BCC Minutes 07/29/2003 RJuly 29, 2003
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, July 29, 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 districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:02 a.m. in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Tom Henning
Jim Coletta
Fred Coyle (Speaker Phone)
Donna Fiala
Frank Halas
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Administrator
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
July 29, 2003
9:00 a.m.
Tom Henning, Chairman, District 3
Donna Fiala, Vice-Chair, District 1
Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2
Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5
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.
1
July 29, 2003
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
e
Jane Silcox, Clinical Pastoral Education Department, Naples Community
Hospital
AGENDA AND MINUTES
Ge
Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
June 10, 2003 - Regular Meeting
June 13, 2003 - CRA Meeting
June 16, 2003 - LDC/Special Meeting
June 24, 2003 - Regular Meeting
June 26, 2003 - BCC/Budget Workshop
June 27, 2003 - BCC/Budget Workshop
SERVICE AWARDS
TWENTY-FIVE YEAR ATTENDEE:
2
July 29, 2003
e
o
o
1) Homero Partida Jr., Transportation Division
PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation to recognize Tuesday, August 5, 2003, as National Night Out
in Collier County. To be accepted by Skip Sweikert, President.
B. Proclamation to recognize the Collier County Library Department for being
awarded the Achievement Award from the National Association of
Counties. To be accepted by Andrea Taylor and Susan Petr.
C. Proclamation to recognize Keith Larson as "Citizen of the Year for Golden
Gate". To be accepted by Keith Larson.
PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Louise Hardy, Administrative Secretary,
Parks and Recreation, as Employee of the Month for July 2003.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
Ao
Bo
Co
This item to be heard before 11:00 a.m. Public Petition request by Ms.
Heather Knight requesting the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners send a letter to FEMA on behalf of the Residents of Golden
Gate Estates.
Public Petition request by Ms. Cheri R. Byrd requesting to discuss
ingress/egress problem located at 91 Golden Gate Boulevard.
Public Petition request by Mr. Paul Feuer, President, Village Walk
Homeowners Association, regarding Livingston Road Extension.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Ao
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2003-AR-3634,
Dennis Cronin, of Bond, Schoeneck and King, P.A., representing Dennis R.
Combs and Earl G. Hodges, requesting Conditional Use "20" for an oil
storage facility in an 'T' Industrial Zoning District. The property to be
considered for the conditional use is located in the northwest quadrant of the
3
July 29, 2003
intersection of Industrial Boulevard and Radio Road at 68 Industrial
Boulevard in Section 36, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County,
Florida. This property consists of 4.63 acres +.
Be
Request to continue this item to the September 97 2003 BCC Meeting.
VA-2003-AR-2525 Robert Davy and Mark Allen, representing Little
Hickory Shores Unit 3 Re-Plat Property Owners, requesting a 15-foot
variance from the required boathouse sideyard setback of 15 feet to 0 feet
and a 30-foot variance from the 20-foot maximum protrusion for a
boathouse to a maximum of 50 feet, for property located in the Hickory
Shores Subdivision, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
19, 20, and 22, Block G; and Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block H, in
Section 5, Township 48 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ae
Public Hearing for the 2003 2nd Cycle of Growth Management Plan
Amendments - all County initiated. (Transmittal hearing).
Be
This item to be heard at 3:00 p.m. This item requires that all participants
be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
Petition DRI-2000-01, Richard Woodruff of Wilson Miller Inc., representing
U.S. Home Corporation, requesting approval of a development order for the
Heritage Bay Development of Regional Impact (DRI) to allow for 3,450
residential dwelling units, 200 assisted living units, a 54-hole golf course
and related facilities, three neighborhood town centers to contain up to
30,000 square feet of building space, and a maximum of 200,000 square feet
of commercial uses for property located at the northeast comer of
Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Sections
13, 14, 23 and 24, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 2,562 acres. Companion Item: PUDZ-02-AR-2841.
Ce
This item to be heard at 3:00 p.m. This item requires that all participants
be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
Petition PUDZ-02-AR-2841, Richard Woodruff of Wilson Miller, Inc.
representing U.S. Home Corporation, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural
Agriculture to "PUD" (Planned Unit Development) to be known as the
Heritage Bay PUD permitting 3,450 residential dwelling units, 200 assisted
living units, a 54~hole golf course and related facilities, three neighborhood
town centers to contain up to 30,000 square feet of building space, and a
4
July 29, 2003
maximum of 200,000 square feet of commercial uses for property located at
the northeast comer of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) and Collier Boulevard
(C.R. 951), in Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, Township 48 south, Range 26
east, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 2,562 acres. Companion Item:
DRI-2000-01.
Do
This item was continued from the June 24, 2003 BCC Meeting and will
be re-advertised and request further continuance to the September 23,
2003 BCC Meeting. The Collier County Planning Commission has also
continued the item. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and
ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2003-AR-
3607, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning and Development Inc.,
representing Barton and Wendy Mclntyre and Joseph Magdalener,
requesting changes to the existing NICAEA Academy PUD Zoning. The
proposed changes to the PUD document and master plan will eliminate the
uses of private school and assisted living facility and allow for a maximum
of 580 residential dwelling units. The property to be considered for this
rezone is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard just south of the
Crystal Lake PUD (RV Park), in Section 26, Township 48 south, Range 26
east, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 119+ acres.
to
Adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code
of Laws and Ordinances, as amended by Ordinance No. 2001-13, the Collier
County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, 2001-13, as amended, by
establishing a deferral program for the Immokalee area to reduce the
economic effects of increased impact fee rates.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Appointment of members to the Immokalee Area Master Plan Ad Hoc
Committee.
B. Appointment of member to the Contractors' Licensing Board.
C. Appointment of member to the Board of Building Adjustments and Appeals.
De
Item continued from the June 24, 2003 BCC Meeting. A Resolution to
establish the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee.
5
July 29, 2003
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Ae
This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. To receive Board approval to enter into
a Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Florida, the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Big Cypress Basin (BCB),
and Collier County initiating vacation proceedings of the Southern Golden
Gate Estates roadway system and establishing an off road vehicle recreation
area. (Jim Mudd, County Manager.)
Be
To adopt proposed FY 2004 millage rates. (Mike Smykowski, Office of
Budget and Management Director.)
Ce
This item to be heard at 12:00 noon. Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners and the County's Labor Negotiation Committee hold
a Strategy Session for Collective Bargaining with the Southwest Florida
Professional Firefighters and Paramedics, IAFF Local 1826, Local 3670
(Ochopee), in the Shade pursuant to Section 447.605 (1), Fla. Stat. (John
Dunnuck, Administrator, Public Services)
De
Adoption of a resolution approving an application for an impact fee waiver,
in the amount of $7,500 for Collier Health Services, Incorporated, the
County's primary care clinic. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development)
Approve Supplemental Agreement No. 3 for Professional Engineering
Services by CH2MHILL, Inc., for six-laning design of Immokalee Road,
(Project No. 60018, Fiscal Impact $418,979), RFP No. 99-3020. (Norman
Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
Fe
Approve Contract Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $1,121,212.33 to
APAC-Florida, Inc., for the Immokalee Road four lane-widening project,
from CR 951 to 43rd Avenue NE, Project No. 60018. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
Ge
Recommendation that the Board reject a proposed settlement agreement
submitted by the Southwest Florida Professional Firefighters and
Paramedics and authorize the County Attorney's Office to proceed with
Arbitration Hearings. (John Dunnuck, Administrator, Public Services)
6
July 29, 2003
11.
12.
13.
He
Board approval to amend the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Naples
extending the current distribution of the local option gas taxes revenue until
December 31, 2003. (Mike Smykowski, Office of Management and Budget
Director)
Approve Developer Agreement with Collier Land Development Inc., for
proportionate fair share of costs associated with the future Lely Canal Storm
Water Improvements Project subject to developer complying with all
conditions of the Agreement imposed by the County. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14.
15.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Request Board approval to accept a grant for $200,000 under the
Florida Economic Development Transportation Fund Program;
approve an agreement between the Florida Office of Trade, Tourism
and Economic Development and Collier County; approve a budget
amendment in the amount of $200,000; approve a resolution accepting
future road maintenance; approve a road maintenance agreement
between the County and the North Naples Golf Range, Inc.
2)
Authorize the Chairman to sign a $50,000 reimbursable grant
agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for funding exotic
7
July 29, 2003
3)
4)
S)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
vegetation removal on County Road 92 and U.S. 41.
Approval of the Release of Lien for Case No. 2001-024 styled Board
of County Commissioners Collier County, Florida vs. Charles and
Christine Morrison for violation of Ordinances No. 99-51, as
successor to Ordinance No. 91-47, as amended of the Collier County
Land Development Code.
Approval by the Board of County Commissioners of a contract with
award Vacations Corporation for web enabled vacation packages for
Collier County visitors and payment of related fees in the amount of
$5,000.
Approve a TDC Category "A" Grant Application for the Lowdermilk
Park Parking Lot Reconstruction/Restoration in the amount of
$375,000.
Request by Bradley N. Cance, General Manager of the Ritz-Carlton
Golf Resort, for an extension of the number of days permitted for
hosting special events.
Approve a Tourism Agreement with the City of Naples for semi-
annual monitoring of Doctors Pass, Project 90003, in the amount of
$10,000.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Delasol Phase
One", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Delasol Phase
Two", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security, and accept the County Park Dedication
Agreement.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Valencia Lakes-
Phase 4-A", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security, and to accept certain off site drainage
8
July 29, 2003
13)
14)
lS)
16)
18)
easements.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Cayo Costa", and
approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Casa Del Lago",
and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
Approval of resolution repealing Resolution No. 2003-130 approved
by the Board of County Commissioners on March 25, 2003,
authorizing a temporary optional fuel cost surcharge that authorized
but did not require taxi drivers to recover some of the extraordinarily
high cost to purchase motor vehicle fuel.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Stratford Place"
and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
Approval of Contract #03-3504, in the amount of $39,945, with
Henderson, Young and Company for consultant services for an
emergency medical services impact fee update study.
Approval of Contract #03-3504 in the amount of $40,632.50 with
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc., for consultant services for a
library system impact fee update study.
Authorize the Chairman to sign a $4,500 reimbursable grant
agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for funding exotic
vegetation removal in Barefoot Beach Preserve.
Board of County Commissioners determination that the advertising
and promotion expenses listed in the attached invoice serves the
public interest and promotes tourism in Collier County, and authorize
payment of prior period expenses.
Approval of one (1) impact fee reimbursement of $26,768.41 due to
overpayment.
9
July 29, 2003
19)
Board of County Commissioners approval of the Tourism Department
Marketing Plan Budget and its related expenditures for FY02-03 and a
finding that the plan is in the public interest and promotes tourism in
Collier County.
20)
Approve a budget amendment in the amount of $100,000 to fund the
creation of a non-profit Housing Development Corporation (HDC).
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Market Center",
AR-3336, and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Performance Security.
22)
Approval by the BCC of Tourism Department initiatives, a finding
that the initiatives are in the public interest by promoting tourism in
Collier County, and to authorize payment for expenses incurred for
those initiatives.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Approve a Resolution to Ordinance No. 2003-37 adopting changes to
the "Construction Standards Handbook for work within the Right-of-
Way, Collier County, Florida".
2)
Authorize conveyance of a utility easement to Florida Power and
Light Company for the relocation of a utility pole and guy-wire onto
county-owned property (fiscal impact $15.00) Golden Gate and
Coronado Parkways.
3)
Approve the utility location agreement with Tampa Electric Company
DBA/Peoples Gas System associated with the Golden Gate Parkway
Improvements Project, Collier County Project No. 60027 (six-laning
from Livingston Road to east of Santa Barbara Boulevard).
4)
Approve a resolution authorizing the execution of a State highway
lighting, maintenance, and compensation agreement between the State
of Florida Department of Transportation and Collier County.
Request Board approve conceptual median modifications and revised
lane calls along Golden Gate Parkway east of the intersection of
10
July 29, 2003
Golden Gate Parkway and Goodlette-Frank Roadl
6)
Board authorization to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with Lee
County regarding County Road 951 Project Development and
Environmental (PD & E) Study 60171 in the amount of $250,000.
7)
Approve a resolution authorizing the execution of a Traffic Signal
Maintenance and Compensation Agreement between the State of
Florida Department of Transportation and Collier County.
8)
Waive the formal bid process and approve a contract between Temple,
Incorporated and Collier County for services related to the completion
of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Advanced
Traffic Management System (ATMS) Project, Phase I, costs
reimbursed by Florida Department of Transportation.
9)
Approve Supplemental Agreement No. 8 for Professional Engineering
Post Design Services by Hole Montes, Inc., for the Lakeland Avenue
Bridge, (Project No. 66042, Fiscal Impact $15,000) RFP #00-3057.
10)
Approve Contract Amendment for Work Order #AEC-FT-01-04-A02
(PSA Contract #98-2835) in the amount of $28,832, to complete
Stormwater Capital Improvement Project No. 51704, Lake
Mockingbird Outfall in Immokalee.
11)
Approve award of a construction contract to Better Roads Inc., for the
countywide paved shoulders and sidewalk improvements project, Bid
No. 03-3528 in the amount of $549,370.25.
12)
Adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by donation of
easement and fee simple interests required for purposes of
constructing and maintaining drainage facilities within the Lely Area
Stormwater Improvement Area, (Project 51101). Fiscal Impact:
Limited to recording fees, not to exceed $6000.
13)
Approve supplemental work order for the Forest Lakes MSTU to
Wilson Miller in the amount of $56,000.
11
July 29, 2003
14)
Award Contracts 03-3465 "Annual Contract for Traffic Engineering
Consulting Services" (estimated annual amount $300,000).
15)
Approve Professional Services Agreement No. 03-3509 in the amount
of $1,063,253 for consulting and design services to be provided by
American Consultant Engineers of Florida, LLC, for proposed
capacity improvements to Goodlette-Frank Road from Golden Gate
Parkway to Pine Ridge Road, Project No. 60005.
i6)
Request that the Board of County Commissioners approve a donation
agreement and accept a warranty deed from Olde Cypress
Development, Ltd., for Olde Cypress Unit One, Tract R-3, Tract O
and A portion of Tract R-1 subject to the modification of the reverter
language contained in the warranty deed and the County Attorney's
Office review and recommendation of the revised language.
17)
A resolution to prohibit tracks and other commercial vehicles having a
rated load-carrying capacity in excess of five (5) tons from operating
in the left lane, except when passing or preparing to make a left turn,
on Immokalee Road from Airport-Pulling Road to Collier Boulevard,
Golden Gate Boulevard from Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard,
and Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate Boulevard to US 41.
Installation of legally required signage for notice to motorists; cost
approval of $3200. (Effective date September 1, 2003)
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Present findings and recommendations concerning the negotiations
with Interstate Waste Technologies pursuant to RFP #02-3316 MSW
Processing & Gasification Facility. Approve ending negotiations with
IWT and starting negotiations with Brightstar.
2)
Approve the Satisfaction of Lien documents filed against real property
for abatement of nuisance and direct the Clerk of Courts to record
same in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Fiscal impact
is $106.50 to record the liens.
3)
Approve award of Bid #03-3523 for "furnish and delivery of
household recycling containers" - estimated cost per fiscal year is
12
July 29, 2003
4)
5)
6)
$20,000.
Adopt a resolution amending Resolution No. 2002-141 pertaining to
the Price Street-Barefoot Williams Road Municipal Service Benefit
Unit, Project Number 70077.
Award Contracts 03-3484 "Fixed Term Instrumentation and Controls
Engineering Services (estimated annual amount $1,000,000) to the
following firms: RKS Engineering, Inc.; Carollo Engineers; Westin
Engineering, Inc.
Authorization to execute and record satisfactions for certain water
and/or sewer impact fee payment agreements. Fiscal impact is $28.50
to record the Satisfactions.
7)
Approval of payment of Consent Order Number 03-0866-11-IW
issued to the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant in the
amount of $750.00.
8)
9)
Approve electrical utility rate agreements for the North County Water
Reclamation Facility as negotiated with Florida Power and Light
Company.
Approve a budget amendment in the amount of $55,760 to reallocate
funds for the transfer of Safety Coordinator position from Wastewater
Administration Cost Center to the Water Administration Cost Center.
10)
Adopt a resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for solid waste
residential account wherein the County has received payment and said
lien is satisfied in full for the 1994 Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal Impact is $12.00 to
record the lien.
11)
Adopt a resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for solid waste
residential accounts wherein the County has received payment and
said liens are satisfied in full for the 1996 Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal impact is $28.50 to
record the liens.
13
July 29, 2003
Adopt a resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for solid waste
residential accounts wherein the County has received payment and
said liens are satisfied in full for the 1995 Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal impact is $46.50 to
record the liens.
13)
Approve transfer of funding source of Work Order No. UC-023 in the
amount of $535,600 from Fund 414 (User Fees) Project 73051 to
Fund 413 (Impact Fees) for pump station improvements to Kyle
Construction Inc., previously approved by the Board on April 8, 2003,
Agenda Item 16 C, Project 73495.
14)
Approve selection committee ranking of firms for contract
negotiations for RFP 03-3517, "Professional Engineering Services for
Water Main Projects" (Estimated dollar amount of contract is
$1,000,000).
Request for the Board of County Commissioners to approve proposed
Change Order No. 2 with United Engineering Corporation for the
South County Water Treatment Plant Expansion (Bid No. 01-3194) in
the amount of $459,881.57.
16)
Approve Work Order GH-FT-03-8 in the amount of $149,812 with
Greeley and Hansen LLC for the design and construction of Pigging
Stations for the existing 30-inch parallel sewer force main on
Immokalee Road, Project 73943.
17)
Affirm that the Manatee Road 6 million-gallon ground storage tank is
an element of a project planned for in the 2002 Water Master Plan
entitled Manatee Road Four Potable Water ASR Wells, Project 70157,
in the approximate amount of $2 million.
18)
Accept the selection committee short list ranking for RFQ #03-3522,
testing services for the inflow and infiltration study and authorize the
Chairman to execute the contract for these services, Project Number
73164.
19) This item has been deleted.
14
July 29, 2003
20)
Approve contribution of $20,000 to the South Florida Water
Management District for a further feasibility study of a regional
irrigation distribution system at a sub-regional level.
21)
Authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to
execute an assignment of a contract that has been assigned by Richard
K. Bennett, Trustee, (Assignor) to Citygate Development, LLC,
(Assignee), Project 70054.
22)
Approve amendments to close out Work Orders GH-FT-02-05 and
GH-FT-02-06 with Greeley and Hansen, LLC, to update the 2002
Water and Wastewater Master Plans, Projects 70070 and 73066. (In
the amount of $74,600)
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Authorize the Chairman to sign the Home Care for the Elderly Grant
contract between Collier County Board of County Commissioners and
the Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc., D/B/A Senior
Solutions of Southwest Florida and approve the budget amendment.
2)
Authorize the Chairman to sign the Alzheimer's Disease Initiative
Grant contract between Collier County Board of County
Commissioners and the Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida,
Inc., D/B/A Senior Solutions of Southwest Florida and approve the
budget amendment.
3)
Approve the Community Care for the Elderly Continuation Grant and
authorize the Chairman to sign the contract between Collier County
Board of County Commissioners and the Area Agency on Aging for
Southwest Florida, Inc., D/B/A Senior Solutions of Southwest Florida.
4)
Authorize a budget amendment recognizing Community Development
Block Grant Revenue in the amount of $46,5000 for the Human
Services Department to provide prescription medications to low
income residents in Immokalee.
s)
Approve amending Resolution 02-429 for Collier County EMS
Service User Fees which will maximize revenue by adopting rates in
15
July 29, 2003
accordance with similar Florida ambulance providers.
6)
Approve an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Naples for the
reciprocal beach-parking program at a cost of $390,000 for Fiscal
Year 2003.
7)
Authorize the County Manager or designee to approve funds not to
exceed $20,000 to spray for mosquitoes outside of the Collier
Mosquito Control District should the County be placed on Medical
Alert by the Department of Health.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
Recommendation to award Bid #03-3518, Safety Equipment and
Supplies, to Safety Supply Warehouse and Grainger. (Estimated not
to exceed $100,000)
2)
Recommendation to reject all proposals received under RFP 03-3543,
Communications Services Contract.
3)
Approve a budget amendment to move funds from the Information
Technology Department budget to the Human Resources Department
budget in order to provide adequate funding to meet staffing needs for
the remainder of the current fiscal year.
4)
Award of Bid #03-3527, "Gasoline and Diesel Fuel", to Evans Oil
Company and Petroleum Traders Corporation, estimated at $1.8
million annually.
s)
Approve payment of $34,467.43 to AAA Generator, Inc., for use tax
assessed by State of Florida Department of Revenue and for use tax
incurred after assessment on contracted work.
6)
Report and ratify staff-approved administrative change orders to
board-approved contracts.
7)
Approve partial funding in the amount of $16,622.67 for the Golden
Gate Fire Safety Complex Kitchen Remodel to improve facility
accommodations.
16
July 29, 2003
8)
Approve Change Order #3, Amendment Four, Contract 98-2867, in
the amount of $338,000 for the design of the expansion and
renovation of the Naples Jail Center to AEC National, included is the
threshold inspection, piling redesign, build-out of the third floor
expansion, ice tank relocations and stucco replacement to the existing
jail.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Summary of Consent and Emergency Agenda Items approved by the
County Manager during the Board of County Commissioners'
scheduled recess.
2)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners award Bid
#03-3520 in the amount of $44,800 for purchase and delivery of pine
straw mulch to Forestry Resources Inc.
3)
Approve an agreement and adopt a resolution authorizing Collier
County, Florida to accept a $20,000 matching grant (75/25) from the
Florida Department of Community Affairs to revise and update the
Collier County's local mitigation strategy and approve a budget
amendment to recognize and appropriate revenue.
4)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
resolution fixing the date, time and place for the public hearing for
approving the special assessment (non-ad valorem assessment) to be
levied against the properties within the Pelican Bay Municipal Service
Taxing and Benefit Unit for maintenance of the water management
system, beautification of recreational facilities and median areas, and
maintenance of conservation or preserve areas, and establishment of
capital reserve funds for ambient noise management, maintenance of
conservation or preserve areas, U.S. 41 berms, street signage
replacements within the median areas and landscaping improvements
to U.S. 41 entrances, all within the Pelican Bay Municipal Service
Taxing and Benefit Unit.
5)
Approve Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, amending and supplementing a Resolution entitled
"A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida authorizing the issuance by Collier County, Florida of
11
July 29, 2003
6)
7)
$120,00,000 in aggregate principal amount of Collier County, Florida
Gas Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2003 in order to provide funds for the
principal purposes of financing the costs of various transportation
improvements within the County and refinancing certain
indebtedness; pledging the money's received by the County from the
herein described gas tax revenues to secure payment of the principal
of and interest on said bonds; providing for the rights of the holders of
said bonds; providing for the issuance of additional bonds; providing
for certain additional matters in respect to said bonds; and providing
for an effective date for this Resolution"; authorizing the issuance of
the Collier County, Florida Gas Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2004 in
an aggregate principal amount of not exceeding $51,000,000; adding
the constitutional gas tax to the pledged funds; providing for
validation of the Series 2004 bonds; and providing an effective date.
Approve resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida regarding reimbursement of certain costs relating to
the acquisition, construction, and renovation of the County Jail
Complex addition and renovation parking deck and chiller plant
expansion, and the Development Services Building expansion and
parking garage, and providing an effective date.
The Finance Department seeks approval of a Budget Amendment
required for payment of rebatable arbitrage on the road improvement
refunding revenue bonds, Series 1995.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
Je
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
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
18
July 29, 2003
2)
3)
4)
purchases. A copy of the Detailed Report is on display in the County
Manager's Office, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, Collier
County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL.
(June 28-July 11, 2003)
That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of
whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the
Detailed Report of Open Purchase Orders serve a valid public purpose
and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said
purchases. A copy of the Detailed Report is on display in the County
Manager's Office, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, Collier
County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL.
(June 14-June 27, 2003)
That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of
whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the
Detailed Report of Open Purchase Orders serve a valid public purpose
and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said
purchases. A copy of the Detailed Report is on display in the County
Manager's Office, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, Collier
County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL.
(July 12-18, 2003)
Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners designate the
Sheriff as the Official Applicant and Program Point-of-Contact for the
United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, accept the Grant when
awarded and approve applicable budget amendments.
Ko
COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the easement
acquisition of parcel 159B in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Andy R. Morgan, et al., Case No. 02-5169-CA (Immokalee Road
Project #60018). (In the amount of $17,382.96)
2)
Approve the Stipulated final Judgment relative to the acquisition of a
road easement designated as parcel 128 in the lawsuit entitled Collier
County v. Gerald A. McHale, Jr., Successor Trustee Under
Unrecorded Land Trust Agreement Dated 12/10/92, et. al. (Pine
19
July 29, 2003
17.
Ridge Road between CR 31 and Logan Blvd., Project No. 600111.)
(In the amount of $3,394.14)
3)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the fee simple
acquisition of parcel 142 in the lawsuit entitled Collier County v.
Owen M. Ward, Trustee, et al., Case No. 99-1291-CA. (In the amount
of $18,716)
4)
Approve the Mediated Settlement Agreement and a Stipulated Final
Judgment relating to the acquisition of parcel 132 in the lawsuit styled
Collier County v. Treesource, Inc., et al., Case No. 02-5167-CA
(Immokalee Road Project No. 60018.) (In the amount of $200,100)
5)
Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$50,000 for outside counsel and professional services in support of
Resolution 2002-428 expressing the County's concerns regarding the
acquisition of the Marco Island/Marco Shores utility system by the
Florida Water Services Authority.
6)
Recommendation that the Board approve a settlement agreement in
the case of Board of County Commissioners Collier County, Florida
v. Manatee Resort Condominium Association, et al, Code
Enforcement Board Case Number 2001-086, and authorize the
Chairman to sign all necessary settlement documents.
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. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE
QUASIJUDICAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN
IN.
20
July 29, 2003
Ae
Be
Ce
DJ
EJ
Request that this item be continued to the September 9, 2003 BCC
meeting. Adopt a Resolution authorizing a change in methodology for the
assessment of non-residential water and wastewater impact fees based on
equivalent residential connections (ERC).
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. An Ordinance
amending Ordinance Number 91-102 the Collier County Land Development
Code which includes the Comprehensive Zoning Regulations for the
Unincorporated Area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the official
zoning atlas map numbered 0511S by changing the zoning classification of
the herein described real property from C-3 and RMF-6 to "PUD" Planned
Unit Development known as the Miller Square PUD. This project will
consist of 20,000 square feet or less of retail and office commercial uses,
located at the northeast corner of U.S. 41 east and Shadowlawn Drive in
Section 11, Township 50 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 1.9+ acres. This item is a companion to CPSS-2003-1 GMP
Amendment, Item 17 C.
