deliver at 45, a very
competitive number, and potentially -- potentially could bring in
outside waste, but with Brightstar, we don't need to bring in outside
waste because it's already economical at the 150 -- at the 150 ton per
day scale.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we go that way then?
MR. DeLONY: Well, that's -- if you look at recommendations
we're making, that's probably -- that's one option that we have with
regard to where we might be. It's my recommendation to take a hard
look though at a proven technology, make sure that technology is not
available to us. I mean, it's something we can -- you know, we have
a lot more assurances in terms of its outcome and its costing, its
permitting, and I believe it's worth going back to the bar one more
time with these guys and see if we can get their best and final.
If that best and final continues to be in the range of cost that
we've talked here today in loose terms, I think that we'll move very
quickly with your -- with your approval as outlined in the executive
summary to a negotiation with Brightstar and see where we can end
up.
But I think it's worth us going down the road of a proven
Page 133
March 11, 2003
technology first and look at that very carefully and learn from that
before we go to something that currently is not as proven.
And I believe -- I hope I've answered your questions, Mr. Halas.
I hope I've told you why I'm making this recommendation as
opposed to just going to the technology.
The selection committee rated it this way. Our process within
the county -- and I have Steve Carnell here to help me here. But the
bottom line is, this follows our county protocols associated with
request for proposals, what is written here in your executive
summary as a recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I just want to summarize to
make sure we understand exactly what you're asking us to do.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got one bid that's too high,
one bid that's reasonable. The bid that too high -- that's too high
really won the procurement, right, and -- they scored high in
procurement?
MR. DeLONY: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What you want us to do is to
approve your continued negotiation with the winning bidder to see if
you can get the price down to a reasonable point. If you are -- once
you conclude that negotiation, I presume you will come back to us --
MR. DeLONY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and inform us as to what that
bottom line price really is, we'll then have a chance to make a
determination as to whether or not we want to proceed at that price or
we want to switch to Brightstar. And then if we do switch to
Brightstar, you pick up and continue with the negotiation with
Brightstar; is that a fair assessment of where you're going?
MR. DeLONY: All but one part. I did not anticipate that step
in between. If I -- if we couldn't get to it on IWT, I was going to
Page 134
March 11,2003
move straight to Brightstar.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How do you know if you can't get
to a price that we are willing to accept without talking to us again?
MR. DeLONY: That's a good point, sir. I believe that we know
what the ranges are. But I believe you're right. I believe that it's
appropriate that I do come back and talk to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I mean, it could just be an
information kind of thing.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I mean, if you came back a
hundred dollars, we'd probably say no, right?
MR. DeLONY: I would recommend most probably that
recommendation. Our process doesn't provide -- I mean, I'm
following the RFP process as we have in the rules, as I understand
them. And there's nothing to say I couldn't come back and have that
discussion with the board one way or the other.
I believe I understand -- we understand as a selection committee
and as a delivery team the board's intent with regard to a couple
things. First of all, we need to keep landfills as long as we can. We
need to be a best-value provider of those services that that solid
waste integrated strategy can provide. And you-all gave us the
empowerment over the last couple of years to go out and find the
best technology, and that's where we're at. If it means coming back
in here, we could certainly do that. And if that would make -- if that
would make -- if that's the desire of the board, we'll follow that to the
letter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It would make me feel
comfortable to know what the result was of that negotiation.
But now there's one final item, and it goes to a question
Commissioner Henning asked earlier, and I'd like to pursue that just a
little bit.
You've got Brightstar that's charging you $45 per ton, we're
Page 135
March 11, 2003
currently paying $33 per ton and change. Brightstar's technology
requires some landfill. So if we pay them $45,000 -- or $45 per ton
to process it, some portion of that actually does have to wind up in
the landfill.
So let's suppose it's 20 percent. So 20 percent of the $33 right
now we're paying for landfill is roughly $7. And so that $7 would
have to be added to the $45 --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- right?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I just --
MR. SCHWARTZ: It's in there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're not following me. It's
already there?
MR. SCHWARTZ: It's already there.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. That's what we -- we've tried to take
that into account that we would be losing airspace with this option
and we'd be limiting utilization of airspace in the other to make the
level playing field that we deserve to look at these two alternatives.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I think that's what
Commissioner Henning was trying to get at earlier.
MR. DeLONY: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I didn't think we arrived at a
conclusion. But so you've already accommodated --
MR. DeLONY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that figure into the $45 per ton
figure, right?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the other thing I'd throw at you,
just as another fact, and it was said earlier, if you decided to divert all
your waste from the landfill to go to Okeechobee, it's $58 a ton.
Page 136
March 11,2003
MR. DeLONY: Today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then that's a figure you --
MR. MUDD: So I would tell you, why would you want to go to
174 when you can get it for 58? You keep your landfill, you go for
the cheapest price, you hold your landfill as a bargaining chip in case
the prices go up and you want to go back and do it cheap. And if you
can get something that's more reasonable than that in between, that
gives you that space and it's cheaper for the taxpayer -- and I think
that's where Mr. DeLony and crew are trying to go and they're trying
to make sure that they have a permittable technology that fits within
the EP A guidelines.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, Jim. The -- could I just take a
minute and talk about that for just a second?
You know, the puck in the game here, the real -- the real
winning goal here deals with maintaining that landfill. We spoke to
that earlier. As long as we can -- as long as we have a landfill at our
disposal, we'll always have competitive rates with regard to solid
waste management in Collier County.
And if we go into a haul out mode, we put ourselves on the
market at somebody else's price, we've lost that option. What we
tried to do today and really over the last several years, is have this
integrated strategy that gives us -- gives us a little shift, a little -- an
or.
What Jim suggests with regard to decisions that, not necessarily
this board, but subsequent boards could make with regard to
expanding the -- extending the life of that landfill, that's what we're
looking for. We're looking for that 15-year after -- you know, 15
years beyond the current 15-year landfill life, how we can best
optimize the next 30 to 50 years.
And it's very -- it's very -- it's very difficult to make a good
decision, but I think if we continue on the route we're on, we'll be
closer to the optimization with the goal in mind that you've set before
Page 137
March 11, 2003
us, and that is, stay the course, extend the life of the landfill to the
maximum extent possible by known technology, and also keep those
rates competitive, keep those rates competitive.
And I believe that this -- recommendations that we provided
here can bring you back -- bring back to you the recommendations
that meets both of those boards' intents that we clearly understand.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: My question is, why a hockey puck?
Why not use a baseball?
MR. DeLONY: I just went to my first hockey game this week,
so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm sure you and your staff have
come up with some bogey that you're looking for as far as to make
this a viable option. Can you tell me what your -- what you're
looking at when you're looking at all your figures? What are you
trying to shoot for as far as the price?
MR. DeLONY: Let me take that one, if I might.
We can't take price as the only determining factor because
what's the value of airspace in your landfill in the year 2035?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I'm talking about, right now
you're looking at ITW (sic).
MR. DeLONY: IWT, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's $174.
MR. DeLONY: Current -- current proposal.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. What do you feel they
have to come in at that would make this -- you must have some kind
of figures in regards to --
MR. DeLONY: Well, Mr. Mudd spoke to you about what the
current going rate is if we were to haul it out of the county.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I gave you that number.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it was $58.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And just remember we've got to go into
contract negotiations. So I gave you a dollar figure on hauling trash
Page 138
March 11,2003
out of Collier County. And Commissioner, I would ask you not to go
in any further than you want to go right now --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- or you're going to put that negotiations at risk.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just trying to get the figure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We had one more item before we go
to public speakers.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. Let me make sure I understand the
board's intent here with regard to the gasification, if I might. Just to
restate it for the record, if I might.
There's a recommendation in your executive summary that calls
that we would move on and go to best and final with IWT. Am I to
understand the board wants me to come back to you and brief you on
the results of those best and final negotiations before I go to
negotiation with the Brightstar Corporation?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. But I would like to hear from
the public before we--
MR. DeLONY: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- give you direction.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, I understand. I just want to make sure
I understand as we move to the next one specifically what I've heard
from board today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think if we take the staffs
recommendations, Commissioner Coyle's input, recommendations,
come back to the board, is a very valid one.
MR. DeLONY: Certainly.
Sir, with that, we'll move on to the status of the landfill,
gas-to-energy project, unless there's any questions -- more questions
about gasification.
Page 139
March 11,2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. So we come now to the last element.
The -- what started out as the fourth request for proposals, but,
again, ended up as a joint project with Waste Management because
that's the requirement of the Landfill Operating Agreement.
This is a proj ect to use the methane gas generated at the landfill,
which is now flare, it's simply burned, to use it to generate useful
energy. In this case, electricity.
Just to put it into perspective. The overwhelming objective is
odor control. The purpose of the gas collection system is to -- is to
minimize and control the odors, and nothing that we do here -- and
we made this clear to the contract as we discussed the proposal --
nothing that we do here is going to be allowed to compromise odor
control.
Now, that means it will not be optimized for energy generation,
that's a fact, but that's necessary because odor control is paramount.
After considering a number of alternatives, this is the proj ect
that looks the most promising, Naples Landfill, 1-75, the county's
water treatment plant that's near what used to be Exit 15.
The plan here would be to use the gas and generate electricity
that you can use yourself, that the county can use itself. And the
reason that's beneficial is that it's better not to pay retail than to sell
wholesale. You see what I mean? If you generate electricity and sell
it to FPL, they give you the lowest possible rate that they can give
you; whereas, if you use it yourself and don't buy from FP &L, you
save.
Now, you get a pretty good rate from FP&L. You don't pay--
you don't pay real retail, but still, there's a benefit to using it yourself.
And fortunately, the treatment plant is quite close by, so it's a nice fit.
So the plan here would be to have a -- compressors and cleanup
equipment at the landfill to clean the gas, because it's fairly
low-quality gas as it comes out of the ground, it would then be
Page 140
March 11,2003
compressed and piped over to the treatment plant. And at the
treatment plant, we would have engine generator sets, very similar to
the diesel engine generator sets that you already have there for
standby power, and these engine generator sets would run more or
less continuously and generate electricity to run the plant.
This is definitely a viable technology. This is not new stuff. It
can be done and there's probably 100 landfills in the United States
that do some variation on this scheme. So really, it comes down to
economics. Does it make economic sense? There's an investment,
there's a benefit. How do they compare?
The initial capital cost here would be about seven and a half
million dollars. Because the plant -- the water treatment plant would
get bigger over the years and because the landfill would also get
bigger, it would make sense to add additional generators as the years
go by to match the two. So the final capital cost would be 14 and a
half million as you added generators over the years.
The annual cost, the operation magna cost would be 590,000. If
you take that capital cost, you amortize it, you add in the O&M cost,
you escalate that, what you come out with is, yes, it pays. Costs
exceed benefits, but it takes a long time for costs to exceed benefits.
It takes pretty much the full 20 years for payback to occur, for the
break-even point to occur.
In our view, that's not an attractive project. That's too long an
investment to break even.
So what we're really recommending here is further study. There
may be some other uses in the county for this energy. And now,
given what you said about gasification, this is going to go a little
slower, but if we do go ahead with the gasification project, there may
be a synergy here, a combination here.
Maybe we can take the methane gas from the landfill, assuming
that the gasification project ends up at or in near the landfill. We
don't know that yet, but assuming it does, take that methane gas, sell
Page 141
March 11, 2003
it to the gasification contractor, let them use it to make more
electricity. We would basically get the same energy but at -- at very
low or minimal capital costs, so that might be a better use.
So we are not making a recommendation of going ahead here,
but further study.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Any questions?
Ms. Filson, we have how many speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have three public speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you please call them up.
MS. FILSON: The first one is Al Perkins. He will be followed
by Dr. Charles Stokes.
MR. PERKINS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, you
people at home, Commissioners. I keep the same old bit.
The whole thing about this is, I've heard an echo here today that
has been stated right here, eight, 10 years ago.
Now, he's talking about electricity and the reuse and selling it
back to the people who are doing it. How much electricity? Nobody
said how much we're producing, can be produced.
How much is going to be out there? Because we also have
schools, electricity can be pumped onto our grid system and piped
into anyplace we want to put it.
You talked about grease traps, and I think diesel fuel. Now, I
know they were working here in town to take and get the grease from
the grease traps from restaurants and whatever and convert it over to
diesel fuel. Another source of energy. A very good source of
energy.
The residue, building products, insulation of any kind, under
footers. Nobody's mentioned tires. Now, the state requires you to
put so much rubber in the asphalt that they take and put on the roads.
Effluent and sludge. Two more products that can be used.
You people need to know that if it is on this earth and it came
from the earth in another form, all we've got to do is change it around
Page 142
March 11,2003
and we can put it back to use on this earth. Every bit of it. There's
nothing, nothing that goes to waste, if you're smart enough to use it.
Years ago you heard me yap and yap and yap, along with Andy,
about college properties wanting to get behind this project for total
waste recovery facility. They were going to take and put the money
up, they were going to put their technology from around the world
online, and they were going to try to make this, Collier County,
which is a very wealthy place, one of the top ones and on the cutting
edge of this technology.
The only thing I can say is congratulations. You're headed in the
right direction. If you can keep the price down, you have to. But I
don't talk for myself right now. I'm talking for my grandchildren.
They live here. They were born here.
So with that -- fire and safety. Didn't touch on that, and they
didn't touch on that. In the past, people, I have yapped about a
potential fire at the landfill and the danger of any of our fire fighting
people going in there. That needs to be addressed.
You need to take a wake-up -- but at least you're headed in the
right direction, and I hope the trip that you guys went to Sidney
helped with that.
And with that, that's all I've got to say, and thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Dr. Charles Stokes, and he
will be followed by your final speaker, Bob Krasowski.
DR. STOKES: I'm Charles A. Stokes, a Naples resident for
some 20 years and a Florida cracker born in the back woods of Lee
County.
My first experience with solid waste was digging six-foot deep
holes at our orange grove to put it in. The only permit I had was
from my father who said he'd give me hell if I didn't get the hole dug.
My wish here today is to congratulate this commission and its
immediate predecessor on making more progress in solving a solid
Page 143
March 11,2003
waste problem and turning it into an opportunity than the previous 20
years of commissions. You've done a fine job, and you're going in
the right direction.
I'm not here to speak in favor of this proposal or that proposal,
but I do want to say that all of them go in the right direction, the
direction of our whole energy policy today, and I am an energy man.
That's my field. I'm working on a major carbon dioxide reduction
project in Africa, believe it or not.
Our whole direction is to reduce carbon dioxide, increase
efficiency, make alternate motor fuels to gasoline and diesel, and
finally, to end up making hydrogen for our ultimate fuel. Our
direction on waste is zero.
Now, the -- looking at these gasification proj ects, do you realize
that they go in the right direction on all of these criteria?
First of all, if you divert the landfill gas over to the gasifier
power plant, you make it into kilowatts. And those kilowatts back
out Co2 at the Florida Power and Light plant somewhere.
You also don't have a lot of incremental investment because
there's already a power plant in the gasification plant. You are
increasing efficiency because you are using solid waste that would
have been wasted and buried and generate Co2 as landfill gas, so
you're recovering energy that would have been wasted.
Now comes something that you probably will be surprised. The
gases from either of these processes can readily be made into
gasoline or diesel by two technologies that have been in use for at
least 30 or 40 years. I don't say this is anything you want to consider
because you have enough on your plate, but I think it gives you a
warm feeling to know the direction you're going in.
And finally, these gases can readily be reformed to make
hydrogen, the ultimate fuel. Again, this is nothing you want to fool
with. You're going in the right direction now. Make it into kilowatts,
but it's nice to know what you're doing, what the direction is.
Page 144
March 11,2003
And finally, I would say on the zero waste matter, the high
temperature process makes a glassy slag which can be ground up and
used as aggregate. The other process makes a black char, a finely
divided material, which, unfortunately, you've talked about only as
landfill. But think about it. The fertilizer industry buys conditioners
for their fertilizer and pays good money for them.
This char has in it carbon and potassium and calcium. It very
likely will find a use, whether it is fertilizer, conditioner or
something else, it will find a use, and you will end up, way down the
road, very close to zero waste.
So you're going in the right direction. My congratulations.
Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sir?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Dr. Stokes?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Dr. Stokes, excuse me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas has a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
DR. STOKES: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We appreciate your presentation,
and -- but one thing we as commissioners also have to look at, the
technology's out there, but we've got to look at cost effectiveness,
and that's -- that's where we're really caught in a bind here. We're
trying to -- and if you heard the discussion, I think that's where we
were leading is trying to look at, what was the most cost effective
means. We have to look at that also. Because it's like running a
large corporation, really.
DR. STOKES: You're absolutely right, and you're doing it
right. The recommendations of Malcolm Pirnie are right on that
target. And bringing it back to the board to look at the result, that's
the way to go.
In the end, you may decide to export the waste to another
county. That would be kind of too bad, but it's a possibility for the
Page 145
March 11,2003
very reasons you bring up. You're watching my tax dollar. I'm all
for that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Doctor.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Bob Krasowski.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before you start the clock on Bob,
I've just got a question for Bob. Wouldn't you like a different set of
people sitting up here that was here before and say, I told you so?
MR. KRASOWSKI: I don't want to be that kind of guy, but
we're not done yet, are we?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We can go ahead and start the clock.
Thanks.
MR. KRASOWSKI: It's fascinating, Dr. Stokes's comments on
zero waste. But I must remember to give him an invitation to the
Zero Waste Workshop design charette that is planned for March
27th, 28th, so please don't leave before I get a chance to do that. Ron
as well.
Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Bob Krasowski,
Zero Waste, Collier County Group. I know Dr. Stokes wasn't up here
promoting any particular company today, but I do believe, and he
could correct me if I'm wrong being that he's right here, he hand
delivered one of the pyrolysis proposals and one incinerator proposal
in response to the RFP request that was let out.
I'm here today to start off on a positive note saying that a lot of
really good work has been done since December 2000, the landfill--
atop of the landfill meeting that you guys had, and then in January
you had a meeting, and we discussed the result of the landfill. And it
was kind of narrow-minded options at the time or narrow options. I
shouldn't -- and now we've spread the investigation, considering
many other things.
And over the course of the last few months, I've sat in on all the
evaluation committee meetings on the RFPs, and I've been very
impressed with the county staff and the varying abilities and -- that
Page 146
March 11, 2003
these different people have.
I like a lot of what I see. I do have a problem with your
gasification pyrolysis. Only pyrolysis facilities applied -- responded
to that RFP. Gasification, other than pyrolysis did not participate,
and that would be anaerobic digestion and that.
The comments from Mr. Schwartz describing gasification as not
being incineration, I do not agree with. Gasification is incineration
of another variety. And in Europe they identify it along with
incineration as being a form of incineration.
Before I run out of time here though, there's so much that was
said, so much has been accomplished over the last few months, it's
hard to squeeze it all into five minutes.
But before my time runs out, I would just suggest to you that the
whole gasification part of this be kind of put on a back burner for at
least a few weeks. On March 27 and 28th, the Zero Waste Group in
Collier County is going to be presenting a workshop design charette.
We're bringing people in that I'm sure can offer the county another
plan or strategy and collection of methods to handle the waste stream
that do not require gasification.
And the problems we have with gasification are historical. Just
like incineration, they take in materials that could be removed from
the waste stream to begin with. So the energy you reclaim in
gasification at 20 -- is 25 percent of the energy it takes to make the
material you're processing.
So if you're efficient and designed properly upstream in the
waste stream, you can save 100 percent of that energy.
The gasification, both of them, emit pollutants, air pollution.
And even though it's below certain standards, it's still comprised of
those air pollutants that represent persistent pollutants which go into
the environment, bioaccumulate, and there's much effort on an
international, national level to eliminate any type of system that
produces that, okay? And then the gasification as well produces a
Page 147
March 11, 2003
char or an ash that has heavy metals in it.
I would suggest, and I don't want to belabor this, but I think we
need another workshop here among you to evaluate. This is too
much, too much for you folks to process in one day and give any
kind of a direction to as far as coming to any conclusion.
Earlier it was mentioned that pyrolysis, or gasification, had been
identified as one of the processes we will incorporate as a major
process for handling our waste. As I remember it, it was one of the
processes that we would commit to evaluate. There was no
commitment to do anything for sure.
And in your RFP, it says that at any time you can choose not to
accept any of the proposals. You are free to do whatever you want at
any time. So don't feel like you're locked into that.
So let me end by reminding everyone -- and I hope you guys --
you folks can make this -- this date. I know you have other
conflicting situations, but this is very important, tens of millions of
dollars, taxpayers' money, years and years of life in the landfill at the
state. I hope you can make March 27th, at least the afternoon, the
presentations, the Zero Waste Workshop, and this is, of course, open
to all the public, all the staff.
We have Mr. Mudd's commitment to be there, and we are
grateful for that. We know if we get Mr. Mudd, we've gotten a lot.
But you're the decision makers. You don't pass the decision on to
him or other people. You rely a lot on him and his team, but I'll tell
you, this is -- this is a tough issue, and the Zero Waste proponents
have another perspective for you to look at as opposed to what's been
presented here by the Malcolm Pirnie team, what they see as a
process.
I appreciate your -- your attention to my comments. And if
anybody has any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. No? Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I know it's on my calendar to
Page 148
March 11,2003
be there on March 25th (sic).
MR. DeLONY: Commissioners, I thank you today for your
attention you've given us on the presentation of the long-range
integrated solid waste management program and the request for
proposal recommendations that we've made.
No question that we've worked diligently and deliberately over
the past several years to reach this point.
Each of you have previously read the staff recommendations,
and now you've heard our consultant's recommendations. We believe
these recommendations are technically and scientifically sound,
economically and financially feasible, and will sustain the
environmental compliance requirements, not only now but will stay
that way in the future.
What we're looking at is something that will allow us to begin
that 30-year trek that we spoke to earlier assuring that we have that
right landfill capacity through this integrated solid waste
management program, and I ask for your -- for your desires with
regard to recommendations to be made.
That concludes our presentation other than your questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Entertain--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A question?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we going to do this all as a
group or take them individually?
MR. DeLONY: All as a group, sir. That's -- the
recommendation that comes at you as a group, and then you can tell
me how you want to tether each one of these. But we had one vote,
was the way we'd set this up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I'll-- would you mind if I
tried to take amotion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And I'll summarize what
Page 149
March 11, 2003
I'm going to make the motion to do. With respect to biosolids, the
board will authorize you to negotiate a contract with R&D Soil
Builders while asking the other bidder to hold their proposals open
until such time as you complete the contract negotiations.
With the grease trap waste, you're going to wait for the fat, oil
and grease ordinance, so no action will be taken on that.
With respect to gasification, you're going to be doing price
negotiations with IWT and holding Brightstar aside until you see
what will happen there, and then you'll come back to us once you
determine what the price is for IWT.
And with the gas-to-energy, that would just be a continued
study project. No action taken, right?
MR. DeLONY: That's correct. That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Then I'll make a motion
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make a motion that we do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We've got a motion by
Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 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: Any opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Page 150
March 11,2003
Weare going to take a 10-minute break.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you all take your seats,
please.
Item #10D
HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD REPORT OF GOALS
AND OBJECTIVES AS REQUESTED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - REPORT ACCEPTED WITH
The next item is 10(D), and consideration of the Hispanic
Advisory Board's report in goals and objectives as a request by the
Board of Commissioners. And who will present this is Ramiro
Manalich.
MR. MANALICH: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record, Ramiro Manalich, chief assistant
county attorney.
You previously as a board had directed the Hispanic Affairs and
Black Affairs Advisory Boards to prepare a statement of goals and
objectives for the upcoming year.
Today the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board chairman, Carlos
Aviles, will address you to briefly discuss that report with you.
It is also expected that Mr. Dunnuck, as liaison for the Black
Affairs Advisory Board, and its chairman will be addressing you in
the future with regard to that group's goals and objectives.
At this time I'd like to call up Carlos Aviles and also
acknowledge the other members of the Hispanic board are also
present today, Robert Pena, Sophia Pagon (phonetic), Susan Calkins,
and Theresa Nelson.
Carlos?
Page 151
March 11, 2003
MR. AVILES: Well, we move from human waste to human
relations. That's very good.
I'd like to begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman and fellow
commissioners, for allowing our board to be here this day.
Respect ( sic) commissioners, as chairman of the Hispanic
Affairs Advisory Board, I'm honored to be here representing this
board.
As an advisory board to this commission, Mr. Chairman, our
open dialogue between the Hispanic community and county
government begins here and transcends throughout the county.
Mr. Chairman, per your board's request, our board met at a
previous meeting to brainstorm ways at how our board could fulfill
our mission statement which reads as follows: The mission of
Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board is to identify and evaluate problems
unique to the Hispanic community and to foster a better
understanding by the county of the problems facing the minority
community.
I would also add an important component of our original
mission statement, that is recommending ways to ensure open
communication between minorities in Collier County, leaders.
Mr. Chairman, our board finalized and approved our goals and
objectives for this upcoming year and hopefully for years to come.
But to accomplish our board's mission, I ask you, Mr. Chairman, and
fellow commissioners, to approve and give us full support with our
goals and objectives previously submitted.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and respect (sic) commissioners, and
I welcome your comments or any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board?
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, I was really
impressed with everything. It's a very ambitious set of goals. I think
you did an outstanding job. And I've only been here a little over two
Page 152
March 11, 2003
years, but I've never seen anything like that before coming out of this
board.
And I'm just so pleased that you've taken hold, and I think
you're going to be moving forward. And I, for one, would like to
say, it's going to be a pleasure working with you.
MR. AVILES: Thank you. Our primary goal was to come up
with ways, strategies, how we can improve relations between the
Hispanic community and government itself. And I believe that the
goals, as I have recommended to this board, meets those objectives.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle and
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Halas was first.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One thing that kind of bothers me,
you have a very ambitious program here, and I was looking -- I was
wondering how you're going to get the funding for this, or was this
going to be self-funding through your committee?
MR. AVILES: Funding's going to be a last resort. We're going
to come up with ways we can accomplish our goals without going
through funding.
And in a memo that was sent to your board it was -- it was
mentioned that funding might be part of this, but it won't be really
the primary, I guess, way of accomplishing our goals.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. We just want to let you
know that we've had some discussions already about upcoming
budgets. So just to let you know ahead of time that that might be a
real stern issue as far as trying to assist you, so you may have to look
for other sources of funding other than the county government.
MR. AVILES: That's correct. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Mr. Aviles, I'd like to draw
your attention to paragraph 6 of your goals and objectives, the work
Page 153
March 11,2003
plan for this next year. Promote an understanding of civil rights and
civil liberties. Is there any contemplated coordination with the Black
Affairs Advisory Board concerning this issue, or are you going to
deal only with civil rights and civil affairs of the Hispanic
community?
MR. AVILES: I'd like to address that issue by saying that it's --
we are going to be, I guess, joining with the Black Affairs Advisory
Board. What I mean join is holding the workshops in maybe
community forums at a later date. And I'm trying to schedule one for
maybe the start of next month, the middle of next month, to start this
process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You also mention that you're
going to monitor enforcement by appropriate agencies. Are you
going to appoint people to monitor what the sheriffs office is doing
and our human relations department is doing?
MR. AVILES: Okay. When I mention monitor, our board
wants to know when we receive complaints, okay, from citizens, and
all we do is just refer them to the appropriate agency. That's
basically what our board is there for.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I -- these are things, I
think, that need to be done. But I have two reasons for raising the
question. One is that I still have a basic disagreement with the idea
that we have to divide our community up into groups and the
Hispanic group goes and talks about civil rights and discrimination
against the Hispanic community, and the blacks go and do the same
thing, and then the Haitians and so forth.
I'd really like to see all those coordinated, and it would be really
good if, perhaps, you could coordinate with those other minority
groups and maybe create a subcommittee of some kind that can deal
with all of those issues across the community. At least that would
get us halfway there so that we could deal with this on a
comprehensive basis.