Petition No. CPSS-2003-1, a small-scale growth management plan
amendment (future land use element) to expand the boundaries of Activity
Center #16. This item is a companion to Miller Square PUDZ-2002-AR-
3151~ Item 17 B.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDZ-03-AR-
3605, William L. Hoover of Hoover Planning and Development Inc., and
Jeff Davidson of Davidson Engineering, Inc., representing Philip McCabe of
Gulf Coast Commercial Corporation, requesting a rezone from "RMF-6"
Residential Multi-Family Zoning District to "PUD" Planned Unit
Development to be known as Botanical Place PUD allowing 218 multi-
family residential dwelling units of which 64 units will be for affordable
housing subject to the approval of an affordable housing density bonus
agreement for property located on the east side of Bayshore Drive and
approximately 800 feet north of Thomasson Drive in Section 14, Township
50 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition
AVROW2003-AR3572 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and
July 29, 2003
the Public's interest in the road right-of-way for 45th Lane Southwest, which
was dedicated to the County by the plat of"Golden Gate Unit 3", as
recorded in Plat Book 5, Pages 97 through 105, Public Records of Collier
County, Florida, and to vacate two 6 foot wide drainage and public utility
easements located in Section 27, Township 49 south, Range 26 east.
Fe
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bY Commission members. Petition
AVPLAT2002-AR3183 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and
the Public's interest in the 15 foot wide drainage easement located on a
portion of Lot 42, Block "B", according to the Plat of"Forest Lakes Homes"
as recorded in Plat Book 12, Pages 41 through 46, Public Records of Collier
County, Florida, and to accept a relocation drainage easement on a portion
of said Lot 42 and on a portion of that parcel owned by the petitioner which
abuts said Lot 42, located in Section 14, Township 49 south, Range 25 east.
That the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopt an ordinance to
impose a $3.00 surcharge to fund driver education programs in public and
non-public high schools in Collier County pursuant to Section 318.1215,
Florida Statutes.
He
Adopt resolution increasing the regulatory assessment fee from one and one-
half percent to two percent of gross revenues for non-exempt privately
owned water and wastewater systems subject to local regulation, effective
October 1, 2003, as recommended by the Collier County Water and
Wastewater Authority
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition SNR-2003,
AR-3979, Ronald Waldrop of Waldrop Engineering, P.A., representing Lely
Development Corporation. Applicant is requesting the following five street
name changes located in the Classics Plantation Estates Phase Two: From
Hemingway Street to Trent Court, in Section 27, Township 50 south, Range
26 east; from Kipling Road to Nelsons Way, in Section 27, Township 50
south, Range 26 east; from Casablanca Street to Palmer Court, in Section 22
and 27, Township 50 south, Range 26 east; from Browning Street to Hogan
Court, in Section 27, Township 50 south, Range 26 east; from Emerson
Street to Snead Court, in Section 27, Township 50 south, Range 26 east.
22
July 29, 2003
18. ADJOURN
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
23
July 29, 2003
July 29, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would everybody take their seats,
please. Welcome to the Board of Commissioners of Collier County
meeting of July 29th, 2003.
Today we have invocation to be given by Pastor Silcox, Jane
Silcox, from the pastoral education department of Naples Community
Hospital.
And also, just following that, Jose Nunez, lieutenant governor of
the Key Club of Collier County, will lead us into the pledge of
allegiance. So would you all rise.
PASTOR SILCOX: Let us pray.
Almighty and everlasting God, source of all wisdom and
understanding, be present and enable this body to use their talents
and gifts to accomplish the task before them. Guide those who
faithfully serve as members to perceive what is right, and grant them
the judgment and courage to pursue it. We ask you to bless the
counsel members, that they may fulfill their duties for the welfare of
this community with compassion and charity. These things we ask in
your name, amen.
(Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I wanted to mention that Jose has
volunteered his summer to assist the Board of Commissioners' office
in their day-to-day business. I have noticed that he has been working
very close with Commissioner Halas and assisted Commissioner
Coletta on numerous items.
So, Jose, thank you for your dedication to the community.
On today's agenda, I ask our future judge and county attorney,
Ramiro Manalich, do we have any changes to today's agenda?
MR. MANALICH: Not from the county attorney, no.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hi, Sue.
County Manager, do you have any changes or you want to walk
us through the change list?
Page 2
July 29, 2003
Item #2A
CONSENT, SUMMARY AND REGULAR AGENDA- APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, I'll walk you through the changes. Good
morning, I hope you're having a good summer so far.
This is the changes to the agenda for the Board of County
Commissioner's meeting, July 29th, 2003. The first item is to
withdraw Item 3, which is the 25-year service award for Homero
Partida, Jr., from the transportation division, and that's at the
employee's request.
The next item is to withdraw Item 6(B), and that's a public
petition request by Ms. Cheri R. Byrd, requesting to discuss ingress
and egress problems located at 91 Golden Gate Boulevard. And
that's at the petitioner's request.
The next item is to add Item 9(E), and that's a recommendation
that the Board of County Commissioners approve and ratify the 2003
fiscal year pay and classification plan for the office of the county
attorney. And that's at staffs request.
The next item is to move Item 16(A)(21) to Item 10(J), and
that's to approve a budget amendment in the amount of $100,000 to
the fund -- to fund the creation of a nonprofit Housing Development
Corporation, HDC. And that's at Commissioner Henning's request.
The next item is to add Item 10(K), and that's to approve the
Metropolitan Planning Organization, MPO, budget for grant year
2003-2004, and that's at staffs request.
And you should have all received that executive summary
yesterday. See what happens when your MPO person comes on
board on that day and says what budget? And so that's why that
executive summary is here, because he caught that.
The next item is to withdraw Item 16(C)(13), and that's to
Page 3
July 29, 2003
approve the transfer of funding source of work order No. UC-023 in
the amount of $535,600 from Fund 414, user fees for Project 73051,
to Fund 413, impact fees,.to pump station improvements to Kyle
Construction, Inc., previously approved by the board on April 8th,
2003. And that was done in April with agenda Item 16(C), project
73495, and that's at staff's request.
The next item is to withdraw Item 16(C)(15), and that's a
request for the Board of County Commissioners to approve the
proposed change order No. 2 with United Engineering Corp. for the
south county water treatment plant expansion, bid No. 01-3194, in
the amount of $459,881.57, and that's at staff's request.
The next item is Item 17(B), which is on the summary agenda.
It's requested to be continued until September 9th, 2003. That's an
ordinance amending Ordinance No. 91-102 of the Collier County
Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive zoning
regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by
amending the official zoning atlas map, numbered 0511 S, by
changing the zoning classification of the herein described real
property from C-3 and RMF-6 to PUD, planned unit development,
known as Miller Square PUD.
This project will consist of 20,000 square feet or less of retail
and office commercial use located at the northeast comer of U.S. 41
east and Shadowlawn Drive in Section 11, Township 50 south, range
25 east, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1.9 plus acres.
This is a companion to CPSS 2003-1, the GMP amendment,
Item 17(C). And that's at petitioner's request.
And because 17(B) mentions it, 17(C) underneath is a
small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment that is also
continued with that item.
Then notes on the second page, Item 8(A), the last two lines of
paragraph -- on Page 82 were omitted. The last sentence of
paragraph B should read: Substitute a transportation concurrency
Page 4
July 29, 2003
management system which factors and applies the traffic impacts of
new development order applications against the balance of currently
uncommitted capacity, and roads under construction, (contract
having been let) or in the adoption of Collier County annual budget
only.
That's at staffs request.
The next is Item 8(B). The second page under environmental
issues, second sentence should read: Based on the vegetation
analysis summary within the ADA, approximately 814.6 acres of
wetlands exist, while the PUD adds approximately 300 acres to the
existing preserve areas.
Also under 8(B) on Page 29, paragraph AA, should read: To the
extent consistent with applicable stormwater management system and
environmental regulations, any isolated wading bird pools, rather
than -- and I guess they took it from Word Perfect to Word and some
of the text comes off; instead of it being Apools~, an A and the
pools and then an ~ sign like you would if it was a -- as if it was a
website address -- constructed. So it's wading bird pools.
Item 8(E), the following correction should be added to the
executive summary: Page 4 on the second paragraph beginning with
"an additional," the date listed as 9 June, 2003 should read June 1 lth,
2003. And that's at staffs request.
Item 16(B)(5), there are two 16(B)(5) backup materials. The
first one should be 16(B)(4), and that was a clerical error on my
clerical staff's part. They have to stamp each page. So the first item
should have been 16(B)(4) and the next item should have been
16(B)(5).
Item 16(F)(5), the following correction should be noted on the
agenda index: The dollar amount in the first sentence should read:
$120 million, rather than what's there now. It's missing one zero
between the commas.
You have three time certain items today, Mr. Chairman. You
Page 5
July 29, 2003
have, at noon, Item 10(C), and that's a closed door to talk about EMS
negotiations and the Ochoppee Fire negotiations with the union; you
have Item 10(A) to be heard at 1:00 p.m., and that has to do with the
South Golden Gate Estates; and you have items 8(B) and 8(C) to be
heard at 3:00 p.m.
I would like to mention for the folks in the audience that there's
overflow seating available in the third floor hallway, because we
have T.V.'s that are out there and they can hear everything that's
going on. We also have them on the first floor hallway. And we also
have them in the elections training room, Building B. So if folks
need to sit down, there's that space.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Filson, do we have any public
speakers on today's agenda?
MS. FILSON: We have a public speaker on consent agenda,
Bob Krasowski. He doesn't have an item number, it just says Zero
Waste, Collier County.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning. That's the organization
that I'm representing. The item number is C(1).
I'm here before you this morning at this time --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: C(1)?
MR. KRASOWSKI: C(1) on the --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 16(C)(1)?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Excuse me, yes, on the consent agenda,
which is 16, correct? Item No. (C)(1). And under public utilities it
reads that they were to present findings and recommendations
concerning the negotiations with Interstate Waste Technologies,
pursuant to RFP 02-3316, MSW Processing -- that's municipal solid
waste processing -- and Gasification Facility. They want you to
approve ending negotiations, finishing negotiations with IWT, and
starting negotiations with Brightstar.
So you know, Commissioners, I'm mentioning this for the
Page 6
July 29, 2003
benefit of the people that might not be familiar with the process. On
the consent agenda, you will approve the consent agenda, if you
wish, and then move it on. When an item is moved to the regular
agenda, the presentation that's listed here will actually occur in front
of the public. And then the item will be available for discussion for
anyone who wants to speak.
Certainly the group I represent that's been involved --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What direction do you want the
board today to take? What action?
MR. KRASOWSKI: To take this item and place it on the
regular agenda so that it can be discussed in the public forum. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. My perspective is this is in
line what the consultant has stated all along, is if the top proposed bid
comes too high, then they would go to the second bidder, which is
Brightstar.
So my perspective, they have done what they have reported in
the past, and I find it no need to come off the consent agenda. But
I'm only one commissioner, sir. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, to be honest with you,
once a question is raised on any item on the consent agenda, I think it
should be pulled for discussion. In this case, I would recommend
that we pull it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta wants the
item pulled and put on the regular agenda. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That item becomes what?
MR. MUDD: It would be 10(L). Excuse me. 10(L).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Any other public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
Page 7
July 29, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, do you have
any additions, corrections, deletions to today's agenda and any ex
parte communication under the summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Under the summary agenda,
no, on the items that are left. I don't have any items that I wish to
pull, but I'd like to make a statement regarding 16(D)(7), which is the
mosquito control funds that we're coming up with, the $20,000.
And I'd like this Commission to be aware of the fact that
mosquito control, its intentions now are to move everything forward
one year as far as the implementation of the survey and the beginning
of the mosquito control in the far Estates, which was supposed to
take place. Next year, they're going to move it forward a full year.
And this is something that gives me great concern, not only for
health reasons but for cost. This is costing money that's coming out
of the general fund. It's absolutely necessary for health, safety and
welfare that we authorize it. However, with that said, we still have
money that's coming out of the general fund when it should be
coming from the locality itself, the taxpayers itself. And if it's put off
for one more year, we'll be dealing with one emergency after another.
And I hope that this Commission will use whatever influence it has
on the mosquito control board to help to keep this on the schedule it
was originally agreed to.
Thank you. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes, I have 17(D). I have
spoken with the petitioner a number of times, and that's Phil
McCabe. That's the only disclosure I have.
And I agree with Commissioner Henning on the mosquito.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, we look alike.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. I'm sorry, Commissioner
Coletta.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's okay. It's early.
Page 8
July 29, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got to grow a mustache.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have any changes to today's
agenda?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, sir, I don't.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no changes for today's
agenda.
I did have disclosures on 7(A) and 8(A). And let's see if I had
some other disclosures. 17(B) -- no, no disclosures on that one. That's
the only two. And that's, again, 7(A) and 8(A) that are on the agenda
today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'd entertain a motion to accept
today's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion made.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- regular meeting, consent and
summary as amended. 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 COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-0.
Page 9
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
July 29, 2003
Withdraw Item 3: Twenty-Five Year Service Award.
Transportation Division. (Employee request.)
Homero Partida, Jr.,
Withdraw Item 6B: Public Petition request by Ms. Cheri R. Byrd requesting to
discuss ingress/egress problem located at 91 Golden Gate Boulevard. (Petitioner
request.)
Add Item 9E: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and ratify the 2003 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan for the office of the
County Attorney. (Staff request.)
Move 16(A)21 to 10J: Approve a budget amendment in the amount of $100,000 to
fund the creation of a non-profit Housing Development Corporation (HDC).
(Commissioner Henning request.)
Add Item 10K: Approve the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) budget for
Grant Year 2003-2004. (Staff request.)
Withdraw Item 16(C)13: Approve transfer of funding source of Work Order No.
UC-023 in the amount of $535,600 from Fund 414 (User Fees) Project 73051 to
Fund 413 (Impact Fees) for pump station improvements to Kyle Construction, Inc.,
previously approved by the Board on April 8, 2003, Agenda Item 16 C, Project
73495. (Staff request.)
Withdraw Item 16(C)15: Request for the Board of County Commissioners to
approve proposed Change Order No. 2 with United Engineering Corporation for
the South County Water Treatment Plant Expansion (Bid No. 01-3194) in the
amount of $459,881.57. (Staff request.)
Item 17B continued to September 9, 2003 BCC meeting: An Ordinance amending
Ordinance No. 91-102 the Collier County Land Development Code which includes
the Comprehensive Zoning Regulations for the Unincorporated Area of Collier
County, Florida, by amending the official zoning atlas map numbered 0511S by
changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from C-3
and RMF-6 to "PUD" Planned Unit Develol~rnent known as the Miller Square PUD.
This project will consist of 20,000 square feet or less of retail and office
commercial uses, located at the northeast corner of U.S. 41 east and Shadowlawn
Drive in Section 11, Township 50 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 1.9+ acres. This is a companion to CPSS-2003-1 GMP Amendment,
Item 17C. (Petitioner request.)
Item 17C continued to September 9, 2003 BCC meeting: Petition No. CPSS-2003-1,
a small-scale growth management plan amendment (future land use element) to
expand the boundaries of Activity Center #16. This item is a companion to Miller
Square PUDZ-2002-AR-3151, Item 17B. (Petitioner request.)
NOTES:
Item 8A: The last two lines on page 82 were omitted. The last sentence of
Paragraph B should read: Substitute a transportation concurrency management
system which factors and applies the traffic impacts of new development order
applications against the balance of currently uncommitted capacity, and roads
under construction (contract having been let) o r i n t he adopted Collier County
Annual Budget only. (Staff request.)
Item 8B: Second page under environmental issues, second sentence should read.
Based on the vegetation analysis summary within the ADA, approximately 814.6
acres of wetlands exist while the PUD adds approximately 300 acres to the
existing preserve areas.
Also, page 29, paragraph aa. Should read: "To the extend consistent with
applicable s tormwater management system a nd environmental regulations, a ny
isolated wading bird pools (rather than Apools@) constructed ...... )
Item 8E: The following correction should be noted in the Executive Summary.
Page 4 on the 2nd paragraph beginning with "An additional..." the date listed as
June 9, 2003 should read "June 11, 2003". (Staff request.)
Item 16(B)5: There are two 16(B)5 backup materials. (The agenda index is
correct.) The first one was numbered incorrectly and should have been numbered
16(B)4. Item 16(B)4 should be: Approve a resolution authorizing the execution of
a State highway lighting, maintenance, and compensation agreement between the
State of Florida Department of Transportation and Collier County.
Item 16(F)5; The following correction should be noted on the agenda index. The
dollar amount in the first sentence should read "$120,000,000" rather than
"$120,00,000".
Time Certain Items:
Items 8B and 8C to be heard at 3:00 p.m.
Item 10A to be heard at 1:00 p.m.
Item 10C to be heard at 12:00 noon.
July 29, 2003
Item #2B, Item #2C, Item #2D, Item #2E, Item #2F and Item #2G
MINUTES OF JUNE 10 REGULAR MEETING; MINUTES OF
JUNE 13 CRA MEETING; MINUTES OF JUNE 16 LDC SPECIAL
MEETING; MINUTES OF JUNE 24 REGULAR MEETING;
MINUTES OF JUNE 26 BCC/BUDGET WORKSHOP MEETING;
MINUTES OF JUNE 27 BCC/BUDGET WORKSHOP MEETING-
APPROVF, D AS PRF. SENTFD
Entertain a motion to accept June 10th, regular meeting, June
13th CRA meeting; June 16th LDC special meeting, June 24th
regular meeting, June 26th BCC budget workshop, June 27th BCC
budget workshop. All these were meetings took place in '03.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to accept and approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Thank
yOU.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING TUESDAY AUGUST 5,
2003 NATIONAL NIGHT OUT IN COLLIER COUNTY-
Page 10
July 29, 2003
We're going to go to proclamations. The first proclamation will
be delivered by Commissioner Halas. This proclamation is to
recognize Tuesday, August 5th, '03 as National Night Out in Collier
County. To accept this would be Skip Sweikert, president.
And you can tell us later on what you're president of.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, Skip.
MR. SWEIKERT: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This proclamation is:
WHEREAS, the National Association of Town Watch, NATW,
is sponsoring a unique nationwide, crime, drug and terrorist
prevention program on August 5th, 2003 entitled National Night Out;
and
WHEREAS, the 20th annual National Night Out provides a
unique opportunity for Collier County, Florida to join forces with
thousands of other communities across the country in promoting
cooperative police community crime prevention efforts; and
WHEREAS, Naples, Collier County, Neighborhood Watch,
Incorporated plays a vital role in assisting the Sheriffs Department
through joint crime, drug and terrorist prevention efforts in Collier
County, Florida, and is supporting Night Out, 2003; and
WHEREAS, it is essential that all citizens of Collier County,
Florida be aware of the importance of crime prevention programs and
the impact that their participation can have on reducing crime, drugs
and terrorist activity in their county; and
WHEREAS, deputy community partnerships, neighborhood
safety, awareness and cooperation are important themes for National
Night Out program.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that Tuesday, August 5th,
2003 be recognized as National Night Out in Collier County, Florida,
and for all citizens of Collier County, Florida to join Naples, Collier
Page 11
July 29, 2003
County Neighborhood Watch and the National Association of Town
Watch in supporting the 20th annual National Night Out on Tuesday,
August 5th, 2003.
In addition, all citizens are invited to see on display
crime-fighting and emergency equipment at the county-wide event at
the Lorenzo Walker Vo-Tech Center on August 2nd between the
morning hours of 9:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m.
DONE AND ORDERED on this 29th day of July, 2003, Board
of Collier County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom
Henning, Chairman.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Any opposed?
Motion carries 5-0 (sic). Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Sir, do you want to say a couple words?
MR. SWEIKERT: Oh, I'd love to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let us know what association you're
involved in.
MR. SWEIKERT: I didn't know we had that much time. I'm
not used to having such a big audience. I could go on for an hour or
two. I'm a retired police chief, so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Three minutes would be fine.
MR. SWEIKERT: I'm president of the Naples, Collier County
Neighborhood Watch Association, and we're very appreciative that
you're recognizing this very important annual event. Thank you,
Page 12
July 29, 2003
again.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, God bless. Thank you for
your volunteering in Collier County.
Next proclamation will be delivered by Commissioner Fiala.
This proclamation is to recognize the Collier County Library
Department for being awarded the achievement award for the
National Association of Counties to be accepted by Andrea Taylor
and Susan Petr. Thank you.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY
LIBRARY DEPARTMENT FOR BEING AWARDED THE
ACHIEVEMENT AWARD FROM THE NATIONAL
ASSOCI A TION OF COl JNTIF, S - ADOPTFD
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is truly a pleasure for me. If
you'd like, you can -- it might be embarrassing, but would you like to
face the audience? I'm so pleased to be able to read this
proclamation.
WHEREAS, the -- and I'd better read it into the microphone so
that they hear it -- the National Association of Counties recognizes
the efforts of counties through an annual achievement award
program; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Library Department has
received a 2003 National Association of Counties award for the
program entitled River Park Community and Library Technology
Access Grant; and
WHEREAS, this award acknowledged Collier County's efforts
to promote responsible, reasonable -- oh, let's see, responsive --
responsible and effective county government. Sorry about that; boy,
that's a mouthful -- and
Page 13
July 29, 2003
WHEREAS, the grant funds received from this program made it
possible to lessen the impact of the digital divide present between
affluent and low income working class populations of Collier County
by providing computer work stations, instructional classes, and an
enhanced homework center for children, as well as those adults
seeking to enhance their lives through the use of technology and
information; and
WHEREAS, this was a partnership between Collier County
Library and the River Park Community Center, with support from the
Macedonia Baptist Church and the City of Naples; and
WHEREAS, this award recognized winners in several ways,
including providing a list of winning programs on the National
Association of Counties' website, an article in the Association's
publication entitled County News, and an awards luncheon; and
WHEREAS, Collier County Library Department representative
attended the awards luncheon on July 13th, 2003 in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin to accept the award.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that this 29th day
of July, 2003 be recognized for this notable achievement and for
helping enrich the lives of the members of our community.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 29th day of July, 2003, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning,
Chairman.
Motion to approve, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 14
July 29, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Any opposed?
Motion carries 5-0 --4-0.
MS. PETR: My name is Susan Petr, and I would like to say I'm
happy to accept this award on behalf of Collier County Public
Library System and Collier County. Thank you.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING KEITH LARSON AS
"CITIZEN OF THE YEAR FOR GOI,DEN GATE"- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have the honor to deliver the next
proclamation, and so I would like to call Keith Larson, supervisor of
the Golden Gate Community Center, forward, please.
WHEREAS, Keith Larson has been an employee for Collier
County Parks and Recs department for -- specifically the Golden
Gate Community Center since 1995; and
WHEREAS, Keith was hired from (sic) the employment with
the City of Naples because of his dedication, customer service
involvement in (sic) the overall caring attitude; and
WHEREAS, Keith has used those skills to benefit the Golden
Gate community over the past eight years by building partnerships
with the Kiwanis, the Golden Gate Area Civic Association, the
Golden Gate Chamber of Commerce and 40-plus other organizations
who call the Community Center their home; and
WHEREAS, Keith has been a leader in creating and expanding
programs such as midnight basketball, competitive cheerleading,
basketball clinics, men's five by five league, basketball bash, a senior
expos, cool cruiser show, Southwest Florida motorcycle expo, youth
Page 15
July 29, 2003
concerts, after-school camps, summer camps and much, much more;
and
WHEREAS, Keith Larson was -- contribution to the
community, he was nominated as citizen of the year by the Golden
Gate Area Civic Association -- actually, it's the Golden Gate Area
President's Association; and
WHEREAS, in the ceremony of June 27th, 2003, it was
officially announced that Keith Larson was named citizen of the year
for Golden Gate; and
WHEREAS, no other county employee has ever received this
prestigious award, thus adding a quality of achievement; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners is very proud to be
represented by such an outstanding employee.
DONE in (sic) THIS ORDER-- NOW THEREFORE, be it
proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida that Keith Larson be recognized as Golden Gate's Citizen of
the Year for 2003.
DONE in THIS ORDER (sic) 29th day of July, 2003, and
signed by me.
And I'll make a motion that we move this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
MR. LARSON:
Any opposed?
Motion carries. Thanks, Steve.
Commissioners, thank you very much. I am so
Page 16
July 29, 2003
very honored this morning to receive this proclamation. And I'm a
little overwhelmed, too. This past month, since being named citizen
of the year, has been an amazing month. And I just want to thank
you for recognizing me in such a fashion.
But I also, even though my name's on this proclamation, I want
to share it with some people, who without their inspiration and
patience, I wouldn't be here today. So I just want to take a moment
to say thank you to first my wife Loretta, thank you so very much. I
love you.
To my mom and my dad, who were an inspiration to me
growing up and continue to be an inspiration to me.
Past and present members of the Golden Gate Community
Center advisory board who have been so supportive of all that we do
over at the community center and all that I do over there.
And last but certainly not least -- no, they're not last, by the
way, but I want to mention the staff, the entire staff of the Golden
Gate Community Center who make it so possible that I'm able to get
out and spread myself a little more because they're so incredible.
You have got such an incredible staff over there that allows me to be
able to do these kind of things.
And, Mr. John Dunnuck, I want to thank you too for hiring me
with the county. It's been wonderful. It's been a wonderful
relationship, and I'm just proud to be working here. And I thank you
very much.
And thank you all very much too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, members of the
public, I also want to recognize Commissioner Coletta as being one
of the first recipients of the Citizen of the Year for -- in the Golden
Gate area. The Golden Gate Citizens -- (Applause.) That was back
in 1903, I believe.
The Golden Gate area has approximately 60,000 residents, and
they're recognized by nomination from members of the public of
Page 17
July 29, 2003
their achievements within the community. We're blessed that we
have people like Commissioner Coletta and Keith Larson who have
dedicated their selves to the community.
And I just wanted to recognize what Keith has stated today is
the reason why -- part of the reason why he has received such a
distinguished award, he has recognized his family first. And that's
where his heart is. His heart is family and community.
So Keith, God bless, and thanks for serving.
John, did you have anything to say?
Next one is -- where are we at, Commissioners?
MR. MUDD: Page No. 5, it's the presentation-
Item #5A
RECOGNIZED LOUISE HARDY, ADMINISTRATIVE
SECRETARY, PARKS AND RECREATION, AS EMPLOYEE OF
THFI MONTH FOR .Il HJY 2003 - RECOGNIZED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Presentation. I would ask Louise
Hardy to -- administration secretary for parks and rec. to please come
forward.
Commissioners, once a month we have the honor to recognize
the employee of the month for Collier County. It's quite often and at
least recognized by most important individuals in -- the parks and
rec. department is the front desk receptionist.
Louise Hardy has been in this position for 10 years. And with
the non-stop ringing of phones and ever-flowing lines of walk-in
customers, she has continually demonstrated a true meaning of
customer service excellency. Louise has taken care of each customer
with her utmost friendliness, kindliness and patience. She's remained
cool, calm, collective, and has been (sic) magic of turning customers'
negative mode into a positive mode.