Page 154
March 11,2003
MR. AVILES: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The other thing that I -- the other
observation I'd like to make is that monitoring enforcement of
appropriate agencies is a pretty strong term.
There's one thing that says gather data about human relations in
the community and then make recommendations. That's a very, very
good goal for you. But to monitor the enforcement of appropriate
agencies is a very difficult thing for you or us to do, because the
sheriffs office really is a separate agency. And I would suggest to
you, rethink the wording of that particular goal.
MR. AVILES: I understand where you're coming from,
Commissioner Coyle. Basically what that is is just pretty much
establish relationships with those appropriate agencies.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. AVILES: So come up with ways that we can improve that.
Although we use the word monitor, it's pretty much relationships.
It's about building relationships with those agencies.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All I would suggest is
maybe you look at it from that standpoint, maybe make the necessary
adjustments in the verbiage so that we don't get into a conflict later
on over those kinds of things.
MR. AVILES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas has a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I look at these advisory
boards such as yours as a board that's established to help advise the
commissioners and other staff people in regards to what is -- what
things may be of an issue, okay? And I'm concerned about the
direction that you may be going here.
So I hope that you'll keep that in kind of -- in focus, that we
need to have you report back to us in regards to what needs to be
Page 155
March 11, 2003
addressed by the commissioners in regards to the problems before
they become an issue.
MR. AVILES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So, I mean, that's what we feel is
the most important thing as an advisory commission, that you're there
as a -- to advise us before there is any particular type of problems
that crop up.
MR. AVILES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay?
MR. AVILES: I understand that, and that is something that we
-- you know, we know ahead of time already. And that's really one
of the reasons we came up with these goals and objectives, to advise
you on them, and then we can work, you know, together and build
that relationship. And like I say, I can transcend to the whole county
for better relationships among racists.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In all, for everybody.
MR. AVILES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think that is an important
point, Commissioner Halas. There's a fine line between an advisory
board and a board that actually executes. And there are some -- some
areas where we could get into trouble here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Promoting Hispanic entrepreneurs
is a potential trouble spot unless what you're suggesting is to make
recommendations to the board to find ways of improving the
economic stability of the Hispanic community.
You see, the thing that I'm concerned about is if -- if you
develop a position and then you go off and start executing it, it might
-- you really need board approval to do that. I don't think there's
anything in the ordinance that permits an advisory board to actually
Page 156
March 11, 2003
have the authority to implement a program and to go off and do
something. It's advisory in nature. And then we authorize the
advisory board, you know, what they do.
So I think your plan is a great one, as long as there's an
understanding that it is an advisory plan, not a plan for execution.
And if that's an understanding, then I would make a motion that it be
approved and we proceed with it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coyle and a second by Commissioner Coletta with clarification on
the goals and objectives of the Hispanic Advisory Board.
Any more discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing -- oh, we have a speaker. I'm
sorry .
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have one speaker, Susan
Calkins.
MS. CALKINS: I would waive that in the interest of time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That's it.
CHAIRMAN 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.
Page 157
March 11, 2003
Item #10G
REVIEW OF PREPAREDNESS PLANNING ACTIVITIES IN THE
EVENT THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY PLACES THE NATION UNDER A SEVERE RISK OF
DOMESTIC TERRORISM (THREAT LEVEL RED) - CONCEPT
ACCEEIED
The next item we're going to take is 10(G), review prepare (sic)
planned activities in the event of the Department of Homeland
Security places in -- the nation's under severe risk in domestic
terrorism.
MR. PINEAU: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Ken Pineau, the emergency management director for the
county.
For the past few weeks we've been working with the sheriffs
office, the facilities management department security section, and the
region six division of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to
come up with a conceptual framework in the event that the
Department of Homeland Security places the United States under a
severe threat of local or -- of terrorism that would be a level red.
And we have broken it down into five separate scenarios. Red
-- going up in ascending order. First one, of course, would be, we
could be at war, but there's actually no credible threat to the United
States at that time.
The next highest or higher would be a credible threat to the
United States but not a credible threat to the State of Florida.
Next would be a credible threat to the State of Florida but not a
credible threat to the area six counties, the II-county area comprising
the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Southwest area.
Then finally, a credible threat to Collier County.
We have assigned responsibilities by agencies. It's not all
Page 158
March 11,2003
inclusive, but I think it's a step in the right direction, and that's what
we've attempted to do in anticipation of going to condition red,
possibly in the very near future.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we need action on this item?
MR. PINEAU: Our intent was, Commissioner, to include this
document as part of our domestic terrorism annex to the
comprehensive emergency management plan, and we've also
developed a model state of local emergency ordinance in the event
that the board issues a state of local emergency, and that's what we're
requesting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this going to be publicized for
all citizens in the county --
MR. PINEAU: Not necessary--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- by newspaper or anything of
this nature?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that listing that you have right
there, and the reason it says consider instead of implement, is just
exactly the issue that you're getting at right now. That is -- the intent
of this attachment to our plan is to make sure everybody knows that
we do have a plan and that we have looked at issues.
And Mr. Pineau is -- also has a list that he -- that he holds in a
confidential status that basically we will implement, and it will not be
something where we have to sit at a table for eight hours to figure
out, and he holds that in a confidential status because you don't want
the terrorists to know what you're going to do.
And so it's a good point that you're leading to, but I will also tell
you that the wording of that checklist is just vague enough where it
Page 159
March 11,2003
needs to be.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's why I wanted to --
that was the other question I was going to ask, that obviously we've
got some confidential material in here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We do have one public
speaker.
Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Al Perkins.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Busy man.
MR. PERKINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners, good
afternoon, people, you at home, listen up.
You better take this serious, because the handwriting was on the
wall. They attacked N ew York multiple times, they attacked
Pennsylvania, and they attacked Washington, and they have found
out since then that they intended to attack a lot of other places.
Now, the point that I want to make on this, that these people,
who have no regard for life, will attack your school, your church,
around the country, Disney World, a baseball game, the -- hockey,
the beaches, spring break. These people don't care. They don't care.
They're out to get Americans' blood.
Now, if you don't take it seriously, you're going to take and have
big problems.
Now, if I was a terrorist, I sure as heck, if I came to the beach
over here in the season, Port Royal and all the way along and a few
places over on the east coast, I would attack the wealthy and throw
the stock market into another chaos.
With that, there's a multitude of places that I can scare. I can
scare the mothers by going after the children. These people don't
care. And with that you create panic, big time panic. And when you
have panic, you have people totally out of control. Ask anyone of
the colonels. They'll tell you about it.
With these things, your economy is going to go down the tubes.
Page 160
March 11,2003
Naples will be just another little place on the map that nobody wants
to go to. And because of that, people will be out of work, your
budget will be down the window -- out the window and the
conversations about you coming up with a shortfall, you can count on
a big shortfall, and everybody's going to be screaming.
Think about it. You people out there, especially you ones that
are too busy to come in here and participate in these meetings, which
are on your behalf, need to get it together and take and have input to
each one of your commissioners. You don't know.
Ken Pineau will provide a whole ton of information of what you
should be prepared for. Don't forget, when we have a hurricane, you
have hurricane parties. The apathy that is unbelievable. And the
worst part about it, we have senior citizens like me that fall into one
of two categories; they're either too dumb to know what's going on or
they're too drunk to know what's going on. Just that simple.
And you better pay attention. Wake up people. It's your life.
But worst of all, when you don't participate, you put my
grandchildren in jeopardy.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Entertain a motion to accept the concept.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any other 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.
Page 161
March 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Item #10L
PRESENTATION OF OPTIONS RE: LIVINGSTON WOODS
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK - RESIDENTS TO BE RESURVEYED
AND ONE SPOKESMAN FROM EACH SIDE OF THE ISSUE TO
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW SURVEY BEFORE IT
GQRS OUT - A-eEROVED
Asking the -- any members if they would like to consider
deviating from the agenda today. There's a number of people here
from Livingston Woods, and that is item 1 O(L).
Any objections to move to that item?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a -- right before on 10(1),
I've got a couple people here for a few hours on the Santa Barbara
thing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You have one.
MS. FILSON: For 10(1), one speaker.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that all I have, only one speaker?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sounds good to me, 10(L).
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. We have a number of
people here on the Miller Boulevard issue, too. But go ahead. You
call it. That's your job.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it's a team.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we ought to go ahead with
the Livingston Woods. They've got the majority of the people here.
Page 162
March 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. This item is 10(L), and it is a
presentation of options regarding Livingston Woods neighborhood
park presented by Marla Ramsey, director of parks and rec.
MS. RAMSEY: Good afternoon, Marla Ramsey, director of
parks and recreation.
Before you today you have a request that happened, I believe,
on February 11 th to bring before you an executive summary so you
have the opportunity to discuss a Livingston Woods neighborhood
park.
I've put on the visualizer the neighborhood that we're talking
about and the site that we have purchased.
For the record, I need to make a clarification or correction on
fiscal impact. Under fiscal impact, the purchase price of the property
was $96,881.41, if we can make that correction for the record, please.
This project started way back in April of 1999 when a
homeowner surveyed the residents within the Livingston Woods
area. And then in December of -- 27th of 1999, brought to the
P ARAB, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, an application for a
neighborhood park.
A presentation was made before Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board on February 23rd, 2000, soliciting support for a park in this
particular neighborhood, and it was approved by Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board.
On May 9th of 2000, the board also then approved an agreement
for sale of the parcel that you see on the visualizer today. It's 2.73
acres, and it was approved as item 16(C)(5).
The Parks and Recreation Department then sent out a survey in
-- January 16th of 200 1, requesting the opinions of the neighbors
within the development area as to the planning and development of
the neighborhood park.
On March 6, 2001, a meeting was held with several
homeowners who were interested in the park itself. Upon that
Page 163
March 11,2003
particular meeting, we realized there were a number of issues that
needed to be addressed.
On April 20th of 2001, we sent a letter to all residents again,
asking them to attend a meeting on May 10th, 2001, to discuss the
future of the neighborhood park.
At that particular meeting, Commissioner Henning was in
attendance, and after hearing the homeowners, decided to address
some of the concerns that the homeowners had at that particular
meeting, and we put the development of the park on hold.
In September 2000, Naples Parks -- the homeowners requested
funding to purchase a neighborhood park in their neighborhood, and
the Board of County Commissioners approved using the funding that
was available for Livingston Woods at that time to be used to
purchase the park land in Naples Park. That then took the funding
out of budget for that particular fiscal year.
On April 2nd, 2002, the commissioner's office -- Commissioner
Henning's office mailed out a survey to the residents regarding the
neighborhood park to find out what support there was. The--
Commissioner Henning then sent a letter upon the results of that
survey to our office, asking us to put the $95,000 back into the
budget for the 2003 budget cycle.
On December 10th of 2002 another letter was sent to the
residents of LivingstonW oods to attend an informational meeting so
we could form a committee of homeowners to determine the best
design of the project. That meeting was held on January 8th, 2003.
At that meeting, we selected eight residents to be part of that
particular committee during that -- from that time until this time, then
there was a petition by the residents on February 11th to stop the
neighborhood park. And again, that's why we're here today.
I give you all of that information to kind of give you a time line
so you could see the amount of time that we've spent on this
particular park.
Page 164
March 11, 2003
I would also like to say, there's been three different attempts of
surveys, one by the residents, one by the department, and one by
commissioner's office. All three of those have resulted in a positive,
in favor of park results.
The parcel that you have before you today -- and I want to show
you just a little bit closer, because I do believe that when they come
up to speak later they might talk about the actual location. And
again, I've outlined that in black. It's located along 1-75 on Saul
Street, somewhat in the middle of the neighborhood, off to the west
-- east side of the neighborhood itself.
There are really three options that I brought before you today
for your consideration; develop the property as an active park
consistent with the park -- approved parks and recreation
neighborhood park and tot lot policy, which was approved by the
board, conduct another official survey to access the desires of the
majority of the Livingston Woods residents, or number three, to sell
that property and be -- and to be used in a different location.
The recommendation that I have for you -- we took this back to
the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on February 19th, and the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended the
development of this parcel as consistent with their original
application approval, and the board approved parks and recreation
neighborhood park and tot lot policy.
So with that, I'm open for questions from you to find out what
more depth you would need from me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions for Ms. Ramsey?
I'm sure the speakers are going to addresses -- wait, we've got to
hold on.
Some of the speakers are going to have some concerns that we'll
need to address, and I think there are some valid concerns that need
to be addressed. But with that, Commissioner Fiala has a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. This is a neighborhood
Page 165
March 11,2003
park, right?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And is it my understanding
from reading this that a neighborhood park does not contain tennis
courts or basketball courts or baseball diamonds or swimming pools
or anything?
MS. RAMSEY: The policy that you have before you talks a lot
about tot lots, playgrounds, passive activities.
We have a dollar amount. We have $95,000 to develop the
park. Anything that would come outside of the scope of that $95,000
would need to be funded either through an MSTD or some donation
type of funding source. So really what I have is a pocket of dollars
available.
There are certain things that we don't do. We don't do irrigation.
And we will do fencing, for safety. Tot lots, those kinds of things.
If the development decided they wanted to do a basketball court in a
tot lot and that was the consensus in the neighborhood, then we
would probably entertain that, but we really want the neighborhood
to help us design the park so it meets the needs of their particular
neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What would be the cost of it to
have just a passive park?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, it would fit within the $95,000 mark.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. RAMSEY: And again, depends on -- passive park to us
really consists of playground, walking paths, fencing for safety.
That's what a neighborhood park is. We look at the active kind of
park as more basketball court, volleyball courts, those kinds of
things.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we go to speakers, please.
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we now have 19 speakers,
Page 166
March 11, 2003
and with your permission, I'll call two names so one can be standing
on-board.
The first speaker is Jesse Barrett. He will be followed by Joyce
Sells.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Henning and Commissioners, my name is
Jesse Barrett and I do not live in Livingston Woods, but my
grandparents do. They live on Sable Ridge Lane. I am not -- I am at
their house three to four times a week, and I have had an overnight
sleepover at their house since I was a baby, and I was 11 years old
yesterday.
I would like to tell you why I am asking you to vote against the
park in Livingston Woods. That probably comes as a shock, since
I'm a kid, but here are my reasons for not wanting this park: Number
one, the location is not good, and probably not very safe. It is right
on 1-75. And yesterday after school my sisters and I went down with
my grandmother to the area. We could hardly hear each other
talking. We had to shout because of all the traffic noise on the
interstate. We walked about 50 feet away from my grandmother, and
she called us to come back. We could not hear her. I didn't think this
was very safe. How could we feel safe if we cannot ever hear
someone who may be warning us of danger?
Anything -- another thing, the big trucks make a terrible noise.
They sound like they're coming right at you into the park area. What
if one of them should flip over and roll into the park and hurt
somebody, or even kill somebody? It would never be a happy place
after that. And we can't be sure that would ever happen.
Number two, I don't think the kids in Livingston Woods would
use the park as much as they think they will. Because most of them
have better parks right in their own backyard. They have swing sets,
barbeque grills, playhouses, tree houses, golf carts, swimming pools,
tennis courts, A TV's, horses, scooters, skateboards, bikes, go carts,
and some even have fishing pools -- fishing ponds in their backyard
Page 167
March 11,2003
to fish in. These are all in their own backyards because their lots are
over two acres.
Do you think a park is really needed here? Not at all. There is a
park less than three miles away in Vineyards, and a new one coming
up to be built on Livingston Road about two to three miles away. It
will be the biggest one ever built in Collier County.
Number three, a lot of times the homeless men are right off the
interstate beginning -- begging for money and food. They would use
the park as a shelter, drink their beer and leave all their litter behind.
And if they smoke, one careless cigarette could wipe out the whole
entire area of Livingston Woods. Did you know we do not have not
a single fire hydrant in the area?
Number four, how easy would it be for a car to pull over on 1-75
and take a child and be halfway to Miami before anyone knew they
were missing. Remember a child was abducted in a park last year in
Naples.
In closing, Honorable Commissioners, I respectfully ask you to
relocate this. park to an area where kids have only small yards or the
street to play in. Sell the property in Livingston Woods to a nice
family who would love to live there just like it is. I thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Joyce Sells.
MS. SELLS: I would like to ask Julie Sturdivent to speak
before me, please, if I may. She has more information that I will
speak off of.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, that's fine.
MS. FILSON: And if you would like to come up, Ms. Sells,
you'll be the next speaker.
MS. STURDIVENT: For the record, I'm Judy Sturdivent. I am
a resident of Livingston Woods.
I did help conduct the survey that brought this back before, and
Page 168
March 11,2003
we worked very hard to put together a map of carefully going
through and marking the properties that signed yes, no.
The orange is where the park will go, right on the interstate.
The green are the five yes votes that signed. The pink I have 91 that
said no.
Since the last meeting I had people approach me on the road and
ask if they could sign it, I had people call my house and ask if they
could sign it. We got about six more houses since last time.
The purple is commercial. The orange is also owned by the
county. We wanted to make this known. I don't know if you want
this set somewhere to look at it. I don't have anywhere to put it.
Anyway, what an act to follow. I want to clear one thing up:
People were not aware that we were getting Regional Park two miles
down the road, which is going to be a $40 million -- as Jesse said, the
most awesome park we ever want to go to. Willie's Wet World I
think we're going to have.
We do have concerns with the property. The 1-75, unsafe,
predators, kids climbing the fence and teenage hangout. We were
given Palm Springs Park as our reference to a neighborhood park by
Parks and Recreation. I did go out there. You all have the pictures
that I gave you on Friday of Palm Springs Park. And just the
disappointment to see how things were not taken care of. The only
child in the park that day was on an A TV. The garbage contents
were just so disappointing. The play areas were embedded with
broken glass. I mean, it wasn't even something you could go clean
up easily, it had been there for a long time.
We talked to a couple of the neighbors around Palm Springs
Park, and they said at the time they wanted the park. Five years later
they wouldn't wish it upon anyone, just because of the problems they
are incurring with this park.
Neighborhood parks on 1-75 are not centrally located. It's not a
centrally located parcel in the entire neighborhood. It is on 1-75 at
Page 169
March 11, 2003
the very end of the road.
We also do have concerns with pricing. It says neighborhood
parks are supposed to have a $60,000 approximate cost, and it's been
portrayed as 85,000 spent, but it's actually, you know, the 96,000,
which is quite a bit.
Also a new word has come up to us, tot lot. We've never been
talked about a tot lot. We've always been told it's a neighborhood
park. According to specifications, minimum acreage for a
neighborhood park is three to five acres. We don't have three acres.
That's why they pulled it down to a tot lot.
The surveys, yeah, we do have problems with the surveys. The
last survey that was mailed out by Mr. Henning's office, nowhere on
it does it request any kind of a signature or address. We do have a
problem with that. They were sent back with a checkmark. We have
no idea who sent these back. One person could have made several
copies and mailed it back. We're not saying that, but it is a
possibility. And, you know, we do have a problem with that.
There are 151 houses in the neighborhood. We did account for
91 saying no. That's definitely over half.
I think that's all I have to say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Joyce Sells.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hold on, Commissioner Halas has a
question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You say right now you have 151
houses. What's the potential for build-out there?
MS. STURDIVENT: You know, I didn't check on that. That's
one thing I didn't check on. I think we have 206 -- 40?
MS. CHERNOFF: It's over 200.
MS. STURDIVENT: I think it was 206. Which is what Sandra
Taylor originally surveyed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Potential build-out of206?
Page 170
March 11, 2003
MS. STURDIVENT: Yeah. And don't quote me, I'm getting it
from them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ma'am, you'll have an opportunity to
come to the dais and speak. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Joyce Sells, and she will be
followed by Holly Chernoff.
MS. SELLS: I am Joyce Sells of Sable Ridge Lane, in
Livingston Woods, a resident there of 15 years. My husband Donald
and I chose this area for its quiet, secluded lots, the natural tropical
vegetation. And recently we have seen our beautiful community
stripped of some of that beautiful vegetation, a place where the
tropical birds used to stand. As I came into my community every
day I could see them there, and it was very peaceful, quiet, secluded,
a place that we just wanted to run home to every day.
But recently our little community had part of that stripped away
without our knowledge. We came home to find that after the new
Livingston Road went through and the little small area that has
opened up to us had those very obvious yellow bands going the entire
length of our street by those trees, it soon became apparent to all of
us that our natural barrier, sound barrier between our community and
Livingston Woods -- Livingston Road was coming down, and they
were doomed.
We all became a little bit concerned and a lot of us contacted
some of you and said we did not know this was going to happen in
the meetings that we had all had before concerning Livingston Road
going through there. We left those meetings feeling sure that our
commissioners and all the other people involved with this would see
to it that we had maintained the natural barrier; if not, something
certainly was going to be different.
Well, after some complaints from homeowners about the
apparent upcoming situation of losing the trees, we received a letter
from the commissioners telling us the trees would not be coming
Page 171
March 11, 2003
down without further study and discussion with homeowners as to
alternative possibilities of saving our natural sound barrier.
However, less than 30 days, the trees were gone. Every single
one of them. Without our knowledge, without even discussing it
with us.
So today, Commissioners, I want to appeal to you, and I want to
say to you, the homeowners of Livingston Woods are a little
disenchanted with what we have been told. We're a little angry, and
we've lost a little faith in the workings of our government here in
some respects.
I want to appeal to you today to restore the integrity of this
group by acknowledging the will of the people of Livingston Woods
in the matter of this park. I'm sure you will have to agree from even
hearing what you've just heard so far, that from the very onset of the
park situation, it's been a lot of confusion. As most of you know, a
young girl named Jessica -- no, Sandra or Jessica Taylor, I can't ever
remember which one's the mother and which one's the child, did
write an appropriate letter to the commissioners requesting a park in
that area. But I don't know if any of you realize that she was a
temporary resident there. In fact, after that letter it was only a few
short months that she and her mother moved away. However, it just
seemed very convenient that her mother did work for -- actually, I
believe she was a supervisor of real property here in the county. And
naturally, she would know all the wherewithal, the proper procedures
to take, matters and ways to facilitate obtaining that park.
Yes, we did get some things mailed to us at the time. You
know, we got this do you want a park and so forth. Well, I guess we
were a little bit like the children in the Night Before Christmas.
When we say park, to children especially, you know, they have
visions of sugarplums dancing through their heads. And a lot of
people just arbitrarily signed that not knowing in a few years we
would have this big park just a short ways down the street from us on
Page 172
March 11, 2003
Livingston Road. A lot of people did not consider that the Vineyards
Park is less than three miles from us, and all the neighboring
communities around us are gated, and they certainly would not be
coming to a park in our area.
So another survey was done. And by this time some people had
changed their mind. But you can see that there has been a lot of
confusion, there have been a lot of misunderstandings. We have had
inaccurate information given to us on many occasions.
But I think as you will listen to the homeowners that are here
present today, most of us will demonstrate to you that we clearly do
not need that park. I think Jesse hit it on the head: The children
there have parks in their own homes, in their own backyards. The
adults are concerned about the safety of the -- this park for their
children.
We all know that parks, especially passive parks, and one in our
area would be, I presume, accessible to the community people and
our own neighborhood children, all hours of the night. And I cannot
tell you what visions I have of that going through my mind. I don't
think it's a safe place, because many times the teenagers love to hang
out in those parks, they love to drink beer there, because nobody can
catch them, they love to smoke and they leave their litter behind.
And as Jesse adequately put it, we are not really equipped in our
neighborhood for a big fire.
So today I just want to appeal to your sense of right and wrong.
It was an old-fashioned word called integrity. Because, dear
Commissioners, every one of you, when you were running for this
office without exception -- does that mean I'm done?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, ma'am. You can wrap it up.
MS. SELLS: I can wrap it up?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, ma'am.
MS. SELLS: Thank you.
Every one of you promised your voters, which I am one, and a
Page 173
March 11, 2003
taxpayer, that you were going to look out for our money in an
integral and honorable way, and I just appeal to you to reconsider the
allocation of $95,000 for a park. That was just the purchase of the
property. And I just heard the lady over there say it would take about
$95,000 more to complete a very minimal park.
In my opinion, I humbly beg you to consider that this is not a
judicial or prudent use of taxpayer monies, and put this park in a
place where it is really needed. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
MS. SELLS: Yes, you may.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You were talking about stripping
away trees.
MS. SELLS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this a park issue or is this the
road issue?
MS. SELLS: It's both, in a manner of speaking. Because it has
to do with how we feel our property and our home sites --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm just asking you about
the --
MS. SELLS: Well, that had to do with the road, but it impacts
the way we feel about our whole community now being at the mercy
of you five people, rather than what we desire.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. This wouldn't be any kind
of a backlash or something in regards to the --
MS. SELLS: No, sir, because I've been against the park since
the day I first heard about it, which is three years or four ago, I
believe, yes, sir. I just wanted to bring that up as a reason why we're
a little bit distressed. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Holly Chernoff. She will be
followed by Deborah Gideon.
Page 174
March 11, 2003
MS. CHERNOFF: Good afternoon.
Commissioner Halas, if I may clarify on the ownership in the
neighborhood. There are over 200 parcels owned, but that's acreage,
and it could be built out at 200, it could be built out at more or less,
depending on whether people combine parcels.
We are Estates property, we are Golden Gate Estates, and that
was what I wanted to say today. We live in the park. Every property
is a park. We have trees, we have area, we have space. Everybody
has what they want at their house and the neighbors run from house
to house and play in each others' yards, and that's the way we want
the neighborhood.
And when you asked, Commissioner Halas, about the trees
versus the park, it is the same issue. Because we are naturally bound
by 1-75 and Livingston Road. We had trees between Livingston
Road, old Livingston and new Livingston, which bound our
neighborhood and kept us in a secluded park-like area where we do
not need another park, we do not need you spending that money, but
we needed that seclusion, and it is now gone.
I'm not here to talk about that today, but it was appropriate,
because that is what our neighborhood is about. We live in the park,
we don't need a park.
I signed the original petition that Jessie Taylor sent around.
Jessie Taylor was a friend of my daughter's, Sandy Taylor was a
neighbor. And I thought -- didn't give a lot of thought to it. A child
was asking for something, and I really just didn't think it through.
Now, that's kind of strange, I'm a lawyer, I think for a living. I know
how to think, I know how to plan things out and look at the details.
But I didn't. Until the Sturdivents and the Browns, who live next to
this proposed park, began to talk about the potential problems, it
didn't even occur to me. Once that information was out there and
there was a form for understanding it, I completely understand that. I
would not want that park next to me. And I don't know if anybody's
Page 175
March 11, 2003
considering what these people want. One of them's right across from
it, one of them's right next to it. They don't want it for the (sic) many
reasons. One is, like I said, we live in a park. But the other is for
potential problems, for kids being in the park in the middle of the
night and making noise, for homeless people being there. And
Jesse's right, they're out there on 1-75 collecting money. Where do
you think they're going to sleep? They're going to sleep in the park.
It's an unattended park, it's very dangerous to our community, and
again, we don't need it. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Deborah Gideon. She will
be followed by Joe Stewart.
MS. GIDEON: Good afternoon, Chairman and Commissioners.
I'm Deborah Gideon, for the record. I've been in Livingston Woods
for 20 years. I've seen a lot of changes. I wanted to review with you
the point system used to evaluate for a neighborhood park.
As you know, 50 points are required for approval of park
development. There are 12 line items for evaluation. The first item,
number of children in the area. For this evaluation, 5 points were
received.
Second item, 3- to 5-acre requirement for the park, 0 points
received.
Next item, property available for sale, 10 points received.
Next item, purchase price of property meets the $60,000 budget,
o points received, because this property was purchased $36,900 over
budget.
Next item, no wetland zoning, 5 points received.
Next item, zoned for residential or public use, 5 items received.
Letter of support from homeowners, 0 items, 0 points received.
Adjacent landowner approval, 0 points received.
50 percent plus one in favor of the park, 0 points received.
Minutes of neighborhood meetings demonstrating support, 0
points received.
Page 176
March 11, 2003
Neighborhood watch or security program established, 0 points.
And finally, donation funding, 0 points. Tabulation of all those
points come up with 25 points. It is required that 50 points are
assessed for approval of this park.
That's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Gideon, may I have that survey?
That's from Parks and Recs?
MS. GIDEON : Yes, it is. It's from their --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hi, Ms. Ramsey.
MS. RAMSEY: Hi. Can I make a comment on that, please?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please.
MS. RAMSEY: If you recall, we brought back a revision to the
neighborhood park last summer where we divided the park system
into two different areas because of the concern with the lot sizes that
we had. And in that particular policy, we brought to you a criteria
that the board had established to make it a little bit clearer for people
who are going to apply for future parks, what was going to be
required of them when they came through, so that the criteria that's
being read to you currently is criteria that the homeowners have done
themselves over the weekend. And that was never used in our
establishment of this particular location. This location was done long
before this criteria came into place this summer.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. GIDEON: May I respond? Therefore, if you use the old
criteria, there are only 45 points received, and the old criteria is quite
vague. I have a copy of the old criteria that was used for the review
for this park.
So again, you're still below the 50 points required for this lot --
for this neighborhood park.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. GIDEON: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Joe Stewart, and he will be
Page 177
March 11,2003
followed by Mark Sturdivent.
MR. STEWART: Good afternoon. My name is Joe Stewart. I
live at 6570 Sable Ridge Lane. That's about five or six lots up from
the Soll Road or Soll Street. We've lived there about 12 or 13 years.
I have two sons, a 10-year-old and a 13-year-old son.
We live in a park, too. I mean, that's the way our house is set
up. Huge backyard, there's all kinds of neighborhood kids in our
backyard all the time, and we enjoy having them over.
F or me it seemed to be more of a fiscal issue. As I understand
it, there's about $95,000 spent for the lot, and about another $95,000
spent that will be required for improvements. It's about $190,000.
My view on it is if the board is compelled to spend money to
improve our community, that money would be better spent on the
buffer where the trees are torn down.
So I can tell you, we don't want it, we don't need it. From what
I understand from the rest of the folks that I've been talking to, they
don't want it either. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mark Sturdivent. He will be
followed by Robert Stetkewicz.
MR. STURDIVENT: Hello, my name is Mark Sturdivent. I
live at 6411 Sable Ridge Lane.
I'd like to thank you all. I had the opportunity to meet and speak
with each one of you over the past several weeks.
On February 11th when my wife and I brought the petition back,
we truly feel that we were trying to be representative of a majority of
our neighborhood. We have a wonderful neighborhood. It's been
suggested to me that we don't have a wonderful neighborhood, that
gosh, I wouldn't want to live there with the problems you have. I
wouldn't trade it for anyone else's neighborhood in Naples. And I
believe all my neighbors would share the same opinion.
We have a diverse group of people who have lived in the
neighborhood for many years. I myself have lived there for 10 years.
Page 178
March 11,2003
I have an eight-year-old son and a nine-year -- or an l1-year-old
son. I live closest to the park. I have a five-acre parcel that is directly
660 feet adjacent to the park, separated only by Soll Street. I myself
have the most to gain from a park right across the street from me. I
would be the only true walking distance resident, other than the
Browns. I have two children that would love and enjoy a park.
At the first onset of this, my first inclination was maybe a park
would be nice. After your -- I'm sorry, the Parks Department's
suggestions to go and look at the other parks that we've built, we've
done a lot of homework. We looked at these parks. We've talked to
the people that live next to these parks. We've seen the activities that
go on in these parks. We love our neighborhood. We don't want this
kind of assessment -- or I guess activity introduced into our
neighborhood.
We have a survey that is of 90 some odd homes, but it has 139
signatures on it. The signatures have said they are homeowners, they
are property owners, they're registered voters. They don't want this
park as well. We've tried to be as fair as we can, as objective as we
can with the entire issue.
We have many people in the neighborhood that oppose the park,
and we have people in the neighborhood that want the park. We
have been friends and neighbors with the people that want the park as
well for the times that we've been there. Through these people we've
had the opportunity to have some discussions, some of them quite
heated, some of them a lot more, I guess I would say coherent and
intellect. I've had quite a few people that have shared their opinions
on why they thought they wanted the park, and now they have even
called me and said, you know, we've had a change of heart. We think
we understand what you're saying, we think we see what you're
saYIng.
I'm not against parks, I'm not against the Parks Department's
work. They have -- Collier County is blessed with some of the most
Page 1 79
March 11, 2003
beautiful parks that I have ever seen, and I've traveled the whole
country. I love the parks that are in Collier County. I love going to
those parks in Collier County. Doesn't matter to me how far I need
to drive or what I have to do, if it's an activity that I want to do and
enjoy, I will travel to the other parks.
Again, I have a park in my own backyard. We have many of the
children in my neighborhood that come to my yard and enj oy the
park and enj oy the setting. We moved there and we built that so that
we could have a safe environment that we could see, that we could
control and that we would know who was there at the park, our park,
and who was doing what in our home and with our family.
We try to watch after each other, we try to look after each other,
including neighbors that sometimes don't get along and neighbors
that always get along.
The issue of Jessica Taylor creating this park is an issue that we
have a problem with. Our problem is that this park was supposedly
started by Jessica with a survey. We don't have accountable results
of that survey. All we have is tabulations. I'm not trying to point a
finger at Jessica or anyone else, but it really just doesn't look right
that her mother, being the supervisor of real property, was directed to
purchase this parcel to make the arrangement on this parcel, to make
it happen and to put it together.
I applaud Ms. Ramsey, after three-and-a-halfyears of finally
admitting that they paid $96,900 instead of 85,000. We're concerned
that that's been reported as the fiscal impact for three years. The
additional money is something that we would like to know where it
has gone and why it was not reported. We'd like to think that we
have good accurate accounting of our tax dollars, and we would like
to see that.
In closing, I'd just like to thank all of my friends and neighbors
that are out here today. The people that support the park and want
the park are my friends and neighbors, and I thank them for being
Page 180
March 11,2003
here today. Their opinion is important. Our opinion is important as
well.
Again, I implore you all to stop and look and think about this.
It's our neighborhood, I'm sorry, but not yours. It's ours. Please give
us what we want in our neighborhood. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Robert Stetkewicz, and he
will be followed by Sonja Stetkewicz.
MR. STETKEWICZ: Commissioners, Bob Stetkewicz is my
name. I want to echo all the things that have gone by so far, but I
live on Soll Street, and across the street from me in one direction is
an empty lot and across -- in back of me is an empty lot. And these
could be considered parks, and guess what, they're filled with beer
cans. Behind me there was a van pulled in there and there was some
guy living back there for, oh, God, I don't know how long, but for at
least six months, and they finally got it out of there. These are the
things that take place.
This is just a haven for homeless people. Please, don't make a
park back there. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Sonja Stetkewicz, and she will
be followed by Ray Bass.
MS. STETKEWICZ: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
I am very much against the park because I see what happens on
SolI Street where we live. There's an empty lot that is absolutely a
disgrace. There is teenagers having parties back there, making a lot
of noise, and I have many times called the police, but they disappear.
They somehow avoid anybody who possibly could catch them.
Another thing is that we have the Harley Motorcycle down the
street, and on Sundays they're all testing their new motorcycles and
make a lot of noise and run up and down that street. I don't think
that's fair to us.
And most people know me because I walk my dogs up and
Page 181
March 11,2003
down, and I see all the filth that is in that empty lot that has not been
sold yet. So you can imagine what will happen to a park.
And it's very dangerous today to have children right on 1-75
with all the pedophiles that roam around. A matter of fact, one of the
neighbors told me down on Livingston Woods that they had a
homeless person there who defecated on their property. I think that
is carrying it too far.
Please, let's not have a park for these people to gather. Thank
you very much. This is all I have to say.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ray Bass.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER FROM AUDIENCE: He's not
here.
MS. FILSON: Thomas Bartis. And he will be followed by K.
P. Pezeshkan.
MR. BARTIS: Good afternoon, gentlemen and Mrs. Fiala. I'm
Tom Bartis, I live on Livingston Woods Lane, and I'm very familiar
with you all, except the new ones.
I haven't anything more to add than our eloquent speech by the
young fellow who comes and visits with his grandmother.
We have a problem on Livingston Woods because we are so far
from the sheriffs jurisdiction. It is very difficult for them to get
there. And no one can expect them to do miracles. Consequently, I
fear for the park because I am tired myself of beer cans, bottles,
condoms and trash that's brought in by some of these people who
drive through there, looking for a place to spend about an hour of
ecstasy. I would hope that you would look at this very seriously. It
would present a problem more than we have now. And I won't keep
you anymore. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: K. P. Pezeshkan. He'll be followed by Judith
Huhlinger.
MR. PEZESHKAN: Good afternoon. I'm K.P. Pezeshkan.
P-E-Z-E-S-H-K-A-N. I'm one of the newer homeowners down there.
Page 182
March 11,2003
I built the house about two years ago. I'm a newlywed. I have an
eight-month-old son. And I think if my son could speak today, he
would probably also want the park, but being an adult and a
responsible parent, I would -- I agree with the Sturdivents and
everybody else that was here before me. During construction of our
home, before clearing the land, I found numerous beer cans,
condoms, just pornographic material. And those are things I
wouldn't want my son to come across and start asking me as a three-
or four-year-old and trying to explain to him what these things are.
And the locations, everything they've said, I mean, I could just
go on and on and agree with them. So basically I'm just here to voice
my opinion and agree with everything that was said before me.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Judith Huhlinger.
MS. HUHLINGER: I'm going to pass because everything's
been said I was going to say.
MS. FILSON: Tara Bajaj. She will be followed by Robert
Boaks.
MS. BAJAJ: Board members, some of you may have
remembered me from --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: State your name, please.
MS. BAJAJ: Oh, my name is Tara Bajaj.
Some of you may have remembered me when I spoke on the
Whippoorwill Road issue. And I just have to tell you that I'm one of
the people that got the letter when I was living up in Wisconsin from
the little girl that wanted to have a park, and I did sign. I have since
moved down here, built my house, and now I see how things really
are. And as my neighbors are telling you, they live on SolI. I live on
Livingston Woods Lane but near SolI. I'm adjacent to those vacant
lots.
And before the man that has the lot for sale, Mr. Olum
Page 183
March 11,2003
(phonetic), I think, cleared all of the comer, by mistake, of course --
but before he cleared that, during the night my dogs would bark. I'd
get up, I'd go outside, I wouldn't see anything. But you'd hear noises.
After he cleared that lot, we found the little fire pit, we found the
belongings of the homeless people.
And please, understand, I've lived in Bombay, India so I know
what homeless is, I know what poor is, and there but the grace of
God go 1. I'm not taking a shot at the homeless people. But by the
same token, we paid a lot of money for those lots. We've tried to do
our best as far as the community is concerned. And, you know, we
really can't afford a fire in Livingston Woods.
I've come down 1-75 coming from work in Fort Myers. I don't
know if you remember, but last year, the year before, and they had
the flames in the pine trees, not in Livingston Woods but between
Immokalee Road and Pine Ridge. You know, when you're a mother,
you get on the cell phone and you say to your kid, leave, go to Pine
Ridge Road, just leave. We really can't afford a fire in there.
Other than that, I mean, what everyone has already told you,
we're all going to say it 100 times, the issues with the garbage and
the trash and the fact that the budget and everything is there. If you
really want to spend money in our community, I mean, we appreciate
it. Thanks. I mean, usually you have to go and fight for somebody
to spend money for you, but you're offering us money. Please
reevaluate the situation.
I think your sign says it all, you're saying united we stand.
Well, our community is united, pretty much. And majority rules.
And we are trying to tell you, we really appreciate you wanting to
give us something, but you're not trying to give us the right thing.
Times have changed, people have reevaluated the situation.
Consider the barrier. Perhaps. I'm saying just consider,
consider a nice walking path somewhere, or a bicycle ride -- a
bicycle path that people can ride on. Somewhere where Bob can roll
Page 184
March 11,2003
his wheelchair and not be afraid he's going to get hit by one of those
Harley Davidson motorcycles. I mean, do you know what I'm
saying? Just consider that there's some alternative needs of the
community and there's some alternative ways you could spend that
money.
And that little boy, he did say pretty much everything that we're
all here to say. And we just wish that, you know, as in the past you've
pretty much heard what we had to say and you've reacted to it, and
we're hoping that you're going to hear what we have to say this time
and react to it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Robert Boaks. He will be
followed by Chuck McMahon.
MR. BOAKS: Commissioners, I'm Bob Boaks. And I look at
the way we sit in this world now, and we're all saying democracy,
democracy, democracy. Everybody wants a vote.
I never received any of the mailings that came out from you,
Chairman Henning, regarding the park. I got involved with it after I
found out what the park was. Correct -- the Parks and Recreational
statement that the park is centrally located, it is one of the most
remote areas of Livingston Woods. Probably between 11 :00 at night
and 6:00 in the morning, there might be one car go down there.
I just say let the majority here speak. We don't want the park.
Parks are not supposed to be in the most remote area. That's
what happened in the central part, with the Chamber case, if you
want to reiterate.
We've got a problem, we've got acreage there, we had the trees
tore down on the other end of Livingston Woods. The trees weren't
supposed to be tore down. You've got acreage there. You could put
a walking path in there, you could put a wall up there. If you've got
the money in your pocket and it has to be spent in Parks and
Recreation and you don't want to look bad, do something for the
Page 185
March 11,2003
neighborhood. That's what we want. We want some protection. We
all moved in there for the protection.
And we're just asking you to let the majority rule. And if you're
going to send out cards for us to vote, make sure everyone in the
neighborhood receives one, and not just a selective few. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, before you go, how long have
you lived in Livingston Woods?
MR. BOAKS: I've owned the home since last summer.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The information that I got to
mail out a survey to the residents came from the property appraiser.
It's the most updated information that we can receive. Now, it's not
the latest. The houses and the tax rolls take a while before they get
on the site. So I'm sorry you were missed--
MR. BOAKS: Well, no, I'm paying my taxes, they got that
address straight.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, wait a minute now. You
moved there last summer, right?
MR. BOAKS: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, when -- the survey I sent
out was in March.
MR. BOAKS: Of this year?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Was in March of last year.
MR. BOAKS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So it was before you got there.
MR. BOAKS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we got that cleared up, correct?
MR. BOAKS: I stand to be corrected.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, and ano--
MR. BOAKS: But what I'm saying is you got the majority here
of how many home sites there are and how many people do not want
the park.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Page 186
March 11,2003
MR. BOAKS: And if you believe in democracy, which I hope
you do as elected officials, we don't want the park, the majority
doesn't want the park. And all we're asking you to do is follow what
we want. We don't want it. And if you make a statement that it's
centrally located, it's not centrally located. It's at the edge, the most
remote area of Livingston Woods.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the other thing, we cannot mix
funds. If the board decides not to improve this, it's going to go back
into Parks and Recs budget for -- excuse me, for another
neighborhood park, because that is part of the not only community
character plan but the wishes of the board for the last few years.
MR. BOAKS: And respectfully, Chairman, I gave you the outs
on that, that your own property between old Livingston and the new
Livingston Road, which was supposed to have the trees remain, and
you've made it a moonscape. You own the property. Take and put a
passive park up there, put a wall up there, put a walking path up
there. And do something to benefit the neighborhood, instead of
taking and going down into the remote area of the neighborhood and
trying to put a park in a little piece of the property. That doesn't get
it. Why wouldn't you go there where you've destroyed it already, all
the trees and everything in the area, and put your -- if you have to
spend the money on a park, put a walking path up there, put a
chin-up bar up there, put sit-ups and everything and put a retaining
wall up there and keep Livingston Woods the same.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, I'd love to continue this
conversation, if --
MR. BOAKS: I'm asking you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- you would call my office. I'm not
MR. BOAKS: I want to do it in front of the people. Why don't
you answer that question?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, very simple, sir. The area that
Page 187
March 11, 2003
was cleared -- and I did send a letter because I asked staff to take a
look of (sic) other ways to create a water retention area for
Livingston Road other than cutting down the trees. They did. They
could not. The trees that were standing there, the roots were damaged
and, therefore, they all had to come down. That area is going to be
water retention, okay?
MR. BOAKS: Well, why did we receive a letter that the trees
were still going to stand?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The letter that I sent out was staff
was going to take a look at to see if the trees could remain. They're
going to look into it, okay?
MR. BOAKS: Thank you for your time. Let the majority rule,
please.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Chuck McMahon. He will
be followed by Kim Kirby.
Kim Kirby? Following Kim will be Martie Lesson.
MS. KIRBY: My name is Kim Kirby, and I live on Sable Ridge
Lane.
I'm here to express my disappointment and concern that the
commission has deemed it necessary to revisit whether the residents
of Livingston Woods want a neighborhood park or not.
As I understand it, the reason we are here is because of a
petition that was brought to the board one month ago and that this
petition put some doubt into the commission's mind about the
residents' desires.
I would like to make a few brief points about my
disappointment and concern. First, I'm a little bit puzzled about why,
after two close ballot votes, all affirming the desire by the majority
for a neighborhood park, a vocal minority feels the need to go against
the majority's wishes. No one likes it when they are on the losing
end of an election, but it is in a democracy that we need to learn to
Page 188
March 11,2003
move on.
Secondly, I would like to talk about the petition, which is what
got the commission's attention in the first place. As I understand it,
the petitioners communicated that they had 130 signatures of people
who did not want the park. I requested a copy of the petition, which
I have provided you, and spent the better part of the morning looking
it over and comparing it to the tax records of our neighborhood. It
turns out there were 117 signatures, but only 73 households
represented. How can this be? In about 25 to 30 incidences, multiple
people from one house signed, from the same -- or the same person
signed two times, three times, and then one and since four separate
times. There are also many instances where the last names don't
match the tax records.
To say that this petition is a little suspect would be an
understatement. It bothers me that these tactics would be used to
overturn the majority's wishes.
I also question the validity of a face-to-face petition as a polling
device anyway. Many people find it intimidating and at the very
least awkward to take a stand contrary to that of the petitioner. I
remember a few months ago being approached by those opposed to
the park. I had never met them before, and when it became obvious
they were strongly opposed to the park and the negative comments
that were made, I was reluctant to express my positive feelings about
the park.
Third, I find the main concerns voiced by the petitioners a bit
amusing. They concern -- they express a concern about the wisdom
of locating a recreation area next to 1-75, yet right across the
interstate we have the huge Vineyard Elementary School and park.
They express a concern about the destruction of wild habitat for
animals, yet they propose that the county sell the parcel for a home
development. Which would be more destructive to said habitat?
They express a concern about noise, yet they live on a noisy
Page 189
March 11, 2003
interstate. They express a concern about crime, yet the county has
presented statistics that neighborhood parks actually deter or reduce
crime. These points of concern just don't seem to hold water.
Finally, I am disappointed that this vocal minority is willing to
pass on a valuable neighborhood improvement for personal reasons,
when the majority of us would be thrilled to have it. This is a
neighborhood bordered on three sides by a major six-lane road. And
I was looking forward to having a recreation area that my kids could
ride our bikes to without being exposed to dangerous traffic. As it is,
my kids always feel like there is nothing to do outside, and they too
were looking forward to having this park.
On behalf of the majority who voted for the park, I am asking
that you put an end to the selfish call to reconsider the voters'
mandate and to continue to move forward on the planning and
construction of our park. Thank you for your time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Martie Lesson. She will be
followed by Dawn Lange.
MS. LESSON: Hi. My name is Martie Lesson. We're missing
one. Do I need to wait? Is he gone for the day?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He got tired.
MS. LESSON: I don't blame him. I'll tell you, this has been
terrible on all of us. People that used to say hi to me don't even say hi
to me anymore in my neighborhood if they know that I'm for the
park.
I have three children and yes, I am for the park, but I would like
to say, not at anybody's expense. We never intended this to go as far
as it did. Maybe I'm naive, maybe the picture of this, even though it
is only two and three-quarter acres, that picture just sounded so
wonderful to all of us, not even just all the families that have
children, but there are quite a few people in our neighborhood whose
children are gone who even told us they would use the park.
We have talked -- I've heard so much about the trash down on
Page 190
March 11, 2003
SolI Street. Well, guess what? I live on Bottlebrush Lane. There is
a vacant lot next to me. I've been there for 15 years. The amount of
garbage and empty beer bottles. And we found coolers full of
alcoholic bottles before in this wooded lot. Those kids are going to
go to these wooded lots.
We're hoping -- and like I said, I'm going to repeat it, maybe I'm
naive, but we're hoping if this lot is cleared, it's actually going to
deter these children.
Now, I know a lot of people are saying well, you are invading
our privacy, we don't want this park right next to us. People have
asked me, how would you feel if that park was next to you? Guess
what? I would love it. I have at any given time 10, 12 boys. I have
all boys, between their friends and cousins and other neighborhoods.
I would love to send them off to a park to play to get them out of my
hair.
But it's not that easy. I know you can't repurchase property. So
we're told if this park is down, there's not a chance again. That park
is going to be eliminated, the money's going to be spent elsewhere,
and possibly to another neighborhood who needs a park.
I disagree with several things. We do not all have parks in our
backyard. I don't have a tennis court, I don't have a basketball court.
Granted, we do have a driveway and my kids rollerblade. Well, it's
not -- you know, the driveway's only that wide, you're not going to
get a whole lot of ramps in that amount of space. So I take the kids
out to skate parks, take them to Vineyards Park. You know, a lot of
people do have horses, they've got -- we all have bikes.
But if you make this a passive park with just a bike path, you're
still going to have to eliminate all of that pepper hedge, which then
there is no barrier whatsoever. Then the budget calls -- well, okay,
let's -- how about if we put some more landscaping up there? We
never got so far, unfortunately -- as Marla had said, we had planned
on getting a committee to actually start planning this park back in
Page 191
March 11,2003
January, which is when every red flag possible went up. So we never
got so far as to say okay, the people that are right next to this
property, they're afraid of, you know, kids being there and making
too much noise and causing too much commotion.
And I know you've heard all about the homeless coming there.
But we don't have any proof of this. If for one minute I thought that
this was going to harm the entire neighborhood, I wouldn't be
standing here. We've heard all of these claims, but where are they
coming from?
Actually, there was one park that was visited, and this is where
all the claims from -- this was a park way out in East Naples that has
nothing to do with Livingston Woods. And yes, there is trouble at the
ends of these streets. Like I said, there's trouble on my street. But if
we clear -- somewhat clear this lot, give the kids a place to go. We
can't ride our A TV's in the neighborhood because it's illegal. We
used to years ago. N ow every time an A TV is on the road, there's a
couple of neighbors that call the sheriffs. My kids have actually --
the sheriffs have been called on them for riding a motorized scooter.
We had a couple of people in the neighborhood that called the
sheriffs department because four boys were on bikes and two of
them rode into their culvert. They called the sheriff. They actually
followed them home, then called the sheriffs.
You know, they want to take this, too. Not that we have it,
because in a sense we don't. But what are these kids supposed to do?
You know, we are surrounded. And we were told years ago we're
going to get the park. Now they're saying no, you're not going to get
it. And I know that I'm out of time and I'm sorry, but I have one more
thing that my boys sat down -- we were trying to make everybody
happy . We've got a space here that is completely natural. This
happens to be the Browns' house over here, and we can leave a good
portion of that undisturbed. They will still have their privacy. In
fact, the amount of space that we have left here is actually wider than
Page 192
March 11,2003
an average size lot in our neighborhood. And granted, you know,
we're not going to get all of these basketball and tennis courts and
volleyball courts, but there's just -- there's so much that can be done
with this that unfortunately people have not even heard this side of it.
They've heard all the negative things.
And we're here because we just want people to know that a
neighborhood park can and should be a positive experience.
Anyway, thank you for your time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dawn Lange. She will be
followed by Mike Madigan.
MS. LANGE: Hi. Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Dawn
Lange and I live on Bottlebrush Lane and Livingston Road. I'm a
park supporter.
One weekend in January, Julie Sturdivent and Mrs. Brown rode
up in a golf cart with a letter to the residents of Livingston Woods
and a petition to sign. At the time I was in my car on the way out
when Mrs. Sturdivent cited her reasons not to support the park. Her
letter stated problems with drugs, alcohol, predators driving into our
neighborhood from other areas to kidnap our children, environmental
damage and other fears. At the time I never thought about the drug
use, the alcohol and kidnapping, so in that case I thought, oh, wow,
I'll sign, because I was really worried about it. But later that day I
told my husband, who always supports the park, what Julie
Sturdivent had told me. He said think about it, Dawn, they don't
want the park located next to them.
Well, Wednesday , January 8th, I attended the meeting at the
Golden Gate Community Center held to form a committee of
homeowners to develop a site plan. At that meeting I spoke with
Marla Ramsey and Steve Whittier about the problems Mrs.
Sturdivent cited. Mrs. Ramsey stated there would be no vehicle
parking at the park. There would be a bike rack, though. So problem
number one for me is no longer an issue, if vehicle parking is not
Page 193
March 11,2003
allowed.
I asked about the problem with drugs and alcohol use at the
park. Both Mr. Whittier and Ms. Ramsey stated that since the county
owns the land, anyone using drugs or alcohol will be arrested on a
felony charge that also would extend 1,000 feet from the park
boundary. Plus the park would be closed from dusk to dawn. So
problem number two will be handled by the sheriffs department.
As to the issue regarding kidnapping, you know, that really
could be avoided if parents supervised their children. Caring parents
go to the park with their children and watch them play.
I attended the commission meeting on February 11 tho Before
the meeting, I spoke with Mr. and Mrs. Sturdivent and told them that
since I really did want the park and found those problems could and
would be handled efficiently, I felt I needed to strike my name from
their petition, which I did do at the time. After the meeting, I spoke
with Mr. Sturdivent, I told him that my daughter would love to have
a volleyball court in our yard, but because we live in a wetlands area,
we would be hard-pressed, following county laws, to cut down
cypress trees and fill an area of approximately 50 foot by 80 foot,
that's about 4,000 square foot, so my daughter could play in her yard.
We don't have that ability.
Mark said that they had a volleyball court and my daughter was
welcome to come to their yard and play anytime. Well now I'm
confused, why is it okay for my daughter to play in their yard but not
next door in the neighborhood park? You know, I'm the person that's
going to be using the park, my daughter is the person that's going to
be using the park, and in the future, God willing, my grandchildren
will use the park.
Now, I've got some questions. Four years ago when the park
was first proposed, did the Sturdivents take a stand? What was it?
Did they only oppose the park when they found out it was going to
be located next to them? Would they even care if the park was
Page 194
March 11, 2003
located next to me? I would really like it located next to me.
I really don't want the not-in-my-backyard mentality to overrule
this park. The nearest park for us is the Vineyards located along 75
with the traffic and signal lights. That three-mile drive, apparently it
is, takes us approximately 15 minutes with the lights and signals.
Okay, I'd rather walk or bike to a park than drive.
The land for our park consists of approximately 2.73 acres, if I
have that correct. If a basketball, volleyball or tennis court was built,
the court area is approximately 28 percent of one acre. The rest of
the park could be passive use and preserved land, and they -- and I'm
sure that the Parks can do a fine job fixing it up nicely.
Now, I'm confident that the County Parks and Recreation will
adequately maintain the park, and with the sheriffs department on
patrol in our neighborhood, they will do their job, too. Thank you
all.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. LANGE: And if you'd like to see the letter? Would you
like it?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MS. LANGE: This is why I was kind of worried. You know,
I'm running out the door and I saw that, and I was just really --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I'll give it back to you.
MR. STURDIVENT: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can address the commission
after all the public speakers.
MR. STURDIVENT: I'm sorry, I just have one quick question.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mike Madigan, and he will
be followed by your final speaker, Ellie Madigan.
MR. MADIGAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Michael Madigan, I live on Bottlebrush Lane, in Livingston
Woods. My wife and I have lived there full-time residents for the last
12 years. Wonderful years, and we have loved the area that we live
Page 195
March 11, 2003
.