Page 18
July 29, 2003
It seems that every day that (sic) goes without someone noticing
the kindness Louise has given to others. She's always greeted
everybody with a smile and projects warmness, and immediately
makes everybody feel at ease. She's always upbeat with her manner,
and not just in the character, but Louise has always risen to the
occasion on going beyond the call of duty.
So Louise, we want to -- on behalf of the Board of
Commissioners, we want to thank you for your going above and
beyond the call of duty, and I want to give you this plaque here,
recognizing you as citizen of the month for this month.
Louise, I also want to give you a small token of our appreciation
of-- a small check for being nominated and recognized as citizen --
I'm sorry, employee of the month, and just a short little letter from
myself. Thank you.
MS. HARDY: Thank you very much. It's very well
appreciated.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We want to get a picture, too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Next item?
Item #6A
LETTER TO BE SENT TO FEMA ON BEHALF OF THE
RESIDENTS OF GOIJDEN GATE ESTATES
MR. MUDD: It's a public petition. This item is a public petition
request by Ms. Heather Knight, requesting the chairman of the Board
of County Commissioners send a letter to FEMA on behalf of the
residents of Golden Gate Estates.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Brian McMann will be
speaking in place of Heather Knight. Brian's been an advocate for
this cause for some time and is well versed in the -- all the formalities
Page 19
July 29, 2003
of it.
MR. McMANN: And not nearly as attractive as Heather.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's true. We won't argue
with you there.
MR. McMANN: On behalf of a lot of the residents in this
county, I'm going to ask you to accept these petitions, showing the
community's support in the Collier County Commission's fight in
helping keep FEMA from imposing a lot of unfair restrictions out
here.
The implementation of the mandatory flood insurance is going
to deny a lot of people the chance to be a first-time homeowner. It's
going to also create quite a bit of hardship on the people who
currently have homes out there, and additional mortgage premiums.
Also, as an electrical contractor, both state and county, it's also
going to create a hardship on a lot of the employers. I know that
when my employees come up with another $200 per month in
mortgage payments, they're going to be knocking on my door
looking for a raise. The real spending that they are going to have is
going to drop, and it's really a formula for economic disaster here for
the county.
For those of you who don't live in this area, I would hope you
would stand behind the Commission in supporting this. The
economy of the county, it's in everybody's interest to keep spending
and wages, you know, under control here. And let me go ahead and
hand you these.
MR. MUDD: Here, let me take them.
MR. McMANN: Okay. I would also like to thank, even though
he's not present today, is Mario Diaz Velart (phonetic). I hope
somebody can forward a message to him. We appreciate his work.
We need somebody who can deal with, you know, federal agencies.
And he has done his constituents well in at least giving us some extra
time and the county extra time to prove our point.
Page 20
July 29, 2003
So -- and that's all have I to say. Once again, on behalf of the
Estates' residents, thank you very much to the Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to recognize the
efforts of this grassroots movement that's been pushing this forward.
They managed to obtain at this point in time, and the petitions are
still out there, and we're still accepting them, over 1,100 names. And
I give you a lot of credit for what you've done to bring this to
everyone's attention. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Anything else?
Item #6C
COUNTY TO MEET WITH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR
THE VIIJJAGE WAI~K HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
MR. MUDD: Item 6(B) has been withdrawn. That brings us to
Item 6(C), and that's a public petition request by Mr. Paul Feuer,
president of the Village Walk Homeowner's Association regarding
Livingston Road extension.
MR. FEUER: Mr. Chairman, before I begin, if you don't mind,
I would like to ask if it's all right to have the fine citizens of Village
Walk who are here today to stand up so you can see they're
represented.
Would you all stand up?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's our audience.
MR. FEUER: I brought protection.
Just a point of order, if I may. I was advised by your staff, as
well as the administrator's office, that I would be given 10 minutes. I
was just handed a note over here which says I'm given five minutes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ten.
Page 21
July 29, 2003
MR. FEUER: Okay, thank you. With your permission, I'd like
to read my statement.
On behalf of Village Walk Homeowner's Association, we thank
the Board for granting us this opportunity to petition for relief. We
applaud the board and the Department of Transportation for your
ongoing efforts to meet or exceed the challenges of Collier County
traffic growth. We commend your actions to aggressively move
forward to bring our grossly neglected infrastructure into alignment
with the constantly changing and expanding development in our
county.
Unfortunately, the citizens of Village Walk have been caught in
the wake of this rapid and ever-changing expansion. It seems that in
the county's haste to upgrade the road system, it overlooked the
environmental impact that Livingston Road would have on Village
Walk.
The county took an on-again, off-again approach towards
erecting a berm or barrier. This berm was intended to alleviate the
visual eyesore and possibly reduce some of the noise and dust
pollution that the new road would create.
Thus what we're seeking today, on behalf of our 850
homeowners and over 1,800 residents, is simply to provide basic
quality of life relief to our community.
Livingston Road extension is being constructed in Village
Walk's backyard. We have made numerous attempts to gather
factual information during the planning as well as the construction
phase of the building of Livingston Road.
From the outset we were assured by DOT officials that the
county would do whatever they could to soften the impact from the
road. Regretfully, the integrity of DOT's information data has been
compromised, since Village Walk has been consistently misinformed
and misled.
I'm sure the Board would agree that our residents and your
Page 22
July 29, 2003
constituents are entitled to a fair shake. Up to the present time our
voices may have been heard, but they haven't been listened to. That
is why we're appealing to the Commission for help. Permit me to
explain.
Every time we met with DOT representatives to gather
information, their story changed. At DOT's first public meeting in
April of 2001, DOT representatives discussed their intent to construct
an eight-foot berm between the property line and Livingston Road.
At a later meeting in May of 2001, landscape representatives
from DOT assured us that there was going to be a berm; however, it
would be somewhat less than eight feet. They stated that they were
considering, and I quote, using excess fill to build a four- to six-foot
berm on which they would place plantings of an appropriate height to
provide increased screening. They said that the county would be
obligated to do this in order to provide Village Walk with privacy
and shield us from the Livingston Road eyesore.
At a later date we were told that we were misinformed and that a
berm could not be built due to certain restrictions. They advised that
the county was only building an 18-inch high drainage barrier.
When DOT changed its story for the third time, we immediately
requested a meeting with the DOT administrator. Regretfully, at the
last minute the administrator was unable to attend the meeting. We
then met with members of his staff. They gave us a briefing on the
plans for Livingston Road and how it would affect Village Walk.
They advised us that the current plans did not, in fact, include any
plan for building a berm or barrier.
To add insult to injury and far more alarming, they advised us
that the surface of Livingston Road would be elevated approximately
five to seven feet. This was never discussed in any previous
meetings. We were shocked that the road would, in fact, be several
feet higher than Village Walk's circle, our main internal roadway and
walk. Thus, the noise pollution would become even greater. And
Page 23
July 29, 2003
much worse, our residents will be confronted with a major nuisance.
They would be looking up at 18-wheelers, commercial trucks and
other vehicles barrelling by our development.
They say that one of the major restrictions that precluded
building a berm or barrier -- or a berm, I should say, were the electric
lines and poles that were on the county side of Livingston Road.
They said these lines would interfere with the berm. For the board's
information, these lines and poles are no longer a factor. The lines
were recently transferred to lines on Village Walk property and the
poles are in the process of being removed.
The DOT staffers, however, were quite sympathetic with our
dilemma. They agreed that the barrier would help at least to offset
the visual pollution. However, they indicated they had no authority
to commit funding for any such barrier, and they recommended that
we seek assistance from the DOT administrator who is the only
official who could, in fact, meet with us and offer some funding.
They advised that the administrator -- they also noted that the
funding of a barrier might set a poor precedent. And this is the
concern that we had. The precedent that they were concerned about
is that Village Walk would, in fact, be the first development, if they
built a barrier for us, that they funded for. Whereas, they indicated
that there was no other community along Livingston Road for which
the community built or funded a barrier.
We later met with the administrator who reiterated this same
concern of setting a poor precedent if the county funded a barrier.
He also maintained that the county did not fund the construction of
any barriers along Livingston Road.
I would add that the staff specifically said that Windemere
barrier was not funded by the county. He did agree, however, to
review our problem and, in fact, visited Village Walk. However, he
offered no real assistance. He maintained that he would be unable to
support the construction of any barrier or berm.
Page 24
July 29, 2003
Subsequently, we have raised numerous questions to DOT
representatives regarding a wall at Windemere. We also received
numerous and different answers. Finally, DOT did acknowledge that
the county did indeed plan, design, construct and fund the wall at
Windemere.
Initially they stated that the construction and financing of the
barrier was approved as a result of a sound study. They later advised
that they merely replaced the wall that the county, they, themselves,
had damaged. We were later advised that there were no walls at
Windemere. More recently the county told us that there was a
trade-off of land for the construction of the walls. So as you can see,
the story continued to change.
I would respectfully ask each Board member to visualize having
approximately 1,000 feet of a six-lane, heavily traveled, exposed
road running directly adjacent to your newly developed community
several feet higher than your main street and sidewalk, built by your
county with your tax dollars, with complete disregard by the county
to the visual eyesore it would create.
We agree that any perspective buyer or homeowner could have
seen the proposed Livingston Road extension on various maps;
however, these maps would not have forecast the height of
Livingston Road in relation to their property. These maps did not
reflect that there would be three lanes of heavy traffic going in both
directions.
Our intent today is not to point fingers or to cast blame.
Certainly DOT and our presently elected county officials cannot be
held accountable for the poor foresight and planning of their
predecessors.
The expansion of Livingston Road as it relates to Village Walk
simply cannot be looked at in a vacuum. We're the only community
in north Naples that is confronted with present and future major road
construction affecting all four sides of our home sites.
Page 25
July 29, 2003
Our community has not looked at this as a one-sided item,
either. We're not asking the county to assume the entire burden of
relief. To the contrary, we recently expended over $33,000 towards
the planting of shrubs and trees between our property line and
Livingston Road. As a matter of fact, in recent weeks these plantings
have been subject to flooding caused by improper drainage at the
Livingston Road construction site. We brought that to the attention
of DOT. As a matter of fact, two days ago it was flooded again and
we've got new plants there that are under a lot of water and we're
hoping they survive. If not, DOT will be held accountable for it.
These plantings were a huge, unforeseen expenditure for our
community. So we believe we've done our part. Now we would
hope that the county would see fit to pitch in as well. The county
must look beyond the basic facts and formulas that are generically
designed to fit communities on a black-and-white basis.
The county in good conscience must take into account the
uniqueness of our situation and the reasonableness of our request.
We are simply requesting that the county erect a berm or a barrier
between Livingston Road and Village Walk for a distance of
approximately 1,000 feet. The barrier, in fact, would be less than 20
percent of the size of the barrier that the county constructed at no
cost for Windemere.
Although our residents have been patient and tolerant, we don't
believe that they've been accorded fair and equal treatment. We are
requesting your assistance on behalf of all our residents who are
rightfully concerned for their piece of mind as well as their property
value. Our cause is valid and just. Our request is fair and
reasonable. Common sense and logic must prevail.
We consider Village Walk to be a showcase community; a
community that our county should be proud of. Let's keep it that
way.
Gregg Strakaluse recently gave a presentation to the Naples
Page 26
July 29, 2003
President's Council, of which I'm a member, regarding the DOT
five-year work plan. He stated that the county is now striving in a
new direction. He emphasized the fact that DOT is just as concerned
about the surrounding communities and aesthetics as they are to
infrastructure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have to ask you to wrap up, please.
MR. FEUER: I will wrap up now.
He concluded by stating to the county that the county is now
dedicated, and I quote, to go that extra step. Today we're asking the
board to go that extra step. We're confident that the board will
respond favorably to our petition. I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you.
Everybody take their seats, please. Thank you.
Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I looked at this report, and I
want to say that on behalf of the people of Island Walk, they had a
very good presentation here.
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Village Walk.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or Village Walk, excuse me. I'm
sorry.
But I'm concerned that maybe the developer had a hand in this.
Because if you look at -- and I understand where you're coming from.
I looked at the pictures of the road in regards to where the road is
presently, at the present elevation it is. These are built to DOT
standards. And I would think that the developer would have a hand
in realizing that a road is going to be put there and that it might cause
a problem for you, the residents, and that he should have planned, I
think, for a berm and also to raise the elevation.
Because if we look at where the pictures are here that you
presented in regards to the flooding that's taking place, there's two
things here: One is I believe that the DOT is in the process of-- in
the construction process of this road, and I don't believe that they've
Page 27
July 29, 2003
addressed this drainage issue. But I think that what you have here is
a very low swale area. And that's kind of my contention of what's
happening here.
And I also think that -- I don't believe, I may be -- stand to be
corrected, but I don't believe that the DOT got involved in building a
wall for Windemere. I believe that there was some damage done to
that wall and they replaced a couple of sections, but it was not --
that's my understanding. I could get maybe some clarification from
DOT on this. But the investigation or the research that I did on it,
basically there was some improprieties to that wall and that was
taken care of. But the wall itself wasn't built by the county.
And I believe there's been some effort by DOT and the county
to -- if you people wanted to buy fill to build a berm, then we were
willing to also come forth and give you a fairly good price on that
berm. So maybe somebody could maybe reiterate a little bit on this
from staff.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator.
Commissioner, we never represented that we weren't involved in
the construction or development of that wall at Windemere. What I
told folks in that neighborhood is what I understood, which was that
we did have impact on the wall, which I now find that we did, that
we replaced the wall based on that impact. I find, and that's what's
been noted by the folks there, and we've shared the information.
It has come along because Livingston has been in design and in
the making for many years. But that, in fact, there were other
considerations. It appears that Windemere's original wall was in the
drainage easement, that there was some effort relative to the
right-of-way on Livingston to have them take over that drainage
easement area. They worked to get additional frontage off of FP&L,
an additional 15 feet, but the wall was erected outside of their
Page 28
July 29, 2003
existing wall in most places except for where their wall jutted out. It
wasn't a straight wall that they had at that time. We did impact some
segments of it.
There was a noise study done, not to the standards that we do
noise studies on every project today. There was not a noise study
done on Livingston overall. We did come back and look at particular
areas that were represented, the closest houses that we found along
the Livingston section as a way to look at noise.
In working with the community -- and I've got all the records
and correspondence, it's been around for quite some time -- we have
letters from them requesting my involvement to look at the
possibility of an eight-foot berm. In the public meetings we had
shown a two- to four-foot berm. We did discuss with them the
possibility of fill needed to be on their property if we did try to
establish a berm.
Went out to the community and did agree to a number of things:
Fencing off the drainage canal, allowing them to landscape and find
out what was a gated area, which was an open area right now to their
community to Livingston Road and other issues.
But the Windemere wall was -- a number of issues, as I'm
finding out. And I'm not sure that I know all the particulars. But it
appears that there was a swap of land. They're taking on some of the
drainage easement because their original wall was in it and some
damage that has occurred to the wall. And yes, we did as part of the
Livingston project, replace and/or build that wall in that area.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
What are we doing about the flooding problem?
MR. FEDER: I'll let Gregg Strakaluse speak to you on that. It's
part of the construction item right now. We've had some very, very
heavy rains as part of what you're seeing in that picture. I'll ask
Gregg to address that issue specifically.
Page 29
July 29, 2003
MR. STRAKALUSE: Last Friday there were some heavy rains
and there was some flooding of a drainage area on the Village Walk
property. We were actually pumping water out of a pit area in order
to place a structure.
Immediately when I found out about that Friday, we told the
contractor to stop pumping the water out. And we've essentially
completed the construction work for that particular drainage part of
the project and we've essentially stopped the pumping. We don't
anticipate any further flooding from our project on to the Village
Walk property, because all the piping and all of the structures have
been put in place at this time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you're saying that in the future
there won't be any flooding problems?
MR. STRAKALUSE: There won't be as a result of pumping.
As far as flooding problems from the rainfall, they do have a specific
area which is a low area on their side of the property which
occasionally floods during the rain. There won't be any impact from
stormwater on the Livingston Road project affecting the Village
Walk property in the future.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you -- what is the elevation
that you have the road at, and why is the road elevated at the -- the
elevation that it's presently being built?
MR. STRAKALUSE: The original ground surface in that area
was low, and we did need to bring in some fill to build the road up
about five to six feet. But the surrounding properties were also
already high. We are approximately 18 inches above the lower
portion of the Village Walk property where their drainage area is, the
drainage triangle where they've recently planted some cedar trees.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I just wanted to ask, if
we were responsible, through the lack of sufficient drainage and they
Page 30
July 29, 2003
do lose some of their plantings, do we have any intentions to replace
those plantings?
MR. STRAKALUSE: Yeah, we would hold our contractor
responsible for any outside impacts from our project area.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What time period do we have
to be able to react to that? In other words, do we -- it might be a year
from now before we see the results of the damage.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Up until we accept the road we have a
year's warranty on the entire project. And we've documented this
particular incident, and if anything happens during that time, they'll
be able to go back out to the contractor.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Strakaluse, this is the second
time that we've had a problem with the construction of Livingston
Road and the stormwater drainage. Just a month ago we had the
retention area sidewalk collapse and caused a problem over in
Village Walk.
So, you know, we need to keep these citizens whole on this
drainage problem during the construction time, and I would like to
get together with staff and show me that they're not going to have a
problem after this is constructed.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Absolutely. I can bring you up to date as
far as what we've completed as to construction to this point and the
assurances that we've made to prevent any impacts from the
stormwater perspective.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, the residents sat
down with me and showed me the dilemma on how Livingston Road
is going to affect them. And some of the things that they have stated,
I have taken a look at.
The one thing that I really feel for the residents is they're
surrounded on three sides of-- you've got 1-75 on one side, you have
Livingston Road (sic), which is going to be six-laned in the near
future, and then Livingston Road.
Page 31
July 29, 2003
I understand the concerns on the aesthetics of the people of the
community. I went out there personally and took a look at what staff
is telling me and that noise criteria for some kind of abatement, and
paste off and make sure that what I'm being told is true.
I also took a look at the noise study, which wasn't for the
community of Village Walk, but it was down the street, the closest
receptor for that, to see what the decibel was on that one receptor,
and it still fell below.
I want to assist this community, but the precedence that we're
going to set is we're going to get a lot of requests from other
communities for some kind of abatement for our projects that doesn't
fit the criteria. So I would hope that --
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, if I could, having met with the
folks at Village Walk out on their property, and as they stated very
well, they have made a strong commitment to try and landscape in
their area.
As you can see by the graph in here, they've got the two what
I'll call sort of triangular sections that they're already putting the trees
in which was just discussed to make sure that they are protected and
allowed to grow.
We are going to -- based on your actions for landscaping, going
to proceed in this project with some landscaping. We also have some
trees that we've spoken about before in looking at placement. I
would recommend that we work with them, both outside and possibly
within those triangles, on some of those trees that we have as a way
to try to provide further response.
We recognize what you're saying and we recognize the needs of
the community. I think Gregg did mean what he said to the
president's council. We've been here three years. This project's been
out for longer than that. I'm not sure I'm going to say that it's going
to be what they want exactly, because we do not meet the criteria for
a sound barrier, per se. But we will try to continue working with the
Page 32
July 29, 2003
community and respect what they have to say and the fact that they're
here and very concerned about their community.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, Mr. Feder-- Commissioner,
one minute, please.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would it be possible to work with
you myself and the community to take a look at retention areas,
stormwater retention areas to see if there's --
MR. FEDER: We'll make sure that our stormwater system is
working correctly, and we'd be happy to meet with you and the
community to that end, as Gregg noted. And also to look at our
options, maybe with some additional trees or what other issues might
apply.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I know that the Forestry has
several wetland materials that might be placed in there, very
reasonable, talking to Ms. Flagg, of other areas that we can do that.
And I'd look to see if there's a possibility to put some plantings in
there.
MR. FEDER: And again, that's cypress trees, which would go
over well and they've already started planting. But yes, that will
definitely work.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, with Village Walk here, is
the developer still involved in developing this section?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, it's handed over to the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's already handed over? As I
was saying, maybe we --
MR. FEDER: It was handed over to the association.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- could get involved with the
developer and -- because I think he's got some issues here that need
to be addressed for the citizens of this area, so --
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, it's turned over, but we will work
Page 33
July 29, 2003
with the Commissioners and with the association.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other7
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, we'll move on to the next
item, and we'll be getting back to the board of directors of the
community. Sir?
MR. FEUER: Can I just make one point?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have to come up to the mic, sir.
MR. FEUER: Just two quick points. One is the area that's
flooded has never been flooded since we've been there, that seven
years.
Two is we've never questioned the fact that we may not warrant,
according to the standards, a sound barrier. Sound has never been
our issue. The visual eyesore is what we're concerned about. And it
just seems to us as a community that if the developer is building a
community, to blame it on the developer that they should have made
plans or they should have foreseen that a road was coming by, what
did the county do to make sure that the developer would do
something? Does the county walk aside and close their eyes to the
progress being made by the developer, or does the county go in there
and say wait a minute, there's going to be a six-lane highway coming
by here, and you need to build it so high, your berm, so that you can
protect the interest of that community. Does the county close their
eyes to that or do they open their eyes to that7 Do they have
inspections? Do they ensure that the visual -- you know, we keep
harping on the sound. I think we need to look at the visual eyesore,
and that's what we're concerned about. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think your landscaping proposal
that you put on the books that gives the side landscaping, along with
the median landscaping, will go a long way. And I think that's what
Page 34
July 29, 2003
Norman was alluding to as he talked about the trees that go out there,
that C-1 side of the house in that process, in order to do that visual
barrier that they're talking about. So I think the board has recognized
that when they changed their landscaping plan for the entire county.
Because you wanted to do that on every new road project that we
had, and you budgeted some money toward that.
I know that Ms. Flagg, at my direction, wrote you a little e-mail
yesterday that talked about some opportunities in September to
further funding in that particular arena. So I think you've recognized
that as a board during that presentation.
And I'll make sure that staff works with the Chair and with the
homeowner's association to fix that drainage issue, if that should that
occur, and at the same time work a more intense landscaping piece
along that thousand so that we can stop the visual process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great, thank you. This is an
established community, and I know they're involved in many
not-for-profit organizations. Well, even if they wasn't (sic), we need
to recognize their dilemma. So it's a pleasure working with them.
Item #7A
RESOLUTION 2003-253 REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE "20"
FOR AN OIL STORAGE FACILITY IN A 'T' INDUSTRIAL
ZONING DISTRICT- ADOPTED
Next item is 7(A), and this item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte communications by the Board of County
Commissioners. This petition is CU-2003-AR-3634, Dennis Crones
(sic) of-- Cronin of Bond, Schoeneck and King, representing Dennis
Combs and Earl Hodges, requesting a conditional use 20 for an oil
storage facility in an industrial zoning district. This property is to be
considered for the conditional use to be located on the northwest
Page 35
July 29, 2003
quadrant of the intersection of Industrial Boulevard and Radio Road
at 68 Industrial Boulevard in Section 36, Township 49, Range 25 east
of-- in Collier County, Florida. This property consists of almost five
acres.
All participants rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, ex parte communication by
the board of commissioners.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, back about two years ago
I met with Mr. Combs and talked about the possibility of this moving
of this business. And yesterday I met with Dennis Cronin to discuss
some of the planning they have going into it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I met some weeks back with
Dennis Combs and Earl G. Hodges on this item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I met with Dennis Cronin.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, any ex parte
communication?
(At which time, Commissioner Coyle was present on speaker
phone.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good morning. I have only
communications with respect with Heritage Bay, and I'm not aware
of any communications I've had with anything on the summary
agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This one we're discussing today is a
conditional use for the oil storage facility and --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely nothing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I have reviewed the planning
commission tape when this item was coming up.
So with that, I'd ask the petitioner to present what they're asking
Page 36
July 29, 2003
for us today.
MR. CRONIN: Good morning. My name is Dennis Cronin.
I'm an attorney with the law firm of Bond, Schoeneck and King, and
I represent Earl Hodges and Dennis Combs, who purchased this
property from the State of Florida a little -- close to a year ago, I
believe is when the closing actually took place.
This is the former fire tower facility located at the comer of
Radio Road and Industrial Boulevard. Mr. Combs is currently in
business on the Combs Oil Company, located on Airport Pulling
Road, close to Davis Boulevard.
Our desire is to relocate his existing facility that's -- and to
develop the northern part of this property as a petroleum bulk station
and terminal for use in his oil distribution business.
We have David Sneed here from Coleman Engineering who will
be able to walk you through a proposed site plan. This property still
needs to go through the site development plan process in order to
achieve final approval so we can provide you with some preliminary
information regarding the proposed development.
We have Mr. Robert Finger, who's an attorney with the law firm
of Frank and Grambling (phonetic) in Tampa and Tallahassee who
deals with environmental issues with respect to this type of facility,
and he'll be able to walk you through and give you some information
with respect to the -- those concerns.
There was a letter that was provided to the planning commission
that was in your package from his law firm, dealing with the safety
concerns and the regulations, both at the federal and the state level,
and they're done in coordination with the county.
By way of background, Mr. Combs has operated his oil facility
since 1961 in this community. He has employed-- you know, I think
he has 11 employees right now. The relocation of this facility will
give him additional area or additional expansion. He'll be able to
move, have above ground tanks, as opposed to underground tanks,
Page 37
July 29, 2003
which are currently in existence.
He is a contractor with the Naples Community Hospital to
provide fuel for their emergency facilities in the event of hurricanes
in the City of Naples emergency services division. So I think that
quite clearly, he provides a substantial value to this community and
has been a citizen of long standing, and has made contributions that
are here.
With respect to the actual conditional use petition, the Collier
County Planning Commission voted unanimously in favor of this.
Staff has recommended approval of this.
The criteria -- the first level of criteria is that any proposed
conditional use is consistent with the county's Land Development
Code and with its Growth Management Plan, which I believe that
you'll find that according to staffs recommendation this property
meets that criteria; that there is adequate ingress and egress to the
property and the proposed structures to be located on the property;
and that there are no safety or pedestrian concerns with respect to
traffic flow or access. And staff has found quite clearly that there are
no issues with respect to the proposed design with that.
There is -- the third criteria is that there is no deleterious effects
upon neighboring properties. I mean, in specific in relation to noise,
glare, economic or odor effects. And there has been no evidence of
any of those concerns being raised.
I might say that in various discussions we've had, we have had
some reference to the actual height of the vertical facilities that will
be located there. And our original proposal was for a 46-foot vertical
tank. There would be three of those facilities.
Since we've been made aware of those concerns, we've gone
back to various manufacturers and have located a 35-foot vertical
tank which we think will provide us with the same type of capacity
and will lower the visual angle.
And I have a rendering that provides you with a revised side line
Page 38
July 29, 2003
from the center road and a lower -- it's going to be significantly lower
than the proposed 47 foot. But I just want to make sure that, you
know, you're aware of the fact that we are concerned with your
concerns and have responded appropriately.
We think that the location of this type of facility in the industrial
district is a compatible use with this area. This is where this type of
facility should be located.