In.
Please do not presume that the objections to this park are
founded on a fear of neighborhood crime. This is an erroneous and a
fallacious argument on the part of the supporters of the park. The
residents who took it upon themselves to survey their neighborhoods
did not attempt to use crime in the neighborhood as a foundation for
their objections. No one, however, can deny that there is a
possibility of homeless people camping out for the evening in this
county park. There are far better reasons for not creating this park.
One, the county position that the survey sent out by the county
clearly demonstrate that the Livingston Woods residents desire a
county park in their neighborhood is inaccurate. First of all, this
survey was not sent out to every property owner. As a matter of fact,
one of them sits here today.
Secondly, the survey did not require the individual property
owner to designate his residence and sign the document. Anyone
could have reproduced copies, marked them as favoring the park, and
sent them in. This cannot be considered a valid survey. It should be
a goal of this commission to ensure that the majority of the residents
in this neighborhood desire this park.
Two, the vast majority of the Livingston Road residents live on
2.73 acres of land. This is adequate for the relatively few children in
the community on which to recreate.
Three, the construction of this park will cost in the aggregate in
excess of $200,000 before it is completed, and untold maintenance
costs per anum thereafter. This is another example of taxpayers'
money directed to projects which have little or no benefit.
And I understand there was a discussion about a shortfall,
monetary shortfall in the county today. We think that this money
could be better spent in other areas.
Four, the park as designed will not have vehicle parking. Most
of the parents who drive their children to the end of the respective
Page 196
March 11,2003
roads to wait for the school bus, if the children won't walk to the
school bus, are they going to walk the other direction to this park? I
think not.
I don't believe this park will be utilized as it's anticipated, and I
don't think we can justify spending this money for a facility which
will be used by a mere handful, if that.
The noise issue has been discussed many times.
And finally, please do not spend the taxpayers' money on this
project until there is proof positive that the majority of the residents
are in favor of it. And those who are opposed to it, I ask them all to
stand up. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Ellie Madigan.
MS. MADIGAN: Good afternoon. I agree with -- I'm not going
to take much time, because everything I wanted to say has been said
by those who are against the park.
But one thing I did want to clarify: One of the points made that
we don't have to worry because the park will be closed from dusk to
dawn, and then we have the police to take care of it. All the
immediate neighbors -- I live a mile from the park, and I'm against
the park. People in the immediate area will have the burden, and it
will be a burden, to police that park. And you call the police -- and I
live very near Mrs. Lesson, and I have had the same parties that she's
had next door to her. And by the time the police come, they're gone.
Now, you're putting the burden on the immediate neighbors. They
have to be the policemen. And I think you're putting them in a very
bad position.
I'm against it. I live a mile away. There is no way I would walk
my grandchildren down to that park. If I would have to put them in a
car, and if I'm going to put them in a car, I can't park down there. I
still would drive the three miles to go to the Vineyards Park where I
have every facility that a child would want.
Again, just to repeat, if I wanted to go to a park, but I live in a
Page 197
March 11,2003'
park. And this is a piece of property far smaller than most of our
properties. And thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Real short, Mark, please.
MR. STURDIVENT: Yes. Thank you for your time. Again,
Mark Sturdivent.
Couple comments real quickly that I want to make. One, I have
been against this park from the very beginning; one, because I've
done my research. I've seen the other parks, I've seen what goes on.
I support my neighborhood entirely. I wouldn't want this on any
neighbor who doesn't want it. If Martie or Dawn Lange both came to
me and said hey, I need help with an issue in my neighborhood or on
my end of the street or anything else, they have my word that I am
there beside them as their neighbor, no matter what the issue. I will
listen to their concerns and I will support my entire neighborhood.
The next question I have a concern about is Dawn had made a
point that she was told that because this being a county prop --
county park, there is an ordinance about alcohol within 1,000 feet of
it. Obviously I live 60 feet from the park, are you telling me that I'm
not allowed to have a beer in my backyard with my neighbors? I'm
concerned.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Ramsey will address that.
MS. RAMSEY: Not directly I won't, but--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Sturdivent.
MS. RAMSEY: -- that has to do with drugs. And there are
neighborhoods where we do have some problems where we've
actually -- the sheriffs department has asked us to have some parks --
Copeland happens to be one of those. And the reason for putting the
park in that, not only for the neighborhood but also, it elevates the
crime of drug to a felony if it's within 1,000 feet of a park site.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I know Mr. Sturdivent is not
going to use drugs. I know him personally.y
Page 198
March 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some other -- a couple
other questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please.
MR. STURDIVENT: Are there any questions for me? I'm
sorry .
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not as of yet. I'm just trying to
address some questions I have here.
The first speaker, Jesse Barrett there, was talking about the level
of noise that's located at this area where the park would go in. Have
there been sound level measurements taken?
MS. RAMSEY: Not yet, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Any kind of criteria established?
MS. RAMSEY: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned that could the
county get their money out of this piece of property, as far as selling
it back as a home site?
MS. RAMSEY: I've come prepared to share with you--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that other question --
MR. STURDIVENT: I'll offer assistance, if you need it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the other question I would
like to know is what is the distance or the buffer zone from 1-75, the
roadway of 1-75, to where the park would be?
MS. RAMSEY: In this particular -- first let me go to the first
question --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
MS. RAMSEY: -- which is what I have up on the thing. The
tax roll, as you can see, which I've pulled off of the property
appraiser's website, shows the land value currently at $191,100. And
you will see that the purchase price, as they have it rounded, was
$96,900.
To clarify the $85,000, for those that wish to hear that, the
$85,000 was the budgeted dollar amount we had when we came
Page 199
March 11, 2003
before the board for a park site. That number was brought to the
board, and because of the price of the property and the appraisal
price that it came in, additional funds were added to that location. So
the first one had to do with the budgeted number, not the purchase
pnce.
I go back to this one here. If you look at -- if I understand your
question, it's -- this parcel right here between 1-75 and this line is 50
feet. And then from here on over, our property line, which it actually
shows it out to the roadway, but it's truly not, it's 180 by 656 long.
Does that answer the question?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not really. The buffer zone from
the roadway of 1-75 to the property line.
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah, from 1-75 to the property line is 50 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fifty feet? Okay, that answers the
question then.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there anything else, Commissioner
Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, go ahead, maybe there's other
questions, I can come back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Sturdivent.
MR. STURDIVENT: Anything else?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
MR. STURDIVENT: Are you sure?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. STURDIVENT: I'll be happy to add.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I appreciate it, but we'd have to ask
you to join up here if we continue this conversation.
MR. STURDIVENT: I'd be happy to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sure you would. Thank
you.
MR. STURDIVENT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll switch with him.
Page 200
March 11,2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- Ms. Ramsey, the issue about
crime in the area and camping, homeless camping, is a valid concern
of the residents. Do you have any response to that?
MS. RAMSEY: Not really. I don't know how to respond to the
homeless issue that would be happening in the park itself. I don't
know of homeless living in any of our park sites.
I also asked the sheriffs department at one point to share with
me any information that they might have about the number of crime
cases that they've had in neighborhood parks. They weren't able to
generate that for me. I also asked them how many crime calls
they've had to this particular location, this lot, which they could not
provide me as well. All they could provide was 9-1-1 calls to the
Livingston area, which I really wasn't interested in.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The concern that people have
said was so we're going to spend taxpayers' money to improve this
property, only to allow people to come over there, drink and smoke
and use dope and camp out there, homeless people. Is the county
prepared to address those issues?
MS. RAMSEY: We do address those issues. We have a group
of rangers that are assigned to neighborhood and community parks
that do range -- go through a certain set of -- each evening a certain
set that they go through to go into each park site, to drive by each
park site. But they're doing that in order to make sure that the
participants that are there are safe. We do that till about 10:30-ish,
somewhere in that area. So -- and that's for the parks of course that
are open until 10: 00 at night.
Neighborhood parks don't have lights, we don't encourage
lights. Although some people want them for security, like Naples
Manor recently asked us to put in a security light at that particular
location. Each location is a little bit different.
The reason for not putting lights in the locations, we don't want
the people to be in the park after dark. When it's dark, that's when
Page 201
March 11,2003
the park is closed.
The sheriffs office works very, very well with us. And if they
do see children or adults or anyone in a park after the closing and it is
posted, they have the right to remove them from that location.
Would they have the same right on an empty lot in that
neighborhood? Maybe not. That would be a question for the
sheriffs office. But in a park site that is posted that has dawn to dusk
kinds of hours on it and they see someone there, they can have them
removed. So that is one way that we would address that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I believe it's if you have your
property posted no trespassing, then the sheriffs department can
remove that person from your property, if you so request.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I can see where I made a mistake on the
survey that I sent out. I was very clear now where there was some
mistakes in there (sic), but I can tell you the results of it was very
favorable. And I can see where there is on the survey the Sturdivents
and the Browns did, it shows that it is not favorable. But there's I
guess questions about the validity of the survey that the Sturdivents
did.
One thing that I wasn't in favor of but County Manager Jim
Mudd suggested it, is resurveying the residents. I wasn't in favor of
that to begin with because I thought that the residents have been
surveyed enough, that this board should make a decision. But I can
see where there is some questions about the validity of the survey
that the little girl sent out, the survey that I did, and then the survey
that the Sturdivents and Browns did. So I would hope that my
colleagues could see it favorably to do a resurvey.
Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Some of the things that I'm
concerned about here -- and of course I haven't made my mind up; all
I'm trying to do is get additional input into this -- and that is that a
few years ago there was a big mistake that was made by county
Page 202
March 11, 2003
commissioners whereby a group were very boisterous in regards to a
particular community that wanted to get their road closed off.
We have to remember that the decision that we make today is
not a decision that's going to be only for today. It can be for quite a
long time. We're going to have probably somewheres in the category
of 700 to 750,000 people maybe some day in this community by the
year 2024, so when we look at the possibility of getting rid of this
land and to appease a group of people, and at this time they say this
is the majority, you must realize that if we lose this land and we
decide to sell it, that the potential or the possibility of acquiring land
at a later date, when we find that it's more difficult to get around in
the community, whereby to buy land for a park may not be there.
So there's a lot of things that need to be put inside this equation
before we come up with a result on this. Whether we should go for
another survey, again, that's time and money by staff and by
everybody involved in this thing. Maybe we need to. We've already
had three surveys. And every one of them -- in fact, we've had four
surveys, it looks like, and every one of them has for some reason or
another has seemed to be tainted. I realize this is Florida, we've gone
through a lot of problems with election processes --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There may be a chance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and we're hoping that maybe
one of these days we can get it right and maybe we can start off by
this neighborhood.
But anyway, I just want to make sure that everybody realizes
that if we make a decision today in regards to this and then -- or if we
don't make a decision today, but whenever the decision is made, that
this decision is going to be steadfast for a long period of time. And
there may be a change in the community whereby somebody comes
back five years from now and says why did the commission do this?
So, I mean, we're looking at the whole general picture, we're
trying to look out in the future to make sure that the citizens here are
Page 203
March 11,2003
well accommodated. So that's one thing that you have to make sure
of, okay?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I too -- I don't have a
decision at all, but a couple comments I wanted to make, and then I'll
make my final comment.
First, each side claims they're the majority. I heard that from
both sides. How do we know who the majority is?
I think your idea, by the way, is a good one, to do -- but this
time a positive survey with -- you know, anyway, they said -- I guess
on behalf of the county, we were responding to what we thought the
neighborhood wanted, and that's why we went forward with this. I
thought myself that parks are a good place for kids and families to
get to know one another, and it creates a sense of neighborhood,
which I think is really important. And they can't really freely go to
somebody else. You might have a park in your yard, but then maybe
another family doesn't. You can't just go over there and enjoy your
neighbor's property unless you're invited or they're home or
something.
And it sounds like there's already a litter and homeless problem
in the area, from all of the things that we've heard.
But I think it's the smart thing to do on our part. I don't want to
spend taxpayer dollars to build a park that isn't wanted, quite frankly,
but I think we ought to get a correct survey, one that we can feel -- if
there are 151 homes, we should at least have 140 responses. And
then we'll have a good feel for the neighborhood. And if they say
they don't want it, fine with me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I support your idea,
Commissioner Henning, of resurveying the residents. What I would
suggest, I don't support putting down the person's name on the
survey, I think that's an invasion of their privacy.
Page 204
March 11, 2003
I would suggest, though, that the surveys be numbered so that
somebody can't run them off on a copy machine, and that would
prevent the problem of duplicate surveys being made and turned in
and the results being screwed (sic).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? I'm just going
down the line.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're not going to want to hear
this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I always value your input.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know what we're doing
here. You know, this is not worth the effort to ram this park into this
neighborhood when we are destroying relationships, people who
previously were neighbors and I think probably good friends are now
enemies? You know, why are we doing this? I'm sure there must be
-- (applause) - now, wait a minute, don't get your hopes up yet, okay,
because one thing I'm going to tell you is this is in Commissioner
Henning's district, and I have always been guided very much by the
desires of the commissioner in whose district these issues exist.
But -- and I'll go along with the resurvey, but I'll tell you the
honest truth, there have got to be places in this county where people
are crying for parks. You know, let's go find some of those people
and make sure it's in Commissioner Henning's district, because I'm
sure he's got some people who would like it. I don't want to take this
money away from Commissioner Henning.
But I don't know, I'm flabbergasted by this whole thing, and I
think we're just making people angry, and it's not worth it for me to
build a park there. But I'll go -- I'll be guided by your desires on this,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Actually, issues like this tend to
bring, even if they're at odds, it brings the neighborhood together.
And on both sides, if I talked to both sides, they say we
understand the other side. Well, they're at odds, but it has brought
Page 205
March 11, 2003
them together.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good. I hope so.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And it is still a friendly discussion
between the two parties.
So be it as it may, I would hope that we can give staff direction
to conduct a unbiased survey. Mr. Mudd, I think maybe the proper
way to do it is to get both sides together and say okay, this is what
the survey says, do you have any objections.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good idea. Good idea.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay? Is that the majority of the
. .
commISSIoners --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think that--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I just -- the only thing I'd
like to interj ect in this thing is I hope that we don't keep carrying this
on and on and on, that we come to a conclusion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I think we need to make a
decision from this.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one parting comment.
When this is over, be it a park, or be it the neighbor's yard, I think
you ought to put on a barbeque for them and cook the hamburgers.
Just to bring them all together.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'd have to do it at the Vineyards
Park or the new neighborhood park.
Okay, we're going to take a five-minute break.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, everybody take their seats,
please. I understand that we're blessed with the presence of the
Livingston Woods residents because they would like to see a motion.
Page 206
March 11, 2003
So Commissioner Coyle I think is ready to make a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion that we resurvey the residents, and that in the preparation of
that survey, we have residents from both sides of this issue who can
review the questionnaire to make sure that it accurately presents the
issue in an unbiased manner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'll second that motion.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0. And the motion
maker was Commissioner Coy Ie, seconded by myself.
Next item.
Item #10H
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE AND ADVERTISE ORDINANCES AUTHORIZING
THE EXTENSION OF THE FIVE AND SIX CENTS LOCAL
OPTION GAS TAXES AND THE VOTED (9TH CENT) GAS TAX
=...AEER OVEn
MR. MUDD: Next item, Commissioner, is 10(H). We -- this
was an item that was brought to you in the February time frame. It
was paragraph three that you pulled out because you wanted to talk
about the dollars and the impact for the second bonding issue, which
we talked about at the workshop on the 28th of February.
And we have to go out for readvertisement. You told us to go do
that. That's what item 10(H) is. And it directs the county attorney to
prepare that ordinance and get it advertised.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to make a motion for
Page 207
March 11,2003
approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was easy. Did you spend an
awful lot of time here today, Mike?
Item #101
RESOLUTION 2003-117 RE: AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION
2000-455 WHICH ESTABLISHED A FEE SCHEDULE OF
DEVELOPMENT RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING FEES
AS PROVIDED FOR IN DIVISION 1.10 OF THE COLLIER
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is 10(1), proposed
amendments of Resolution 2000-455, which establishes a fee
schedule for development services and related review stuff.
MR. SCHMITT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, I'm Joe Schmitt, community development and environmental
services administrator.
Before you today is a proposal to approve and amend the fee
schedule for building permits at the development review process.
You're certainly aware of the majority of operations in Collier
County in community development and environmental services
division are funded by fee revenue, that is, fees paid by those people
engaging services of the community development division.
As directed by Florida statutes, fees collected as part of the land
Page 208
March 11,2003
development and building construction process are segregated into
their own fund, Fund 113, which is an enterprise fund here in Collier
County, and can only be used to fund the cost of incurring -- of costs
incurred in regulating and servicing the land development and
building construction process. By divisions, planning review and
approval process, engineering review and approval process,
environmental review and building review and inspection services,
are all funded by Fund 113.
As part of the process, it's my goal to ensure that each service
are (sic) fully supported by our customers, that is, those paying for
and receiving our services. And the fees charged reflect the
division's cost of providing these services and not more. Currently
about 70 percent of my personnel costs or my payroll costs right now
are personnel costs funded by Fund 113.
I'm here before the board today seeking your approval of an
amendment of our rate schedule, because our operating expenses
have far exceeded the revenue.
As the chart indicated, and I'll show you the chart, what
basically has happened here, for the public and for the viewing
public, what's happened here is basically my expenses early last year,
my expenses began to far exceed revenue. And that's the revenue
generated under Fund 113.
I programmed the 26 percent increase for the fiscal year '03
budget, but given the complexity issue and lack of adequate business
processes within the division, it's taken over six months to evaluate
and justify the requirements.
Since August, 2002, I reviewed the entire budgeting and
financing process with the productivity committee, and over the
succeeding months with the Collier building industry association, and
the development services advisory committee, at both the
sub-committee and full-committee levels, and conducted a public
meeting on the issue on January 15th, 2003.
Page 209
March 11, 2003
Initially my intent was to come before the board to request an
increase in the building valuation table, the tables used to calculate
building permit fees. And then as part of the '04 budget, to request
and seek corresponding increases and planning, engineering and
environmental review fees.
However, due to the increased operating costs, coupled with an
approximately 16 percent reduction in building permit revenue this
year, I have no alternative but to seek both the approval -- both an
approval to update the construction valuation tables and increase the
majority of the development services fees.
The division has been operated (sic) on a monthly loss of
approximately $400,000 a month. And that's what's showing is this
chart. Basically our operating expenses again have frankly exceeded
revenue.
Ifwe continue on the same path, we'll end up at about a 4.8
million dollar loss for this year, meaning we'll dip in the reserves, all
of which will come from our Fund 113 operations.
Bottom line, frankly, I can't wait until fiscal year '04 to solve the
problem. I briefed the DSAC last week, that the proposal that -- that
my proposal today would include both an increase in our
development services fees, as well as a proposal for the -- to change
the construction valuation tables. Some of the members certainly
were riot happy, because all along I've been talking about just raising
the valuation tables.
But it should be no surprise, because I've been working with the
DSAC for almost eight months now, as we begin to solidify our
business processes within the division. And at one time I even
projected that in order to balance -- and what I was really looking at
doing is trying to balance income and revenue, or expenses and
revenue for each of my major departments, building permit --
building department, engineering department, and planning
department. And I said in order to do that, I would probably need to
Page 210
March 11,2003
raise planning fees almost 375 percent. But we have not done that.
No doubt your first question's going to come to mind, are we
overstaffed? No, we're not real overstaffed. There has been a
downturn in permits over the past four months, but frankly, the
workload has not slowed down.
Three, the land development code amendment cycles this year,
expanded community and public participation, neighborhood
meetings, demands for engineering and planning services time and
resources to meet requirements placed by the board, by yourselves,
projects such as the Vanderbilt Beach overlay study, which frankly
was funded and paid for completely out of Fund 113; the U.S. 41
corridor overlay study; the Naples Park community character study; a
significant issue, the eastern lands and rural fringe transmittal
adoption and associated development and implementation policy,
some of which is funded by Fund 113; transportation concurrency
policy development; and a significant growth in the number of public
meetings to include the environmental advisory council, Collier
County Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners.
And I think of interest we've heard talk that gee, when you look
at the growth in meetings, and this -- it's a chart, but it shows the
planning commission, environmental advisory council and the Board
of County Commissioners. Last year we had a combination of 133
meetings that staff supported, which again when you're talking about
payroll and you're talking about staff supporting government and
good government, we went from 78 to 133, if you look from fiscal
year '00 to fiscal year '03. And in fact, you met 63 times last year, 63
times the Board of County Commissioners, in some aspect. And
some people have said, gee, they ought to meet weekly. Well, I'd like
to see them meet weekly. At least then it would only have been 54
times.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Five-two.
Page 211
March 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you need a consensus of the
commission?
MR. SCHMITT: Fifty-two, thank you. I -- take my shoes off.
Yes?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was just joking with you, Joe.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I will also say to you that Joe has
come in with a change that is not probably where it needs to be
totally. Originally he went in front of the productivity committee
with the whole process, with the 378 percent increase to planning and
some other things like that. And Joe had a two-year or three-year
period of implementation, and productivity committee said forget
that three-year implementation, do it all right now.
And what Joe presented was the fact that he needed a little bit
more time to get his hands on the definite particulars in planning to
make sure that he's got a good nexus between what's being done in
that estimate that came forward for his folks, and he wanted to make
sure, because it goes under the microscope when it comes out here in
front of the public, and he wanted to do that over a series of years. I
will tell you, productivity committee said no, do it all right now.
I don't agree with that recommendation yet, because Joe does
not have the -- every detail that he's going to need in order to support
a 300 percent increase in planning fees. And I've chartered Joe to go
after that over the next six months to get his hands around those costs
so that he can come back to the board early on in '04 so I'm not here
in March in '04 going, you know, I really needed that money early on
and, you know, I'm here at this particular juncture. So he's got some
work ahead of him in that process. But what he's got here in front of
you today, Commissioners, is what he can support as far as increases
are concerned with hard data.
MR. SCHMITT: In that regard, frankly, it's a matter of getting
our arms around the process. And some of the -- where the Fund 113
goes. And you're going to hear from David Ellis, probably, in
Page 212
March 11, 2003
regards to looking how that fund was utilized.
But the process is to come to you during the budget cycle and
identify those things that are justifiably defendable under Fund 113.
And those things that need to be looked at for other sources of
revenue, we'll do that.
But I want to talk a little bit about what's happened to our costs.
Our external costs have gone up significantly, and those are the costs
to pay for the necessary legal support, transportation review services
and the administrative support services that we receive throughout
the county.
What this chart shows in the yellow is the fee revenue, and the
red is the personnel cost. So when you look at my personnel costs
within the division, they've pretty much kept pace.
What's happened, if you look at the base year '96, external costs,
that is those costs that are placed upon my division to pay for the --
as I said, the legal services, the other type of activities. Most of the
support that I received within the county has gone up considerably.
In fact, exponentially. And I have details on that that I could bore
you with, but that's frankly the results.
One element of our building permit fees within Collier County,
frankly, is the fees that are based on the construction value for
individual projects.
But what basically happens is as we -- the tables are established
by the southern building code congress international, and those
values are called the construction valuation tables.
When community development one-stop shop permitting
function was implemented in 1989, the most recent version of those
tables published for 1988 were basically used and put into effect.
Despite the substantial increases in construction costs since 1988, we
have not updated the valuation tables that we used to calculate
building permits. As a result, we've been grossly underreporting
construction values within the county. For example, we estimate that
Page 213
March 11, 2003
we underreported construction values by some $700 million last year
and approximately $3.2 billion since 1996. That is -- that's just
figures that we report, but it's basically why have we stayed with the
1988 tables?
And basically the county's building review permitting -- their
building review and permitting department is probably one of the
most efficient and effective in the state. The reason we've not
changed the valuation tables, because the building department is an
income earner, and as such, subsidizes the planning and engineering
departments. Frankly, as shown in -- and I'll just show this chart
here, basically as shown is the building department has earned about
$2.4 million over what they need. Likewise, if you look at planning
and engineering, is basically a deficit. And as a result, I'm using
money that I'm collecting for building permits to augment what I
really should be collecting for the planning services and engineering
servIces.
My intent when I arrived on-board was to try and balance those
business processes. And we're looking at that, and I've been working
with the industry, I've been working with CBIA, and they're very
supportive of that, but it's a way of at least defining and paying for
services provided.
A division was set up purposely for that -- or like that several
years ago, because when you're talking about 26,000 permitted
activities, you can raise a little bit by tacking a little bit on those
building permits to augment the planning process. But we're looking
at trying to balance those, because frankly what the complaint is now
is are we possibly overcharging.
We are currently almost $2 million under-funded this year, and
if I continue to dip into reserves, frankly what's going to happen is I
will end the year probably about $710,000.
When you look at my reserves starting this year, almost $11
million, but some of that is through capital investment projects, such
Page 214
March 11,2003
as the new building and our improved business protocol or business
software that we're purchasing. But if I continue along the same line,
I will bum almost all of my reserves.
Now, why do I keep reserves? I have to have reserves to pay
for services provided.
When an applicant purchases a building permit, they're actually
purchasing future inspections on a proj ect. And I have to retain a
certain portion in reserves in order to make payroll in future years. If
everything in Collier County stopped tomorrow and I still had to
retain my building inspectors, I have to pay for those inspectors out
of the Fund 113. The permit pays for that.
So that's with -- actually with the increase in fees, I could stem
the tide and slow that rate. I need to bum some of the reserves, and I
know that, and that's why we're going to spend this fiscal year
looking at the reserves and deciding at what rate should we continue
to bum those reserves. Because we had an excessive amount of
reserves. And we're still trying to determine what actual amount
should be retained, three-and-a-half, four months' worth of operating
revenue.
Approval of the evaluation tables will basically generate
sufficient income to slow down on the draw of the reserves, and we
project that we'll end the year as shown here about $7.8 million.
Specifically addressing the construction valuation tables, I've
talked about that. As shown on the chart, and this is just the chart
where we talked about valuation tables, the -- where we show the
growth and valuation, basically what's happened is underreporting
construction values, and this is where last year alone it was about
almost $700 million in underreported.
Now, what's going to happen when we change the construction
valuation tables? As shown in this chart, and this is just an example,
but on the bold portion, and let me -- if you could zoom right down
in on there, Jim, thank you.
Page 215
March 11,2003
The -- what's shown on the following chart under the
construction valuation tables, the average building permit, we're
looking at a 2,600 square foot home is about $570 right now for a
building permit. And when we change the valuation tables to use the
tables from calendar year '02, that will rise to about $715 for a
building permit, which represents about a 25 and a half percent
Increase.
Now, in regards to planning, engineering and environmental
review fees and fees associated with land use petitions, with the
exception of a brief increase in calendar year 2000, which was later
repealed in full, none of the fees in CDS, in the community
development services, have increased since the -- frankly, the
establishment of the fee schedule in 1995.
There has, over the intervening eight years, been an increase in
cost of providing required and needed services in the community.
And you certainly know that.
As I previously displayed, these costs are primarily due to
external costs, but of course we kept up with personnel expenses as
well, and the staff has grown to meet the demand placed on the
community development.
Thus at this point we believe it is necessary to ensure that those
increased costs are borne by those who receive our services, and
that's the development industry. Naturally we know that the industry
will -- is going to then -- or that the industry will then pass that off to
the consumer.
The proposed resolution and fee schedule that's attached to the
executive summary and the outline that discusses some of the fee
schedules is there for your purview and for your approval. These
increases are based on staffs estimate of the time and resources
needed to provide certain services. And only those fees where
community development and environmental services division clearly
incurs far greater costs of providing services than the revenue we
Page 216
March 11,2003
currently receive, that's where we looked at raising those fees.
In summary, what are we doing? We're asking, number one, to
update the construction valuation tables. Those tables will then force
an increase in the building permit fees. What I'm looking at, once I
get my arms around the income and the necessary business processes
within the division, we will probably be back to you next year to
reduce the building permit fees, because I'm not asking for the fees to
go up, they're going up because of construction valuation tables. But
we'll probably come back next year and look at a reduction, once we
get our arms around the necessary income.
Also included in there is an issue with political signs. Currently
campaign signs, basically you pay a $500 deposit. Currently there
are no provisions in the fee schedule concerning forfeiture of a
deposit for repeat violations if you're asked to remove those signs,
and that is inserted in there, and basically what we're asking is staff
recommends a forfeiture of $100 deposit for the third written notice
for failure to remove signs. I know that's a tough issue, but what that
basically is, the code says they have to remove within seven days
after the election date.
We're increasing reinspection fees. Currently the initial
inspections of construction for construction and construction code
requirements and each of the crafts areas include the building permit
fees charged at the time of the building fee issuance. So you're
paying for your permit when you get a building permit fee. Or when
you pay your fee, you pay for your inspection. But reinspections you
have to pay. Basically right now we charge $50 for the first
reinspection, 75 for the second and 100 for the third. We're asking
those fees to be raised by $25 each. Again, to cover the cost of
sending someone out for reinspection.
Also included, and there are a variety of other increases in fees.
And lastly, the fire code inspections, which are part of -- as you
well understand, fire code and fire inspections are not part of my
Page 217
March 11,2003
division, but they're included in the fee schedule that's before you
today. And Ed Riley is here from the fire department to talk about
those fees, if you have any questions.
In sum, we estimate that the increased revenue from Fund 113,
if these proposals are approved, that will earn approximately
$125,000 a month from the increase in construction valuation tables,
about $50,000 a month for the reinspection fees, and another 50,000
in increased revenue from the planning services fees.
While the staff does not anticipate that these fees will cover all
the revenue shortfall, they will reduce the deficit significantly and
prevent the drain on the current requirement to dip into the reserves.
So subj ect to your questions, that pretty much concludes my
presentation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas has a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got a couple of them, Mr.
Schmitt. One of them is that this is basically a stop-gap measure. I
guess we need to look at the big overall picture and figure out how
the citizens in the county, since we demand a lot of your services
where you have to do a lot of research, and we're looking at being
customer driven in a sense that these people that demand us to do the
research, whether it's the County Commissioners or whether it's the
citizens in regards -- like overlay studies and stuff, how are we going
to address that in the future as far as how we're going to pay for this
product? Has there been any thought given to that process?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I think you've asked the
question that even the industry is asking. I'll give you an example.
The Vanderbilt Beach study.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, exactly. Because we're trying
to --
MR. SCHMITT: What probably should have happened, had I
had my arms around the issue back then as I do now, I probably
should have came to the board and said if the residents of Vanderbilt
Page 218
March 11,2003
Beach want a study, they have to form an MS TU to pay for it.
Because what basically has happened, I have in my current
planning staff, basically I have 14 planners. Don Schneider -- I had
14 planners but I have three vacant, so let's say I have -- I instituted
about five months ago a time tracking system so I can begin to gather
data on the process. I had no measures of effectiveness in the
organization.
I began to establish a process where I can at least account, not to
look over people's shoulder, but I need to understand where my time
. .
IS gOIng --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
MR. SCHMITT: -- and how we're servicing the customer.
If I have 11 planners in my time study and I looked at my time
study, basically 11 full-time equivalent employees and over a
four-month period only four were actually -- when I look at the total,
only four full-time equivalent hours were being devoted to servicing
the customer, plan review process.
MS. FILSON: The rest of the time --
MR. SCHMITT: The rest of the time doing good government
work --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Research.
MR. SCHMITT: -- research and doing other type of activities.
Example, Don Schneider. When Don was in current planning, he was
100 percent funded by Fund 113. Fund 113 are the fees -- of course
that's the fund that rises out of permit and land application fees.
I was paying his salary out of that fund, but he was really
servicing not review process, he was doing a special product for a
community. And that's good government and we need to do that, we
need to recognize that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Being customer --
MR. SCHMITT: What I need to do in the '04 budget is come to
you and say if we want to do these things, either we say yes, it's a
Page 219
March 11, 2003
legitimate expense to fund out of development services fees, or do
we approach the community and say this is one where we probably
should have said if you want a study, we ought to form an MSTU
and you fund that study. Because, frankly, I didn't go to a -- I didn't
go to a consultant. I didn't put that under contract. I absorbed that
in-house. And I need to do a better job in telling you and informing
you during the budget process, because those are the kind of things
and in -- those are the kind of things that, frankly, I need to be more
forthright in our budget process to explain to the commissioners if in
fact we should look at another source of revenue to pay for those
type of activities.
Because what I'm doing is taking my planning staff -- and this is
the most impacted staff, quite honestly, planning and engineering
services -- and using them to do the kind of things that need to be
done for good government, but it takes them away from servicing the
customer.
Again, I'm not going to -- that's a policy decision, but it does
happen. And that's what's impacted, frankly. It's the kind of issues
you hear about the long processes and the review time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not here to put you on the hot
seat. What I'm here to do is to try to figure out what's happening in
the process that we're presently in, and what we need to do down the
road to make some adjustments here. Maybe we're going to have to
come up with some other funding issues, whether it's an MSTU or
whether we come up with some other things. But that's all I'm doing
is trying to get some background information. Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And I will have to do that in the budget
process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have some questions. Page 19 of
the ordinance, No. 20, a variance petition is $1,000. And 25, a sign
variance petition is $2,000. It almost seems like we don't like signs.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Barber poles.
Page 220
March 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Barber poles, we love barber poles.
MR. SCHMITT: Barber poles are authorized.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not in neon.
MS. FILSON: Getting long days.
MR. SCHMITT: We probably have had, I would -- I could only
tell you right now, I'd have to do the empirical analysis, but we've
probably only had a handful of sign variances compared to the
number of land use variances. And it's just the --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I can guarantee you, you won't have
. .
any sIgn vanances.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. Not at 2,000.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Schmitt, do you think -- do you
believe these fees are reasonable and just?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you think your customer feels
that -- the customers that you're serving feels that it's reasonable?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. The industry is aware of this, and
they've been briefed. And in fact, when you compare our fees to the
other counties, we're still probably below -- and many of these fees
were (sic) below Lee County right now, to use an example.
And the fees are frankly what it cost to move some of these
processes through the approval process when you're talking about the
environmental advisory council, the planning commission and on to
the board, or the board of zoning appeals. The cost is borne by the
applicant and not by the general fund.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The -- when does this fee
schedule take effect?
MR. SCHMITT: I'm proposing that this would go into effect
April 15th.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So if I want a vegetation permit, I
need to get it beforehand?
MR. SCHMITT: I would recommend so.
Page 221
March 11,2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Vegetation removal, less than five
acres, or a fence permit?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other questions?
Any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have one public speaker,
David Ellis.
MR. ELLIS: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm David Ellis, I
work with the Collier Building Industry Association. I did want to
make some brief comments about the fees.
The industry's never said they weren't interested or even expect
to pay appropriate fees for this important process, and would say
even like impact fees, we need to have a regular process of review in
updating these fees.
To date, to last year, even with the old valuation tables, we were
able through that program to accumulate $11 million surplus in those
programs. So the program generally worked, and has worked up
until now.
And certainly there's some questions. We'll never say we don't
-- we wouldn't -- we want to pay reasonable fees, we're happy to pay
reasonable fees for reasonable service.
I think one of the things that needs to always be pointed out, the
actual -- the state laws that oversees these funds says such funds shall
be used solely for the enforcement of the provisions of this part. And
it was referring at that point to the codes that are affected. So really,
it's for the review and for the enforcement of those sections of codes.
And we look at that, there are some questions that relate to the
fund. And I think one of the major questions was the one you raised
a minute ago, Mr. Halas, is are we spending money from the 113
funds that really isn't properly being spent and it could be -- and I
would allege -- not allege, I would assert -- that some of those funds
are inappropriate, and they're one of the reasons why those -- that
Page 222
March 11,2003
$11 million is being quickly drained.
Collier County right now, we're building a new building out of
that fund. And, frankly, a large part of the use of that building isn't
for 113 services. Now, those people using the building that aren't
113 are going to pay rent back. But that's one of the reasons why
there's a big hit coming out of that fund.
So when we see that reserve drop dramatically, it's because of
that. I mean, we could say hey, let's do the building condo, let's let
the other divisions that are going to use that pay for it. We elected to
fund it through that fund. Once again, we saw an opportunity to use
those excess resources that were accumulated over the years.
And even then, one of the things that's impacted this area is
we've lost the interest income. Interest income on 10, $11 million
was a lot of money. That money, we no longer get that. The change
was made I guess year before last where that money does not come
back to the fund. And that was a revenue source that was very
helpful in keeping those funds -- or those fees stable.
It is a concern for us. I'll tell you, your staff has done something
really with these funds that I've never seen done since I've been here.
They've done a thorough investigation looking at the funds. They
spent a lot of time, Mr. Schmitt, Mr. Baker, Mr. Mullee, they've done
a nice job of really trying to break it down and understand it.
What they presented today, I promise you they won't contend is
perfect. It is a move in the right direction to try to cover this. I only
wish we'd have spent as much time and resources trying to figure out
a way to plug the hole in the bucket, as opposed to trying to figure
out how to get more water in the bucket in terms of this.
There are some broken parts of this process. I'm very
encouraged that Mr. Schmitt is right now initiating it. As a matter of
fact, I think the meeting's on the 21 st or the 22nd; you'll have to
remind everyone.
MR. SCHMITT: March 21 st is the meeting.
Page 223
March 11,2003
MR. ELLIS: We're starting a process where we're going to
significantly review these fees and where they're coming from. We
had hoped originally that today we'd just be talking about the
valuation tables, that we'd initiate work through that process and then
come back to you next year and say yes, there are some planning fees
that need adjustment, there's some other areas of fiscal management
that need adjustment, and bring that to you. Unfortunately we don't
have that luxury at this point because of the concerns of the budget.
I really -- Commissioners, I realize you're going to probably
approve these fees today, and as you do, I would ask you to strongly
direct your staff to work in those processes, to look at these fees.
Those permit numbers you were just talking about and having a
little fun with, those are significant amounts of money. And maybe
they're required. But once again, it's one of those things, when you
look at it, are we truly getting what we're paying for in those
processes?
Again, I won't pretend to come to you today and try to say don't
do this. It's a concern, it appears the money is needed. But let's also
work as diligently to try to repair that process so that when we come
back next year and we look at this, we feel a lot more comfortable
with what you're actually approving.
And that's it. Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: And just to clarify, if I could comment, these
fees were in the budget last year, we just never again came and
formalized it.
I will continue to track time to assess the business processes
within the organization. I'm going to look at the '04 budget and come
to you with a clear delineation of where the expenses need to be, at
least expenses in regards to the budget development.
And as David said, I'm committed -- March 21 st we're meeting
with several of the representatives, EDC, DSAC, CBIA and others, to
look at our processes, our review processes, and look at what kind of
Page 224
March 11,2003
things we can do, both internally and externally to improve our
processes. And we're going to establish realistic performance
standards.
Now, those performance standards are standards where I will be
committed to the industry to provide a timely review, but as Mr. Ellis
certainly knows, that sometimes those reviews are not up to par, and
oftentimes what leads to that delay, that six-, eight-, nine-month
process as to two and three and four times the submittal process.
So we're going to be looking at both the industry and my
division, principally the four departments that do the review
processes, and look at ways we can improve the process. But I will
not, I will not allow any system to be implemented that will
circumvent or abridge in any way the land development code. So
that's my commitment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Schmitt, a question. So in the
near future you're going to be taking a look at all these charges and
make sure that the permits that are given out is a fair (sic) and just
and is not taking a burden from some other kind of permit?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me interject here for a second.
What he's got, the way that system was set up, permit fees paid
for everything in community developments, including engineer,
planning and everything else. And it was all done on permit fee.
And what Joe needs to get squared away is he needs to find out what
the cost of plan review is for that PUD, so that when the charge for
that planning fee is done, when that PUD comes in, that it's
right-sized the way it's supposed to be, and it gets no money from the
permit side.
So when he mentioned in the statement --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I got it.
MR. MUDD: -- that he would come back and adjust the permit
fees next year and they would probably come down, it's because
those other planning fees and engineering fees will being going up
Page 225
March 11,2003
and be at the right level.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And those are building permit fees for the
building permit and review process. Not the planning review
process, the building permit process.
And we're going to look at that. W e'lllook at that with
productivity committee and others to ensure that we are balanced.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you're going to come back to us
next year and possibly with adjusted rates, but you need this money
now --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- is that what you're saying?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So when is next year?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, it will be part of the '04 budget
presentation. We'll be looking at -- I'm going to be looking at my
external costs as well and explain so you have a clear understanding
of those kind of things I have to payout of the various funds that I
have within the division, and what I need to pay for out of 113 and
what other things -- I'll be talking to my boss about that as well, and
are there other ways to pay for some of the activities that frankly
you, the board, is asking of the division. And of course we cover a
broad spectrum within the community.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that will only give you a few
months to weigh if this is effective and what the charges really
should be.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, I can pretty well assure you the fees that
we're here -- that you show -- or that are shown here for the planning
process will probably stay where they're at. What I'm really looking
at is the building permit fees eventually will probably be reduced.
But again, that's going to be a decision. I may come back to you
Page 226
March 11,2003
and say I'm going to need to leave the building permit fees where
they are, because they have to supplement the other activities within
the division. It's just economies of scale.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, he can give -- and I just talked to
Denny, and Joe wasn't part of that conversation, so -- and we haven't
worked out the reading minds yet.
But first meeting in September, we can come back to this board
with the fees aligned to where they're supposed to be so that we can
start the FY in the right way, instead of sitting there half knowing
and somebody's subsidizing another particular task by a different
person, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, my question just was can it
be done in that --
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, we--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- short period of time frame?
MR. MUDD: -- will get it to you first meeting in September.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'd like to make a motion
that we approve the fee increase and the new fee proposed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala to accept the fee structure.
Any more discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #1 OJ
JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) FOR
Page 227
March 11,2003
ADVANCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION FUNDS AND
ALLOCATION OF URBANIZED AREA FUNDS FROM FDOT FY
2004 AND 2005 IN THE AMOUNT $1,080,000 FOR USE ON THE
SR 84 (DAVIS BOULEV ARD)/CR 951 (COLLIER BOULEVARD)
Next item is 10(J), request board's approval for a joint
participation agreement, Florida Department of Transportation, for
advanced construction funds for something. Oh, yeah, Davis
Boulevard and Collier Boulevard.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, board, for the record Norman
Feder, transportation administrator.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second it.
Is there anything we need to get on the record?
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, if you don't do this project,
you're back in a moratorium, okay? And that's the bottom line on
that. We came out of it because of the land development code and
the growth management plan that was approved in Tallahassee, and it
talked about that three-year piece instead of the one-year piece, and
that came out. But if you don't approve the proj ect, you're back in it
agaIn.
MR. FEDER: And the last item I'll bring to your attention, Mr.
Chairman, is that the 890,000, we're not going to give the notice to
proceed because we have to do the joint participation agreement until
after July when those funds are (sic). Again the state's work program
says no advancement of that portion. 190,000, which is a specifically
programmed resurfacing project on Davis, that we will in effect be
advancing for one year and get paid back about the time shortly after
the project is completed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So most of these funds will be
advanced. We'll pay for them now and they'll be repaid to us, is that
Page 228
March 11, 2003
MR. FEDER: Most of the funds we will have readily available
to us. It's a budget change as opposed to an advancement of dollars.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we're sure the state's going to
pay us back on those?
MR. FEDER: Yes. Because we will have them that year
specifically provided to us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There was some question this
morning, so I just wanted --
MR. FEDER: Yeah, I understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to clarify that.
MR. FEDER: These are the funds that are the current year,
$890,000.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor and a
second to approve this item. Anymore discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #10K
CONCEPTUAL AGREEMENT WITH LEL Y RESORTS AND
STOCK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REGARDING THE
EXTENSION OF SANTABARBARA BOULEVARD BETWEEN
DAVIS BOULEVARD AND RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK
ROAD- AEEROVED
Next item is 11 -- am I wrong?
MS. FILSON: 10(K).
MR. MUDD: 10(K)--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 10(K).
Page 229
March 11, 2003
MR. MUDD: -- Commissioner. That's conceptual agreement
with Lely Resorts and Stock Development Corporation regarding the
extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard between Davis Boulevard and
Rattlesnake-Hammock Road. And Norm will present.
MR. FEDER: There's been some discussion on this issue for
some time, as this board is well aware, so I'll try to make this fairly
quick and then open it to any questions you might have.
I have in front of you and on the teleprompter for those in the
audience an overview of the area. As you know, Lely Resorts,
through their development with the county and their development of
regional impact, DRl, had committed to develop a provision of a
six-lane arterial through the center of Lely Resorts.
As they've developed, they've developed essentially a four-lane
facility at this time in the southern portion down here and up to
Grand Lely Boulevard. And the southern section is four-laned today
and it doesn't go all the way up to Rattlesnake at this time.
There's a lot of concerns raised relative to the development of a
six-lane arterial, questions as to what's been developed out there,
whether or not a six-lane arterial in fact could be developed in that
spot.
And through a number of discussion sessions with the
neighborhoods off of Rattlesnake, Parker's Hammock and others, as
well as with folks in Lely, the discussion brought to this board some
two years ago when you asked me to analyze it was a consideration
of utilizing Polly, which is existing today from Rattlesnake up to a
point about ranging from 160 to 165 feet of right-of-way to a little
over 100 today, and utilizing that corridor all the way down to
Rattlesnake, utilizing Rattlesnake from Polly over to Collier
Boulevard or County Road 951, and then bring 951 on down to 41 as
an alternate, with the development of a four-lane collector, a major
collector road as opposed to an arterial within Lely itself.
And to do that, the concern of the board and what we've been
Page 230
March 11,2003
working on, is for the developer then to make some commitments to
allow that to happen commensurate with the reduction in what they
were building within Lely itself.
To that end, what we're showing you on the graphic that we've
come to a conceptual agreement on, wanted to get your direction on
whether we move forward with a developer contribution agreement is
that Lely, and we've worked with Mr. Joe Ryan, who is -- I
understand now is a consultant for the owners of Lely, as well as
Stock Development Corporation, who has now purchased the
southern portion.
And in dealing with them, they've agreed to take on the
stormwater for 951. And this is very important, because also, as you
remember, we had folks concerned at the Verandas development on
that west side of 951 where we have 125 feet of right-of-way and
then we have the canal on the east side, that we stay within the
right-of-way as best we can.
By these two developments accepting the stormwater, that
allows us again to stay closer within that 125 feet, which is what
we're seeking to do. Where we need some property beyond the 125,
the commitment of the two developers was to provide 25 to 35 feet of
additional right-of-way, shown in blue in those three intersections,
allowing those intersections to be properly developed and
functioning, as well as commitments within their development to
make those intersections work properly.
The other thing that I'll note to you, that yellow that you see,
that thin strip all the way down, is a commitment by both developers,
at least on the concept to be considered, is provision of limited access
rights for that one-foot strip. In a sense saying that there will be no
more access points on 951 from the west, other than the three major
access points that you have today within that stretch of just over
three miles.
That's very, very significant. Because what we've said with that
Page 231
March 11,2003
and their agreement to allow their internal sidewalk and bike systems
to be utilized, that we can then take that 125 feet, develop a good
six-lane facility that will meet the future needs of the area within that
125, not come within the Verandas area. The cart (phonetic) for that
drainage, the right-of-way, we'd have to purchase throughout offsets
as just shown in your executive summary. The additional costs that
Lely and Stock would have had to pay to six-lane and establish an
arterial within their development.
The last component of that is -- is if we are not going to go
six -lane through Lely, then that brings back the issue that we had
discussed with the board about the prior decision, prior board to go to
alternative A, which is Polly, a two-lane roadway, and then C, a
six-lane, basically, coming off the Santa Barbara Extension, south of
Davis, to connect up to that six-lane facility. If in fact it's not going
to be an arterial, that demand to connect, which is going to impact at
least 1 7 to 20 homes within Parker Hammock, is something that
we're recommending to you, as we brought to you two years ago, that
we stay within the Polly alignment where we will not have to take a
home, stay within about 160, 165 feet of right-of-way and build a
four-lane facility that our records show should serve for quite some
time in the future.
So that's the concept, very quickly, and I'll open it to any
questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two questions, if I may. And then
while Tom is out, I'll call on anyone else who would like to ask.
First of all, this new alignment on 951 will -- with the water
management, will that now protect the Verandas? And if so, like
how much?
MR. FEDER: Yes. What we're doing is in that area we're
trying to stay exactly within the existing 125 feet so that we'll not
come closer to them. Again, please understand, we have not
designed this facility. We've tried to bring in some design experts in
Page 232
March 11, 2003
our staff and outside to try and look at it, but we feel fairly
comfortable that we'll be able to stay within the 125 or very close to
it to make sure that we don't impact the Verandas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, you know, one of the big
concerns is protecting the people in old Lely and Lely Golf Estates.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And although we've spoken of it
and how we're going to protect not only St. Andrews Boulevard but
also Augusta, I would like you for the record to tell us about that,
please.
MR. FEDER: By all means, Commissioner. And I appreciate
that. That blue star that you see on the map is there, and the legend
shows, to restrict some movements. If we establish a four-lane on
the Polly alignment, coming down to Rattlesnake across and tying up
to St. Andrews, the concern is that we don't encourage that flow
movement onto St. Andrews.
What we're proposing initially would be to establish essentially
two lefts and a right to go at the same time, give predominant signal
phasing, the green time, to those movements, very little green time to
the through movement in either direction, either coming out of St.
Andrews, the ones who seek to go north, or anything coming south
that might try to find its way through St. Andrews. So that while you
maintain access, we don't stop that access. We restrict it very much
by the amount of time allowed and therefore the backup created.
If in fact that doesn't work, we could look at coming in with
basically a restriction there at St. Andrews where through traffic in
either direction could go that would be right-in, right-out of St.
Andrews. But we'd like to try it the other way and see if we can
make it where it works for the community, both not bringing too
much traffic through them, but also giving them access to the north.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, if that doesn't
work, then you're going to do something like you did for Donna
Page 233
March 11,2003
Street on --
MR. FED ER: Well, you'd restrict --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Radio Road?
MR. FEDER: -- it so it doesn't go through but not close off the
community --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. FEDER: -- a right-in, right-out --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. FEDER: -- yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
No, you're Coletta, aren't you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The good-looking one. That's
quite all right.
My question is going to Lely Resort Boulevard. Eventually it's
all supposed to be four-laned, right, under this agreement?
MR. FEDER: Yes. The other thing I didn't touch on is you've
got Edison Community College right here, as Jim's pointed out to
you, right in this section. And they're ready with $1 million that they
have from the state to build that section between Cultural up to
Rattlesnake-Hammock, the two-lane initially.
We understand the concept in that section that calls for -- up to
Rattlesnake is eventually by Lely Development to build a six-lane in
that section, but everything south of there would be no more than
four lanes. The portion that's built today of course up to Cultural and
then to Lely is all four-lane at this time. The section in here north of
here doesn't exist, but Edison will be building that section between
Cultural to Rattlesnake, at least two initially and eventually, as we
understand, ultimately six.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we possibly include some
sort of time frame in the agreement so that we know when this is
going to happen, rather than just have it understood that it's going to
happen and it might be 25 years from now?
Page 234
March 11,2003
MR. FEDER: We'll get with both developers -- I think that's a
very good point, Commissioner -- and make sure that the four-lane
collector status, both the people in the community and for the overall
community, that that connection all the way up to Rattlesnake is set
in the time frame so everybody knows when they'll have access.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I realize that we're moving this
forward so that Edison College can take advantage of that money so
they can get that -- the road connected to -- I'm sorry, where am I
now, over to Rattlesnake, that connection. That's absolutely -- that's
important as can be. And I wouldn't want to hold this up, but I still
have great concerns in the fact that we have never reached agreement
with Lely over that land that they have for the cultural center. I was
hoping that it would be part of the agreement, but it obviously isn't.
And I'm not going to ask this group to hold it up, but I want to
remind you all that that is still in suspended animation. That is
money that belongs to the county, a resource out there that eventually
has to be settled on. Hopefully it's sooner than later.
MR. FEDER: Hopefully what we could do, Commissioners, if I
can, just quickly to wrap up, if I have your concurrence on
development of a developer contribution agreement, we will not do
that until after the workshop is going to look at all of Logan/Santa
Barbara in case that raises any modification to the lane calls or the
issues relative to Santa Barbara Extension, that Santa Barbara/Logan,
where it's April 16th, am I correct on that, 16th of April, 15 -- 16th of
April workshop.
So we will not finalize nor bring it to you until after that, the
actual developer contribution agreement. What we wanted to do, as
Commissioner Coletta pointed out, is be in a position to allow Edison
not to lose those funds which expire after July 1. And important in
that was the decision by this board, which I asked you to hold off
previously, is to go away from alternative A and C as your alignment
to basically looking at A on Polly. Because then no longer are we
Page 235
March 11, 2003
trying to get that connection of Grand Lely, Lely Resorts specifically
to an alternate C, which was the issue that was holding up our ability
to allow Edison to move forward.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would just like to say -- excuse
me -- would this mean then if we approve this today, I notice the land
is for sale at the comer of Davis and what would be the extension of
Santa Barbara right now. That means rather than have an apartment
or something built there, we could move forward with this?
MR. FEDER: We would need to move forward on the design.
We have program design for whatever the Santa Barbara Extension,
in this case through this Polly would be. But we would have to
design it before we could start acquiring right-of-way, to know
exactly the right-of-way we need.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, thank you very much,
Commissioner Henning. Would--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: My pleasure, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're getting punch drunk up
here.
What Commissioner Coletta brought up I think was very
apropos, and I think we need to hold the developer's feet to the fire so
that we get a commitment out of this and out of him in the very near
future so that we can design the road in regards to that and know
what areas of traffic that we're going to incorporate in this area also.
Because with the other developments that are coming on-line, I think
we need an answer soon.
MR. FEDER: As I understand it, that issue is on a separate
track, but we are trying to look at both issues, although it's not dealt
with specifically in this developed (sic) contribution agreement, if we
could make some progress there. I know it's the board's desire, as
well as staffs desire, to try and get both issues addressed. But right
Page 236
March 11, 2003
now it's running on its own separate track and so we didn't put it as
part of this issue right now.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. We've got some public
speakers. I just --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just one piece, and I want to make
sure that we understand it. And I've been making all kinds of points
with Commissioner Fiala today. She's about ready to kill me, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, so be careful this time.
MR. MUDD: I will, ma'am.
I want to make sure that you understand that that DCA, the
agreement that you're going to come into agreement with, you're
finally going to ask Norman to go out and get done, will basically
forgive the Lely Resort folks from a six-lane road going down the
middle of their development. And so Norman's going to try his
darndest as he goes through that to get a (sic) equitable deal for the
county to compensate so the fact that it's only going to be a four-lane
road going all the way down in this particular area, so that we still
maintain our traffic and we don't lose anything by giving that up.
And I just want to make sure, this DCA isn't -- well, he just laid
over and played dead. No, no --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, no, no, no.
MR. MUDD: -- he's asking the board for forgiveness on -- from
six-lane to four-lane through the development.
So I just want to make sure, because we've got to be straight on
this DCA, because I know exactly what happened when we got into
the Foxfire thing, and we've been getting creamed by it ever since. I
want to make sure the board understands that this DCA is going to be
scrutinized by many, many people as we go through it, as Norman
lays this out.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Mudd, I've been working with
Mr. Feder on this, and he is not going to allow anybody to slip on
their commitment. He is dedicated to making sure the developer is
Page 237
March 11, 2003
going to have a fair share contribution in exchange for not running
six lanes of traffic through the people's neighborhood. And that was
the commitment by the board, and Norm, has hold (sic) his feet to the
fire so we don't have to do that.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. And I will tell
you that what you have here with Rattlesnake right-of-way, the
right-of-way and limited access rights, future access from the west,
as well as accepting the stormwater more than offsets and does put us
in a position, even with the Verandas built as close as it is, to be able
to develop a viable six-lane that's desperately needed for 951 in the
future.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've given me basically what I
wanted, so I'll just emphasize it. There is no forgiveness here, okay?