And at this time, you know, I'd like to introduce Dave Sneed
from Coleman Engineering. He'll be able to give you a little bit more
specifics about the proposed development of this property. And, you
know, we're available to answer any questions or concerns that you
have.
Mr. Henning?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's go to the Commissioners, see if
we have any questions about this conditional use request. And if I
could ask the Commissioners to speak into their mics so everybody at
home can hear us, I would appreciate it.
Commissioner Coletta, you have any questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, yes, just a couple, if I
may. The planning service staff recommendations one through three,
are you in agreements with them?
MR. CRONIN: Yes, I believe that we are. But the site
development plan process will flush those out. But yes, as of right
now we are in agreement with those, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If we approve it, we would be
approving it with these conditions in there. MR. CRONIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The other question I've got is,
do we have any public speakers?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's go back to that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to try to get a feel
for it. That doesn't mean I'm calling them forward.
Page 39
July 29, 2003
MS. FILSON: For 7(A), no, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No public speakers for this item.
Commissioners Halas, do you have any questions?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only question I have is what
type of paint covering are you going to put on this tank? Is it going
to blend in with the surrounding area in some way or another? Have
you addressed that? Or is it going to be something large and silver
color or black, or what are we talking here?
MR. SNEED: The tanks come in a structural --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name for the record, please?
MR. SNEED: I'm sorry, my name is David Sneed with
Coleman Engineering.
The tanks come in a structural aluminum color. But they can
have a paint applied to them to -- basically to blend in with any
architectural criteria that wou01d be required.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that should be one of the
requirements also so that it blends in with the surrounding area.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It would be nice to have an
American flag on it.
Commissioner Fiala, do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not at this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, any
questions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any questions for staff?.
MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to state -- Fred
Reischl, planning services.
I just wanted to state for the record that staff found this
consistent with the Growth Management Plan and compatible with it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas, do you
have any idea what our staff should look for as far as aesthetics with
the tanks?
Page 40
July 29, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think it should be maybe a
light color or something, like a tan or maybe a light green or
something of that nature. That's what I was looking at. Because
around that area I think there's some foliage in that area also, isn't
there?
MR. REISCHL: Currently there is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. SNEED: The visual aspects of the tanks actually will
hardly be -- actually will not be seen because the building is placed at
the proximity of the site. So the tanks are -- the high tanks are all the
way in the back and the lower tanks are actually below the height of
the building.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand that.
MR. SNEED: So you would not really be able to see these
tanks from--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What about on the side? Is there a
side view of this, of the tanks, or not? In other words, the tanks, do
they butt up against a road that parallels to the side of these tanks?
MR. SNEED: No, they butt up to a drainage canal that's
actually at the rear of the site.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. You've answered my
question then, thank you.
MR. REISCHL: If I could make a suggestion as to the color, we
could say that the color of the tanks shall comply with Division 2.8,
which is the architectural design guidelines.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fantastic.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, great. No further questions,
I'll entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do have one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, Commissioner, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: About the landscaping, they said
that there would be landscaping to hide this. They said like the
Page 41
July 29, 2003
landscaping that's there now, but that certainly wouldn't hide
anything. And what I'm just hoping is that from Radio Road
especially that visually, you know, it will look a little bit better.
And I want to tell you, this is not in any reference to you guys,
of course, but so many people promise us a landscaping that will be
visually pleasing. I just see one right down the street at Gulf Coast
American Blind where they were going to put a visual -- really nice
landscaping and it's all overgrown and thick with weeds. And, you
know, I want to make sure that we have a better presentation.
MR. SNEED: Certainly. If I may, the total portion of the site is
actually close to 600 feet in depth from Radio Road. But we're going
back 300 feet before we even start the boundary of the project. This
portion will be future development. If you go by the site right now,
it is very heavily vegetated. Apparently the Forestry Service planted
a lot of trees in there. But this would be for a future development,
which probably I'm sure is going to be commercial activity, which
would also provide any barrier from the Radio Road area.
So at this time the tanks backing up to this drainage canal are
actually going to be in this proximity. So there's really no view from
any roads that you can see these tanks.
And as far as the landscaping, you know, everything will be
more than -- will be consistent or exceed the LDC requirements for
landscaping on the property.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other further questions?
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion for
approval to include the staff recommendations and what was
discussed as far as the aesthetics and the colors go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coletta, there's a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any further
discussion?
Page 42
July 29, 2003
Commissioner Coyle, any --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I just wanted to make sure
that Commissioner Halas's stipulation was included in that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, no further discussion, all in
favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Before we move on to the Growth Management Plan
amendments, I'd like to give our court reporter a five-minute break
and we'll come back at 10:30.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Coyle, we'll call you back at
10:30.
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take their seats, please.
The next item is?
Item #8A
RESOLUTION 2003-254 TRANSMITTAL OF AMENDMENTS
CPSP-2003-4; CPSP-2003-5; CPSP 2003-6; CPSP-2003-7; CPSP-
2003-8:CPSP-2003-9 TO DCA- ADOPTFiD
MR. MUDD: Is 8(A). That's a public hearing for the 2003
second cycle of the Growth Management Plan amendments,
Page 43
July 29, 2003
all-county initiated. And this is the transmittal hearing. And Mr.
David Weeks will present.
Commissioner, I just want to remind all the Commissioners that
this has discernible items. You vote after each one, just in case we
have to break and go to a different item or you want to do something
else. And we always have a place to start from, okay, so we don't
have to start all over.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right, we're going to have a starting
and we're going to have an ending on this. So we're going to separate
it out and take the votes.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weeks?
MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners, I'm David
Weeks, for the record, of the comprehensive planning section staff.
A few introductory comments. First of all to stress that these
are Growth Management Plan amendments. These are not rezones or
other types of land use petitions that you deal with on a much more
frequent basis.
Secondly, this is a transmittal hearing. You could think of this
as a preliminary approval hearing. Of course, if you deny something,
then that's the end of it for that petition.
But for those that you vote to transmit, the process is that they
will be sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, they
will have a certain time period to review those amendments. They
will issue what's called their ORC report, objections,
recommendations and comments, which again you can think of as
their preliminary review comments based upon review of these
amendments for compliance with the Florida statutes.
Then you will be holding adoption hearings on these
amendments, probably November or December of this year. That is
the time that you would take final action on these amendments.
This is a legislative action, not quasi judicial, so you are not
Page 44
July 29, 2003
required to swear in participants or offer your notice of ex parte
communications.
Something I need to point out is that there is a sign-up seat, it's a
legal side sheet out on the table in the hallway. This is something
that's required by statute. It's a courtesy information notice that will
be sent by the Florida Department of Community Affairs once we get
to the end of this process of these amendments in whatever form
were adopted when the DCA, that's a state agency, issues their letter
of intent to find these amendments in compliance with Florida
statutes or not.
If a person signs up, they'll receive a copy of-- a courtesy notice
from that state department stating we've issued our notice.
Informational item: The legal ad for these amendments, which
is now the standard protocol, are four-page ads in the Naples Daily
News. So we think we're providing sufficient notice to the public of
these three items under consideration.
Also, the specificity of these ads is greater than we've done in
the past. That also limits the scope of the review to more specifically
what's been advertised for. In the past sometimes if an amendment
was proposed for an element, we might have a person show up that
wanted to see some type of change occur to that element that wasn't
something specifically brought before you. Now that door has been
closed. It's been narrowed to the matters specifically advertised.
I will mention too that the Florida statutes allow the county to
adopt Growth Management Plan amendments such as these twice per
year. By resolution, you've established a once a year cycle. You've
held that second cycle in abeyance. That is up to you to decide when
to implement it. These are all county initiated amendments. This is
the second cycle that you've previously authorized to be occurring.
Again, there are no private amendments, these are all county
initiated amendments.
There's a total of six petitions. And as the County Manager has
Page 45
July 29, 2003
indicated, each staff member will come up to present their specific
petition and ask that you vote separately on each item.
Also, because these are county initiated amendments, there is no
petitioner involved, so the staff will go right into each of the
presentations.
Also, I would like to note that you've received separate binders
or notebooks provided to your office, and that's what we're going to
be working from today. Specifically the reason for that is that
includes the planning commission recommendation. Due to the
timing of the two hearings, the executive summary packet did not
include the planning commission recommendations. The timing
would not allow that. You were provided with the separate
notebooks. So again we want to use those separate notebooks. They
have the planning commission recommendations. They also have the
Exhibit A's to the resolution; that is the actual document that will be
transmitted to the State Department of Community Affairs that shows
the final language.
And I guess the last comment would be to remind you that those
binders that we provided, we would like to pick those up the next day
or two from your office to reuse to send those up to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs and other review agencies.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala has a question,
Mr. Weeks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You just said that these were all
staff initiated. I wanted to know, if they're all staff initiated, then
why did staff say staff doesn't like this one or staff has a question
about that one?
MR. WEEKS: IfI stated staff initiated, it was my error. I
should say county initiated. Because in some instances you,
specifically, the Board of County Commissioners, directed that
amendment to occur. I was simply trying to make a distinction
Page 46
July 29, 2003
between the private sector filing the petition versus the county
government initiating the petition. All of these were initiated by the
county.
I believe you were referring in particular to the Cormnunity
Character/Smart Growth amendment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's one. Orange Blossom is
another. And there was a third one in here. I'm sorry, I'm not
recalling it at this moment. And each time staff gave very good
reasons why they should be questioned. And I'm thinking that -- well,
anyway, we'll get into it at each level.
MR. WEEKS: Certainly. We'll be glad to discuss that as that
particular petition comes out.
Again, the objective here today, then, moving back to the
executive summary, is for you to consider each of these six petitions
for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The
elements under consideration are the future land use element and the
future land use map series, the Golden Gate area master plan,
Immokalee area master plan, inter-governmental coordination
element, recreation and open space element, conservation and coastal
management element, capital improvement element and
transportation element.
And also for your consideration today is to consider establishing
a new element to our comprehensive plan, the economic element.
There are no fiscal impacts to the amendments that are under
consideration today in that you're transmitting them only. You are
not taking final action on these. Certainly there will be some fiscal
impacts on some of these petitions, and that will be addressed more
specifically at your adoption hearing.
The Community Character/Smart Growth amendments will have
some fiscal impact. And certainly the transportation and currency
management system will have some fiscal impact. Again, that will be
discussed more particularly at the adoption hearing, unless of course
Page 47
July 29, 2003
you wish to discuss it with us today.
Because of the nature of these amendments not being site
specific, there are no environmental issues as far as protected species
or groundwater resource protection and so forth. Certainly any
subsequent land development petition that would come before you
that might be in some way related to these amendments will be
subject to the normal review process both at the state, federal and
local level for environmental protection concerns.
Similar comment applicable to the historical archeological
impact. The environmental advisory council does not review
amendments such as these, so there is no recommendation from
them. And again, the planning commission recommendation will be
provided as we go through each petition.
Mr. Chairman, if there are no questions, I'll move right into the
first petition.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions about the procedure
this morning?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please proceed.
MR. WEEKS: The first amendment is Petition CPSP-2003-4.
This is an amendment to implement the -- or begin to implement the
interlocal agreement adopted in May of this year by both the County
Commission and the Collier County School Board. This is the
interlocal agreement that pertains to the siting of schools and support
facilities. Educational plans being your schools, ancillary plans being
your support facilities such as a transportation facility or a
maintenance yard or an administration center.
Specifically what this amendment does is it establishes in the
future land use element a couple of maps: One map that shows the
existing school and support facility sites, and a second map that
shows the sites that are owned by the Collier County School Board
for future construction of schools and support facilities.
Page 48
July 29, 2003
And on that note, as far as the map goes, there have been a few
changes. At the planning commission hearing, staff recommended a
couple of changes to the maps. One was the addition of site EB that
is located in Golden Gate Estates. It's a little bit to the south and east
of Orangetree development. I believe the maps in your notebooks
does reflect that addition. That's shown on the visualizer here as
well.
We also noted that we needed to add a legend to the map to
more specifically explain what each of these sites were being
authorized for.
The additional changes being brought to you today are the
removal of three additional sites. One is the site on Livingston Road,
and the other two sites are both in Immokalee. And the reason for
the deletion is because these are not yet owned by the school board.
The intent of this map is to show sites owned by the school board.
If between now and the adoption period the school board should
acquire these sites and go through the necessary process established
in the interlocal agreement, which is known as the letter of
consistency process, if that has been accomplished, then we come
back to the adoption hearing and we could have these sites added
back on the maps.
The maps, there's specific reference in the future land use
element and cross-reference in the Golden Gate area master plan and
Immokalee area master plan to this interlocal agreement that's been
adopted, and the process that -- processes that are established in that
agreement.
And specifically a couple of things to mention, one is the letter
of consistency. Whenever the school board is contemplating
acquiring a site for future schools or support facilities, they must
come to the county, provide certain information to us, and then we
will respond by writing a letter saying yes, this property is consistent
with the locational criteria in our future land use element and map or
Page 49
July 29, 2003
no, it's not. And also, the zoning district on the property at the
present time does or does not allow the facility that is being
contemplated.
Additionally, to the extent possible, we'll provide additional
commentary, but it's in the nature of a courtesy commentary. If
there's a certain level of service impact concerns, if there might be
environmental protection concerns on the property, inadequate
sidewalks or roads, for example, that we see now, we could go ahead
and point that out to the school board. The purpose being really like
a due diligence process, trying to advise the school board to the
greatest extent possible any issues or concerns that we see now.
Recognizing that when they're coming in to acquire sites, this
may not yield construction for a handful of years or as far as 15 or 20
years into the future. That's why the nature of the response is
primarily of a courtesy nature. We can't possibility know 20 years
from now if we're going to have road problems or inadequate
sidewalks or if there's environmental conditions on the property that
exist today or won't then or vice versa.
And additionally, the second major component of that
agreement that is being incorporated is the process for actual site
development, when the school board actually owns the site and now
they're coming in for approval to build that school or support facility,
it establishes the process they go through: What information they
submit to the county, the time lines the county must review this
information, and the end result of the approval process that's called a
school board review process. It's very similar to the FDP process
that other developers would go through.
And I guess the last comment is the capital improvement
element is also being amended simply to update your records. It
presently references the '96 agreement and it will now represent the
2003 agreement.
Mr. Chairman, we've received no correspondence from the
Page 50
July 29, 2003
public on this item. The planning commission recommendation wants
to support this amendment with one addition. They had some
concerns about the public's ability to be involved in this process.
And the planning commission recommendation sheet right on Page 1
identifies the addition. And I'll read it directly from mine, it's only a
sentence long.
During the consistency review process, prior to site acquisition,
as set forth in the interlocal agreement, Collier County will provide
notification to impacted property owners.
I'd like to offer comment as we did to the planning commission
as well. The consistency review process is an administrative
function only. This is provided for. The school board is considering
acquiring the site, they come to the county saying they're thinking
about buying it. We respond with a letter saying yes, it meets the
locational criteria in our future land use element, or doesn't, and
again, the zoning and then the courtesy comments as well.
But that's all administrative. It doesn't matter if we have a
thousand people show up in our office saying we think this is a bad
idea, don't put a school here, or we think it's a good idea. That's
irrelevant. We are bound by the criteria in that agreement in that
very straightforward analysis. So the comment we had is are we
really accomplishing anything by adding this requirement?
The school board does hold a public hearing when we go to
apply -- go to acquire property. They provide a certain notice in the
newspaper. And they hold their public hearing to consider the actual
acquisition of that property.
The only benefit that staff sees is the potential that if this notice
is provided, the public is now aware that a site is under consideration
for acquisition, they're on heightened alert, they're on a notice,
they're aware now. Then when the school board provides their notice
in the newspaper, maybe they'll more clearly making that connection,
hey, there's property here that I have some interest in and then appear
Page 51
July 29, 2003
at the school board hearing.
But as far as the county role in this process, providing the notice
really doesn't accomplish anything.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with the planning
commission. The wording, I think, was, you know, they have
concerns about the public process. And I also have concerns about
the public process. I believe one of the reasons why we have -- we're
an involved partner in this now is because the governor's cabinet and
the state legislative body have a concern in the process, whether the
public is adequately being aware of this situation.
I still have concerns. Even though you have addressed some of
those situations, we're still putting the responsibility totally on the
school board. And I'd like to keep the language in there so that at all
times we are aware of the fact that we have to be aware of the
process and the fact that the public has to be a partner in it. That's all
I have to say on that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I do agree with the planning
commission and with Commissioner Coletta in that one of the
problems that we've found as a sitting commission is that
communication has been very poor between government and
community, and we're trying to improve that communication. So I
agree that this would be a way to do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, do you have
anything?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Other than the fact I agree with
both of the observations of Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner
Coletta. I believe that there has to be a very close coordination here
and a lot of public notification and opportunities for input.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Okay. We have three speakers
before -- and I see Commissioner Halas shaking his head in
Page 52
July 29, 2003
agreement. But what I heard from our staff is the public meeting in
this process, this particular process, is not going to do the public any
good for comments. I mean, staff is not going to take their comments.
So is this a proper venue to put such language in, or should we
seek some other kind of stipulations that they hold the public hearing
in that? So at maybe our public comment section today some of the
people or members of the school administration could advise us.
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have three speakers. I
believe we only have one on this particular issue. Amy Taylor.
MS. TAYLOR: Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity
to speak before you on this issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please pull your mic up.
MS. TAYLOR: For the record, my name is Amy Taylor and
I'm the long-range planner for Collier County Public Schools.
And as Mr. Weeks outlined, this amendment is before you for
your consideration. This amendment is -- provides the basis for the
2003 interlocal agreement.
The interlocal agreement provides for a process such as the
comprehensive plan amendment process to begin adding all the
existing school sites, to add all the future sites that we have available
to us now. And this is the first opportunity for a real strong link
between Collier County government and the Collier County School
Board in terms of our awareness and our coordinated planning
efforts. And it also is a public process.
In addition, the interlocal agreement provides a continual
process by which new acquisitions by the school district will be
evaluated for consistency.
At the time we not only -- we're considering acquiring property,
we are required through the interlocal agreement to go through a
process, and it is outlined in the interlocal agreement not only to
determine whether it's consistent with the comprehensive plan that is
required, it also determines what zoning district, whether it's -- and if
Page 53
July 29, 2003
that site, school, would be or the type of facility would be a permitted
use, a conditional use or a prohibited use.
Also, in addition, there would be, and it's outlined in the
interlocal agreement, information that we need to provide as best as
we can because of, as David said, the nature of the length of time in
which we would acquire and then it would eventually develop, but an
overview of compatibility with adjacent property owners.
We support the amendments as staff has recommended them.
Particularly with the -- based on the efforts and the agreement
between the school board and the Board of County Commissioners as
to the interlocal agreement.
As we noted, the amendments follow and reference the
interlocal agreement. The interlocal agreement provides a clear and
coordinated site acquisition process. And would likely -- if this
planning commission's recommendation were to be followed through
with, would need to be amended, would be our position, with the
school board.
Thirty days -- in addition, 30 days prior to land acquisition, the
school board meets -- or provides notification within the Naples
Daily News, providing a property description and a property
location.
Also, with regard to that land acquisition process, there are often
times when we are accumulating property. No single parcel and
parcel owner would be the adequate size for a school. So there could
be five or more times that we would appear before the school board
to -- and also publicly notice in the paper that we would be acquiring
property within a particular area.
The example of that is middle school EE where there are over
35 parcels, and it took us five school board meetings to complete the
acquisition of that parcel to meet the size requirements of the school.
And over several -- I think almost a year to complete that. So at that
point a public notification might cause quite a bit of confusion within
Page 54
July 29, 2003
the community.
But most importantly, this comprehensive plan amendment
provides more educational facilities and ancillary facilities are
permitted, conditional or prohibited in the county zoning districts. If
the facility is a conditional or a prohibited use, the school district
would be required to come before the planning commission and the
Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing to request an
amendment.
As a permitted use within the zoning district, the development
of the site would be consistent with the site plan review process
provided in the interlocal agreement. So as a permitted use, the
school would have to go through extraordinary review, even prior to
acquisition and also at the school board review process.
And as I -- I wish to reiterate, if it is a conditional or a
prohibited use, we would go through the normal public hearing
process that any other property owner would have to go through.
Thank you for your attention, and we request that you move
forward with this comprehensive plan amendments as staff has
prepared them. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Taylor, don't go away. It's
stated by my colleagues that they think it's good government to
notify neighbors and have a neighborhood meeting through the site
selection for a school site. Any -- everything that you've said doesn't
accomplish that.
MS. TAYLOR: In the -- in both the coordinate -- we had two
agreements between the school board and the Board of County
Commissioners. It does outline an acquisition and site selection
process that's through the county staff, you're correct.
At the point -- just like any other property owner that would
want to change and amend zoning to allow for the school, we would
go through the public hearing process, go through the public
notification process, just like any other property owner would in the
Page 55
July 29, 2003
county. And that's our position on it, that we would be evaluated as
any other property owner.
Actually the county, when it acquires, say, a park site, it isn't
required to notify surrounding property owners. It would be sort of
the same situation. But if it were a conditional use, as you've seen
countless times when parks comes before you as a conditional use, it
goes through a public hearing process. So that we would want to be
held to the same standard.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I understand that. Two
questions, just personal ones. It shows an intermittent center at
Hunter Boulevard. Is this the third intermittent center in Golden
Gate City?
MS. TAYLOR: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next one is Livingston Road
site, would that be an elementary school that you're looking at?
MS. TAYLOR: The Livingston Road site that's south of Pine
Ridge Road has been removed from the map, if that's the one you're
referring to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MS. TAYLOR: That was -- and this is an example of good
coordination at work. We -- for a part of our consistency prior to
acquisition, we went to the county. And transportation wasn't going
to work, so we removed that from our acquisition priorities. So it's
not going to be there at all.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No future potential?
MS. TAYLOR: No future site south -- on Livingston south of
Pine Ridge Road.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? Commissioner
Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're saying, if it's a
conditional use, you have to go through the process of notifying the
neighbors. And how far is that radius? Is that still 300 feet, or is it
Page 56
July 29, 2003
even farther?
MS. TAYLOR: It would be consistent with the county's LDC.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's 300 feet; is that
correct?
MR. WEEKS: That depends on the location. The distance
requirement is greater if you're in the Estates or an agricultural area.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what is that distance, if
you're in that area?
MS. TAYLOR:
MR.
MS.
MR.
I think it's 1,000 feet.
WEEKS: I believe it's 500 feet.
TAYLOR: 500 feet?
REISCHL: It's 1,000.
MR. WEEKS: It's either 500 or 1,000. It's greater because we
recognize the parcel sizes are much larger in those rural areas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How else are you going to
advertise this other than the sign on the property and then going
through the process of putting up a billboard?
MS. TAYLOR: We notice -- prior to acquisition, as we would
notice in the paper, 30 days prior to the school board action to
acquire the property.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Is there any way that we
could possibly use the government channel here for making sure that
that notice gets out to people?
MS. TAYLOR: That would be a great alternative.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that we need to make sure
that we communicate this. I think communications is a very -- is the
most important item. And that's been brought up, I think, pretty
strongly .here that we want to make sure that the people who may
effect that particular neighborhood or locale, that they have access, to
make sure that they understand that there is a hearing about to be
taking place, whether it's in regards to the acquisition of the land or
whatever else may happen in that area. I think that's very important.
Page 57
July 29, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, do you have
any questions, statements?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing that hasn't already been
said.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any question from staff?.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Ms. Taylor.
Okay, what's the direction -- or the wishes of the board?
Mr. Weeks?
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, I'd like to get a
couple of things on the record. One is that I want to make sure that
we're very clear in that conversation that was just occurring. The
distinction between properties that must go through the conditional
use proc -- an existing public hearing process at the county. And as
Ms. Taylor has explained, those requirements exist there and I would
suggest to you are adequate. It includes the property owner letters
being sent out within a certain radius of the property; it includes a
sign posted on the site; it includes a legal ad in Naples Daily News;
and is heard by planning commission and County Commission.
Of the -- of the existing sites that the school board owns, the
map that's in your book, as has been modified here, almost all of
those are allowed by right today. That is, as far as some -- when the
school board gets ready to build those schools, they're not going to be
subject to those existing conditional use requirements and so forth.
Because the zoning allows the school facilities (phonetic) by right.
The exceptions are going to be the one or two PUD's that they
own property in that they will have to be amended, which goes
through the public hearing process.
The other thing is for an ancillary plant, a transportation facility.
That requires a conditional use, so that will require the public
hearing process. But the majority of these already owned sites will
not be going through a public hearing process. And I think that goes
Page 58
July 29, 2003
back to the heart of what the planning commission was looking at,
how are those sites going to be put on any type -- going to go through
any type of notice process. And then secondly, of course, for the
future when sites in the future will be contemplated for acquisition.
I'd also like to point out that -- remind you that you will be
having joint meetings at least annually with the Collier County
School Board. There are noticed issues or concerns that may not be
addressed here today. Those will could discussed at that time. And
if necessary, we could initiate amendments to the interlocal
agreements.
Also, there are staff level meetings of the site selection
committee and so forth that will deal with these issues.
The last comment I would make, Mr. Chairman, is if the
Commission is so inclined to go with the planning commission
recommendation, might I suggest that you add additional text
something to the effect of that staff will forward any public
commentary received as a result of this notice to the Collier County
School Board, making it a formality. I mean, as a courtesy you
would expect us to do that anyway. So if that thousand people shows
up with whatever opinions they have, we will forward that to the
school board and then, of course, they will do with that as they will.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I can agree.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll go along with that, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion at this point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion that we
accept staff's recommendation and the planning commission's
recommendation, including David Weeks', addition so that we have a
complete package.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala. Is
there a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Halas.
Page 59
July 29, 2003
Any further discussion? Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me, thank you.
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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Next item.
MR. MOSS: Good morning. John David Moss, comprehensive
planning.
This is Petition No. CPSP-2003-5, Growth Management Plan
amendments as a result of the deliberations of the Community
Character Smart Growth Advisory Committee.
As you may recall, the BCC contracted with Dover-Kohl to
prepare the community character plan for Collier County, which was
completed and accepted by the board in April of 2001.
To provide a brief background of the community character plan,
it was developed as a framework to building a community that
recognizes and preserves the unique characteristics of the various
areas throughout the county.
The ultimate goal of the community character plan is to assist
the county in generating character and new development and
redevelopment by revitalizing maturing neighborhoods, transforming
conventional subdivisions, growing new neighborhoods, fixing aging
corridors and commercial strips, and growing activity centers.
Another major component of this strategy is the encouragement
of mixed use development according to smart growth principles.
Page 60
July 29, 2003
Some of the findings and conclusions of the Dover-Kohl study
were that the mixed use activity center subdistricts designated on the
future land use element and shown on the future land use map have
failed to create the intended mix of uses; that PUD's in Collier
County have only rarely delivered mixed uses; that PUD's have
primarily focused on single development projects, rather than on how
the project will integrate with adjoining neighborhoods; and that
there's a serious need for a balanced roadway network in the county.
One of the things that was found was that new development
approvals need to emphasize a more resilient pattern of streets and
lots, since these will outlast the first generation of buildings and land
uses that are put on them.