What you're really doing is transferring the cost that the developer
would have used to develop a six-lane road from the developer to us.
In other words, he's giving us that money. And -- essentially, okay?
And it works to our benefit and to the benefit of the residents itself.
MR. FEDER: Very much so, Commissioner. What I would say
to you actually to highlight that is the normal development of
regional impact, it's extremely unusual -- and since none of us were
here, I'll make the comment -- it was extremely unusual to allow an
internal roadway improvement to be the mitigation for the nature of
impacts for a development this large. Normally improvements to
Rattlesnake, 951, just like we're now asking for in lieu of is what
normally would have been required in this project in its initial review
and requirement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Can we go to speakers? Go
ahead and call up the --
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, you have --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- first speakers.
Page 238
March 11, 2003
MS. FILSON: -- three speakers. Reverend Peter Lyberg. He
will be followed by Bob Murray.
REVEREND L YBERG: Good afternoon. It's been a great
time. You've had a lot of things to contend with.
I'm Reverend Peter Lybert, retired from Shepherd of the Glades
Lutheran Church on the comer of Rattlesnake-Hammock and Polly,
which is route A that's been discussed.
It's interesting that we've gone full circle from where we were
10 years ago. We were going to build route A when the rest of Santa
Barbara was built, and it didn't happen. And it's gone all over
creation before it got back to route A again. It took three arrests and
five elections. But it's a better situation than what I've looked at
before.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And no golf.
REVEREND L YBERG: The -- Mr. Feder and I, we've debated,
oh, umpteen times. I don't know how many meetings we've gone to
and sometimes agreed, other times disagreed, but I highly commend
him on this. We've finally got something that makes sense in terms
of just so many factors about it. It's a -- as has been mentioned, it's a
resident friendly resolution to the needs, the traffic needs of the area.
It takes no homes. The people who have been just on the edge of
their chairs wondering whether they're going to have a road through
their garage or their backyard don't have to worry about that if this
proceeds. It saves money, because C was a very expensive route.
The gentleman who had his job about three gentlemen before him got
chewed very, very hard because he proposed A as the most
cost-effective, and that was the last time I saw him was that one.
So it's a good answer. The only suggestion that I would make,
and I've urged this on a number of occasions, one is that it be moved
-- or it's really two-sided, that it be moved up in time. It's needed 10
years ago, and it wasn't built. Do it and do it as soon as possible.
And I would especially urge that it be done before County Barn
Page 239
March 11, 2003
is proceeded. When you look at that map, that one up there that
they've got, the only road that connects Davis and Rattlesnake is
County Barn, two lanes. And if you dump that -- all that traffic onto
County Barn and also try to build it into four lanes or something else,
it is going to be a horrendous mess. If you build the four lanes for
route A first, you've got four beautiful lanes that you can use and you
can go do whatever you want to do with County Barn at that point,
but you haven't cut off people from their access.
And so I want to commend Mr. Feder. He has done a splendid
job on a most difficult and a long enduring preceded him (phonetic).
And I'm glad it's going to be coming to an end, even though I do
enjoy your meetings. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Bob Murray. He will be
followed by your final speaker, Hal Ousley.
MS. MURRAY: Good evening, you all. Bob Murray. I'm
representing both the Lely Resort Road Task Force and the East
Naples Civic Association.
I can only say one word that makes sense to me: Innovation,
innovation, innovation. I can recall when first I began to be involved
with this. What we had were an awful lot of people who were angry
and frustrated and what seemed to be either this way or that way and
it must work one way or the other. But thanks to the efforts of
certainly Donna Fiala and others here who have cared enough to take
a shot at finding another way, the innovation that I believe has been
drawn by Mr. Feder and his ministrations, and for the cooperation of
Mr. Stock and the Lely people, we now can rest a bit. We can feel
that the traffic will move and move efficiently, apparently, through
the areas that were more appropriate that they should move through.
Whereas we have no objection to traffic coming through Lely,
there is a certain amount now, and as build-out occurs, certainly
more will pass through our community, but we don't now think that
Page 240
March 11,2003
we're going to be seeing trucks and long queues waiting to access 41.
And the community which was built and sold to people who were
looking forward to a beautiful place will remain so. We're excited by
that, and we want to see that happen throughout.
Our applause to all of you who have worked hard, who have
cared enough to support us. And we know that it's been difficult
from time to time. And again, Mr. Feder, thank you very much for
your going after it and making it happen. Thank you,
Commissioners, thank you, staff.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The final speaker is Hal Ousley.
MR. OUSLEY: Good afternoon -- or evening. I'm Hal Ousley,
and I'm vice-chairman of the Lely Resort Task Force.
I want to thank the Chairman. He worked hard behind the
scenes, and he's been on this a long time doing a lot of things that
people don't even know about. And I want to thank the
vice-chairman; she is a very hard worker and she does her
homework. And I want to thank Norm Feder, he did an outstanding
job.
And the reason I'm here today is because Ken Drum's out of
town, otherwise he would be here, he's the chairman. And he really
poured his heart into it. And I mean, he worked and worked and
worked me hard.
I just want you all to vote 5-0 yes, and I'll be happy as hell.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I would entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anymore discussion? Seeing none,
the motion was made by Commissioner Coyle, second by
Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Page 241
March 11,2003
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You got your 5-0 now.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Feder, thank you for all your
work on this. Really appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now all we need is have the
Reverend have some prayers for the money.
Item #llA
ALEX BROWN REGARDING LACK OF SHELTERS AND
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is --
MR. MUDD: Public comments.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- public comments under general
topics.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have two speakers. The first
speaker is Alex Brown. He will be followed by Bob Krasowski.
MR. BROWN: Good evening. I see you moved your agenda
from 5:00 to 11 :00 at night.
One of the things I was going to talk about was the buses.
Evidently the last bus has left, as I've got to take two buses to Golden
Gate. Guess I'm not getting home.
A lot of people have been bugging me, since I haven't been here
in several months. After two years, I still see there is no shelters or
anything after two years of riding the Collier County bus system, the
CAT. There doesn't seem to provide one bench or Plexiglas shelter
for its riders. Even at such stops as the Goodlette Arms, the hospital,
the government center and many of the main shopping centers, et
cetera.
Page 242
March 11, 2003
We who live here year round who know the severity and the
frequency of the rainy season storms clearly see the need. These
buses serve the low income and the handicapped, elderly and the
children, as well as the minimum wage workers who commonly use
these buses.
The Commission has refused these free shelters from Lamar
Advertising, commenting that it would make it look like Miami or
F ort Myers, but do nothing for CAT system riders except spend
$78,000 of federal and state tax money on the transportation system
to paint these buses to make them look like trollies so they look nice.
They do nothing for the riders who have to suffer through these
storms in the summer and even the cold in the winter.
And those visiting hours at the hospital don't close till 8:00, and
most of the stores are open till 9:00. All the buses stop at 6:00. As
you can see, all the buses have stopped. There's no (sic) running
even right now, and the commissioner meetings are still going on.
And there's no buses at all on Sunday. Because of the advertising on
the shelters, we were getting them free. But you're appalled by this.
But I'm appalled by your even considering bringing more garbage
into Collier County, even hearing this afternoon, to raise more
money. That I find appalling. And here you've got $200,000 you
wanted to put in Livingston Woods this afternoon. These people
don't even want it, and you're ready to spend $200,000 over here at
Livingston Woods on a park. I find that appalling.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Brown -- I can address that, Mr.
Feder. Part of the issue is the City of Naples City Council wasn't
happy with the design of the bus shelters. That delayed it. We got a
new person on staff that is committed to getting some shelters up in
the urban area outside the city limits. There's going to be bus
shelters put at the vocational center, and I hope Mr. Mudd --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I've given Norm the charge that
the shelters and the things will be up before the rainy season starts.
Page 243
March 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Because that--
MR. MUDD: He's got eight up. He's got some out in
Immokalee, and he's got three more moving in. And they redesigned
the shelters with some input from the City of Naples. And the key
here is that at the pick-up places, we all have shelters, but at the
destination places, we don't have any. So when it's time to go home,
you're getting soaked again. And so we tried to come up with the -- a
compromise, and the compromise design that we came up with will
come in a little less than the original shelter that we had going in, the
eight that we already have. And it will be amiable to the city and
everything else.
So I've given them the charter to have it in by the rainy season,
and I wasn't very nice about the charter that I gave them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
MR. BROWN: Any buses at any of the less -- I mean, even just
benches at some of the lesser stops, lesser used stops?
MR. MUDD: We're going to try to get the shelters and the
benches at most of the stops before the rainy season, sir.
MR. BROWN: All right.
MR. MUDD: Sir, I don't -- I agree with you, people shouldn't
be sitting on the sidewalk.
MR. BROWN: How about extended hours? Like now I have--
normally I would be taking two buses to get home. I can't even get--
now it's about a four-hour walk to get home.
MR. MUDD: Sir, I'll give you a ride home. If you give me a
little bit longer time, I'll get you home.
MR. BROWN: Any way of getting any extended hours? A lot
of people have been asking me about that, too.
MR. MUDD: This -- Commissioner, if--
MR. BROWN: I don't know ifpeople are too shy or too
nervous to come up here and talk --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That issue --
Page 244
March 11, 2003
MR. BROWN: -- for themselves, but--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That issue is going to come up later
on through the MPO, and then the Board of Commissioners, and
what I'm hearing is through the budget process.
MR. BROWN: Yeah, because I came up here and talked
before, so everybody comes up to me and says when are you going to
come up there? Many of these people are too shy, too nervous, too
paranoid or whatever to come up and talk.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Item #llB
BOB KRASOWSKI REGARDING NON-RESIDENTIAL
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thanks, Mr. Brown.
Hi, my name is Bob Krasowski, for the record. I have two
issues. I'd like to make comment on one and ask a question on the
other.
A while back you were dealing with the nonresidential recycling
ordinance. And as -- in that document, you had as a -- the process of
measuring the progress that the voluntary program, which we're
developing now, the way we'd measure the success included three
main ways: One was measuring the franchise, major franchise
participation, like how many -- how much of an increase in recycling
accounts he was -- they would pick up.
Then there was increase in volume of recyclables at the county
recycling centers. And then the non-residential solid waste disposal
rate, you could measure the volumes as they go into the landfill.
I would suggest, respectfully suggest, that we expand that a
slight bit to include recycling service providers other than the big
Page 245
March 11,2003
franchisees, that the solid waste department communicate with the
smaller businesses. Because expanded recycling works best when
you have a competitive larger marketplace and when the
commodities that recyclables are serviced by a diverse infrastructure,
okay? So that's one point. And we'll address that as time goes on.
The other thing is the other day I was watching the video at
home of a commission meeting, and Mr. Mudd made comment of
some information that had come by way of David Dees regarding an
effort by -- maybe it was BFl, I'm not sure, but an effort of someone
to introduce some legislation in -- up in the state that would change
the characterization of C&D from maybe waste to a recyclable
commodity, you know, independent commodity, which takes it out of
the waste stream and opens it up, you know, to the marketplace.
I don't know if I misunderstood you, but to me that's a good
thing. You know, that's a good thing when any element in the waste
stream becomes a commodity, because then the market forces can
work on it, and if we could make all the waste a valuable commodity,
that would be great, we'd be at zero waste, right?
So I've tried to -- I've researched, made a couple calls.
Apparently there is some kind of bill, I didn't get details on it today,
but that hasn't found a sponsor yet, and maybe you could clarify that
for me?
MR. MUDD: Yeah, Commissioner, we'll have a resolution
before you next board meeting about that particular issue in
Tallahassee.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Is it your position that if this -- if this
material was identified as a recyclable commodity, it would be
detrimental to the Collier County situation as it exists now or --
MR. MUDD: No, what they're basically -- Bob, from what I
understand, they're basically saying that C&D wouldn't be a waste;
therefore, it would get less tipping fees in your landfills or wherever
you wanted to place it, and you couldn't control where it was going
Page 246
March 11,2003
to go for fill or anything else that was being laid out there.
And we've all -- well, I have, you probably have, I've seen it
when it gets recycled out and I also see when it doesn't get recycled
out. And what we don't want to have is gypsum board and
everything else that's locked in those being dumped in holes and
they're saying, well, that's fill for my property and you build your
house on top of it. That's part of the fear that we have when you
declassify that particular thing, because they're basically -- it's a little
bit more complicated than that, but that's what they're basically
saying, they're basically taking the classification off as a waste
product and therefore they can do other things with it that aren't
controlled.
MR. KRASOWSKI: You know, I was up at the SW ANA
meeting in Orlando, it was designed specific for composting,
recycling, and they even had a zero waste panel there, discussion.
But there were some presentations on the uses of wallboard and
construction. And so there's a lot of innovative things. I'd love to
see that innovation be allowed to work in the marketplace.
On the other hand, if people were to collect a bunch of
wallboard and dump it in a hole as fill, that's not good either. But
maybe there's a middle ground. I'll research it, and I'll be interested
to see what you find out about it as well.
Once again, I appreciate your attention to my comments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just had a question, if I may.
Talking about recycling, I always think of old tires. And at my
church in the playground, they used to have this ground-up stuff. It
was old tires, actually, and the little children could then play. And
when they'd play on the swings or whatever and fall, it was kind of
like a soft fall, you know, they didn't get skinned up or anything. And
I often wondered if we couldn't take all of that -- all those old tires
and have them chopped up and used on our playgrounds rather than
use mulch that washes away.
Page 247
March 11, 2003
MR. KRASOWSKI: I do believe there's a product. That
product is available.
MR. MUDD: And Commissioner, you've done a couple of
schools that way already through your solid waste grant money that
came in through tires, in order to do that, to grind them up and use
that particular product. And you're absolutely right, it's a great way
to do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is everybody okay? Do you need a
break before we -- we're just about done here. Okay, we're okay?
Item #12A
AGREEMENT TO STAY ON PROCEEDINGS IN COLLIER
COUNTY V. MARSHALL, ET AL, CASE NO. 99-2009-CA-TB,
NOW PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA IN VIEW OF EMINENT DOMAIN
PROCEEDINGS TO BE COMMENCED BY THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND
So the next item before we take a break is Item 12(A).
MR. PETTIT: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record,
Mike Pettit, assistant county attorney.
I brought to you today a request for board authorization to allow
us to enter into a motion with the State of Florida and also I believe
the Miccosukee Indian Tribe, whose attorney is here today as well, to
stay the lawsuit that we had previously filed in 1999 to establish an
easement for the county and the public over Miller Boulevard
Extension. Actually, to establish prescriptive easement over that mile
and a quarter of dirt road.
Page 248
March 11,2003
And I think because there's members of the public here that are
very interested in that, and we tried to give notice to some of the
people that we've known over the years that have remained interested
in it, I want to give some history and some thoughts about our
thought process here.
Some of the board members are new. This lawsuit was filed
before you became board members. The idea was to establish a
prescriptive easement over this road which is a dirt road that runs
between U.S. 41 and the paved portion of Miller Boulevard in the
Southern Golden Gate Estates.
There I think have over the years developed some
misconceptions about what this lawsuit's about. That's what it's
about only, to establish a prescriptive easement. That prescriptive
easement would have allowed us to do some minor repair to keep
that dirt road passable to allow our fire trucks to get back in there,
our ambulances, our sheriff cars, and also allow the public to use it to
get back to fish or do whatever else they needed to do in that area. It
would basically allow a shortcut access to what some people call the
south blocks area.
That's all it would have accomplished. We wouldn't have been
allowed to pave the road, we wouldn't have been allowed to make it a
bigger road, if we win the lawsuit that's pending over here in the
circuit court right now.
The other thing that this lawsuit really has nothing to do with is
the Save our Everglades project. Ifwe win the lawsuit, it's not going
to stop the Save our Everglades proj ect. The state is going to
proceed forward and seek to condemn and acquire all the properties
in Southern Golden Gate Estates and develop the hydrological
proj ect that they want to develop to restore flows over that area. At
least this is what we understand and what we're told.
The board should know that as of February, 2003, the state
owned 93 percent of the land in the Southern Golden Gate Estates
Page 249
March 11, 2003
area. On February 11th, 2003 -- and that's what brings me here today
-- the governor and cabinet, sitting as the board of trustees for the
internal group of trust funds in the State of Florida, voted, among
other things, to exercise the power of eminent domain over roads,
based upon claims of prescriptive rights. And they specifically name
Miller Boulevard Extension as one of those roads.
I believe that it would be a waste of county resources at this
point, both county attorney resources and staff resources, to continue
to seek a judgment in a prescriptive easement lawsuit for a couple of
reasons, in light of that vote. First, the eminent domain proceeding is
going to occur and we're going to have to respond to it, whether we
win, lose or draw in a prescriptive easement lawsuit.
Second, in a prescriptive easement lawsuit, there's the
possibility we could lose, which would leave us without anything to
bargain for, potentially, over this road that I will say has been used
by the citizens of Collier County in the county since I think the late
1960's, is what the evidence would show.
Therefore, I would recommend we stay the proceedings in the
lawsuit, as suggested. That doesn't mean we're going to dismiss the
lawsuit or lose our opportunity to pursue it, if need be, but it would
allow us then to direct our attention to respond to any eminent
domain lawsuit filed by the State of Florida, which I anticipate being
filed.
Let me comment on that. The State of Florida, the Attorney
General's Office, has told me -- I called and I said do you have legal
authority that would convince me right now, be directed to me, direct
me to it, that you have an absolute right to exercise eminent domain
over this road or any county road in the Southern Golden Gate
Estates? And basically I was told the bigger government can always
take from the little government. I am not prepared to accept that at
this point. We're independently researching that in our office. What I
will tell you is we will -- if the eminent domain proceedings is filed,
Page 250
March 11, 2003
we will appear, represent the county's interest and raise whatever
defenses that we can legitimately raise in that lawsuit.
At the end of the day the state and the attorney general may be
right, they may be able to exercise eminent domain and they may be
able to take Miller Boulevard Extension. At that point we will get
some sum of money.
I know that some folks are concerned about access to their
property, and I think you're going to hear from them. I know Mr.
Baez has been here before and discussed that.
Let me address the paved roads. I have gone back and read the
agenda and what appears to be the decision of the governor and
cabinet. And I will tell you, and my executive summary may have
been a little misleading on this point, I'm reading it now to only
address prescriptive rights, prescriptive easements, prescriptive
claims over primitive roads, dirt roads. There are several places
where in that agenda, in that order, they talk about the county
abandoning the paved roads.
So as we sit here today -- and I actually called the DEP attorney
today and said how do you interpret this? And he was kind of
surprised when I pointed out the exact language that has been used,
because I think it was his understanding, and it certainly was mine
when I read about it in the paper and heard about it, that they were
authorizing the exercise of eminent domain over all of the paved
roads, which clearly are county roads, in the Southern Golden Gate
Estates. I'm not sure that's what that says.
So at this point I'm not anticipating an eminent domain
proceeding with respect to those roads, I'm anticipating that
somebody from some agency, whether it's the South Florida Water
Management District or the DEP, will come to us and ask us to
abandon those roads. And that's a decision that you can respond to at
that time.
Clearly, though, they have exercised and authorized eminent
Page 251
March 11, 2003
domain over Miller Boulevard Extension. So my view, we should
stay the prescriptive lawsuit and respond to that lawsuit when it
comes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to hear from the
speakers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, thank you.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have six speakers. Joe
Morera. He'll be followed by Nancy Payton. I believe she's gone.
MR. MORERA: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Justa (phonetic) Morera. I'm known as
Joe, but Justa Morera.
I have a piece of paper here that I would like -- I only got one
copy, so I assume that I give it to Mr. Coletta, since that's his district,
and then you can pass it -- I don't know if you have copies of it
already?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we'll get copies. You
might want to hand it to the Chair and he'll share it with everyone
else.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Go ahead and tell us
what you want us to look at.
MR. MORERA: Well, my understanding from that letter is that
they want to take all the roads. Dirt roads, paved roads, all of them.
If that is to happen, what's going to happen with the access? And
we've been going with this for 10 years, maybe more than that.
Last time that I had the meeting with you, Mr. Coletta, you
specifically pointed out to me that will not happen; I personally will
have you another access if they take those roads out. I won't have
Sable Palm Road coming through your property . You specifically
said that to me.
Well, there it is. It's happening. And you've heard it from the
lawyer. I'd just like to hear you, you come and what you back feed
Page 252
March 11, 2003
to that. Because there's a lot of people that live off of Miller Road
that you folks probably don't even know. But there is a lot of people
out there. And I can take you out there and show you all the houses.
And they don't even know about what's going on, because it's
kept so quiet. I didn't even know until Mr. Al Perkins called me.
Nobody sent me a letter that we were going to talk about this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry.
MR. MORERA: And I thought that anytime there was going to
be anything that concerned the access of my property, I was going to
be, you know, aware of, but --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may interrupt you.
MR. MORERA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We sent out -- I have sent out a
number of letters, and I'm sorry if they missed you. They sent out
courtesy -- well, I know they sent them out to about 10, 15 people or
so. In any case, I apologize for the fact you didn't get it.
What's taking place here today has to do just with Miller
Boulevard Extension. We're not talking about the rest of the roads in
the south block, the Picayune State Forest --
MR. MORERA: I'm sorry, but if you read that all the way
through --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I haven't had time to read it all
the way through.
MR. MORERA: Well, you gotta have the time. I've been here
since 9:00 this morning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, I -- okay, this is our
agenda packet.
Let's have the lawyer address that. Mr. Pettit, would you go
ahead and --
MR. PETTIT: I want to address that. The Miller Boulevard
Extension is -- does not relate to access off of Miller Boulevard. But
more specifically, you're right, the original agenda item I think says
Page 253
March 11, 2003
the roads. And that was my understanding from talking with the
DEP and frankly my understanding from reading news articles about
the vote.
I have since gotten a certified copy of what actually was
approved, and when you read the detailed statements -- I don't know
what the intention was. My impression today was when I called this
to the DEP lawyer's attention, that they were kind of saying well,
gee, I'm not sure this is exactly what we wanted. But when you read
the language, it seems to say that at this point in time they have only
authorized the exercise of eminent domain over roads and
right-of-ways that are claimed based on prescriptive rights, which of
course Miller Boulevard Extension would be.
Now, that's my interpretation of what I now have. And I
apologize if there was con -- if I was confused or that letter confused
you.
I will say this, though: I think they fully intend at some point,
whether they believe they have already accomplished it in that order,
because different people can read the language differently, I suppose,
or in the future they intend and they have told me and told others that
they intend to acquire the roads in the south blocks. I think they
hope to acquire them by having this board abandon them, but --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I'm going to have to
interrupt you, because you're holding me to -- I told you I'd keep --
do everything we will to put this off. But I am not the State of
Florida. And I wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth on that.
We have taken a lawsuit out against the state to hold them at bay at
Miller Boulevard. We've spent considerable sums of the county's
time and money to be able to hold the line on this. We've come up
with numerous resolutions in the past to do it. So don't tell me I'm
selling you short, man, I'm not. When we get --
MR. MORERA: Okay, here's what --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- down to the point--
Page 254
March 11, 2003
MR. MORERA: Here's what --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, I'm going to go on
now, because you've made some claims and you brought my name
up, and you said some things that were totally false, and I'm not
going to stop until you understand where in the hell we are.
Now, this is where we are with this right at the moment. Before
we get to the point we give up anything, we're going to be in
negotiations with the state forever. They're not going to walk in the
door and just automatically take it. There's going to be court fights,
there's going to be everything else. There's going to have to be
numerous settlements made.
Everything's going -- if we get to the point where they're going
to take the roads by eminent domain, they got to pay us big-time
money to be able to do it. At that point in time, I'm sure this
commission is not going to say okay, we've got five, six homes out at
the end of Sable Palm Road, now the state has those roads and they're
not making provisions for it, these people are totally abandoned.
We've never abandoned you. We've always been there, trying to
make this thing work with the resources we got at hand.
So this is far from over with. No, I didn't sell you short, man,
I've been fighting this thing forever.
MR. MORERA: I never said that you did. I only wanted to
remind --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, well, you were implying--
MR. MORERA: I only wanted to remember what you told me.
I never said that you did. And that's where I was getting to. Because
I got kind of worried today, as I sat here through the whole day,
about all this talk about all the money the county needs and where
they're going to get it from. And then in my mind it says, ooh,
they're going to get it from selling the roads to the state. And where
am I going to go?
It's just the picture says very clearly to me. And that's why I
Page 255
March 11, 2003
wanted to tell you, that I want to see where your output was from.
Are you going to stay and fight with us like we were fighting, or are
you just going to -- because if you gave that to the state or sold it to
the state or whatever, then you wash your hands, we can't come to
you anymore, we'll have to go to the state. And that's what I was
asking you what was your output on this thing here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's fine. What we're
looking at to do here today, there's no sense in carrying this suit
forward at this point in time on Miller Boulevard. Rather than keep
carrying it forward and then find out in the end we're going to
negotiate a closing, or suppose we carry this suit all the way forward
and we lose, then we've got no way to get any kind of monetary gains
back from it.
So by putting it on hold until this thing is settled about eminent
domain for Miller Boulevard, we're protecting the county's best
interest. We haven't given it up. We're just putting it on hold --
MR. MORERA: Okay, now--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- till that point in time.
But that has nothing to do with the roads on the back side where
you are, the paved Miller Boulevard.
MR. MORERA: Now, if the point came where they did the
eminent domain to the county, what's going to happen with us?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we haven't got to that
point yet. But like I said, there's going to be a lot of work for our
attorneys to do, and they're going to be out there trying to cut the
very best deal they can. They're going to be -- they represent
everyone in this county and they're going to be there to represent
your interest, along with the general population of Collier County.
That's the reason we've been perusing this for so dam long.
I wanted you to be here today so you could get an idea what's
taken place, which is the beginning, possibly, of some final decisions
going to be made. I don't know what the state's going to do. And I
Page 256
March 11, 2003
really don't know what their powers are. And I think our own
attorney is saying the same thing. We're not too sure exactly where
their powers are to be able to come in and take it. That hasn't been
resolved yet.
MR. MORERA: All right, and Mr. Coletta, now that I had the
opportunity to say this, I know this has nothing to do with it, but we
do need to do something about it. The state is -- the forestry
department is the state, right? They are using our roads every day, up
and down, tearing it up. We've been working on that road -- I spent
$7,500 out of my pocket the last time with all of us out there to fix
the road. They come in there and tearing it up. And then they close
-- they using all these other roads to get in and out of the place and
they keep us from using them, but yet they can use our road. We're
going to have to do something about that, because that's not fair.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, do we have a map of this area
that shows Miller Boulevard? You know, like one of those
overheads where you can see the houses and so forth, those aerials,
as well as the extension, and then where -- I've never seen anything
like that before, and I'd like to know better what I'm talking about.
And then also, where they're planning on taking the roads or flooding
the area, at some point in time I'd like staff to bring us something like
that, please. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. And we had a -- we had a workshop
where we brought the South Florida Water Management District in
there and they talked about the 200 plus roads, you remember
ex-Commissioner Mac'Kie was sitting in the front row and she was
sitting next to Joe Schmitt, and she turned over to Joe Schmitt and
said the county's not going to donate those roads to us? And Joe
Schmitt said, absolutely not. And so that's when they knew they had
a fight on their hands for the roads in the south Golden Gate Estates.
And part of that eminent domain that the governor processed was
Page 257
March 11, 2003
part of their reaction to our particular statements at that workshop.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker.
MR. MORERA: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Nancy Payton, I believe she's
gone, so the next one is Emilio Baez.
MR. PETTIT: While Mr. Baez comes up, let me just say,
Commissioner Coletta, you're correct, we will have ample
opportunity, assuming that the state exercises its eminent domain
power to attempt to take our paved roads in the Southern Golden
Gate Estates to negotiate the terms of that taking.
And I certainly think that at that time there will be enough
publicity that people who have access questions can be taken account
of.
MR. BAEZ: Hello, Commissioners. My name is Emilio Baez.
And I just want to say, I hope that you all don't give up so soon.
And mostly make sure that you don't leave us out there stranded and
sell everything out. I mean, I know money talks and you know what
walks. And, you know, the way the county is in the situation with
money right now for building roads and stuff, I know I've lived here
for 36 years, and it seems like the impact fees are probably the
highest in probably Florida.
And, you know, with all this going on out there, I mean, I own
97 acres out there. And till this day, the State of Florida has not
given me one offer. And either a lot of people out there that are
property owners and pay property taxes -- and I just paid my taxes
the other day, and it's unreal what -- how they work this out. And
they don't go in and buy the people out and get them out of there. If
they really want them that bad, then why don't they put their money
where their mouth is? Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Kelly Brooks, followed by
Cathy Myers.
Page 258
March 11,2003
MS. BROOKS: Thank you. My name is Kelly Brooks. I
represent the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians. Thank you for letting me
speak today.
We're one of the remaining parties in the lawsuit. And I wanted
to let you know that we agree to this stay. The Tribe thinks that it's
in the best interest of all the parties and both of our communities.
And I wanted to assure you that it's not the Tribe's intent to try
to deny access at all. We've been talking with the county attorney,
but we can't reach any agreements with the county until we deal with
the bigger issue that overshadows all of this, and that's the
condemnation.
The Tribe is an independent sovereign nation, and there's a
controversy right now between the State of Florida and the Tribe
about these condemnation issues, and this is just one of several
properties. And so until we get that resolved, we really shouldn't go
forward in this case, because we would just be spinning our wheels.
And I just wanted to let you know that. Yes?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe we ought to give the
roads to the Miccosukee Tribe.
MS. BROOKS: The Tribe, and then have a big fight.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: These people have got the
money.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They've got the money to fight it
with.
MS. BROOKS: It's a big issue for the Tribe. I'm sure you've
seen articles in the paper about it. So we'll see what happens.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, thanks for being here today.
MS. BROOKS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: Cathy Myers.
MS. MYERS: I am Cathy Myers. I own five acres off of Sable
Palm Road.
Page 259
March 11,2003
All I just want to say is just don't sell us out. I really don't want
to lose my place out there. Because my family loves going out there
all the time. I mean, I've lost a lot out there and I just don't want to
lose what we have.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You realize that today, Cathy,
we're not talking about anything --
MS. MYERS: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- to do -- okay.
MS. MYERS: I do. But I just thought I'd say, you know, I'm
with Emilio and Joe, and we all feel the same about our property out
there, and everything else. I mean, like I said, I was out there this
weekend, and I enjoy it out there. And I live out there the biggest
part of the time. And I just don't want to lose it. And I don't want to
lose my exit out there, either, because I like to get back and forth.
Right now all I have is my jeep. I can't even drive my red car back
there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It might help if I explain,
because I don't know if the Commissioners remember, but Sable
Palm Road is not truly passable all the way down through. It goes all
the way, but most of it's nothing more than a sugar sand pit.
MS. MYERS: Yeah, I know, but it's on the map all the way
through.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's on the map, that's correct.
MS. MYERS: All the way through.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I don't -- don't try to drive
down it, please. People reach their property generally at the end of
the road there by going down Miller and then coming back down.
And that's where the problem lies. If they take the paved part of
Miller out, then these people would no longer be able to have access.
Even though it shows a road, it's really not passable, unless it's a
four-wheel drive.
MS. MYERS: And when we first moved out there, we had
Page 260
March 11, 2003
access from 1-75 coming through that way, and then one morning I
drove -- one night I drove through there, the next morning it was a
ditch. I mean, a canal. You guys dug it up overnight and closed us
off. And the only way we could get in was through 1-75, going over
the overpass.
And like I said, if you close us off either way, we ain't gonna
have no transportation. I mean, my husband fought for this for years,
and now he's not here to fight for it, and now I guess I have to do it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you've got a lot of help.
MS. MYERS: Well, we're working on it. And like I said, I don't
want to lose it, our access. I know there's a lot of people that lives
out there that don't want to lose it either. I mean, he died out there,
and I'm not going to let the road die out there just because he did.
That's all I've got to say.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Al Perkins. The final final
speaker.
MR. PERKINS: This one's going to be final quicker than I want
it to be final. Take a good look.
Al Perkins, Belle Meade groups. Before we go any further,
2,014 petitions signed about access and the use of the roads.
Southern Golden Gate Estates, the Belle Meade area and all through
that entire area. Now, these are not only dirt roads but these are
asphalt roads, and these are the people who pay the bills.
Now, so far today I've heard Collier County is going broke. We
don't have money for this, we don't have money for that, we don't
have -- can't meet the budget, we're robbing Peter to pay Paul, we're
moving money around all over the place, and you're still not going to
get the job done.
Now, I passed you out earlier, and if you take a look at the very
first page that I have underlined, you're going to see corruption at its
ultimate. This is the DEP, the Department of Environmental
Page 261
March 11,2003
Protection, making a statement that they are going to take all of the
land from the Gulf of Mexico to within 10 miles of Fort Lauderdale.
Now, if I said well, the DEP is being manned and armed by the
Communists, you'd say you're a nut. Well, take a good look at what's
going on around this country and you're going to see that maybe I'm
not such a nut.
This is the Constitution of the United States. And you people at
home, try reading it sometimes, because it affects you. It affects
your kids and your grandchildren. Half the kids in the schools don't
even know what's involved.
On the second page over there of that you'll see there's an
accident there. And the person that's dead in the car, one of them, is
Don Myers, Cathy's husband. Now, why was there an accident out in
the middle of the swamp? Swamp, my foot. We're out there putting
the fires out. And when we talk about putting out the fires, the
division of forestry commits arson continuously. They've tried to
bum out Sable Palms so many times, it isn't funny. And it was up to
the people out there, who live out there, they catch up on the fire and
they put the damn thing out before the forestry people ever come
there. Because it's just one thing after the other.
Now I want to get nasty. You people at home don't think I can
get nasty, stand by . You'll also notice in there, and I can document,
that the Department of Environmental Protection stood right at this
podium, told the Commissioners that if they did not trade Jane Scenic
Drive, which is out in the Fakahatchee, that they would close Marco
Island Airport. Marco Island Airport, do you know what you're
talking about? We're talking about Lear jets, we're talking about
money, we're talking about pumping fuel, we're talking about all
kinds of people coming in here and spending money, coming in and
bringing their golf bags and playing golf with big bucks. But the
DEP said we're going to close it.
Just out of dumb luck, I'm the next speaker, and friends of mine
Page 262
March 11, 2003
and relations just happened to work for the FAA. And I took this
man on because the DEP and nobody else in the State of Florida,
with the exception of the FAA, can shut down any airport.
I also charged the DEP that if we didn't get permits to cut down
the mangroves at either end, the first time we had an accident,
especially if we had a fatality, we would hold them criminally
negligent. Go back through the records, it's all back there.
Now, let's go to the South Florida Water Management, you'll
find in there I caught them, and so did the Naples Daily News,
deliberately flooding out the people. Deliberately. To the point
where at that point whereas at that time Mike Slayton was the head --
not the head, just resigned, went over to the other coast. Frank
Meeker, he's -- I'm going to hang on, I need some extra time, if you
don't mind.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I'll give you one more minute.
MR. PERKINS: Frank Meeker, who had the job as (sic) South
Florida Water Management, resigned. Then Paul Van Buskirk
(phonetic) came on the scene and six months later he resigned. Now
we got Clarence Tears, and Clarence Tears is so proud of his blue
beret.
This is an evacuation route we're talking about from Marco
Island to Goodland.
How do we save lives? You heard this morning about EMS and
what a good job. We have heard lies from the environmentalists over
and over and over and over again. Lies. Perjury. I'd like to take
them to task.
Fires. How do you get a piece of expensive equipment in there
that they can stomp the fires so they don't kill all the animals? Then
Clarence Tears will say oh, we're going to flood the damn thing
about a foot and a half of water most of the year. Well, can you just
see the doggone racoons swimming forever, and the snakes? They
drown. The rabbits drown, the rats drown, all the bugs drown.
Page 263
March 11, 2003
There's nothing for the deer to eat on and the deer have hoof rot.
Wake up. Have you people been asleep all this time? Can't you
know a lie when you hear it?
And they take and say -- and if I was them, I'd say what the hell,
I'm addressing a bunch of dummies who can't think.
Get real, people. That property out there is for everybody's use.
And it is a special place. And the reason why they want the special
place is on account of the resale value of Southern Golden Gate
Estates by a trust to a trust is worth billions. Take a look-see,
because -- and if you don't believe me and do that, check out Dog
Island, check out Top Sail up in the Panhandle. And guess who were
the buyers? Oh, people from the Conservancy. People from the DEP.
The governor and his son and cabinet. Oh--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Perkins, I have to --
MR. PERKINS: -- isn't that collusion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- ask you to wrap up.
MR. PERKINS: Isn't that collusion? Isn't that collusion?
With that, I thank you for your indulgence. Do your homework
a little bit. And challenge the people for honesty. Now, like you've
heard me on the radio, I defy you, and you people at home, prove me
in documentation that I'm a liar. Prove it to me. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Entertain a motion at this point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I will second the motion. Is
there anymore discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
Page 264
March 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner
Coletta descending (sic).
Next one is adopt a resolution creating a Collier County revenue
commission and ad hoc advisory body.
MR. MANALICH: Good evening, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record, Ramiro Manalich, chief assistant
county attorney.
I wouldn't dare prolong the agony too much tonight. The
proposed resolution's in your packet. I'm happy to answer any
questions. This is something the board was interested in previously.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a limit how long this is
going -- this committee's going to --
MR. MANALICH: Yes, a limit of three years, unless
terminated earlier by the County Commission. It's an ad hoc
committee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, and then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask why it's going to be
three years?
MR. MANALICH: Typically ad hoc committees are created up
to that length of time. The idea is that this group representing
multiple facets of the community would evaluate the revenue sources
and within that period of time should be able to do that and issue a
report.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess my point is, if it's going to
take them three years to identify the revenue sources, we don't need
them. We need the revenue sources identified very quickly. And I
would think if we put a 12-month deadline on this, we'd get the
results a lot faster.
And one other question I'd like to ask is, this advisory here, this
ad hoc committee, is going to come up with the recommendations
Page 265
March 11,2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner
Coletta descending (sic).
Item #12B
RESOLUTION 2003-118 RE: CREATION OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY REVENUE COMMISSION, AN AD HOC ADVISORY -
A.llOE.IED
Next one is adopt a resolution creating a Collier County revenue
commission and ad hoc advisory body.
MR. MANALICH: Good evening, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record, Ramiro Manalich, chief assistant
county attorney.
I wouldn't dare prolong the agony too much tonight. The
proposed resolution's in your packet. I'm happy to answer any
questions. This is something the board was interested in previously.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a limit how long this is
going -- this committee's going to --
MR. MANALICH: Yes, a limit of three years, unless
terminated earlier by the County Commission. It's an ad hoc
committee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, and then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask why it's going to be
three years?
MR. MANALICH: Typically ad hoc committees are created up
to that length of time. The idea is that this group representing
multiple facets of the community would evaluate the revenue sources
and within that period of time should be able to do that and issue a
report.
Page 265
March 11,2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess my point is, if it's going to
take them three years to identify the revenue sources, we don't need
them. We need the revenue sources identified very quickly. And I
would think if we put a 12-month deadline on this, we'd get the
results a lot faster.
And one other question I'd like to ask is, this advisory here, this
ad hoc committee, is going to come up with the recommendations
which will not result in the implementation of additional revenue
sources, unless the Board of County Commissioners approves it,
right?
MR. MANALICH: Yes, it is purely advisory.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MANALICH: And I agree with you, Commissioner, you
could have a 12-month limit on it. And I would just turn to the
manager and ask if that is wise from a policy perspective.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if they come forward with a--
and you can pretty much set the goals to this particular ad hoc
advisory body to give you recommendations. Then you're going to
get into the implementation issue, and they're going to have to come
to the board and they're going to have to get your direction as far as
those recommendations, either approval or non-approval.
In some particular cases it might need state approvals in order to
do that. Having that advisory committee there for the board's help as
they -- if they have to lobby our representatives in Tallahassee or
whatever in order to do those particular things because they've
studied it wouldn't be a bad idea for the board to have, should that be
necessary .
But Commissioner, if you have to wait for three years to get
your recommendations, that's not good. And you have a very good
point. But cutting it off after a year and saying they're dissolved
when you've got some knowledgeable citizens at your disposal for
help, I wouldn't throw that away either by saying you're sunsetted.
Page 266
March 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can't extend them if you get
to the end of the one year and then say well, we need your help with
respect to supporting some legislation in Tallahassee, and then
extend it for an additional year specifically for that purpose?
MR. MANALICH: It could be extended. Another option would
be of course to put into this resolution that they will be expected to
produce a report on recommendation within a 12-month period and
be available for other implementation assistance after the 12 months.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I guess I'm thinking in terms
of two months or three months. But--
MR. MANALICH: Whatever you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because I think if they're going to
be looking at additional revenue, they ought to be looking at
additional revenue we're going to get this year. And they ought to be
starting to look at something on a fairly -- an emergency basis.
Because it looks to me like we're going to need a lot of revenue. But
okay, you answered my questions.
MS. FILSON: I just want to get one thing clear. If you're going
to appoint them for one year, I just want to make sure that the one
year starts after they're appointed. Because sometimes it takes a
couple of months to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I see. That's just a question;
it's up to the board to decide how long they want to do it.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Halas and Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, in speaking with Jim Mitchell
about this, he suggested, and I love the idea, that possibly we look at
one of these positions being filled by an economist, and so we might
even be able to ask the productivity committee to produce an
economist or something.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, they're in there, yeah.
Page 267
March 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, they are.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How long does it take to ramp up
an ad hoc group, would you say, average? Time frame.
MS. FILSON: Put one together?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Put one together and get it
functioning.
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Up and running. Ramp up.
MR. WEIGEL: -- I think that's Sue Filson's experience, but it's
typically about two months, because she puts out letters and solicits,
they come back in and then she provides a presentation to the board.
So I'm trying to answer for you, Sue.
MS. FILSON: What was my question?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Never mind.
MR. WEIGEL: About how long it takes to get an advisory
committee started, from the creation or approval for creation by a
board to actually getting them approved.
MS. FILSON: Okay, I advertise for three weeks, then by
resolution staff has 41 days to get back to me with a
recommendation, or if it's a new committee, then categorizing each
of the categories -- each of the applicants, I'm sorry.
And in this case, they have specific categories. So if they
provide me with the names from each of the respective categories,
then all I'll need to do is an executive summary and bring it back
before the board. But I don't know how long it will take them to
provide the names to me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because where I was going with
this is what Commissioner Coy Ie was talking about, we seem to have
so many advisory committees out there, we want to make sure that
this advisory committee is going to work on behalf of the
commissioners in ASAP terms here, so we can determine where
we're going from here. And maybe it's the 18 months or two years
Page 268
March 11, 2003
maximum time for them to come up with some direction here.
Eighteen months, if you're talking of ramp-up time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that a motion you're making,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I'm just trying to get the facts
here before we make a motion. Yeah, because I want to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll entertain a motion, if you want to
make one, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I make a motion that we
follow the recommendations that we form this committee. I'd like to
have some more discussion. I'm concerned about the two or three
months. I don't think that's realistic. Three years might be on the
high end. Eighteen months sounds like it would be --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that part of your motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make that 18 months, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right, I'll second that at 18
months.
MS. FILSON: Eighteen months from the date of appointment?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of appointment, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anymore discussion?
All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner
Coyle descending (sic).
Page 269
March 11, 2003
Item #12C
RESOLUTION IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT BY LIMITING UNDULY REPETITIOUS
PUBLIC PETITIONS - DENIED; COUNTY MANAGER
Next item is 12-(D).
MR. MANALICH: Commissioners, this is an item that's also a
follow-up from the November 5th, 2002 board meeting, asking to
address the issue of repetitive public petitions.
What this would basically do, it was some sensitivity to first
amendment concerns where we can't get the content or viewpoint
expression curtailment. What we're trying to do here is basically to
say that if someone comes before the board on public petition two
times in the same subject matter within a six-month period, then the
manager is delegated the authority to put that item on the third
occasion to the public comment portion of the agenda at the end of
the meeting so that it will not tie up the meeting at the beginning with
the public petition process. It'd still afford the person an opportunity
to speak, but it would not interrupt the flow of business at the
beginning of the meeting.
So we possibly quite honestly might be a little stricter. I think
we have constitutionally room to perhaps put a twice -- that on the
second occasion within six months they'd have to be placed on public
comment, if the board thinks that's a wise policy choice. We did this
in a way that was pretty sensitive to First Amendment concerns.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think the whole purpose of public
petition is for the public to ask the commissioners to take action. But
a lot of times it's abused by not giving any actions, or there is just
one little action item and there's a whole bunch of nothing in there.
But we want to hear from the public, public petition or public
Page 270
March 11, 2003
comments. I was just concerned about wasting a lot of staffs time on
that.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think one of the things
that we're concerned about is that people use this particular
opportunity to get themselves on television, perhaps for political
purposes, rather than they really get any meaningful action
accomplished by the Board of County Commissioners. And
consequently, they are delaying the opportunity for other people to
really do some meaningful business.
I don't think this provision is going to solve that problem,
because I don't think any of them are repetitive. I think you have the
same persons coming up here time after time after time after time
with slightly different issues. And I think this particular provision is
not going to solve that problem.
And I don't have a good solution for it either. Maybe we just
have to tolerate it, I don't know. But it clearly is being abused by
people, and it's unfortunate, but maybe there's nothing we can do
with it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I hear what you're
saying, Commissioner Coyle, and you're right, it is being abused to
some degree. But also too, I can give you a good example. Sitting
right down here is Bob. He's been on top of the situation with zero
waste for a long time. He keeps bringing up different parts of the
issue. It's not the same repetitive thing. It might be on the same
subject. But now who's going to make this decision where the line is
drawn? Would somebody like Bob be the exception because of the
fact that he is out there dealing with a subj ect that has so many
different parts to it that you can talk on something every time a little
bit different? Are we talking about some like, let's mention names,
Mr. Kramer, who's been here numerous times about the situation
Page 271
March 11, 2003
with the towing service, trying to get a refund?
I'm a little bit nervous how we're going into this and where the
line's going to be drawn. I can see some possible problems with it.
MR. MANALICH: I admit, there would be some excessive
judgment. Under the proposal, it would be the manager's office that
would look at the public petition request, and under this resolution
determine if the subject matter is the same. And it says the subject
matter is the same when the issues raised, the grievance, the
complaint, alleged harm and injury or desired relief originate from
the same core incident, situation, condition or set of facts. You have
to apply that, obviously, on a per petition basis.
Again, the person would not be denied the opportunity to speak,
but if it's the same subject as defined in what I just read to you, then
they would have to wait until the end of the business meeting under
public comment to bring it up at the third meeting, if they've already
had the opportunity to talk about this subject before. The board
would have either directed or not whatever action it wanted on two
occasions already within six months. Beyond six months, you start a
new cycle again.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I think we all agree
that we don't ever want to stifle anybody, we want to hear
everybody's comments. I don't see why we can't just place it on a
different part of the agenda. Why don't we have public petitions and
public comments way down there where they are right now by II?
Make that 11 and 12 instead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't agree with that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas -- no, I don't
either.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I thought it was brilliant.
Page 272
March 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not a dumb idea, it's an idea.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you want a parking thing
with it --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I feel very strongly on the First
Amendment and that's the freedom of speech. And I feel that there's
other ways to handle this besides coming up with some type of a
resolution of this nature. So I myself feel strongly on freedom of
speech and I can't vote for something like this.
MR. MANALICH: The main constitutional restriction we have
is that we can't base the regulation on the viewpoint of the speaker or
the content of his or her speech. So that's why we have to do
something that's neutral --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But somebody's going to have to
make that discretion. I think it's going to lead us -- it could lead us
into trouble. Because if somebody makes a call and it's not right,
then we might end up in litigation, okay? And all we're -- and what
we're doing is having more control of government involved in
people's daily lives.
MR. MANALICH: And we can do research. And of course
there has been litigation, as you observed, Commissioner Halas, on
these issues. I will tell you that the courts have understandably given
some deference to the legislative body in terms of reasonable
regulations. We've even had cases of people come in with Ninja
masks on and were told to remove them, and issues that arisen. So
it's all across the board. But the courts do afford you some
reasonable discretion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've just given somebody some
ideas now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Boy, is it getting late tonight.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weigel, would you chime in
here, please?
MR. WEIGEL: I appreciate it. Again, we're just technicians.
Page 273
March 11, 2003
We did the legal research so we don't bring you a resolution that we
think is fraught with legal problems. But obviously the discussion is
important.
I think for instance with Bob, Mr. Coletta was mentioning Bob
coming forward with very -- not merely interesting but important
issues, is that if at a point in time he I think probably came forward
under public petition, the board under public petition determines if an
item should come back or if it's going to take on a life of its own.
The landfill, solid waste matters, zero --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Waste.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Waste.
MR. WEIGEL: Waste, yes, those things, he has had many
opportunities to come back under agenda items again and again and
again. So I think that items with legitimacy, arguably, the board has
given them legitimacy and they come back under a different title,
such as agenda items themselves where the board's going to take
action or have additional considerations or workshops and things of
that nature.
So it's not so very limiting, it just puts the person in a different
pew of the hearings and discussions that are had before the board. No
one's cut off from having the ability to speak.
And I'm not defending this per se, I'm just saying that there are
some distinctions to be noted, that they don't have 10 minutes with a
petition with a request to go to staff if there seems to be a redundancy
occurring there.
But again, as technicians, this can go as you see fit at any point
in time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Remind the commissioners when
Commissioner Halas was out there campaigning, knocking on doors,
Mr. Kramer, his opponent was up here using taxpayers' money for
his campaign. That's the way I seen it, and I didn't think that was fair
or right to do that. And not only did he use the taxpayers' time, but
Page 274
March 11,2003
also staffmembers. And I enjoy hearing from Mr. Kramer, I think
he's a unique individual and he does make some good points and we
have acted -- well, maybe I'm being too generous.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, you're being too generous.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But, you know, afford opportunities
for the public to comment, just in a proper manner. That's all. I
think that's all we want to do here.
So -- but I think more important, we want to hear from Bob,
because he is the one who we really work for. He's the public.
Please.
MS. FILSON: We have one public speaker, Mr. Chairman--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Who would that be?
MS. FILSON: -- Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hi. I think Mr. Kramer or people like Mr.
Kramer should be considered as advertisements that the process here
in Collier County works for everyone, for all citizens. You can
tolerate people if they go a little overboard, as you suggested, Mr.
Coyle. What if I wanted to come up and get on the agenda there
three times in a six-month period and the third time wasn't something
that wasn't going to make Mr. Mudd happy, and I'm going to be
going to him, trying to get on the agenda in that portion, the front
portion. I could say, well, it's only because Mr. Mudd didn't want to
hear about zero waste, or he wants to pyrolyze or whatever.
Of course I've taken that opportunity a number of occasions to
speak at that podium for 10 minutes at the beginning of the meeting,
but I oftentimes reserve my comments to the end of the meeting,
unless it's during a specific agenda item.
But let's not make this too complicated. You know, it is a
benefit to the community to see people, as half-baked as they are
sometimes, get up here and throw together 10 minutes and everybody
just sit and listen. And I'll tell you, it's good for the staff to hear from
the general public and to see them and relate to them and know who
Page 275
March 11, 2003
they are. I'm for moving the comments, well, okay, maybe it's nice
the way it is. If you make a special effort, you make a presentation
for 10 minutes, you do that, you get at the front of the meeting. You
want to wait around for comments, you can wait at the end. This is
pretty good. Anything more fine-tuned starts smelling bad, okay? So
thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, then
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ramiro, I appreciate the work you
have done to try to deal with a problem that we really have brought
up. But I don't think this particular proposal will do the job that
we're looking to solve. And I'd like to make a motion that we just
disapprove this --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- resolution and get on with it.
MS. FILSON: Who seconded it?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County manager wants to chime in
here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I just don't have a better
solution. If I had one, I'd make a recommendation.
MR. MUDD: Can we --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, please.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think one of the reasons that we
got where we were with the repetitious thing, because it became easy
to write a handwritten note with two things on it and throw it on a fax
machine. I think if we could get a little bit more specific on what
that letter needs to ask the county manager and tell the board a little
bit about what the thing is that they want to talk about --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll go along with that.
MR. MUDD: -- so that you have a --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll go along with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Get a --
Page 276
March 11, 2003
MS. FILSON: I'll go along with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- form, prepare a form that's got
to be filled out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: More detail.
MR. MUDD: That you have a read-ahead so you know what it's
going to be like and what they're asking about, and where the
specifics are in that particular case so that you have a chance to have
staff or whatever or one of the people that help you, may it be a
kitchen cabinet or whatever, to help you and they can take a look at
those particular items. Because right now it's a shot in the dark. You
give one paragraph and a letter back from me, and whatever comes
up comes up. And sometimes you're -- you might not know, based
on the presentation, what exactly the issue is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We could have something similar
to the Naples Daily News. They have to submit 250 words or less
what they want to talk about.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would suggest that we also
supply supporting documents, rather than hand them to us here at the
commission. I like to be able to spend my Saturdays and Sundays
reviewing this at great length, rather than have somebody just drop a
whole pile of documents in front of me. That would work very well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we have a motion and a
second not to approve this item. And we can also entertain a motion
after this motion fails -- or the motion passes.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Commissioner Coyle wants to make another motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to make another motion,
that we direct the county manager to develop a procedure which must
be followed in order to place these things on the agenda, and that
Page 277
March 11,2003
procedure would require the completion of a form and -- with
sufficient information to let us understand the nature of the petition
and all supporting documentation in advance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I think we're there. Any more
discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #12D
WRITTEN SETTLEMENT OFFER OPTIONS FOR BERT HARRIS
ACT CLAIM OF AQUAPORT, L.C., NORMAN BURKE AND JIM
Next item is 12(D), I think it is.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner, Assistant Mike Pettit -- Assistant
County Attorney Mike Pettit again. I'm here to talk to you about --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I make a motion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, please, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to make a motion that we
don't extend any offers of settlement on this issue.
MR. PETTIT: Let me stop you there --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. PETTIT: -- Commissioner Coyle.
The statute seems to require that we make a written settlement
offer. But one of the kinds of written settlement offers you could
make, and the one I'm going to recommend you make, is to make no
change in what you did before. And as I understand it, the primary
complaint about what you did before was you amended the land
Page 278
March 11,2003
development code to delete the FAR method of calculating hotel
development in the residential tourist zoning district.
So I'm recommending that you not make a change in that prior
action, nor should you make any change, from our point of view, and
it's my recommendation you not, as to the revocation of the building
permit or the site development plan for the 68-unit hotel, and that
you authorize the county attorney office and outside counsel, Ted
Tripp, to convey that written settlement proposal in writing.
I would add that I think you can reasonably find, as you make
your motion, that A, the developer has taken away our ability by
building another building to make any meaningful change, adding
back FAR calculations in any event; and B, previously you have
found that the application of an FAR calculation for a hotel in this
zoning district on this particular piece of property led to a
development that was inconsistent with the growth management.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, can I do this again then?
MR. PETTIT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I'd make a motion we make
no change in the action that we had previously taken, and that we
direct the legal staff and outside counsel to convey that message to
the opposing party.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, we're okay with that motion,
Mr. Pettit?