Consequently, in June of 2001, the BCC appointed a community
character smart growth committee to examine some of these issues.
And some of the amendments to the future land use element that the
advisory board came up with were adding a new goal No. 2 and goal
No. 3 with subsequent objectives and policies to direct future growth
and redevelopment according to the community character plan and
smart growth principles; revising text to the PUD neighborhood
village center subdistrict; revising text to the traditional
neighborhood design subdistrict; deleting the entirety of the Orange
Blossom mixed use subdistrict as a future land use designation so
that it could be transferred to the land development code; and then
finally just making additional text changes necessary for the purpose
of format consistency.
There were some -- the outcome and conclusions of the staff
was that there are fiscal impacts to these amendments. We also
determined that there needed to be further analysis to determine the
potential impacts of the amendment.
Finally, one of the major concerns was the intent of the new
goals, objectives and policies in the FLUE and that they were not
entirely clear. For example, what development pattern was being
Page 61
July 29, 2003
promoted and when it would be applicable was not necessarily clear.
Staff was not sure if the intent was to replicate the Fifth Avenue
South/Third Street South shopping district in Naples.
Staff was not sure if it applied to mixed use activity centers for
areas predominantly developed and developing with community
shopping centers. If it applied outside the urban designated area and
was intended to apply to all urban designated areas, including
Immokalee and Golden Gate City, which each have their own
separate master plan.
As you see from the report, the planning commission did not
recommend transmittal because of some of these issues. However,
staff would like to go ahead and recommend transmittal for the main
reason that the advisory board has been working on this for over a
year now, and we're afraid that the momentum that they've gained
recently will be lost if these amendments are not transmitted for
approval.
That's basically our main concern is that the advisory committee
that's been appointed will sort of languish for a year. And in light of
the fact that the Board of County Commissioners approved this -- or
accepted this plan and spent a quarter of a million dollars on the plan,
we feel that they should be transmitted.
That's all I have for you, and I will be here to answer any
questions, along with Stan Litsinger and David Weeks and Barbara
Caccione, the original consultant, on this community character plan
committee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the members of the
board? We do have some public speakers. Commissioner Coletta --
Commissioner Coyle, do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not at this point.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. If we were to transmit
this and after it comes back to us for approval from Tallahassee, if
Page 62
July 29, 2003
we want to make major changes, we have to transmit it again?
MR. LITSINGER: Stan Litsinger, comprehensive planning
manager.
Mr. Coletta, in recommending that we transmit these
amendments, keeping in mind that they are a work in process and this
is a very formal and open review process, what we're saying is let's
get them into the process, keep working on them, and what we finally
adopt, as long as they substantially resemble what we transmitted,
there would not be any problem with the final adoption. That's why
we feel confident in recommending transmittal.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we're getting approval for
work in process?
MR. LITSINGER: Right. And just to make a correction, your
community character plan costs you in excess of a half a million
dollars.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Half a million, quarter of a million.
Do we want to call up public speakers at this time?
MS. FILSON: You have three public speakers on this issue, Mr.
Chairman. Bob Murray. He will be followed by Nicole Ryan.
MR. MURRAY: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Bob Murray and I'm the vice chair of the community character and
smart growth advisory committee. And I have here a binder which
contains some of the work that has been done.
We are very pleased that staff has chosen to recommend moving
these forward. Let me just say that the dynamic that occurs in a
committee of 12 very intelligent people, all working to try and find
the answers to a better tomorrow, is really something to observe
when it's going. And it's now going. Going very well.
Any one of the individuals in that committee, I'm sure, could
have sat down and written in complete form, given the quiet and the
time, a document that would not have needed double strike-throughs
and strike-throughs, et cetera. But the language and the concepts and
Page 63
July 29, 2003
the ideals that is in -- contained in the Dover-Kohl documents
required the committee to turn its attention toward a change, a
change of thinking and, therefore, a change of expression in
language.
The government's requirements are to sustain the documents
that are in effect now, the language, the lexicon. It is really a
requirement that we meld now. We come together with a different
form that allows for subtle changes, that allows for activity centers to
become, in fact, true activity centers. So we have worked very hard
to accomplish that.
The changes that I observed that were recommended by
government staff are not unique. We probably would have gotten to
them in any event. But I urge you to -- in spite of the planning
commission's recommendation that you not proceed, I do urge you to
make this go forth. It will be modified as we work with government
staff to assure that the words do reflect all of the needs within those
-- that -- those two -- how do we call them, paradigms.
I appreciate that staff has challenged us even further by saying
you need to look more carefully at the detail. We welcome their
direct assistance in this and look forward to it in the weeks ahead.
And we do agree that it is essential that if we fail to move ahead, if
we fail to go with this process, the dynamic will be lost, the
frustration then will cause the committee to subside into an area that
you wouldn't want it to be in.
May I answer any questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You represent the East Naples
area. And how is this looked upon by the constituents in this
particular area in regards to the study that was done? Do you have a
buy-in from them?
MR. MURRAY: Not really. Not in the context that we're
talking about, no. A lot of this is really wrapped together. And yes, I
Page 64
July 29, 2003
do represent the constituents in East Naples having to do with
corridor 41 and other building.
I personally believe that with smart growth community
character, language adoption and expansion of true activity centers,
that that's going to be a boon and not a bane for East Naples. This
will help East Naples as well as the rest of the communities. And
although we chose not to focus on Immokalee at this time,
nevertheless, at some point in the future we will be very effective for
the rest of the communities in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you going to work with the
community to construct a language whereby this would benefit those
people that may have some concerns?
MR. MURRAY: I think the answer is yes, but I must say this as
well: We are required -- under the charge of Dover-Kohl and what
the county has ordered to occur, we are charged to develop a
language that reflects the ideals or the plan of the paradigm of
Dover-Kohl, and so we must go forward with that format, at least
that attempt.
And by that, I think it's very effective that we can join with the
ideals and the desires of the people of East Naples and all the
communities. They will benefit from such a process here. I cannot
-- I wish I could be more clear, but I cannot join those two directly
because I've never attempted to do so.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Murray, maybe I can assist you.
What I see, the East Naples corridor or the 41 corridor is an overlay.
This is something different. These growth management plans are for
all of the county. But the overlay can have their own directions, like
the Bayshore, Immokalee overlay -- MR. MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and so on and so forth.
MR. MURRAY: Yes, thank you for that. If I can expand on
Page 65
July 29, 2003
that, I think he helped me wake up a little bit. The truth is that it's a
different format that we're approaching on the corridor 41. And this
set of four concepts at the moment, it speaks to the matter in another
way. I hope I've made that fairly plain. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You did a great job, Mr. Murray, as
always.
MR. MURRAY: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Nicole Ryan. She will be
followed by Barbara Caccione.
MS. RYAN: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Ryan here
on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I'm also
here on behalf of Gary Davis, The Conservancy's policy director and
member of the community character committee. He unfortunately is
not able to be here today.
But The Conservancy does urge you to go ahead and transmit
these GMP amendments as the staff has recommended.
The Dover-Kohl report, which was the initial step in the
community character effort has widespread community support, and
the committee has been working hard for well over a year to move
towards implementation of some of the specifics within this report.
Some further refinements may need to be done in the future, but
we're asking that the transmittal occur now to get this process
moving forward. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
And our final speaker?
MS. FILSON: Barbara Caccione.
MS. CACCIONE: For the record, my name's Barbara Caccione,
and I've worked on preparing the language that you see before you
today in the community character amendments, along with the
committee and Commissioner Henning, who sits on that committee.
I think some of the confusion that resulted is really a lack of
time between the transmittal of all the Growth Management Plan
Page 66
July 29, 2003
amendments. There was a very limited time to kind of smooth the
language and make sure that it was well integrated into the plan.
I think there's some more work that we need to do to make sure
that language flows and works very well, and also to bring that
concept of the changes to the activity center which the committee
had reviewed into this process.
I think by transmitting it, we would get a good start and be able
to continue to work with the committee to kind of work that language
to the point where there's a great deal of comfort on the planning
staff in terms of the intent and in terms of really how it's going to
work.
And some of this, as you may recall, involves amendments to
your Land Development Code to actually implement what's going to
go in the comp. plan. And I think without having some of that
language at this point in time, I think that causes a little bit of
uneasiness on some of the planning staff. And I think those are the
issues we really need to work through a little closer to make sure that
we have the main language in the comprehensive plan so that when
we develop the Land Development Code changes, there's not
questions or lack of clarity about how and in what direction and
intent they should go forward in.
And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. My biggest concern has been
staff-- staff says they do not support this change. They have little
comments throughout here and yet they recommend to go forward.
Planning commission recommends not to. And then we hear that we
should at least start this process so the committee doesn't get
disappointed. I think of a wedding; as long as we've done this much
planning, might as well get married anyway because we know we
can fix it later on or get out of it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or get a good lawyer.
Page 67
July 29, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'm thinking, is it really the
way we want to go?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think I like your wedding idea,
Commissioner, so if you would like to make a motion at this time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to take planning's
recommendation and delay this, actually, until we feel more
confident in what we're doing as we move forward.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I misunderstood.
There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to make another
comment, but I'll withhold that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion fails, lack of a second.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to make a motion that we
approve this proposal and forward it to Tallahassee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: For transmittal, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: For transmittal, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That I'll second to, but I have a
question.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, a second by Commissioner Halas to transmit, and Mr. Halas
has a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. The only reason I want to
go forward on this, because I think there was a lot of effort put into
this whole study, and I'm hoping that -- and I go along with what
Commissioner Fiala said here, that she has some concerns.
But I'm sure that we'll have a good priest at this wedding and
Page 68
July 29, 2003
probably hopefully iron out some of the problems. But I feel that
there's an awful lot of effort that's gone into this by a lot of people.
And I think that we can work together and take care of the issues that
are being addressed here today.
right thing here.
And so with that, I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
And I feel confident that we'll do the
Okay, great. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll have to place my faith in this
committee to make the recommended changes so that it is more
acceptable and the wedding is a success.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. And the marriage.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
more than wedding.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
And the marriage. Yes, marriage
I had one other question. As we
refine this document, this document will come forth to the
commissioners here for our approval, is that correct, as we clockwork
through this process?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. At the adoption hearing, you'll
see the final recommended version.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so this is basically just
the rough groundwork. Let me get this clear now, this is the rough
groundwork that we're going to submit to Tallahassee. And then
what we're going to do is refine this, and we feel that we won't be in
any kind of violation that we'll have to start all over again when
going through this refinement process. Is that my understanding?
MR. WEEKS: That is correct. And I'll go ahead and state
further that I would -- since staff is in support in a submittal, I'd say
the worst case scenario is that we make such substantial changes
between this transmittal and adoption, that once it's adopted, DCA
finds the amendments not to be in compliance with statutes. Staff
does not anticipate that. But I think that's the worst case scenario.
If that were to occur, I think staff would recommend to you to
Page 69
July 29, 2003
turn right around and repeal that adoption and go back to the drawing
board and do it again. Our concern for delaying transmittal, if we
don't do it now, we're probably looking at about a year delay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to comment that I
too have reservations. The normal process, we would not be doing
something quite like this. But I can understand what we want to do
as far as keeping this moving this forward. And I think we've given
directions to the committee, you know, that they have to come up
with something that's -- that knits this all together to give us that
level of comfort. Because when that time does come, I'll listen very
careful to my fellow Commissioners. And if it comes down right, I
don't mind being the best man in this case.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You are the best man.
My question to staff is with the Orangetree, with deleting that
particular -- I don't know if you'd call it amendment or whatever, it
says that presently there's a PUD zoning petition pending that relies
upon this subdistrict, and further it says that the private sector that
proposed it would also not support this amendment. And I'm getting
such conflicts. If that be the case, then what's going to happen with
that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If I can assist.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What we want to do, we keep on
seeing these special commercial mixed use districts popping up, so
we wanted to give them a language of criteria through the Growth
Management Plan and then furthermore through the Land
Development Code. Because, you know, the fear is they're going to
start popping up here and there. And they really need to be
strategically placed so that it fits the community. But what we need
Page 70
July 29, 2003
to do is work with long-range planning so they're comfortable on
what the committee's desires are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: If I could just make one more statement on that.
The idea is if we could create basically a template in the plan. Here's
what Collier County endorses as a mixed use project. You comply
with that or you don't, as opposed to coming in with individual
private amendments to create a site specific subdistrict. And we have
several of those in this language now. And certainly we can't refuse
to allow people to apply. So even if we adopt some template,
certainly members of the public have the right to continually come in
and ask for that subdistrict, but now we have something specific to
evaluate it against and say well, what are you proposing that's so
much better than what we've already got here now that we think is
appropriate.
Mr. Chairman, one question of clarification. Was the
recommendation to endorse transmittal per staffs recommendation?
As Commissioner Fiala's pointed out, we've recommended that not
all of this packet be transmitted, that some things, for example,
deletion of that one subdivision.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that correct, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry, could you repeat it
again, please?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Was it the intent of your motion to
submit per planning staff's recommendations to DCA?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess I was more inclined to
recommend the staff's recommendations. But I'm not sure that the
staffs recommendations included the planning staffs
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right, it's all the same.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. If that's the case, then
what's what I would propose.
Page 71
July 29, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG:
second, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
And that was the intent of the
That's correct.
Except for the changes of the two
subdistricts? That's what staff recommended, right?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct, correct, yes.
Okay. Any further discussion on this item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Thank
you.
Next item, please?
MR. MUDD: Next item is CPSP-2003-7, is Manatee Protection
-- 6, excuse me.
MR. MURPHY: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Dan Murphy, Collier County planning services,
comprehensive planning section. I'm here to present the case we're
recommending, Petition No. CCSP-2006 (sic), Manatee Protection
Plan be transmitted to the DCA.
Staff recommends the adoption of the Manatee Protection Plan
for two reasons: To exempt all future marina sitings from the
development of future land impact process on the provision that is
adopted into CCME and the FLUE, and to ensure internal
consistency with existing Growth Management Plan and Land
Page 72
July 29, 2003
Development Code provisions.
As for a little background on the Manatee Protection Plan, it
was adopted in 1995 into the LDC as Section 2.6.22 under Ordinance
No. 95-58. So this is really a mere formality to adopt it into the
GMP.
Based on the recommendations from the planning commission,
the maps will be removed from the future land use elements. The
conservation and coastal management elements will have additional
language that does restrict the location of marinas and may limit the
number of wet slips, the construction of dry storage facilities and
boat ramps based on the plans for marina siting criteria. And for the
urban mixed use district and the future land use element to be
modified to add informational text, advising what zoning districts the
LDC allows. Marinas, boat yards, boat docks, boathouses and boat
ramps are allowed in.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I know Commissioner Coyle
gave some direction to make these amendments.
Commissioner Coyle, do you have any questions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I just want to make sure
that the amendments are consistent with the 1995 plan, the approved
plan. And if so, I would be happy to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
MR. MURPHY: Yes, it's merely a reference to the Manatee
Protection Plan.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a question. The 1995 plan,
is it in -- is it parallel with what the State of Florida recommends for
manatee protection?
MR. MURPHY: Correct. It's been recommended by the DCA
and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just don't want to get in some
troubles like other counties have gotten into along the coast.
Page 73
July 29, 2003
MR. MURPHY: We're very lucky to have a protection plan,
Manatee Protection Plan, that has been approved and has been
recommended by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, and has
been used in the eight years since the adoption by the actual
commission.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second to
accept the staff's recommendation and forward to DCA for
transmittal. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we have any speakers on this?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Next item?
MR. MUDD: Next item is CPSP-2003-7, which is the economic
developmental element.
MR. COHEN: Good morning, Commissioner Henning,
members of the board. For the record, Randy Cohen, community
planning area development manager.
The statutory basis for this particular element, which is an
optional element, is set forth in Chapter 163.3177 Florida Statute.
This particular petition was heard by the planning commission
on June the 18th. The copy of the economic element that you have
before you has certain strike-throughs that are within it which contain
the recommendations of the planning commission. Staff reviewed
the recommendations of the planning commission and has concurred
Page 74
July 29, 2003
with those.
I think it's important to give you a little background on this
particular element and why you have it before you tonight -- excuse
me, this morning. As part of CDBG funding for the incubator project
in Immokalee, the CDBG grant application included a commitment
from Collier County to actually draft this particular optional
economic element.
The ramifications behind not doing that would be that you
would be responsible for paying back approximately $750,000 in
grant money that this county has received. As a result of the
ramifications associated with this financial payback possibility, staff
prepared a very noncommittal skeleton type of economic element
which contains provisions that really do not bind the county with
respect to any particular financial commitments in the future or any
other confining commitments which could put you at any risk as
well.
In addition, what we have included are policies wherein the
support for economic initiatives by private entities within the county
as well too. What you might note in the strike-through version that
you have before you, at one point in time we included some specific
entities. Planning commission removed those specific entities
because there was a possibility that it could be construed as use
affording some type of financial commitment or other commitment to
them, and they did not want to bind you as a political body. Staff
concurs with that particular recommendation as well.
That's the gist basically of why the optional economic element
is before you. If you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to
answer them for you.
Staff recommends transmittal of this particular economic
element to DCA.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any question? Commissioner Coyle,
do you have any questions?
Page 75
July 29, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I personally like the planning
commission's recommendation on this item.
Commissioner Coletta, do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to hear from the
speakers first.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, no speakers.
Do you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm just trying to see how
this -- from the direction we were originally going, is this a complete
turnaround or is this just modifying our thought process?
MR. COHEN: As far as the optional element itself, as I said, it
was required as part of the CDBG requirement. The version that you
have before you is completely consistent with what the staff was
actually recommending in its draft element. The only thing that
transpired was taking out the specific entities, and we have no
problem with that whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we accept
this, adopt this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Planning commission's
recommendations?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'll second that motion.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, just one more time.
Please clarify for me exactly what we did take out in simplest terms
as possible.
MR. COHEN: There was specific reference made to some of
the entities in terms of the support that would be given. For example,
support of the economic development council, certain initiatives with
respect to that.
One of the reasons that was taken out is as a body you provide
Page 76
July 29, 2003
funding to them currently. In the future you may decide to reduce
that funding or change that funding. And we did not want to commit
you financially.
There's also references made to other specific governmental and
nonprofit entities as well, and we didn't want anything within the
element to be misconstrued that you were providing any other type of
support in terms of financing or other types of commitments that
could be misconstrued where the commitment would go beyond just
support.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could help you a little bit, on
your book where you -- and for the record, I'm Jim Mudd. I'm sitting
right next to Commissioner Coletta right now. In the planning
commission, when they got done they took out the specific elements.
So on every one of the policies -- for instance, Policy 1.2.3, Collier
County will support appropriate entities, and then it used to read in
conjunction with the Airport Authority. They struck that out, toward
positioning Collier County. The other --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No problem with that.
MR. MUDD: -- one was -- then you go to Policy 1.2.5, it has
specific to the Tourist Development Council, the Economic
Development Coalition of Collier County --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This one here I do have a
question, if I may. On the EDC, do we have a member of the EDC in
the audience today? I know that we did earlier. No, we don't.
I'm going to tentatively give my approval for this, but I'm going
to ask some serious questions when it comes back to us for our final
okay as to exactly what the impact is as far as the EDC goes. That's
my concern is where we're going to stand on this whole thing. I can
understand we don't want to bind the county to certain things like the
first development council or--
MR. MUDD: East Naples Civic Association, enterprise zone,
there's things --
Page 77
July 29, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, that I understand. I do
have some problems with the EDC, but I'll address it when it comes
back to us in the final draft.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Seeing no further discussion,
I call the question. 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 unanimously.
MR. COHEN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: That brings us to our next item, which is
CPSP-2003-8, the transportation concurrency management item.
MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Stan Litsinger, comprehensive planning manager.
This petition is Stage II of your concurrency modification that
you began last year in 2002 where you gave us specific direction in
what order you would like to progress with your concurrency
management system.
I'd like to point out that last year you passed concurrency
management measures which implemented a new process for
collecting impact fees for road transportation.
We now collect 50 percent of the transportation impact fees at
the site development plan and platting stage, and these monies are
not refunded. This is a very stringent requirement that is not
matched elsewhere in Florida.
You directed staff to go back and continue working on
developing a concurrency management system and to come back to
Page 78
July 29, 2003
you. Specifically you asked that we come back with a system that
was real time and had checkbook features, as we often see in our
personal finances.
What we have brought back to you today we believe is an
innovative approach to addressing your requirements. I will go
through specifically the changes that we're proposing to your future
land use element, your transportation element and your capital
improvement element.
We're also proposing the adoption of three maps, which I will
explain to you as part of your transportation element map series.
I will address also the planning commission's changes to the
staff's recommendation as far as the issue that we often discuss here
of the three-year window relative to roads, projects. And we'll offer
that to you as a policy decision.
I'd also like to point out in the very beginning, I think it applies
to all of these amendments and I wanted to clarify for the record, that
our full-page ad in the newspaper made reference to the Board
considering an ordinance today. I'd just like for the record to clarify
that you are, in fact, considering a resolution of transmittal, not an
ordinance adoption.
I'm working from your notebook on CPSP-2003, Page -- No. 8.
On Page 3, I'll start going through the changes specifically to each of
the elements very briefly and then open it up to your questions.
Transportation element, Policy 5.2, here we're proposing to
modify, for clarification purposes, the fact that a project -- traffic that
is less than one percent of the adopted peak hour volume is a de
minimus impact. And further authorize development of the de
minimus impact so it be pursuant to Section 163.3180, which says
criteria.
Down in Policy 5.3, as you had directed your staff, your
planning staff and your transportation staff, since our last visit before
you with the previous amendments on concurrency, we have
Page 79
July 29, 2003
conducted a traffic impact vesting analysis for planning purposes.
We arrived at a conclusion of trip capacities relative to various
PUD's of the 300-plus PUD's that have been approved in Collier
County in order to build a database that DCA indicated we need to
develop before we went to a more stringent checkbook type of
approach.
We have in fact factored these projects and their proposed
build-outs with some standards and assumptions that we feel are
reasonable, and we are proposing that change relative to Policy 5.3.
On Policy 5.4, here we are acknowledging that the county shall
use innovative transportation planning techniques, such as
SYNCHRO, and we are also recommending that we use SYNCHRO
and other transportation concurrency management processes that may
be available.
Policy 5.5 and 5.6 establish the transportation concurrency
exception area we call the U.S. 41 South transportation concurrency
exception area. This is an innovative traffic management technique.
It has been used elsewhere in Florida and is provided for in Rule
9J-5.055, which is the concurrency rule.
We have done the analysis, which is included in your executive
summary and also in the backup data, which we feel establishes that
we do have a rational basis for establishing the South U.S. 41
transportation concurrency exception area, which I have here on the
map for you.
Just to point out a couple of the requirements for transportation
concurrency exception area that are the most significant ones. No. 1,
you need to demonstrate that less than 10 percent of the available
acreage within the exception area is undeveloped. We in fact have
demonstrated that it's less than five percent.
One of the other criteria is the percentage of residential versus
commercial development, that it should be greater than 60 percent.
We in fact have demonstrated that it's greater than 61 percent.
Page 80
July 29, 2003
Also, it is intended to further in-fill the redevelopment
objectives within your comprehensive plan. The proposed
transportation concurrency exception area includes your
Bayshore/Gateway redevelopment area which we are trying to
incentivize development in that area and would not want to have a
slowdown as a result of a concurrency issue. But it also includes the
-- most of the community redevelopment district of the
Bayshore/Gateway area as well.
We have further demonstrated that greater than 90 percent of the
278 remaining undeveloped parcels in this TCEA would in fact
qualify for the de minimus one percent impact concurrency exception
at any rate if there was a concurrency issue relative to the U.S. 41
segment in question.
We've also demonstrated in our analysis, which we will provide
to DCA, that this area has a -- residential parcels within the TCEA
have been developed and the density is greater than five dwelling
units per acre, which is one of the criteria that you use to demonstrate
the appropriate designation of this area.
Policy 5.6 goes on to identify in the event that development
should apply for-- a project should apply for development orders
when there was a deficient or constrained status with U.S. 41 in this
area, that they would need to demonstrate that they were applying
various transportation demand management strategies of which we
have listed about seven or eight, and they would need to meet four of
these.
Developments would need to obtain certification that they were
meeting transportation demand management strategies as identified
in this policy and would further be delineated in the following Land
Development Code that would follow these amendments.
Also, adding a transportation element on Policies 5.7 and 5.8,
we're proposing another unique and innovative approach to
transportation concurrency management that's provided for in the
Page 81
July 29, 2003
Florida statutes. It was recommended by the Florida legislature and
has been identified in the Rural 9J-5.0055 as a concurrency rule.
And there are two transportation concurrency management areas. We
have the northwest transportation concurrency management area,
which transportation staff will give you some outline of our analysis
that we use to identify the standards which have been used elsewhere
in the state and the fact that these transportation concurrency
management areas provide multi-path, multi-model opportunities for
same destination travel within the TCMA's.
Very briefly, I will also show you the -- this is the east central
TCMA and this is the northwest TCMA, which we have identified as
being appropriate designation as traffic transportation concurrency
management areas. And your transportation staff will give you some
more outline of the mechanism under which these were operated and
how we would apply the concurrency process to these.
In the future land use element we have added policies that
provide consistency, internal consistency in reference to public
facilities, evaluations and the application of the TCMA concept and
the TCEA concepts when approving developments within the county,
within the urban areas specifically. We identified the boundaries
also within these policies that would be included in the TCMA.
Very critically, if you would notice on Page 7, under the capital
improvement element, we have significantly modified these
standards under which a concurrency determination would be made
with transportation, on Policy 15.3. We have redrafted this.
In effect, we have proposed that transportation concurrency
would have been met under the conditions that the facilities were in
place or under construction, either physical construction or a contract
having been let, or the construction of the facilities being used to
approve development orders were in the first year or in your annual
budget immediately following each AUIR. Your direction was to
come back to you with a one-year reliance, to remove the reliance on
Page 82
July 29, 2003
the three-year capacity in your scheduled capital improvements, and
your staff had brought back that proposal to you.
Here is where I would point out to you the Planning
Commission's recommendation in that they thought the one-year
requirement was too stringent, did not provide the necessary
flexibility, and had recommended that the board approve a three-year
provision for reliance on capital improvements, as provided for in
rule 9J-5.
And that is essentially the difference between the staff's
recommendations and your planning commission recommendation.
If you have questions specifically on the direction we would like to
take you with your concurrency management system, I'd be glad to
answer them. If you have some questions relative to the mechanisms
that we operate the transportation concurrency management area or
the exception areas, then we have our transportation staff here to
answer those for you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Any question by the
Board of Commissioners?
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just one little one. We talked
about -- this is in 5.8, and we're talking about proposed development
and permitting with certain conditions. And then it says
proportionate share payments shall be utilized or can be calculated.
What I was wondering is if we have a constrained or a failing
road, how can throwing money at something change that? I don't
think it does at all.
MR. LITSINGER: That's a good point, Commissioner, and let
me clarify that. I probably should have made a point of that in my
presentation.
There is provision in the statutes in Rule 9J-5 that we have
never accommodated or addressed in our comprehensive plan or in
our Land Development Code, and it's succinctly referred to as the
Page 83
July 29, 2003
fair share rule or pay and go.
And what we have gone done is we have written into these
policies a final mechanism in the event that there were to be a
concurrency shutdown, that provides a mechanism to identify a
proportionate fair share payment by a development proposal that
would allow them to then go forward and develop that community to
alleviate the possibility of taking these issues, should the county be
unable to provide that improvement in a reasonable, finite period of
time. So this is a statutory requirement that's trying to essentially
cover all the bases here in a worst case scenario, how we would
address the development proposal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what you just said was the
statutes say if you have a road that really should not be built upon, if
you put some money up front, then you can build on it anyway?
MR. LITSINGER: In a nutshell, yes, ma'am. But the fair share
payments are not restricted as to that particular roadway. The
concept of the fair share payment, particularly as we have written it
here, is to apply that fair share to the transportation system, not
necessarily just that language. Mr. Feder, I think, is --
MR. FEDER: Commissioner Fiala -- for the record, Norman
Feder, transportation administrator.
First of all, the only place that we're looking to apply and I'll
refer to Stan for a different interpretation, is within the transportation
concurrency management areas, the two that have been shown.
In those areas, what we've said is that you can look at the
north-south together and the east-west facilities within those zones
together. And as long as 85 percent of the lane miles serving
north-south movement or east-west movement, in either of those, are
functioning and operating at an acceptable operating condition, that
development can continue within that transportation concurrency
management area.
What this also says, though, is that if you have even a one
Page 84
July 29, 2003
percent impact on any deficient lane mile segment within that
management area, that you have to pay a fee above and beyond the
impact fee, this fair share fee.
And essentially what we're looking at is a way to get at the relief
that we can provide that we can't provide with impact fees. Impact
fees are basically to add lanes. Our ability to either provide offering
subsidy for additional transit or car pool, van pool, our ability to
make intersection improvements, to increase operating efficiency is
what we look for these fair share funds to go.
So, first of all, it's only within the concurrency management
area, the northwest or that south central, if you will, those two that
we're defining here. And it's only if you have 85 percent of the
roadway serving north-south or 85 percent serving east-west and
either one of those operating at acceptable level of service that
development can--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. One of the questions
that I always pose really to myself and maybe sometimes at this
board meeting, is each development that comes up is handled
separately from the ones around it. So when they say we're building
582 dwelling units and it will be no impact to the road, every time I
see that I think, you know, how can they say no impact to the road?
And instead of taking the surrounding areas into consideration, which
we should be doing, we're building these roads, I believe, in an
atmosphere of-- how do I say -- lack of knowledge of the
surrounding areas. I'm not saying that properly, but --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If I can help you --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A traffic count is what's there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala's question is the
five percent rule.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I believe that has been removed
Page 85
July 29, 2003
in a previous.
MR. FEDER: That is correct. And basically as you know,
we've gone three, three and five for the area that has to be reviewed
for impacts. What I mean by that, that was taken in your last update
action, is as a development come in, it has to show any roadway
adjacent to it that has three percent impact of. If it does have three
percent or more, it has to study the next section to see if it has three
percent or more. The next section after that further out, it has to
show if it has five percent or more. And if it does, it has to continue
that analysis until it's no longer a five percent impact.
As to what they have to do, again, backing what you're trying to
do here with more real time concurrency, is as development comes
on, we've taken what is out there today. We're looking at what is
vesting, based on seven years that was reviewed with you, absorption
rate of the vested projects, and anything we approve becomes an
account on that ledger as a debit to the available service capacity on
the roadway.
And what we're looking at probably in the Land Development
Code change is that as the transportation impact statement is
accepted in the project, we put it in pending status, and then remove
that or add it to the account as a debit, if you will, once it's approved.
But in answer to your question, individual projects are assessed
and then the available capacity is looked at the next as it comes
forward.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I still have a question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That is, so we have a huge
development coming in right now, okay, but we also know that there
are four other very, very substantial developments going in, plus a
couple more right across the street.
Now, as this huge development goes in and it's being permitted
Page 86
July 29, 2003
first, is it considering all of those other ones that are standing and
waiting, being that we don't have any --
MR. FEDER: If those others are vested, the traffic is already
debited in the account, yes. If they are not vested and the other
bigger small development comes in and consumes capacity, it's first
come, first serve. So if those others are already vested in the system,
yes, the traffic is taken into account. Does that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Eighty-five percent level, what
level of service is that on the roads?
MR. FEDER: The level of service, as we've established it, is D
and E. That doesn't change with this statement. What this is saying
is with north-south movement -- in the case of the northwest, as an
example, we take existing traffic and vested traffic out there, we've
got some deficiency on portions of U.S. 41, okay? What this is also
acknowledging is that there are alternative route for the north-south
movement where that problem is between Immokalee and Vanderbilt
as an example.
So in this area, you could look at Goodlette-Frank, Airport and
Livingston capacity, and as long as the accumulative of all the lane
miles that exist is operating at an 85 percent of those or operating at
acceptable level of service, that deficiency on 41 wouldn't stop
development within this transportation concurrency management
area.
It's not an outright averaging because it doesn't allow you to go
-- someone just to go lower than 85, but we felt it was important to
hold to what we're trying to do, acknowledging that we may have
some difficulty on 41 when traffic has other alternatives that they can
pursue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So to paraphrase this, you're
saying that 85 percent roughly means a level of service between D
Page 87
July 29, 2003
and E on the road; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: It depends on those facilities. If they are already
six-laned, you've gone to an E level of service. If they are not,
generally you're at D, some at E. But our level of service standard is
D and E on facilities in your comp. plan. It doesn't change that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Great.
MR. FEDER: It acknowledges that 15 percent of the lane miles
can have a deficiency. The other 85 are operating at that level of
service that you have established.
And I do need to make a correction. I'm told here that the
application of this fair share is over the system when you run into a
deficiency allowing that payment of fair share on deficiency. And I
had understood we were going to keep it only in the TMA areas --
DCMA areas, but I understand it's over the system.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Feder, I have a question. In our
metropolitan planning organization, we have a five-year funded
capital improvement plan for transportation.
MR. FEDER: Well, I'm sure the Board of County
Commissioners has a five-year. We've got a 20-year plan and we've
got our plan in the MPO's process as part of its TID (phonetic),
along with the city's municipalities.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: In our five-year plan, we have Road
A that is supposed to be under construction in 2004. In the process
of design going out to the community, there's a lot of public
opposition or public concerns about how the facility is designed.
And that's happened in the past, and even in the recent past. And that
facility gets delayed for a year.
The -- and then we've just seen it with Immokalee Road, the
delays that we have gotten permitted for to the U.S. Corps or South
Florida Water Management and that. When those projects get
delayed and it's at a level of service at the capacity closer to the
capacity like Commissioner Halas is stating, at 85 percent, does that
Page 88
July 29, 2003
mean that the property owners cannot go forward with their site
development plan.9
MR. FEDER: I need to give you a couple of answers, but
basically the answer is yes, if that's creates a deficiency. But let me
go back a little bit on that.
First of all, if I'm in the process of doing design and issues come
up, typically I'm a number of years out from what my construction
would be that I'm doing design. So community acceptance generally
of a project, the design issues, the construction's not for a number of
years out. Sometimes a new design two years -- right away for two
years and the construction could fit. So I probably wouldn't have
something for design, ! hope. Although there are some examples. In
design right now we're not planning on construction in '04 without
having the design issues generally addressed.
To the second item, yes, we had a year's delay when we let to
construction. Although it says if we let, we'd be covered, but on our
permit on Immokalee Road. That's during a time when EPA has
gone to water quality, started to go into a different orientation in the
permitting process. And unlike Alico Road that's over three years, I
guess one year delay is far from acceptable, especially on an
important road like on Immokalee in getting the construction
moving. But we're pleased we got that resolved, and we hope that
the process is under way now or all of us will have to meet that
again. There's nothing to guarantee that something couldn't come up,
some delay, some decision on something that was to be moved on
couldn't change.
If capacity is not there either today and if the existing traffic and
vested traffic only allow a certain level of capacity, additional
capacity, and we can't rely on that first year, as you have here after
you are AUIR budgeted or under construction or already let, then we
would have to basically stop development outside of this
transportation concurrency management area.
Page 89
July 29, 2003
And one thing I heard you say and I want to make sure I'm clear
in case I misled you, that 85 percent is not allowing 85 percent of
capacity use. It's saying of all the lane miles north and south or east
and west within one of these transportation concurrency management
areas, 85 percent of those lane miles must meet our standards,
allowing 15 percent possibly not to meet them within those areas and
not stop development, but then to require if there's a one percent
impact on any deficient lane miles within that or throughout the
system now, as I'm told, that they do pay a fair share of other
improvements that could be done, above and beyond an impact fee to
allow us to look at the operational deficiencies.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I stand corrected. What I was
referring to is the graph that you showed the Board of
Commissioners on the checkbook currency.
MR. FEDER: We are not using the matr]x process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, all right. That's out the
window.
MR. FEDER: That's out the window.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But I guess my real concern is that
we be responsible to the existing residents today. MR. FEDER: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Because of (sic) previous
administration has failed to build these facilities. And we have a
tendency to blame the development community, but in all reality the
past administration has failed to build these facilities.
But I also think the integrity of government is when they say
that they're going to build a facility in '04, and because of
Commissioners' policy or public input or permitting, that gets
delayed. So I think we need to be responsible on both sides -- MR. FEDER: I agree fully, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to the landowner and also the
existing residents. So I need your help in making this decision today
Page 90
July 29, 2003
on how we can achieve that.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, what I will tell you is, first of all,
for the last three years, with one exception being Immokalee Road,
and I'm pleased to tell you we now have the permit construction to
start in September, actual construction underway, that we have met
the commitments. We have developed a five-year work program
with this board. With very few exceptions, we have implemented
that five-year work program as structured. The first two years
directly Immokalee Road permit issue and one deferral based on
Santa Barbara as we discussed issues there, and it got moved out one
year and, of course, the Immokalee moved one year.
But in all cases we have moved forward on that five-year work
program. We have two more years left in that catch-up process, if
you will, of projects.
I can't disagree with your statement about the fact that roads
were not built in the past and that led to a lot of the problems we're
facing today. But I can tell you for the last three years we've made
our commitments and will continue to, and that's very much in part
due to this Board's direction both in that happening and in providing
the resources for that to happen.
So I'm very comfortable that we have a five-year work program
and we'll continue to commit to that. So that if a project is shown as
construction in the first year, I should have had the design already
done, I should well be into my right-of-way, and hopefully we'll not
have a major permitting snafu like I had on Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The word is hopefully.
MR. FEDER: That word is hopefully, sir, and there's no way to
term an exact commitment that this board can't change an issue or
other issues couldn't intervene, but I can tell you our track record is
very good. Our commitment is such. So what I heard you say was
that you wanted a commitment from staff and from the county that
we would deliver on our end, and we have that strong commitment.
Page 91
July 29, 2003
If you're asking for a guarantee iron clad, I don't believe anyone can
deliver that to you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question. And I admire what
you're trying to do. Concurrency shouldn't be so evasive, but it is.
And we have to weigh the needs of anyone out there.
The plan that staff has together at this point in time, is it
defendable if we send it up to Tallahassee? Do you think this one -- I
mean, we had a problem in the past.
MR. FEDER: Understood. And what I will tell you is your
area of contention, as you are very well aware, both locally and with
community development, is going to be doing anything more
restrictive than the state standard for the first three years being able
to be applied. There's nothing that prohibits this county or any other
municipality or county from being more stringent than the state
standard. But the moment you are more stringent, then you are
tasked with being able to prove the financial feasibility as we know,
as we went through the last cycle.
To answer your question directly, I believe that we've followed
through on what we've been asked from community development. I
believe we've looked at the nature of development, we've looked at
its reasonable absorption rate within the county, we've tried to apply
that out. We've established a couple of areas that acknowledge some
of the deficiencies that result from that, which is the transportation
concurrency management areas that gives some level of relief where
we do have deficiencies based on prior decision and our inability to
have totally resolved it or gone into our six-lane management
standard without a lot of other alternatives like 41, as an example.
So I think we have something defensible here. But we are, as
was reviewed by Stan Litsinger, looking to apply all appropriate
Page 92
July 29, 2003
techniques. And they are ones that have to get the approval of
community development up in Tallahassee, and that would be the
management areas, the exception area, as well as any application of
anything more stringent in the state standard which in this case
would be one year adopted after the AUIR, rather than the three
years. That is at least the state standard.
In answer to your question, do I believe it's defensible? If it's
the strong opinion of this board, we will go to Tallahassee and try to
defend it. I believe that we've done everything we can. We have the
documentation to show a reasonable approach. And I think we'll
have to wait for their comments back. This board would then have to
adjust if there were any comments that we'd have to respond to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So when it goes to Tallahassee,
it's a regular;u scheduled meeting there where anyone can
participate?
MR. FEDER: We didn't go up last time and make our case.
Others went up and made our case for us. So I believe that it
probably would be advantageous if this Board, once you settle on
exactly what you want in here, probably direct staff or maybe even
have the chairman or a representative from the Board go up and
make the case of what we're trying to do, just to make sure that DCA
understands that we're serious about trying to create that balance, and
I hope that we've done that here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Commissioner Coyle, do you
have anything today?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I have a lot of things, Mr.
Chairman, but I think it would be better if I held my comments until
after the public input. My hope is that I can add a little more clarity
to some of these procedures, but I do have some questions. But
again, I think it might be appropriate that I wait until after we have
the public input.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we have four public speakers.
Page 93
July 29, 2003
So Ms. Filson, would you please call up the first one.
MS. FILSON: The first one is David Ellis. He will be followed
by Dwight Nadeau.
MR. ELLIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm David Ellis.
I'm with the Collier Building Industry Association.
I really wanted to make a few points in regard to some of the
things that we've already discussed this morning.
Again, I'll commend your staff. They've done a nice job in
really looking at this and really trying to be innovative. When we
started last year looking at this idea of a more real time system, we
started exploring a lot of ideas and said what can we do to make sure
that we plan and we find and we execute this process.
The idea of the transportation concurrency management areas
and the exception areas and the fair share provisions are all ways that
we can do that better. And I think they're innovative and interesting.
We had actually talked about some of the transportation concurrency
management areas last year in some of the discussions we had. And
I do appreciate your staff's interest in evolving industry and those
that are the engineers and those that are technically involved in this
process to be allowed to participate.
Also, Commissioner, I think you asked, Commissioner Fiala,
really one of the most valuable questions in that how is this going to
continue to work? Some of the best work that they've done behind
the scenes this year is going out and finding those vested properties
and determining how we're going to be able to calculate them into the
system so that the checkbook or the process that we're going to
follow actually can work. So that when you're approving that next
project, that you know that all the numbers are there, and they've
done that, or they've done, I think, their first run at that. I think
there's probably more work to do and some people that may think
they're vested than others and those things are going to be worked out
as we go. But that's the right question, and that's really where we've
Page 94
July 29, 2003
been trying to go all along.
You'd probably expect -- I do want to make a case for reliance
on our three-year funded plan. And I'll tell you why. First of all, last
year that was really the thing that I think DCA got most concerned
about, that we were abandoning what was their accepted statewide
practice and going onto a course that was perhaps not financially
feasible and really didn't follow what they considered to be the
normal planning practices.
9J-5, the rule that kind of sets this out, sets that out as really the
state standard. Now, again, I'll acknowledge 9J-5 doesn't say you
have to use it. But when they set it out, it's the dominant practice of
most municipalities around the state because that it's there and it's
really seen for what it is as a planning tool.
One thing I do want to make sure that we make clear, it's not a
grace period. It's not a give away. It's an acknowledgement of how
the process works. When someone comes before you and you
approve for a project to move ahead, there's not rooftops really
generally for a very long time. They've got to leave you and they go
see a bunch of environmental permitting agencies. They come back
to you oftentimes with a site development permit within that
community, then come the rooftops. But even before the rooftops,
they've got to come in and put in the streets, they've got to sell some
houses, and then they begin building. And I'll tell you in Collier
County, oftentimes that's a six-month to a year process.
When you start tagging all those things together, it's easily three
years before oftentimes any of the rooftops really start happening.
And if you approve a 500-unit development, all 500 units are rarely
on the roads in three years. As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to very
much argue that very few, if any, are on the roads in those three
years. That's why we rely on the three-year plan. It's not a give-away
to that community, it's really an acknowledgement of how the
process should work. It really is concurrency in its best form.
Page 95
July 29, 2003
Now, a concurrency planning system was set up to make sure
that the infrastructure was concurrent with the development, not
before or not after. The key there, and I think the thing that we need
to acknowledge, is to make the system concurrent is to make sure the
infrastructure is actually delivered in the time frame that it's set
forward to. And that would really be my last point.
You've heard me say before we talk a lot about planning. As a
matter of fact, it's a good discussion. We've had a very healthy
discussion over the last year about how we would plan in our
community. And important discussion. We've talked a lot about
funding. About this time last year we were talking about road impact
fees. And you guys approved the highest impact fees in the State of
Florida at the time for roads.
As the industry working with the county, when we talked to
Norm last year, what he told us was, was one of my biggest problems
is I need the money sooner. And we actually, as a part of working
with him, said okay, what if we gave you half the road money up
front when you approve a development and the other half within
three years. So he doesn't have to wait over time incrementally for
the money, but he could take that money and use it to make sure the
infrastructure is there. Nobody that I know of in the country,
certainly not in the State of Florida, does something like that. So the
money's there.
But .the last key element that we really haven't tied up, and I
appreciate your question before, Commissioner Henning, is how do
we guarantee the road actually gets built in the time frame that we've
guaranteed the public will do it? That's where we got in trouble
before. It wasn't the planning, and frankly, it wasn't the funding. We
had the money in those years past.
Once again, a lot of credit to you as Commissioners for blazing
that political trail and for your staff for building the roads. We're now
starting to see that relief.
Page 96
July 29, 2003
But I would ask you again to keep the reliance on the three-year
plan. Your planning commission endorsed that idea, and we would
commend that to you. And I think you'd find with all the other
innovative techniques, you truly have moved towards a real time
system. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dwight Nadeau. He will be
followed by A1 Zichella.
MR. NADEAU: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Dwight Nadeau, planning manager for RWA.
I'd also like to echo my sentiments of staff's hard work, working
with the development community. This has been a public process
before it came to you. And I truly do encourage that you follow the
planning commission's recommendations, not only for the three
years, but all of the other additions that they've made to the proposed
addition as part of this comprehensive plan amendment.
And I'm going to elaborate just a short bit about the process.
This process that the development community has to comply with is
the same process that Collier County has to comply with related to
building your facilities or building a subdivision or building a
commercial development.
Truly when your zoning is approved or when you have an idea
that you want to build a roadway, it's going to take many years
before that facility or that subdivision will be in place. It's going to
take probably at least two years with environmental permitting
agencies. And that's very costly, that's time-consuming.
In addition to that, you then get to go for your construction plan
approval, which could be your site development plan or your
subdivision. And that's going to take at least six months. The system
is getting better. It could take longer. Only after you have your
subdivision done would you be able to go in for your site
development plan. And then you put the infrastructure in for your
Page 97
July 29, 2003
subdivision and your site development plan and only then can you
now start vertical construction.
It's going to take three to four -- it could take as much as four to
12 months to build a small development to a large development. All
in total you're looking at three to four years after zoning, or after you
have a road programmed and funded that you would be able to build
that road or build that subdivision. The traffic does not hit the road
when the zoning is approved or when the roadway is approved for
construction. That way it goes through the permitting process.
It's imperative that we -- we have the time, the development
community, and have the reliance. It is not a grace period. If this --
if a proposal for one year goes through, it's going to hamstring your
transportation department. They may not be able to perform.
I've spoken with many members of the transportation
department, and they feel -- they may have some concerns with that.
Certainly you may want to verify that with Norm or with Don.
And to conclude, with a commitment or a reliance that
Commissioner Henning brought forward is that why not bind the
county as a commitment through policy? And to that end I've sent
you all e-mails, as well as staff e-mails, containing this language and
this language we've developed. It basically came from the Lee plan.
But we would propose that it be imported to the various policy
statements that are on here. And it just gives everyone a heads up
that if I'm going to make a commitment, I'm going to do what I'm
going to say to do.
Now, there's no penalties involved with this. I didn't believe
that we were going to have the Board's support to say well, if we
don't build the road, then you just go ahead and build it, build your
subdivision. No, we're not going to get into transportation
concurrency exceptions if the road doesn't get built.
But if you have a policy statement that says road facilities that
resolve existing or forecast service level deficiencies during the
Page 98
July 29, 2003
five-year AUIR reporting period, they must be included in the
five-year capital improvement program funded by the county and
commencement of construction must occur prior to the forecast
service level deficiency as determined by the concurrency
management system.
It might be considered to be lip service. But if it's a policy, the
board says we're going to do what we said we're going to do. And
with that, I'd like to conclude.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think there's a question from
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Actually I'd like to direct
it to Mr. Feder.
Mr. Feder, why does staff have reservations on something
they're sending to us on approval?
MR. FEDER: We do not have reservations. We've noted to you,
and I just responded a few minutes ago that we're ready to submit
this to community development and hopefully have the backing that
we need to be able to show them that it's a reasonable approach. We
again note that once we go below the three-year, that that's going to
be an area of contention. I've acknowledged that.
To this item right here, if that's your question, I have some
concern with this wording. The inference is, if I read this on face
value, is there's no reason to have a concurrency system, because the
minute there's any potential for problem, we've built the road.
Now, obviously we're looking -- and especially with the division
of the 50 percent up front, we appreciate that change, and moving
out, that we are going to deliver on a program that meets our needs.
But this would also say that if I've gone six lanes on 41, six
lanes on Goodlette-Frank, Airport and Livingston and have no other
reasonable alternate alignment, that I would still have to do
something, even if something couldn't be done to respond. And I
don't think we're going to get to that stage. But that's exactly what
Page 99
July 29, 2003
we're trying to do is get ourselves in a position that we don't agree to
development that puts us in that stage and still run into problems.
So we do have a concurrency management system. I think some
of the argument we're hearing and probably the reason we're hearing
a lot of this, because I think as David Ellis has pointed out, as you're
hearing here, is some very good points about our ability to continue
to deliver and the ability provided to us with the monies up front.
But we're still trying to take care of a backlog. We still have
two more years of that process in front of us. So we do have some
deficiencies. If we're not out ahead of the curve at this point. We
hope to get there. If we're out ahead of the curve, a lot of what you're
hearing makes some sense. I'm still concerned about this language,
but we're not out ahead of the curve at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta has another
question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if I may address it to you,
Dwight. What you're suggesting here is that the developers go ahead
and get the approval, and then it's the county's responsibility to get
the roads in. Is that what it is in a nutshell in this suggestion?
MR. NADEAU: Well, it is the county's requirement to build the
facilities that they say they're going to build. And the development
community assists with the funding of the construction of those roads
by nonrefundable impact fees through ~the development order
process.
Now, those impact fees are paid after the zoning is done. We
chose to define what a development order is. It is the site
development plan and the final plat. So it's a synergy between the
development community and the county. And we have made our
commitments because we're putting the money on the line, which is
-- goes well beyond what the rest of the state does. We're putting our
money on the line. We're making that commitment. All we want to
do is have the county follow through with their commitments. You
Page 100
July 29, 2003
do your budgets in October. You do your AUIR's in December. The
monies for the AUIR for the next year are done in October.
So when the monies -- when the road is programmed and it's
funded, just commit to it and build it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think one of the reasons that we
worked with you people to come up with the commitment of
additional funds is because we have a very rapid growth rate here.
And a good example of that is Island Walk. That was scheduled to
build out in about seven years and I think they have built it out in
about four years. And it's on Vanderbilt Beach Road, and that's
impacted that road to the point, where as Norm Feder was stating,
that we're still trying to dig out from a backlog of past problems that
we've had. And yes, the Board has to step up to the fact that they are
part of the reason for the backlog. But we don't ever want to get into
another situation like we've just gone through. And I think it's a
commitment to this community to make sure that we have a
concurrency. And that's all I have to say about the matter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to add one other thing.
Really not to you, I guess for the record. And that is something we
never ever address while we're talking about this, when the building
will take place, when it will be completed. We don't talk about all
the building and the traffic generated for the building that's going to
be taking place. How many dump trucks are in and out every day
before anybody is living there, while they're building the golf
courses, while they're building the homes. We're talking about a
giant share of traffic before the first person occupies a home. And I
think this is -- what we're trying to do is address that situation right
now with this one year. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not only that, but --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, if I might say, that
will be measured when we measure the capacity of the road, that
Page 101
July 29, 2003
traffic generated by a development.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Before it gets there, you mean?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, it will be measured because --
let's say you're at 75 percent. Development comes along and they're
putting trucks on the road, putting in fill and filling in their
development. That's counted. So that will kick it up to 77 percent,
80 percent or whatever. So when the next development comes along,
that's -- their neighbor is counted into the process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what Commissioner Fiala
was talking about is where we have an influx of construction people
that come from outside the area to assist in this development.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And they also have a large impact
on the present road system prior to even people moving into this
development.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's no question about it. But
again, that will be measured in our trip generation for the road.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I never realized that the
preconstruction or rather the construction traffic is measured in.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I didn't know that either.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've only heard dwelling units.
MR. FEDER: Definitively, it's not. But effectively
Commissioner Henning is correct. First of all, you're using
permanent computation traffic counts. Now, you're not updating
those daily, but you're using those counts. So that will take as part of
background traffic. Also, you're attributing one-seventh of the
development once you agree to it and, therefore, vest it. You're
applying one-seventh of that development immediately for the trips
and that. So that would take into account the background traffic
created by the construction. And that's a different type of traffic,
which is another whole discussion, but yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker?
Page 102
July 29, 2003
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is A1 Zichella. He will be followed
by your final speaker, Reed Jarvi.
MR. ZICHELLA: For the record, A1 Zichella. I'm here today
for WCI Communities and as a board member for CBIA. I'd like to
speak also to the three-year reliance in the funded plan.
And first I'd like to comment, Mr. Halas, on your commitment
to improve concurrency. It was noted last year, the whole
commission did make that commitment to go to a more real time
plan. And that was the purpose of Mr. Nadeau's language, was to
bolster that commitment, to codify it, if you will, in the appropriate
section.
Basically our reliance in the development community on the
first three years of the five-year funded plan, as was said before, it's
really not a grace period, but rather it's a concurrency rule tool as
provided for, as again was mentioned many times -- and I hope I'm
not being redundant here -- in 9J-5 of the Florida Administrative
Code. It's basically a promise to the property owners and other
petitioners that ultimately validates their property rights. It's a
validation of their property rights. And they come before you with a
petition or a permit application. They're relying on the promise of
the county to complete the work program and provide the facility
needed to achieve concurrency. That's important. It's a two-way
street.