MR. PETTIT: Yes, that's what we need to do under the statute.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saYIng aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Page 279
March 11,2003
Item #15A
Last item on our agenda, we go to staffs comments.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My comment is
only one minor call it agenda index cleanup item, and that is Item
8(A) on the agenda which had to do with -- would have been an
ordinance amending Ordinance 99-76 relating to mandatory street
numbering. It shows on the index that it was continued to April 8th.
And I know that that is your intention, but it was not part of the
motion for changes made this morning on the agenda change list, so
I'd like for the board to take up Item 8(A) right now and do what
would appear to have been done, on paper anyway, and to vote to
continue the item 8(A) to the April 8th --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make the motion that we
continue 8(A).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor of the motion, signify
by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. That's it for me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
County Manager Jim Mudd?
Item #15B
Page 280
March 11, 2003
CARNIVAL PERMIT #2003-03 FOR FAIR IN IMMOKALEE, FL -
EXIENDED
MR. MUDD: I wish mine was so simple.
I've got a request here from Mr. Benny Starling from
Immokalee, from the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, and he's
basically asking that the board -- he's requesting that the board
continue his carnival permit for one week to have it continue to go
from the 11 th of March, today, through March 16th, and they'll pay
the appropriate fee.
And Joe Schmitt isn't here, so I don't know what the appropriate
fee is, but he'll get with Mr. Starling and that will happen. And we
just need to have a vote on it. This came in late yesterday afternoon,
so I didn't have an opportunity to get it to the board, but I bring it up
during discussion in order to do that. But if we're going to continue
the carnival permit, I'm going to need a vote in order to do that, just
like a regular item.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I help with this just a little
bit?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I see everybody looking at me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, just -- yeah, we're waiting for
you to make a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, make a motion that we
approve the carnival permit for another week, and the appropriate
fees be paid.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Mr. Weigel, we have a
question. Can we do this without it being on the agenda as
advertised?
MR. WEIGEL: You're still in the meeting. All that's under the
Sunshine Law, you're required to, you know, have notice of the
Page 281
March 11, 2003
meeting. You can add it to the agenda during the meeting. So I
would opine that you can in fact consider this in the course of your
open meeting, which you still have.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I just get an explanation why
we're extending this carnival permit? Maybe give us some
background?
MR. MUDD: Because it's a good carnival and it's bringing in
money for the community, and they've got some agreements from the
folks that, you know, have the rides and things like that, that they
would stay on an extra week in order to do that. And they're trying --
and they're collecting the money for a good cause. And you're
continuing the permit that they already have.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor
of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #15C
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is a -- we're getting
the district town hall meetings set up for each one of the
commissioners, and we've asked the commissioners to give us items
that they would like to talk about.
Commissioner Coletta gave me his items today and there are -- I
can do everything with stuff except two items, one is the airport
authority, and to get them out and talk with that process and they
work for you, and the other one is to get the water/sewer --
Page 282
March 11, 2003
Immokalee water/sewer service folks out there, and I'd like your
permission to draft the letter for the Chairman's signature, inviting
them to attend the District 5 town hall meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please do so.
Item #15D
MR. MUDD: Next item is we're getting several requests from
representatives, from congress people talking about how do they
want to -- it used to be ICET (phonetic) funds, now it's T -21 at the
federal level. It has everything to do with a bypass for 1-75 that
follows the 82/29 footprint, and some of that's going. We've got
local representatives that are talking about speeding up interchange
improvements to our 1-75; for instance, the Davis/951 interchange
issue. And they're asking for quick turnaround on support for those
particular items.
And I just wanted to bring up the conversation. It's bringing
federal dollars in or state dollars in and getting those projects brought
forward for this community that have to do with 1-75, or a new
alignment. And I kind of wanted -- before I have the staff say I think
the board's going to support this, I would like to have the board talk
to me just a little bit about that in public of what we think about it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: My perspective, I've talked to
Congressman Mario Diaz- Balart on the needs for 1-75 improvements,
and the discussion came up about the bypass. And I know that
Commissioner Halas talked to Representative David Rivera on the
bypass. David is up there, he's on the transportation appropriations
committee, he's going to be fighting for that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And also Davis is going to be
fighting for that, too. Mike Davis.
Page 283
March 11,2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So my perspective, I think we're
kind of in line. I don't know --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no problem when I'm up
there in Tallahassee carrying it to different committee heads, if I'm so
instructed to do so. Possibly anyone else that's going to end up in
Tallahassee might also volunteer to follow up with other people.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any money we could get back. Our
money -- if we get our money back, the better off we are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Amen.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Item #15E
DISCUSSION RE: ORDINANCES BECOMING LAW AND THE
ERFSS - DIS.C.l JSSED
And the last item I'll bring up, and it's just a -- it's just one. I
would ask -- look at, everybody doesn't like some law that's out
there, okay, and I will tell you, I probably don't like some of them
one way or the other. But I would ask the Commissioners, if we've
got staff out there supporting -- or trying to enforce them, along with
the sheriff and whatnot, if there's an ordinance that exists, like it or
not, if you can -- if you're talking to the press, I would ask you to say
I don't like it, I want to make changes to it, but it's the law and we'll
enforce it. And make sure you get that bottom line in there, because
we've had several folks that have basically given us, you know,
full-size pieces of paper and say forget it, get out of my face, keep
your notice of violation, and they rip it up and things like that. So--
and it goes with every ordinance, okay?
An ordinance is the law, you make the laws, and the law stands
until you change the law at the appropriate time, based on your
direction. I just -- make sure that you don't fall victim to that
Page 284
March 11, 2003
reporter's statement, well, how do you feel about it, and you make a
statement and then it ends and then people use that against the people
that are trying to enforce it.
So if you don't like a law, say you don't like it, but say it still is
the law and it will be enforced until we change it. I just ask you to
do that for us so that people don't run up against that opposition.
Because as Mr. Kramer would say, not everybody is straight up here.
And I'm talking about out there in the public. And so that would
help us out immensely, and I'd appreciate it very much. That's all I
have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As Mr. Kramer would say, let's
roll. I'm going to pass these out to you.
Item #15F
What it is on that task force for clam farming, I have to -- in
order to be able to move the process forward, I need to send out these
letters to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,
asking for them to come and put on workshops so that we can -- and
also start drafting the required paperwork on the part of the state. It's
something that has to be done from this level.
Of course these letters have not been sent. They're there for
your approval now so that we can get them out. I'm not committing
the commission in this letter in any way.
I had -- Ellen Chadwell worked on this in some large degree
going over this and helped me put it together. I don't know if David's
got any comments on it or not.
MR. WEIGEL: No, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You've got to have a workshop?
Page 285
March 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You better believe it. Those
clams don't come from noplace. You've got to educate them and how
it's -- oh, it's not a workshop with the commission. This is a
workshop with that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With the clams.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: With the clams. That's what it
sounds like to me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sorry. Just kidding.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With that, I'm going to clam
up.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Got to have a workshop to raise
clams?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got to have a workshop
being a public involvement.
And it's quite a process of growing clams.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Really?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's not something that's as easy
as it sounds. You start out with a little tiny seed clam and you have
to grow it into a bigger size and a bigger size.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we have to listen to this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, you do.
And clams are very good for you, too. Especially the ones that
come from Southwest Florida, around Everglades and Chokoloskee.
Oh, and Marco Island.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What about frog legs?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Frog legs are great for you, too.
We're going to get to that next year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In Goodland.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Move adjournment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have -- is that the only
comment you have?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the only comment I have.
Page 286
March 11,2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no comment. I'm ready to
go. What a day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good night.
Item #15G
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. One thing that I've been
working on, and I know that the boating in Collier County is very
important to all the residents, and I know manatees is, too. So I've
been working with staff, trying to get -- talking to the congressman
that we have on what our needs are.
One thing that we do need is studies in certain areas. Because
there is no historical data on where the manatee is. In two areas, one
down by Chokoloskee, and the other one up by Goodland. And if we
don't have these studies, big government could come in and create a
sanctuary in that area, and that's one thing that we don't want to do.
So I think our representatives in congress is going to assist in
trying to get some federal dollars for those studies of those areas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I comment on that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I thought you were done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I -- I was up first.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ladies first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, ladies first.
Oh, it's the perfect segue, because -- I guess because we've
noticed the great need for some studies. My islands advisory board,
especially somewhere that manatees are living around Isle of Capri,
have gotten together, and we've invited for April 1 st out at Mackie
Park, we've invited Save the Manatees and Standing Watch and
Florida Fish & Wildlife and the Rookery Bay, along with a realtor --
Page 287
March 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is this a fish fry?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it's an informational meeting
where people will actually be able to attend. Everybody's going to
be offering viewpoints and information and receive questions and
answers from the audience.
Just -- I'd love to have you come, because I didn't even realize
how interested you were in it. Except I read your letter to
Congressman Porter Goss, and so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's a holiday, you know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but we're not going to talk
about it now, are we? It's April 1st.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, very briefly. I want to
support what you just said, Mr. Chairman. And I want to follow up
with a request, a status request on where we are with getting the
manatee protection plan in the growth management plan. Because
that's critical to this issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think so. I don't think it is.
If it is, it hasn't come before us.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Joe Schmitt is going to make sure
that that happens during this growth management plan piece. Right
now it doesn't necessarily have to reside in it, but it has to be
referenced.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just referenced. But when are we
going to make the reference to it? And when you say this next land
development code piece, what does that mean?
MR. MUDD: Sir, you have a spring cycle that comes in, and
you're doing it right now, where you've seen in Joe's cit. reps, you
see those people lining up at the end of his cit. rep. saying they want
to come forward.
One of the items in that process will be putting the manatee
Page 288
March 11, 2003
protection plan into the growth management plan, as far as reference.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Translate that into what week or
what month are we talking about.
MR. MUDD: Sir, everything should be finished by June. The
growth management plan has to go up to the state.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, no, no, no, just when are we
going to submit it is the question. That's what I'm asking.
MR. MUDD: Sir, it's -- packets are being developed right now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: You should see it within the next month or so.
It's got to go to -- it has to go to the planning commission and then
you've got to hear it twice, last time I looked.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because that's sort of key to get to
where you want to go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm glad you're really delving into
that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that's one of the issues.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, one of the other just -- one
of the other issues that -- in regards to this manatee program, it's very
important that we save the manatee, but it's also, I've got concerns
about some of the legalities that may happen to the boating industry
down here as far as moratorium on docks being built. I'm not sure if
it's going to affect our waters or not. And maybe Chairman, you
have some information on that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Collier County sits pretty good
because of the manatee protection plan that we do have. Unlike Lee
County. But after they settle the Lee County issue, we're next,
because Southwest Florida -- or Southwest Florida is a hot topic for
manatee protection. So it's something that we want to keep on the
radar screen.
Any other business?
Page 289
March 11, 2003
MR. MUDD: Sir, did you tell us that we're going to do a clam
workshop or a public hearing? I didn't get a resolution from that.
Somebody said they were going to clam up and that's the last part I
got. Did we get direction that we wanted to plan a workshop public
hearing and set that up in order to move the clam initiative forward?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's going to be set up by the
state. That will be in their domain.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And then we're going to have a
clambake.
We're adjourned.
* * * * * Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner
Halas and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTIONS 2003-99 THROUGH 2003-104 PROVIDING FOR
THE ASSESSMENT OF LIENS FOR THE COST OF THE
Item #16A2
THREE-YEAR LEASE AGREEMENT WITH C.P.O.C. REALTY,
AN ILLINOIS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, FOR OFFICE
SPACE TO BE UTILIZED BY THE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2003-105 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "CARLTON
Page 290
March 11, 2003
LAKES UNIT NO. 3A"-WITH RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE
SECIlRITY
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2003-106 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN
MARSH UNIT SEVEN REPLA T" -WITH RELEASE OF
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2003-107 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN
MARSH UNIT EIGHT"-WITH RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE
SECIlRITY
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 2003-108 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN
MARSH UNIT FIFTEEN"-WITH RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE
SECIlRITY
Item #16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR BERMUDA BAY TWO, LOT 20- WITH
RELEASE OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE
PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED
AGENT
Item #16A8
Page 291
March 11,2003
ONE (1) IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT DUE TO COMPASS
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. FOR OVERPAYMENT TOTALING
$79S 7R
Item #16A9
ONE (1) IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT TO KRAFT
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. FOR $173.28 DUE TO BUILDING
Item #16A1 0
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
CARL TON LAKES, TRACT D- WITH RELEASE OF UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR
Item #16A11
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
CARLTON LAKES, TRACT U-WITH RELEASE OF UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR
Item #16A12
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
LAKEVIEW SE, TRACT G AT CARL TON LAKES-WITH
RELEASE OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE
PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED
AGENT
Item #16A13
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "MAJORS", AND APPROVAL
OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
Page 292
March 11, 2003
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY-WITH
SI.IEllLAII.ONS
Item #16A14
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "TWIN EAGLES PHASE TWO
A-I" AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
Item #16A15
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "TWIN EAGLES PHASE TWO
A-2" AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
Item #16A16
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $52,000
RELATED TO LEE CYPRESS WATER AND SEWER
COOPERATIVE RECEIVERSHIP ACTION, AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND
W A SLEW A T.ERAl.IIHO.R.IY
Item #16A17
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2003-04 RE PETITION CARNY-2003-AR-
3721, PEG RUBY, SPECIAL EVENTS COORDINATOR,
COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION, REQUESTING
A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL ON MARCH 14, 15
AND 16,2003 IN THE VINEYARDS COMMUNITY PARK AT
Page 293
March 11, 2003
6231 ARBOR BOULEVARD. (JOSEPH K. SCHMITT,
Item #16Bl
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 03-3446 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $986,360 FOR ENGINEERING AND PERMITTING
SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY AGNOLI, BARBER AND
BRUNDAGE, INC. FOR PROPOSED ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS TO RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD
FROM POLLY AVENUE TO COLLIER BOULEVARD, PROJECT
NO nOl n9
Item #16B2
GRANT OF A PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE ACCESS AND
MAINTENANCE EASEMENT TO PROVIDE FOR ACCESS AND
REGULAR MAINTENANCE BY COUNTY STAFF TO ONE OF
Item #16B3
RECIPROCAL AGREEMENT, ASSIGNMENT AND
ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT, AND RELEASE AND WAIVER
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD)
INCIDENT TO THE FOUR LANE CONSTRUCTION OF
Item #16B4
REALLOCATION OF FUNDING FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 02-3398 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$116,690.00 TO PROVIDE FOR DESIGN FOR WATER AND
SEWER RELOCATIONS RELATED TO THE ROADWAY
Page 294
March 11,2003
IMPROVEMENTS TO COLLIER BOULEVARD BETWEEN
GOLDEN GA TE BOULEVARD AND IMMOKALEE ROAD,
E.R.OlECIlS 0 nSOn 1
Item #16B5
RESOLUTION 2003-109 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF
A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FROM THE STATE OF
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE
Item #16B6
PIGGYBACKING OF A PENSACOLA, FLORIDA (ESCAMBIA
COUNTY) CONTRACT TO PURCHASE LAY IN PLACE
POLYMER MODIFIED COLD MIX PAVING SYSTEM (MICRO-
SURFACING) FOR THE ROAD MAINTENANCE
DEPARTMENT, ANNUAL AMOUNT IS ESTIMATED TO BE
$50,000- WITH FLORIDA HIGHWAY PRODUCTS, CONTRACT
iiE.Il..OlJ}2J 9
Item #16B7
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST TO TRANSFER $267,641.78
FROM TRANSPORTATION GAS TAX RESERVES FOR A CASH
PAYMENT TO FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES, INC.,
FOR THE DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT,
APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ON OCTOBER 22, 2002
Item #16B8
WORK ORDER NO. DBA-FT-03~01 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$165,500 TO AQUAGENIX FOR THE 2003 AUSTRALIAN PINE
REMOVAL PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 51501) AND APPROVE A
Page 295
March 11, 2003
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $50,000 FROM FUND 325 RESERVES TO FUND
325 AUSTRALIAN PINE REMOVAL PROGRAM COST CENTER
J 72940
Item #16B9
BID NO. 03-3459 PURCHASE OF ONE (1) TRAILER MOUNTED
TOWABLE AERIAL LIFT TO NATIONS RENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $30,495. (NORMAN FEDER, ADMINISTRATOR,
Item #16Cl
CHANGE ORDER #1 TO WORK ORDER UC-004 FOR THE
RELOCATION OF WATER AND SEWER MAINS RELATED TO
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S
WIDENING OF U.S. 41 FROM BAREFOOT WILLIAMS ROAD
TO EAST OF SR 951, IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,120-TO
Item #16C2
ACCEPTANCE OF A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT FROM WINTERPARK RECREATION
ASSOCIATION INC., AND NAPLES WINTERPARK III, INC.,
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 12-INCH SEWER FORCE MAIN
FOR THE P ALM DRIVE/DAVIS BOULEVARD FORCE MAIN
=711SR)
Item #16C3
WORK ORDER (#CPE-FT-03-01) FOR ARE-NOURISHMENT
ENGINEERING REPORT AS PART OF COUNTY-WIDE SAND
Page 296
March 11,2003
SEARCH, PROJECT 90527, IN THE AMOUNT OF $89,678-WITH
Item #16C4
CHANGE ORDER #1 TO WORK ORDER 61 FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE WESTERN INTERCONNECT FOR
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $109,486-WITH MITCHELL AND STARK CONSTRUCTION
~C
Item #16C5
EXECUTION OF TIME EXTENSION TO GRANT AGREEMENT
OF UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY (USEPA) GRANT HS-8320501-1 FOR WATER
SYSTEM VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AT COLLIER
Item #16C6
EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENTS FOR
TIME EXTENSION TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD) GRANT CONTRACT C-
13978 FOR BRACKISH WATER SUPPLY WELLS FOR THE
SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
Item #16Dl
LIBRARY SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGY ACT (LSTA)
GRANT TO UPGRADE THE LIBRARY AUTOMATION
Item #16D2
Page 297
March 11,2003
AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO CONTRACT RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS FOR THE SANCTUARY SKATE PARK
CONCESSION
Item #16D3
RFP #03-3445, "VANDERBILT BEACH CONCESSION" WITH
ANTICIPATED REVENUE OF $4200 FOR THE REMAINDER OF
FY01-TO CABANA.n.AlS
Item #16D4
CHANGE ORDER #2 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,868.25 FOR
ADDITIONAL WORK AT GULF SHORE BEACH ACCESS-
Item #16D5
REQUEST BY JAMES O'SHEA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
WILLOUGH HEALTH CARE, INC., D/B/A THE WILLOUGH AT
NAPLES FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO
PROVIDE A LETTER OF SUPPORT TO ALLOW 24 OF 42
EXISTING BEDS FOR GENERAL INPATIENT PSYCHIATRIC
CARP,
Item #16E1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND CROWN CASTLE GT COMPANY AT
AN ANNUAL COST OF $8,400-TO INSTALL THREE (3)
ADDITIONAL ANTENNAS, A RADIO EQUIPMENT SHELTER
ANIliiENERAIOR
Item #16E2
Page 298
March 11, 2003
TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE OF CONTRACT #01-3287
"
"
Item #16E3
BID #03-3439 "ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR PAINTING
CONTRACTORS" TO SPECTRUM PAINT, WM. T. DECKER
PAINTING AND TROPEX CONSTRUCTION-WITH ANNUAL
Item #16E4
BID #03-3464 FOR "FULL SERVICE FOR PROFESSIONAL
MOVERS" TO SUNCOAST MAYFLOWER, BEST MOVING
AND STORAGE OF NAPLES AND NAPLES MOVING AND
STORAGE
Item #16E5
STAFF'S SHORT LIST FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR
THE DESIGN OF THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER,
RFP 03-3448-NEGOTIATE CONTRACT WITH HARVARD,
lOLLRY, CLEF,S, ~
Item #16E6
WORK ORDER #VC-02-05 UNDER RFP #02-3349 GENERAL
CONTRACTORS SERVICES WITH VARIAN CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY FOR THE RENOVATIONS OF THE 5TH FLOOR
COURTHOUSE (FORMER LAW LIBRARY AREA) IN THE
AMOUNT OF $172,795 FOR NEW OFFICE SPACE FOR THE
CLERKDF COURTS
Item #16E7
Page 299
March 11,2003
CHANGE ORDER NO.2 (WORK ORDER NO. SC 02-07) WITH
SURETY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF
$60,013.08 FOR ADDITIONAL WORK RELATING TO THE
RENOVATION OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S LEASED
BUILDING INCREASING THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHANGE
0RDER.S.TIl.$9n,9li.1J
Item #16Fl
GRANT APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $41,802 TO
PURCHASE SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE
COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM PROGRAM
Item # 16F2
COST-REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT, NOT TO EXCEED
$75,000, BETWEEN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND COLLIER COUNTY TO UPDATE
THE TERRORISM ANNEX OF THE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COLLIER COUNTY
CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS PLAN (COOP) AND APPROVE
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE AND
APPROPRIATE THE $75,000 AS REVENUE-CONTRACT NO.
~-09-2ldl.1-
Item #16F3 - Added
APPROVE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE APPLICATION FOR
A MATCHING (50/50) GRANT OFFERED BY THE FLORIDA
DIVISION OF FORESTRY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,749 AND
Page 300
March 11, 2003
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER HALAS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT TO
ATTEND THE EDC MEMBERSHIP MEETING AND MIXER-ON
MARCH 19,2003, AT THE NAPLES BEACH HOTEL AND GOLF
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE-FILED AND/OR
REEERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 30 I
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
March 11, 2003
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1. Historical & Archaeolo~ical Preservation Board - Agenda for February
19,2003.
2. 1-75/Golden Gate Ad Hoc Landscaping Beautification Committee _
Minutes of January 15,2003; Agenda for February 12,2003.
3. Bayshore Gateway Trian~le Redevelopment Advisory Board - Agenda
for February 5, 2003; Minutes of September 23, 2003.
4. Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. - Minutes of January 8,2003.
5. Collier County Plannin~ Commission - Agenda for February 6, 2003;
Minutes of January 2, 2003, Agenda for February 6, 2003
6. Environmental Advisory Council- Agenda for February 5, 2003;
Minutes of January 8, 2003.
7. Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Minutes for
January 21,2003; Agenda for February 18,2003.
8. Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for February 10,2003.
9. Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for February 19,2003;
Notes of January 15,2003.
10. Collier County Contractor's Licensing Board - Agenda for February 19,
2003.
11. Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for February
11,2002; Minutes of January 14,2003.
12. Health & Human Services Advisory Committee - Agenda for November
21,2002; Minutes of November 21,2002.
13. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - February 19,2003; Minutes of
January 15,2003.
H:Data/Format
H:Data/Format
14. Citizen's Corps Advisory Committee - Minutes of January 23, 2003.
15. Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Agenda for February
19,2003.
16: Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee - Agenda and
Minutes of December 11,2002; Agenda and Minutes of January 8, 2003
and Agenda and Minutes of January 15,2003.
17. Local Redevelopment Advisory Board - Agenda for February 26, 2003.
18. Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for
February 27,2003, Minutes of January 16,2003.
March 11, 2003
Item #16J1
DETERMINATION THAT THE PURCHASES OF GOODS AND
SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED REPORT OF
OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF
Item #16Kl
OFFER OF mDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS JOHN V ASSARAS
AND JOAN P. V ASSARAS, FOR THE FEE TAKING OF PARCEL
NO. 211A IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,400 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. EFRAIN ARCE, ET AL, CASE NO.
02-2119-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #60018)-$1,600
Item #16K2
OFFER OF mDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS ARMANDO A.
LAMBERT AND ALGIS L. MADOS, FOR THE FEE TAKING OF
PARCEL NO. 208 IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,150 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ARMANDO A.
LAMBERT, ET AL, CASE NO. 02-2132-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD
PROJECT #60018)-$750 DEPOSITED INTO THE REGISTRY OF
THE COURT
Item #16K3
OFFER OF mDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS ZUNILDA G.
CONFORTE AND SHEL VA Z. CONFORTE, AS TRUSTEES OF
THE CONFORTE RESIDUAL CREDIT SHELTER TRUST OF
RODOLFO R. CONFORTE U/A/D 2/08/01, FOR THE FEE
TAKING OF PARCEL NO. 206 IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,250 IN
Page 302
March 11, 2003
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ARMANDO A.
LAMBERT, ET AL, CASE NO. 02-2132-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD
PROJECT #60018)-$1,350 DEPOSITED INTO THE REGISTRY
OETIIF COURT
Item #16K4
OFFER OF mDGMENT TO RESPONDENT mLIANN S.
BOBACK, FOR THE FEE TAKING OF PARCEL NO. 196 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $6,900 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. ROBERT W. PIEPLOW, ET AL, CASE NO. 02-2133-
CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #60018)-$700 DEPOSITED
Item #16K5
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS MEDARO T.
SANCHEZ AND OLIVA SANCHEZ FOR THE FEE TAKING OF
PARCEL NO. 201 IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,000 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JEFFREY A.
RICHARDSON, ET AL, CASE NO. 02-2188-CA (IMMOKALEE
ROAD PROJECT #60018)-$1,900 DEPOSITED INTO THE
REGISIRY OE.IHE COURT
Item #16K6
OFFER OF mDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS TIM
CHERRINGTON AND MAX CHERRINGTON FOR THE FEE
TAKING OF PARCEL NO. 202 IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,000 IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JEFFREY A.
RICHARDSON, ET AL, CASE NO. 02-2188-CA (IMMOKALEE
ROAD PROJECT #60018)-$1,900 DEPOSITED INTO THE
REGISIRY OE.IHE COURT
Item #16K7
Page 303
March 11,2003
OFFER OF mDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS ZUNILDA G.
CONFORTE AND SHEYLA Z. CONFORTE, AS TRUSTEES OF
THE RODOLFO CONFORTE RESIDUAL CREDIT SHELTER
TRUST OF RODOLFO R. CONFORTE U/A/D 2/08/01 THE FEE
TAKING OF PARCEL NO. 203 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)-$700 DEPOSITED INTO THE
REGISIRY OEIHE COURT
Item #16K8
THE SUBORDINATION OF COUNTY'S SIDEWALK
EASEMENT INTERESTS TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND WAIVE
COUNTY'S APPORTIONMENT CLAIM AGAINST THE
ERQEERTY OWNERS
Item #16K9
AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES RELATIVE TO
THE EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 733A, 733B,
733C, 733D, 733E, 733F, 833A, 833B, 933A AND 933B IN THE
LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. MCALPINE
BRIARWOOD, INC., ET AL, CASE NO. 98-1635-CA
Item #16KI0
PAYMENT OF ADmSTED HOURLY RATES FOR OUTSIDE
COUNSEL IN VANDERBILT SHORES CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. V. COLLIER COUNTY, AQUAPORT,
LC, ET AL. V. COLLIER COUNTY, ET AL., AND THE BERT
HARRIS ACT CLAIM AND RATIFY THE ADmSTED RATES
Page 304
March 11,2003
EFFECTIVE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2003-AS CONTAINED IN THE
Item #17A
MEEI.IN.G.. RESOLUTION 2003-110 RE PETITION
A VROW2002-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 3RD AVENUE NORTHWEST BY THE PLAT OF
"
"
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2003-111 RE CUE-2002-AR-3221, JAMES J.
SOPER, REPRESENTING HERON SENIOR HOUSING LLC,
REQUESTING A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED
CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:40 p.m.
Page 305
March 11, 2003
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
~~~i~~ UNDER ITS
TOM HE IN, Chai~n
4- '8~D~
... ., '.
, '
",'
..,
",',j . r)1 II "," "
", \" 'cD " "
-{,", 0.,'
ATIEST'" .''''~2,
", dWiGHTj~~ gROCK, CLERK
_, c " . ~ - ·
l>Lf1:~"~~~~~, k
\'Att~"tj.'II to ChairMU'S
:'sf9nattire on 1,.
These minutes approved by the Board on
As presented j or as corrected
'-t-~-03
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS AND CHERIE'
NOTTINGHAM.
Page 306