Yes, we deliver cars to the road, but we don't deliver them
overnight. And the three-year period as a tool has been proven over
and over again and is relied upon by virtually every municipality. I
mean, virtually every municipality in the state. And that's not an
accident. That is because they have recognized, in fact, that the first
three years of the plan should be a reliable projection of the work
plan.
Now, why wouldn't they give you the whole five year of the
work plan? That's a good question. The reason they don't give you
Page 103
July 29, 2003
the last two years is simply to allow a county flexibility to change
their plan. If something happens down the road, a certain area of the
county starts to develop faster, it allows you a reliance or a
mechanism to change the last two years of the five-year plan.
What they're saying in 9J-5, is that the first three years should
be relied on by all people who want a plan. Otherwise, concurrency
is what, serendipity? We have to plan for it. We have to visualize it.
And when we come before you with a permit application, we should
be relying on a road plan.
And that's another reason why the language that was just
proposed by Mr. Nadeau is a very good idea. I don't think it limits
you at all. I think it bolsters your commitment which you've made to
the county very publicly.
As a simple matter of fact, it's a huge benefit to the planning
process, because it provides everybody with a time table and
everybody understands what's there. There's no mystery to it. We all
know what's in the plan. We know what's before us. We know what
should be concurrent and when it should be. As far as delivering cars
and traffic to the roads, I can tell you, as a developer three years is
really a short window overall when you consider all of the permitting
and planning and infrastructure placement, which is no small matter
to a development of some size.
Now, I'll tell you that the county themselves have done very
well with this, but recently has had very currently, and Mr. Feder
referred to the one-year delay in a permit on Immokalee Road. It
took them a year to get a permit. I want you to consider that.
They're asking for a one-year, or at least proposing a one-year
reliance in the funded plan. We can't even get a permit in one year. I
mean, it's a stark absurdity. Nobody can rely on that. We can't even
get a permit for Immokalee Road in a year.
So the development community has no certainty. We have
nothing to plan upon. We're running down a very slippery slope as
Page 104
July 29, 2003
far as planning goes. And planning commission recognized this and
made a very wise, I feel, and studied the recommendation to the
board and I hope you'll consider that. They did feel that the
three-year window was an appropriate planning tool.
And I notice that the chairman made a distinct comment that he
took politics out of his decision. He's very conscience that a lot of
people are pressuring the Commission to do something to slow down
that -- or what they perceive to be a grace period is really not a grace
period. And the chairman of the planning commission very wisely
said we should take politics out of it. If we're a planning body, we're
a planning body. And by God, it takes three years to get this right
and that's what we should do. It's a credit to him and his wisdom, I
feel, in assessing the situation.
Now, if we're serious about real time concurrency, integrity of
process, then honest due diligence really would demand an accurate
definition of when concurrency is required. And every time this is
studied the three-year reliance on the funded plan is more evident. As
I said before, it's provided for in state statute. It really is the actual
duration it takes before we can put cars on the road.
And to finish up, DCA, I think, would have a very hard time
with it, and I think Mr. Feder alluded to that. The one-year window
is really not -- it does not meet the financial feasibility standard, and
I think would be rejected. I urge you not to do that, and to please
take up the recommendation of the planning commission.
And actually, Mr. Scott of the planning committee even said
that he thought three years was acceptable to the staff, among other
remedies too, to be fair. But he said he had no problem with three
years. And I would urge you to please consider that. It is the fair
and accurate thing and it truly is real time. This is not some
mechanism. We all know what the process takes. It really is real
time. And if real time is our goal, we should consider that. Thank
you so much for your time and I'd be happy to answer any questions
Page 105
July 29, 2003
if you have any.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any question by the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The final speaker is Reed Jarvi.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we go to the next speaker,
just to let the people in the audience know, we're running at least an
hour behind. We have to go to closed door sessions for some
arbitration stuff, I think it is. And I know that we have a 1:00 time
certain. And would it be appropriate to name a new time?
MR. MUDD: That time certain for the South Golden Gate
Estates probably needs to be 2:00, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 2:00?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Jarvi, I'm sorry to interrupt.
MR. JARVI: My name is Reed Jarvi. I'm here helping with the
CBIA in their presentation. And we've been involved with the
concurrency from last year, about a year and a half now. And I have
three points. I'm going to try not to reiterate exactly what the other
people said, but the three points basically are: The three-year
window, I think it's imperative. It should also be noted that
concurrency by the way we've defined it, as Dwight said, is at the
subdivision plat or site development plan standpoint. That is when
we do concurrency, and that's when we've (sic) actually doing the
measurements for concurrency. It's not a rezoning. It's at the
subdivision plat and SDP level. I just wanted to reiterate that.
I think it's important at that level still that three years -- as we've
said, it takes several years for building permits for professional
engineers. I'm a professional engineer. By the time I submitted
something to the county and it gets approved through the
environmental permitting agencies, through the county, through all
Page 106
July 29, 2003
the other various agencies that I have to go through, before that
house gets occupied or that building gets occupied, it's two to three
years minimum, unless it's a very small development. Anything of
size is going to take several years before there's impacts on water,
sewer or anything.
So I think three years is appropriate, and I'd encourage you to
continue to look at three years.
The other thing is I think it's real important, I know Norman has
some problems with some of the language, but the statement that
Dwight read into the record, I think, is very important that it
completes a circle. As David talked about, we've planned for, we've
funded, now we have to execute. We are executing. The staff has
every intention as far as I know to execute. This board has every
intention to execute. We feel it's necessary to have a comprehensive
plan that we shall execute. That completes the circle. And it
completes the circle for the community, as well as for the
development. It's just good planning from our standpoint.
The last point I'm going to talk about is in the transportation
element 5.8 that we've talked about, and it's the 85 percent, we
mentioned it a little earlier today. We didn't have a problem with 85
percent, just because it's a number. We've queried staff on it. And I
believe they will say this, why the 85 percent, because we didn't
know? And 85 percent comes from the way Jacksonville does it.
Jacksonville, Duval County, does a similar type of TCMA and
they've used 85 percent. And we said, well, where's that from? And
they go, We don't know. So we looked at it and said what is a
reasonable position and what is something we can-- what is a
number that we can support? We came up with 75 percent. And the
rationale is that if there is a two-lane road and a six-lane road and the
two-lane road is failing, we don't think that the two-lane road should
rule the parallel facilities. You have an alternate facility for the
six-lane, the same one-mile segment of six-lane road, the same
Page 107
July 29, 2003
one-mile segment of two-lane road parallel to it. If the two-lane road
is failing, it would be 25 percent failing, and that would be greater
than the 15 percent. And we think that a 75 percent would be a better
answer.
So if I can clarify that any more, I will try to, but we think 75
percent is the right answer in the transportation element 5.8 versus 85
percent.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what we've been hearing
this morning here is this is all based on PUD's. We've got to take
into consideration the whole county. And when we look at the
growth of what's happening yearly, we're looking at -- a good
example would be out in the Estates. I think they're building
anywhere from 1,000 to 1,400 homes a year. Those come up rapidly.
They're not a PUD. We've also got redevelopment and fill-in of
other areas that it's not a PUD.
And along with the PUD's that are coming on line, I think that's
where we're generating all the additional traffic, and I think that's
where we have to be concerned about how we're going to address
concurrency.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle has been
waiting patiently, has a bunch of questions. Thank you, Mr. Jarvi.
Commissioner Coyle, would you like to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
The first, I would like to clarify something with staff. If the
appropriate staff person could address this question for me. At what
point in time is it proposed that concurrency be determined?
Whether we're talking about the three-year rule or one-year rule, at
what point in time does the staff intend to determine that concurrency
question?
Page 108
July 29, 2003
MR. FEDER: Commissioner Coyle, this is Norman Feder for
the record. It will be at the time of final plat or plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Under the current
circumstance, we have elected to collect 50 percent of our impact
fees at the SDP development plan, site development plan stage. How
will that change with the proposed one year, two-year, three year
rule?
MR. FEDER: Does not change, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we will continue to make the
concurrency determination at time of site development plan approval;
is that essentially correct?
MR. FEDER: That is correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. A couple of observations
I'd like to make here. The decision that the Board of County
Commissioners made last year to revise our concurrency
determination process to allow for us to make a concurrency
determination at the time of site development plan and to collect 50
percent of the impact fees at that point essentially made the
three-year rule largely irrelevant.
Because what we were doing is looking far enough ahead so that
we would have sufficient time to collect impact fees to do the
necessary infrastructure improvements, so that by the time the impact
of the development occurred, we would have the necessary
infrastructure in place.
And I think that's an extremely important point that I do not
believe we have addressed so far this morning. The time periods that
we are talking about must relate to the time when the impact is going
to be occurring on the infrastructure.
Now, let me give you an example. If a project comes in on
January the 1 st, 2004 with a site development plan, and we make a
concurrency determination on January the 1 st, 2004, we're not
making the determination for concurrency for that 12-month period.
Page 109
July 29, 2003
We're making a determination for concurrency at the point in time
when the homes are ready for certificate of occupancy. So we're
looking ahead about three years in assessing the concurrency
requirements. And in doing so, we're taking into consideration all of
the other vested developments which are going to be placing
demands on our infrastructure. So we're looking at it in a very
comprehensive and proper process.
So what I would not want to see us do is to say if an SDP is
presented on January 1 st, 2004, that the capacity must be available
by January the 1 st, 2005, because that doesn't appear to me to make a
lot of sense. That is not concurrency. Because the impact on that
development that has a site development plan submitted for approval
on January 1 st, 2004 is not going to occur until sometime like 2006
or 2007.
And what we must make sure of is that the one year that we've
been considering should apply to the period of time when the impact
on the infrastructure will actually occur, which an example I used to
be 2006 or 2007.
So I see this debate about one year or two years or three years as
being largely irrelevant, as long as we make sure that whatever
process we use guarantees that concurrency will occur consistent
with the impact on the infrastructure. That's what we've always said.
We've always said whenever somebody is going to be putting cars on
the road by -- by having certificates of occupancy issued for
buildings or homes, then that infrastructure should be available
before that event.
I think someone else has -- well, several people have said it
earlier, concurrency really benefits everybody. It benefits the
residents, the tourists, the property owners, the developers. And I
don't think we can back away from all our commitment to
concurrency. Adequate infrastructure is an obligation of government.
It's spelled out in the state statute. And we must fulfill that
Page 110
July 29, 2003
obligation. And I believe we can do it with the elements of the plan
we have. And the important thing is we apply the time frames in the
way in which they were intended to be applied.
And if I have misinterpreted anything with respect to staffs
intentions about the application on these time frames, please let me
know.
But, Norm, is what I have just described as the sequential of
events in the approval and the concurrency determination process, is
that description accurate from the standpoint of what the staff intends
to do with it?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, in general, many parts of that,
yes. If I could just elaborate a little bit further. When we look at
concurrency at the time of final plat or plan, again, what we're
looking at is what's the background traffic already out there, what has
been vested, approved, and what we approve, we continue on a debit
process in the future. That's what we're trying to get to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. But when you're
doing that, you're looking at when that particular development will
be issuing certificates of occupancy, right?
MR. FEDER: That's right. At the time of the final plat or plan,
if there is available capacity -- and I'm going to your point for further
discussion -- is at that time once we decide that there's available
capacity, we reserve that capacity when a certificate is issued, based
on, as I said, a seven-year basic build-out, which is what we've used
in utilities. And when you take that and with the development out in
the Estates, it comes out about the development that we reasonably
expect.
So you're only applying one-seventh of that development,
generally speaking, each year, as you apply that to the next project
that comes in and is seeking capacity.
The other part of that equation I'll ask you to throw in and then
I'll leave it to debate, is if it's programmed in the first year of the
Page 111
July 29, 2003
work program to be let to construction, that will still take the letting
during that year and over two years of construction -- sometimes a
little longer, but the average is about two years -- before the product
is delivered. So that's part of what we're looking at.
Now, having said that, though, I think your point is well taken.
We're at final plat or plan, that is a good three years out from when
most of the development impact's going to happen. Some of them
won't happen that fast. That's why the overall absorption rate is about
seven years that's been shown with utilities, and we're going to
continually assess that.
As you know in your last update, you established a reporting
each June and July of how much each development has built out and
how it intends to build in the coming years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think that answers my
question. I think it's entirely consistent with my expectation. And
unless I'm missing the point here, and it's entirely possible, but unless
I'm missing the point here, the debate over one years, two years or
three years is largely irrelevant with a couple of exceptions. One,
people do have and should have the right to rely upon our five-year
work plan. And, in fact, they can do that. And that should form the
foundation and basis for the planning and the timing for the
development process. But it's the final determination of concurrency
which would occur at the site development plan that provides the
so-called vesting that guarantees the facilities will be available.
The other, again, important point is that we must tie these time
frames to the anticipated date of impact upon infrastructure. And I
believe that what you've told me is that's exactly what we're planning
to do. So that a site development plan presented to us on January the
1 st, 2004, we would anticipate the impact to actually occur three or
four years later. And it is at that time that we would expect to be
seeing the cars on the road when certificates of occupancies are
issued. And that, in fact, provides the three-year window.
Page 112
July 29, 2003
The thing we want to make sure of, however, is that the
concurrency, that is the certificates of occupancy and the delivery of
the infrastructure, occur essentially concurrently, which means
within a one-year work plan. So I think that's what we've been
working toward. And I think that would work to the best interest of
everyone involved.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any further questions,
comments? Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. It's just again, I think it's
important that we recognize our obligation to provide infrastructure.
It's something that's not been done with consistency in the past for a
variety of reasons. This particular board has done a wonderful job, I
think. Even before I joined, I think you did a great job pulling these
things together. I think we have to continue that work and make sure
that we do provide concurrency for all of the people in our county
who depend upon us to provide adequate infrastructure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One of the points that I'd like to
bring up also is the fact that when we're talking about single-family
units, a lot of times from the time that the site development plan is
put in place and all the necessary permits are put in, that we can have
that home done in about 10 months' time. And when we look at the
amount of traffic that's being generated out in the Estates each year,
the increase, that's because of the fact that people are building
single-family homes and maybe not so much relying on a PUD. And
that also poses quite a taxation to our road system. And I think that's
also one part of the equation that we must address ourselves.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Litsinger?
MR. LITSINGER: Stan Litsinger. I'd like to make a real
simple analogy, if I could, relative to the three-year, one-year issue.
What we are essentially talking about is, yes, we measure
concurrency now under your future system at the site development
Page 113
July 29, 2003
plan and the plat. The issue with the one-year and the three-year is
· do we deposit the inventory into our checkbook for three years out or
only for one year out? So it essentially means that the balance that
we're drawing down on in each yearly cycle for approving SDP's and
plats is either larger or smaller, depending on whether you have one
year of capacity or you rely on three years of projects in order to
balance your checkbook.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was good.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's great.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to
approve as written.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Staff recommendation, planning
commission recommendations?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Staffs recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And there's a second on the floor.
Now, Mr. Nadeau requested some language to be added.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I just wanted it as staffs
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. LITSINGER: On the language that was proposed,
speaking from planning staff, not transportation, staff has some
problems with the language that was proposed relative to a policy,
keeping in mind that there seems to be an emphasis on the
community's and the board's commitment to build the facilities that
provide the services. I don't know that we need an additional policy
to enforce that or reinforce that. But if there was an inclination on
the part of the board to include language suggested by Mr. Nadeau,
we would propose some changes to that.
Page 114
July 29, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further comments?
Commissioner Coyle, do you have any questions, additions to
the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I don't. I think we're going in
the right direction.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just had some concern over
the suddenness of going to one year, and I was wondering if possibly
you'd might want to consider a little bit of a breathing space in there
if possibly we went from a three-year to a two-year then a one-year
after that so that there was some breathing room. Suggestion. You
know, to give the industry a little bit of breathing space so that they
might be able to react to what's taken place.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you're suggesting go to a
three-year for like one year and--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And then a two-year.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to a two-year. And then after two
years?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: After two years you go to the
one year.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: After two years, you go to the one
year.
Where does the two-year come in? When do you want to fit
that in, the second year?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: After the second year.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And then the one year after the third
year?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be to wean
everybody into the whole situation because there's going to be some
major fallout over this taking place in one year. I can see that being
a problem. Just a suggestion, two-year motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we've got to see if this is
Page 115
July 29, 2003
going to pass at the DCA also.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, this might give them the
breathing space that they need to take it to the DCA. That's just a
suggestion that you might want to consider.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, are you willing
to put in the recommendations by Commissioner Coletta in your
motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I couldn't go to the three year,
because I think we've already gotten a year into this before we've
even got to this point. I could possibly see a two-year and a one-year
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Two, two and then one?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A two and one, yeah. A two-year
to give us some breathing space into it and then a one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How does my second feel?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I can't support that. I think we
ought to go to the one year.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, let's -- all right, since we don't
have -- the second hasn't agreed to the amendment.
MR. MANALICH: I think the motion would have to be
withdrawn or you should vote on the present motion. Either
withdraw the motion or vote on the present one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let's vote on it presently. I
just wanted to hear what other people have to say. I was just
commenting. But my motion stands to accept as staffs proposal.
Staff, right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, all right. No further
discussion, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 116
July 29, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, your vote?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I was in favor of the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, the motion carries 3-2.
I think, Commissioner Coletta, it was a great compromise. I do
have concerns about the implementation, but if staff feels
comfortable about that, then --
MR. LITSINGER: Clarification on the motion, Mr. Chairman.
The motion was to transmit staff's recommendation of the one year--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
MR. LITSINGER: -- not three years?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's correct.
MR. LITSINGER: With all other recommendations of the
planning commission and staff being in the motion to transmit as
well, policies?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that's correct.
MR. LITSINGER: I'd like to make one clarification, that this
concurrency amendment relates to transportation only and not the
other four types of concurrency facilities.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
MR. LITSINGER: We have separate standards for those. And I
guess I would ask also for policy direction relative to it's a little
extraordinary, but generally you have directed us to develop parallel
Land Development Code to implement this for adoption in January,
or would you want to develop the Land Development Code in the
following cycle next year? You had us develop parallel Land
Development Code to implement it for adoption fairly short time
frames and thereafter, and I was just asking if you had any policy
direction for us today on that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you get it in the third cycle?
Page 117
July 29, 2003
MR. LITSINGER: Possibly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, possibly. Then possibly
maybe you ought to do that.
MR. LITSINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We are -- we're going to go in the
closed door session for the purpose of--
MR. LITS1NGER: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. We have one
more very brief amendment. That is a very brief amendment to the
airport zone --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hurry up.
MR. LITSINGER: -- noise overlay zone.
MR. MUDD: This is CPSC-2003-09, airport noise overlay.
MS. KENDALL: Good afternoon. For the record, Marcia
Kendall, comp. planning.
The petition before you is a housecleaning amendment and
we're requesting approval to amend the future land use element and
the future land use map, making it consistent with LDC changes that
have already occurred that were done by Naples Airport Authority
back in 2000 by Ordinance 2000-43. We're basically just asking to
match that so it's in compliance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve and transmit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Halas to transmit as written.
MR. MUDD: Any speakers, Sue?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
MS. KENDALL: If I might make one side note, we did receive
notice from them that additional changes had been made to reduce
the contours. We'll address that at the adoption phase.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 118
July 29, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries.
Mr. Litsinger, do you have anything else?
MR. LITSINGER: No, thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, while we're on this page, if I
could just get you to go back to 7(B) and make a motion to continue
that item to 9 September.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion made.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to make a motion that we
continue that item to September 9th.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 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 unanimously.
MR. MUDD: Sir, one other note. We had a time certain
starting at 1:00 for Item 10(A) which had to do with the South
Golden Gate Estates, and that will now be at 2:00 p.m.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. And we're going into
closed door sessions, Ramiro, for --
MR. MANALICH: That's correct. This is with the labor
Page 119
July 29, 2003
negotiation committee and strategy session for collective bargaining
as provided by statute. You're allowed to meet with your labor
counsel on that. And you'll be meeting in the conference room.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. And the board will
reconvene at 2:00.
(A recess was taken.)
Item # 10A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE
STATE OF FLORIDA, THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD), BIG CYPRESS BASIN
(BCB), AND COLLIER COUNTY INITIATING VACATION
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
ROADWAY SYSTEM AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OFF
ROAD VEHICLE RECREATION AREA-APPROVED WITH
CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The Board of Commissioners are
now back in recess, back from recess. Jim Mudd, where are we at in
the agenda?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, we're at time certain of item 10A
and it's to receive Board approval to enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding between the State of Florida and the South Florida
Water Management District, Big Cypress Basin, and Collier County
initiating vacation proceedings for the southern Golden Gates Estates
roadway system in establishing an off-road vehicle restoration area.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this particular item has been
ongoing for a period of time and we've been, the Chairman and I
have been in negotiations with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and South Florida Management District
and the Big Cypress Basin. And there was a series of items that have
Page 120
July 29, 2003
gone on -- I will just give you a little bit of background.
Original proposal, because there was nothing on the table
outside of just vacating the roads, we looked at a mitigation bank
strategy whereby we valued the roads, if there was no depreciation,
at around $38 million and after depreciation it was about $17 million.
That mitigation strategy was presented to
Secretary Struhs and we received a memo from Ms. Eva Armstrong
that basically said they couldn't, they couldn't accept that particular
strategy because of precedent that was set. And I will, and I will also
say that we just received the letter to Commissioner Henning from
Secretary Struhs reaffirming the issue about precedent. Not that it
was bad strategy, it was doable, but it sets a precedent for other
counties throughout the State of Florida to do the same, and it's
almost kind of what we went through this morning a little bit about
asking for a noise wall or a vegetative wall with one of the
developments. I think all of the commissioners were thinking about
the precedent that it would set.
Then a series of other ideas came forward, one of which was to
try to see if there was a way to get an Interchange on 1-75 and
Everglades Boulevard. We went to the Florida Department of
Transportation, and I have E-mails in the stack of paperwork that I
have that basically said that that's not in their short range nor long
range plan at the present time.
To further come back, Secretary Struhs in a letter to
Commissioner Henning, the same one that I've noted previously as
far as the mitigation bank, stated that the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection does
not, does not stand between us and getting that Interchange. They
would support that process, however they are not the Department in
the State of Florida that does interchanges, it's the Florida
Department of Transportation, not the environmental protection
piece.
Page 121
July 29, 2003
get at some of that fresh water that this particular environmental
restoration project was going to give Collier County as one of those
benefits. It was supposed to replenish that aquifer or continue to
replenish that aquifer, and the thought being that in future years if
Collier County needed a fresh water supply that it would have the
ability to tap into those, into that water supply.
I will say that, after conversations with Ms. Pam Mac'Kie, who
is standing at the podium right now trying to figure out what this
computer does, that she said that would not be a good idea. I will say
that she said it wouldn't be a good idea to acknowledge the fact that
we could have a well field there, but she did not say that sometime in
the future if the County went through the proper approval channels,
permitting and everything else, that if we decided a well field needed
to be brackish or whatever, that we might want to be able to talk
about land and the ability to do so out there beside roads that are
already existing, the blacktop roads that sit there. You have to have a
road network that's close so that you can get to those well fields and
maintain them appropriately. So that might be something you might
want to discuss.
The other ability is access, and I think we've shown the access
roads a number of times to the Board so that you know what hardtop
and what limestone roads are going to be left by the particular
project, and Ms. Mac'Kie has stated on several occasions that it
would be open to the public and there would only be particular, if
there was a particular instance or an emergency or whatever, that
would be the only reason that those roads might be shut down in the
future.
With all that said and done, the agreement before you basically
talks about the Big Cypress Basin, giving the Board of County
Commissioners a million dollars a year for 20 years or until such
time as the Big Cypress Basin, because we are still talking and
negotiating about them taking over our drainage program for
Page 122
July 29, 2003
secondary drainage, so that's also in the agreement.
Another item that's in the agreement before you today is the fact
that the Big Cypress Basin and the South Florida Water Management
District, well, they are almost one and the same, the South Florida
Water Management District would give the County one section of
land, that's basically one square mile of land, not necessarily in a big
square box, but continuous land, some 640 acres, so that ATV use
could be -- ATV folks that like to do that and enjoy that, that
presently do that now in the South Golden Gate Estates would have a
place where they could continue their pastime.
That's pretty much what the agreement says and that's pretty
much where we've been. Commissioner Henning, did I miss
anything, sir?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. There's one thing in the
statement, instead of the word "restoration" it should have been
"recreation", to establish an off road vehicle recreation area.
MR. MUDD: So, I would like to turn it over, the briefing, to the
South Florida Water Management District representative in this
negotiations, Ms. Pam Mac'Kie, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. MAC'KIE: Thank you. I'm Pam Mac'Kie and I'm a
Deputy Executive Director at the South Florida Water Management
District.
I want you to know -- where is Bob Howard, there -- Bob
Howard, who is the Department Director for the greater West Coast
Department. That means that he supervises the Big Cypress Basin,
the Lower West Coast Service Center, and also the Okeechobee
Basin Service Center. So I just wanted you to know who that is. I
know that you know Clarence, and he is here with us.
This is, as you know, the project area. I've just got that slide in
here because that's what we do. And I know you know where it is.
This shows you where the flow ways are and what the goal of the
Page 123
July 29, 2003
restoration is to restore these major, minor flow ways.
And then, quickly, I'll just go through what are the goals and
objectives of the project. As I said, it's to reestablish historic flow
ways; reduce point -- fresh water discharge into the estuaries, which
is a poison to the estuaries; improve aquifer recharge; restore and
enhance habitat for fish and wildlife resources; preserve upland
habitat; control invasive exotic plants; improve water quality; reduce
or eliminate overdrainage; provide resource based recreational
opportunities; and provide contiguous habitat conservation.
I mention those because one might presume that that is the
compensation to the County for its roadways. Keeping in mind that
the roads have already been purchased, the dirt is already in the
ownership of the State of Florida by virtue of purchasing the land
interests from the property owners there. What I like to refer to what
we are talking about here today, and I understand this is a little bit
over simplified, is erasing a blue line on a white piece of paper.
Because what we are talking about here is the platted roadway
easements, not an interest in dirt. There's not dirt here, there's blue
lines on a white piece of paper, a legal depiction, if you will.
Here is the status so far. About $100 million has been spent by
the State of Florida. You guys have been saying, where is the money
coming into Collier County. Well, here is $100 million, $38 million
of that was federal money under the Farm Bill and the balance was
from various State of Florida funds, has been spent so far to acquire
51,000 acres of land.
The remaining land interests have to be obtained now. The
Governor and Cabinet have authorized condemnation to go forward
of these easement interests if we are unsuccessful in negotiating an
agreement here today. And that is one of those unpleasant things that
just has to be said, so that we know what is the position -- if we can't
reach an agreement, then it is go to court to determine what the value
of the road easements might be.
Page 124
July 29, 2003
The southern Golden Gate Estates project is currently scheduled
to be an early work project. What that means is there's $12 million
in, in addition to the $100 million, in addition to the, $38 million of
which is federal money, there is $12 million this year in the South
Florida Water Management District budget to begin early
construction on this project.
There's going to be a project that gets to be the early
construction project. I really hope it's this one. But if this one is tied
up in court over roadway easement ownership, then I think we are
very likely to lose that opportunity. And if you do lose it, you need
to know that the. project is likely to cost $50 million more through the
time and the combination of the federal process, and to be put off by
at least five years.
Another benefit, another list of the benefits of this project to
Collier County and to the area, primarily, the first one I like because
it's a dollar value and it's one that, the natural resource restoration
using the Fakahatchee Strand economic impact as comparison,
assuming this produces similarly, that adds $1.7 million to the
economic benefits.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's Commissioner Coyle with us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Hello, I'm here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, at this time
Pam Mac'kie from South Florida Water Management District is
doing a presentation on the benefits to'accept the State's deal on the
South Golden Gate Estates. Please continue.
MS. MAC'KIE: Good afternoon, Commissioner.
There are 4,500 acres of restored wetlands, 19,000 acres of
restored estuary. There will be reduced occurrences of wildfires due
to the higher groundwater levels. The County road maintenance
burden will be eliminated. There will be higher groundwater levels
during the dry season while maintaining current boundaries -- current
flood control standards. And, for those sportsmen and women out
Page 125
July 29, 2003
there, improved water quality for the project area and for the Ten
Thousand Islands and the resulting fishery benefits.
That is a new slide that I haven't had before, and it's marked
"draft" because it is very much hot off the presses. But what this is is
a slide that shows the water level conditions of the area in, as
modeled in 2050 without the project. And you can see that red
means dry, it means variations of dry, and you could see yourself on
the, see the southern Golden Gate Estates, that's very easy to see
because of the rectangles, and then the northern Estates above, that
if no changes were made in the system this would be the modeled
groundwater levels in 2050. This is with the project, a picture of the
modeled ground levels with the project. And as you can see,
approximately 220 million gallons per year will be recharged in this
area in the groundwater. This is hot off the presses, modeled data
that Clarence's office was good enough to do.
But I wanted to give you a picture of it, because I kept saying
there's going to be more water. This is without the project in 2050,
this is with the project in 2050. That's a quantifiable final benefit
that I hope you will see.
This is also a picture that you've seen before but it is of the post
restoration road plan. And you can see that the red roads are the
improved roads at grade, the blue roads are the roads that will be
scraped down to ground -- to level. I have been calling the deal, in
my shorthand way, the deal that's on the table from the State right
now, is $20 million and a place to play. Because, in addition to all of
the positives I just outlined about the project itself, the South Florida
Water Management District, through the Big Cypress Basin has
agreed to pay $1 million per year for 20 years into the Collier County
budget for the purpose of secondary canal systems, stormwater
maintenance. In other words, $1 million a year for 20 years for
projects that you won't have to fund, you won't have to raise taxes,
we will fund those projects, $1 million a year grant. Or, or,
Page 126
July 29, 2003
hopefully we will be successful in our negotiations for us to take over
the entire secondary system because we have a lot of efficiencies that
I believe could be accomplished there.
So I am anxious to continue to do that and hopefully to reach
that opportunity with your manager, in which case the $1 million a
year would stop because we would have taken over the whole
system.
That seems to address many of the issues but there remains the
fact that, right now, southern Golden Gate Estates has been a place to
play for off road vehicles. So, in order to try to provide a substitute
for that, we have, we are committed to providing a section of land, a
full section of land, which is 640 acres of land, to the County for you
to use for off road vehicle usage as you see fit. And in exchange for
that we would ask you to please be our partner in this restoration, we
would ask you to approve your staff's recommendations, execute the
Memorandum of Understanding, and to convey the road easement as
quickly as possible to the State of Florida. And I would be happy to
answer questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions from the Board?
Commissioner Coyle, do you have any questions? Are you still with
us?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm still with you. No questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have two questions. The first
is, where would that land be, is it accessible to these people?
MS. MAC'KIE: The location of the land is to be determined.
And the, it's identified in the Memorandum of Understanding as
being provided by October 2005, so that you have a drop dead
deadline by which it has to be provided. And it will be identified in
conjunction with your staff and your staff will agree that it is or is
not acceptable land for the purpose offered.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the second question is, what is
Page 127
July 29, 2003
the true fiscal impact on the front end and on the -- on an annual
basis.
MS. MAC'KIE: Well, I will tell you. I asked that question
about what is the fiscal benefit to Collier County, and the answer that
I got based on the best available data were some very large numbers,
and I just didn't feel like I could personally attest to the truth of them
so I didn't include them in my presentation, but there is, there is data
provided to me by the DEP in the hundreds of millions of dollars of
annual benefits based on the value of restored wetlands and restored
estuaries. So, can I give you an absolute number; I cannot. But
history shows, and you know why you're here is because of what's
out there, and we want more of what's out there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This proposed wetland, or this
proposed 640 acres --
MS. MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that going to be possible that
there's going to be some wetlands included in that, because I think
that a lot of these people relate to ATVing as going out into Bad
Luck Prairie to where they can have fun in the mud, in the water. So
this can't be all highlands, it's got to be a combination.
And I think the other thing we have to look to address is when
those people go out to that area they also use that as a campground
too.
MS. MAC'KIE: Our intention is to provide a suitable section of
land that can be, you can scrape it down, you can pile up hills, you
can, you know, develop it however is best for the end users. I would
tell you that it's not our intention to give you a pristine piece of land
to scrape up into a mud park. It is, however, our intention to give
you a disturbed piece of land, like disturbed farmlands, or something.
But certainly the intention is that this would be developed for
mudders, which is what I've always called them.
Page 128
July 29, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's exactly where we are going
with this.
MS. MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Mac'Kie, there's some concerns
from residents that used to have the ability in southern Golden Gate
Estates to recreate. Is there a possibility that we can, in this MOU,
include language to have the ability to do that in the future?
MS. MAC'KIE: In southern Golden Gate Estates?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
MS. MAC'KIE: I don't -- I can't say that there is. This will go
through the normal process. Post restoration this land will be
managed by the Department of Forestry just like other similar
projects. That has to go through a process of public hearings where
the land management plan is determined, and at that point in time
then the public has many opportunities to appear and be heard on
what the land management plan should include, and that's where
these final uses are determined.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Will those meetings be in Collier
County?
MS. MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The question, I think, that we need
to address here is, how long has this project been evolving through
the whole process that we've been doing here?
MS. MAC'KIE: This land acquisition project since early '80s,
does somebody know if that's right?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 25 years.
MS. MAC'KIE: A1 says 25 years, and I would believe it, that
early '80s, late '70's is when this land acquisition project started. And
I'll tell you, Commissioner, that, when I sat where you sit, I was very
dissatisfied with the way the state had treated people in southern
Golden Gate Estates and, in fact, we took a lot of action on behalf of
Page 129
July 29, 2003
those people to urge, and successfully urge, the DEP to do better by
them. The whole process was scrapped, started over, new appraisals
were done, and people were treated fairly, and, suddenly, the land
acquisition process went from a trickle to a flood. And now it's
almost completely acquired.
So there, I think that the long history there has a lot to do with
the hard feelings about why should we cooperate with the state,
because it has been an unpleasant experience for Collier County-ans
(sic) for a great amount of the time. That has bettered, I can't speak
for people to say that they are satisfied with it but I can say that I'm
positive that it is better than it was.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Ms. Mac'Kie, you're
right, there is a certain amount of distrust out there that has to be
overcome to be able to enable us to go forward on this. One of the
things you just showed us that I found a little bit disturbing was the
restoration map. I'm getting mixed signals all over the place, can you
go back to that -- right there.
MS. MAC'KIE: That one? Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine. Not too long ago at
a water symposium or whatever it was in Marco Island, the question
came up about the restoration that was going to take place and how it
was going to raise groundwater levels. So I asked the question that
was very much on the minds of many of the people that I represent in
District 5 and that's, this restoration, is that going to be one of the
reasons that FEMA wants to come through? I know you're shaking
your head, no, and that's the answer we get, and Clarence Tears, don't
go too far, wherever you are stay close by. But we got -- there's a
problem. I was told that -- and this is one of the reasons why the
succession of events and the 4 points that I brought up with having
the ability to be able to go in -- I was. told there won't be a feedback
in the water, that the water flows to the south and the west, and so,
Page 130
July 29, 2003
there won't be anything positive happening in the rest of Collier
County directly from that, and it won't increase the ground levels in
any fashion that's going to affect it, and FEMA confirmed that when
I talked to them.
MS. MAC'KIE: That is the case. IfI may be so rude as to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now I'm looking at this map
here and I'm seeing something totally different.
MS. MAC'KIE: Let me tell you why. The answer to the
question is, this map that I'm showing you is dry season. This is
when you want water. This is not water that could possibly
contribute to flooding because it's dry season water. In the wet
season the system is managed so that that water is moved, it is not in
any way flooding the northern Estates, it can't under the federal law.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand that water
flows downhill, and I don't know what else I need to know about it,
but here I'm seeing the difference between now and in the future, and
in the future I'm seeing a wetter Collier County as a result of the
restoration. If that's the case, then is there a cause and effect with the
FEMA possible flood changes?
MS. MAC'KIE: There's not, and maybe Clarence can answer
the question better than I.
MR. TEARS: No. You'll --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name for the record, please?
MR. TEARS: Clarence Tears, Director of Big Cypress Basin,
South Florida Water Management.
Commissioner Coletta, your question; will this change the flood
maps? No. You will get the same level of flood protection, we'll
have the same levels during the wet season that we currently have in
northern Golden Gate Estates. What this is showing you is, during
the dry season when our groundwater levels drop, what we're
showing over ten years, in a ten-year period, instead of-- with the
increased development going on in the Estates, we're actually able to
Page 131
July 29, 2003
maintain or even increase some of the groundwater levels that have
been causing overdrainage to the region. This is great for Collier
County because what it does, it sustains your cheap water supply into
the future, which is continually being degraded.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't disagree with you on
that. That's a positive --
MR. TEARS: But it has nothing to do with the flood protection.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But why is this suddenly
entering into the picture when before I was told that the water flows
to the west and to the south and has no effect at all. If the
groundwater is heavier in the summertime --
MR. TEARS: We're talking surface water--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- it's got to be heavier in the
rainy season.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: One at a time.
MR. TEARS- We're talking surface water and groundwater.
During the peak wet season your groundwater is saturated and your
surface water and your groundwater levels are about the same. They
are almost combined because the ground is saturated. So during the
wet season your groundwater levels don't matter, what matters is how
the water is managed across the surface, and that's what we are
guaranteeing through all of our modeling is to ensure that we
provide the same level of flood protection that everybody has in that
area now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you've done a wonderful
job in the past with it. It's just that I still don't have the answer to my
question.
The other map previous to that, if you could go back to it.
That's now.
MS. MAC'KIE: No. That's 2050.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 2050.
MR. TEARS: Based on current conditions, no changes.
Page 132
July 29, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh. Okay. Better
understanding. So, in other words, the effect from out there in the
areas being restored is not, in itself, going to cause the groundwater
to increase in the rest the Collier County. MR. TEARS: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
MS. MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. They warned me, they warned me
that perhaps I shouldn't be bringing out brand new information in that
it might engender more questions than it answered, but I really
wanted you to see that groundwater recharge quantification. So I
apologize for the confusion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, there is, there are quite a
few other things, but I wanted to give everybody a chance to speak.
Why don't you go to Commissioner Halas and I'll come back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala had her
hand up --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whoever. I just assumed it
was Commissioner Halas waving at you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to reiterate, what's
· really important to me as we move forward on this is planning for the
future. I think it's our responsibility as County Commissioners.
Today is wonderful but we have to plan for our children and our
grandchildren to make sure that they have the water, and is this, is
this plan going to assure our children and grandchildren in 2050 that
they'll have water to drink?
MS. MAC'KIE: Absolutely. This is absolutely a positive
reassurance, positive recharge to groundwater, to drinking water
supply, absolutely. And this map, the recharge area here is where the
City's well field is, and near your well field, you know, there is actual
-- you don't get many opportunities in public service and government
to right a wrong. Draining the southern Estates was a wrong. It
Page 133
July 29, 2003
caused a great amount of damage to the system, to the natural system
in this community. You've got an opportunity here, as a matter of
fact, it is going to be righted. What you have is an opportunity to
partner in the righting of the wrong, because it will be restored, it's a
question of now, and with you as a partner, or later, having gone to
court.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we ought to go back and
touch just briefly on the, on those two diagrams that you brought up.
That one right there.
MS. MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. I think we want to
make sure that we have a full understanding of what we're talking
about. Groundwater here, this is not water that's laying on top of the
ground, this is water that's going to be into the aquifers. MS. MAC'KIE: Aquifer.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think we have to make that
a very clear statement because somebody is going to relate to this as
being floodplain or something of this nature and this is not -- MS. MAC'KIE: It is not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- what this is intended to do.
I think we have a great opportunity here. I would hope that we
could partner up with the state and with the federal government, and
hopefully that we could gain some access rights in case that we need
to have a well field in that, in that area.
And the reason I say that is, we as County Commissioners
realize that we have a serious problem that lies before us and that is,
we have continuing growth, and it's going to continue that way
because of the fact that a lot of the baby boomers that are going to be
retiring want to come to South Florida, and when I say South Florida,
that, basically, is an imaginary line from Tampa all the way down.
And we realize that we are going to have a serious water crisis if we
Page 134
July 29, 2003
don't address this.
So, I guess what I'm asking, is there a possibility that we could
work out some type of an arrangement with you so that, in case we
did need to put some well fields in there they would be next to the
roads that will be open, so that we wouldn't tear up the environment,
wouldn't be involved in any disenfranchisement of the environment.
I think that would be an important thing if we could have you to help
us out in this manner. And just so that we have something in reserve
in the future if it needs to be.
MS. MAC'KIE: As much as I would like the answer to that
question to be, yes we can make that promise today, I cannot. The
reason is it's such a delicate balance, if we think this ecosystem is a
delicate tightrope to walk to try to restore it --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I realize that.
MS. MAC'KIE: -- it pales in comparison, frankly, to the
delicate balance that's been struck between the state and the federal
government on carefully keeping the 50 percent funding match from
the federal government.
For the first time in history the governor of a state and the
President of the United States have signed an agreement -- there's a
letter signed by the two Bush brothers that says, we cannot promise
water from Everglades restoration, we cannot until we have restored
and ensured that the systems function appropriately. That's the way
we get the 50 percent match of federal money.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there something we could put in
there that would be for future negotiation? Once we establish that
water flow, could that be, could we look into that, could we leave
that option open, that door open?
MS. MAC'KIE- We can certainly, absolutely. I'll say this too,
that in most of the other areas of the district where I travel with these
kinds of issues, there are local governments that expect there's going
to be new water, because Everglades restoration isn't about
Page 135
July 29, 2003
increasing the number of users, it's about increasing the size of the
water pie. We're actually making more water, there will actually be,
in the dry season, more water available than there was previously.
After the system takes what it needs, most of the local governments,
most of the utilities believe there's going to be some water available
for them. And I believe that to be the case.
But this delicate, delicate, delicate balance with the federal
government is not in the business of providing money for water
supply for growth and development. They will not give us a nickel if
that's what we're going it spend it on. So we cannot even hint at
promises.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, then, let's represent this
correctly. This is all about environment -- MS. MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- it is not about the people's needs.
MS. MAC'KIE: Except to the extent --
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And there's nothing wrong with the
MS. MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- doing good for the environment.
just want to represent this correctly, because otherwise the state can
authorize us to stick some straws in there.
MS. MAC'KIE: That -- with regard to the availability of water
to drink I would agree with your statement. I have to disagree,
though, that there is, somehow it's mutually exclusive. I live here, I
know how I chose Southwest Florida, and it has to do with the
environment and how beautiful it is, and how accessible and how
close it is. And, if you think I think that our property values are as
high and our tax rate is as low as it is because of the accessibility of
this beautiful environment that we have, to the extent that we
Page 136
July 29, 2003
increase that, 55,000 acres of new restored wetlands, that's a positive
for Collier County, that's a positive for the people of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we have 75 percent of that
presently in the County. Commissioner Coyle, do you have any
questions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One question remains and that
is access to the area. It's my presumption that people will continue to
live in the area for some time and I know that they are concerned
about how they get to and from their homes and their property. What
assurances do we have that they will have roads that are passable to
and from their property?
MS. MAC'KIE: Commissioner, I'm going to ask Janet Starnes
who is the southern project manager to answer that question more
specifically than I could. There is a map that's on the screen, if you
could see it, but we'll try to describe the answer.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MS. STARNES: My name is Janet Starnes. I'm with the South
Florida Water Management District. There's currently a draft Road
Plan available that would be incorporated into the Division of
Forestry's management plan at such time as they go forward with that
management plan. But the current intent is to maintain above grade,
so that you don't have flooding problems, above grade, the main, the
key roads that are currently used as access roads for all homeowners
in the Belle Glade (sic) area. There will be in no, in no way, shape or
form do we intend to limit or cut off their access. They will have
access 24/7 just like they do today. For those folks that live just west
of southern Golden Gate but south of 1-75, the access will not change
in any way, shape or form.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's going to be specified in
the Memorandum of Understanding, right?
MS. STARNES: It's not currently. The Road Plan is in, is an
exhibit to the Memorandum of Understanding, yes.
Page 137
July 29, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we have language that
clearly specifies 24/7 access and above ground grade, above flood
level grade?
MS. MAC'KIE: I'm not sure we could do that because this is,
this -- because different people mean different things by "above
grade". What we can tell you is, the roads that are shown in red, that
are attached to the Memorandum of Understanding, will be above
grade. And will be, in all likelihood, limestone. They are mostly the
asphalt roads today. So mostly the asphalt roads are going to become
above grade limestone. We presume.
The roads that are currently limestoned are going to be scraped
down to grade so, in the dry season they will be very passable, in the
wet season they will be very unpassable. But that is so much the
nature of the restoration project, I mean, that's the purpose,
Commissioner Coyle, of the restoration project is to restore those
flows. If you could see this map, though, you would see that on the
west side there are several little stub roads that will always and
forever provide access to residents in Belle Glade.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Belle Glade?
MS. STARNES: I'm sorry. Belle Meade.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle -- I would ask
the audience to please, they will have time to speak, if you will hold
your comments to then I would appreciate it.
But if I could expound upon your concerns, the issue would be
legal access versus historical access. What we want in this MOU is
historical access to this property, because there are some properties
down there that their legal access was Sabal Palm Road. And we
want to -- we want them to be able to use the roads that they have
historically had to get to their property.
MS. MAC'KIE: No change in Sabal Palm.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me?
MS. MAC'KIE: No change. Come up here and say. You guys
Page 138
July 29, 2003
know better than me so instead of me repeating I'll let them tell you.
MR. TEARS: Sabal Palm will be open to Miller Boulevard.
That was part of the discussions originally, that's why we extended
that road, because of all the issues raised in previous meetings with
adjacent property owners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, are you happy
with what I stated, what we wanted?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: ! think I am, Commissioner
Henning. My concern is one that -- Pam Mac'Kie stated earlier that
there is some lingering suspicion about what is going to happen
among the residents, and there is always a great deal of suspicion
about what the government has in mind when it starts playing around
with private property. And anything we can do to remove that
suspicion and give people some comfort that they actually have the
legal right to get access to their property, and it's not going to be
deprived, they are not going to be deprived of that. So whatever we
can do to achieve that goal would make me feel a lot better and I
have a feeling it would make many of the residents feel a lot better,
too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, what I-- as you have learned
about me in this process, I am a very poor poker player. I have not
held back a card, I don't have something else to put on the table.
What -- by attaching what is a draft Road Plan --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I asked your husband that, if he
had any insight of whether -- if you had anything in your hip pocket
MS. MAC'KIE: Nope. No scoop. I mean, there's just
everything, because this is one of those times where we are trying to
partner, we're not trying to cut the best deal, we are a trying to
partner. And that, by putting this Road Plan as a part of this MOU,
just so you know, I have stretched to the point that, Division of
Page 13 9
July 29, 2003
Forestry can't tell me today that this is the Road Plan they are going
to adopt, I'm binding the Water Management District to this Road
Plan, even if they adopt something differently. We have stretched,
stretched, stretched. This is as far as that issue can be stretched, as it
is today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Before I go to Commissioner
Fiala and then Commissioner Halas, we have some public speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have 19.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast one.
You were saying you were going to keep these roads open, you
were mentioning Sabal Palm in particular. For how long?
MS. MAC'KIE: Forever.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Forever.
(Brief discussion off the record.)
MS. DERWATER: I'm Sandy Derwater (phonetic), Division of
Water -- I just, Sabal Palm, part of it is a private road, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So the private road will still stay
open.
MS. DERWATER: Yes. It's just that we wouldn't have an
effect on that.
MS. MAC'KIE: I understand what you're saying now, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Chairman, the other question I
have on the road out there, I see by the diagram here that we are
going to be able to access Jane's Scenic Drive. MS. MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is Jane's Scenic Drive, that road
going to be open, or is that going to be underwater?
MS. MAC'KIE: There will be times when it's underwater. Just
like today, just like today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's underwater today?
MS. MAC'KIE: No. Just like, some of the time it is underwater
Page 140
July 29, 2003
in the very wet season.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you going to issue some
information so that if people want to take that drive and it's in a dry
season they will be able to access Jane's Scenic Drive?
MS. MAC'KIE: That is in the Fakahatchee Preserve, and there's
a management plan, and the management plan itself would define
that. Nothing would change.
MR. MUDD: But in your diagram, on exhibit C, Commissioner
-- this is Jim Mudd, for the record -- it connects Stewart, which is
that road at the bottom. Can you see the little squiggle? That little
squiggle off to the side is the continuance of Jane's Scenic Route
(sic).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Attorney Ramiro Manalich.
MR. MANALICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While we're on
this topic, before we return to the speakers, I'd just like to ask a
question, which is, it seems from the discussion it's important to the
Board to have some assurances of access for these private property
owners. I notice the document has the word "draft" on it. Maybe
Ms. Mac'Kie could explain what assurance we would have that these
representations in this diagram will be relatively the same from this
point on without great change.
MS. MAC'KIE: We can strike the word "draft" today. This is
"draft" because it is the Division of Forestry's draft plan, but we, as I
said, are stretching to the point of making that commitment, but as
the Water Management District, today.
MR. MANALICH: It just seemed to me that the word "draft" is
rather conditional.
MS. MAC'KIE: We may -- you can strike the word "draft".
MR. MANALICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. MAC'KIE: This is the minimum roads that will be --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have to get a permit from
Page 141
July 29, 2003
Collier County Transportation if you want to have roads.
We have 19 public speakers, and I would ask the speakers,
because of the amount of speakers, that we limit it to three minutes. I
would appreciate your comments, and I welcome your comments,
and I hope that you would respect the other speakers' comments as
they come up.
So, at this time I ask Sue Filson to call up the public speakers,
the first one and the second, call the second one. And if the second
public speaker would stand behind the speaker before them we would
appreciate it, thank you.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Franklin Adams. He will be
fOllowed by Jim Kalvin.
MR. ADAMS: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
My name is Franklin Adams and I represent the Florida Wildlife
Federation, the Board of Directors for this particular area of the State
of Florida.
The Florida Wildlife Federation has been a long time advocate
of the acquisition and restoration of south Golden Gate Estates. We
have, this goes back to the time when Lawton Childs was Governor
of the State of Florida.
I knew that area before any roads or canals were put in there. I
have lived in south Florida all my life. It doesn't look anything like it
looked back, you know, in the late 1950s, there are places in there
that I go to today and I couldn't tell you what was there before, but
there were pond apple swamps that were real wet and now the
vegetation is entirely different. The water that went south to the
coast, the estuaries has been cut off.
Restoration in this area would have some benefits to the
estuaries, I'm quite sure. It certainly would serve to recharge the
area.
The Federation is made up of people that not only advocate for
protecting the environment, restoring areas, but we're a group of
Page 142
July 29, 2003
people that actually gets out, get on the ground, and uses these areas.
We like to hunt, fish, camp, canoe. We have a lot of members
around the state that enjoy these activities.
I would urge the Commissioners as well as Water Management
District and Department of Forestry to be ever mindful of the public's
need to use and recreate in this area. We have lost an awful lot of
areas in south Florida to public use. They are heavily restricted.
I think we can understand from the conversation today, this is
not a pristine area; it's highly impacted, full of roads, full of canals,
totally changed from what it was historically. But it's utilized by a
lot of people and the Federation would like to see people included in
the plan, in the picture, continue to use the area in a responsible
manner, and -- you know a lot of people here don't play golf, or they
can't afford to play golf, this is the place they go to enjoy and
recreate. And we'd just like to ask you to keep that in mind in
signing any agreements. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Adams, you have had a
lot of experience and you have been quite involved in just about
everything that's happened out in that area. Do you personally feel,
forget the Federation for a minute, do you personally feel this thing
here is going to meet the needs of the people that recreate out there as
well as the needs of the environment?
MR. ADAMS: Well, I would agree that you need to move the
activity that presently occurs in Bad Luck Prairie to some other area,
that's not an appropriate area for it, but those people need a place to
go and do what they enjoy doing with their family and their children.
But, there are also people that go there that want to, you know, have
some type of limited hunting, they want to have a way to access the
area, they want to be able to camp, they would like to still go to the
Big T, if they could, with their children. I think that, over the years
when I talk to people and support this, I said look, what I just said
Page 143
July 29, 2003
earlier, it's highly impacted, it's not pristine, it, I think it's a great
place for the residents of Collier County to be able a recreate and
enjoy in a responsible manner. The people have to be included in the
restoration plan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you feel that we have
enough assurances from what we have here today to give up the
roads and be able to trust the state, the Forestry and everyone else in
Water Management on through to give us these rights?
I'm sorry, I have to ask the question, sir, and you are my expert.
MR. ADAMS: That's beyond my expertise, but I think, yes, in
order to do the restoration the roads need to be vacated, but the
public, you have to have guarantees the public is going to use this,
not one day out of the year, or not one weekend, but they are going to
be able to go in there and enjoy it. And it has to be addressed
through the recreation facilities.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you think a little more
emphasis than what it is to address that part of it? MR. ADAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you so much for your
help on this.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jim Kalvin. He will be
followed by Nancy Payton.
MR. KALVIN: My name is Jim Kalvin. I'm speaking today as
an individual. I do not own property in Picayune Strand, but my
family recreates there all year round. Mosquitoes don't bother the
locals.
There's been a misconception and a misrepresentation, I think,
or a generalization about ATV use. Everybody hears ATV and they
think of a nitrous powered buzz saw going through the sawgrass
ripping up berms and throwing rooster tails.
There's a wide majority of the people that use that area who do
Page 144
July 29, 2003
so in a passive manner on their ATVs, and I want to know, I would
like for the County Commissioners, please, to ensure that this is'
written into the plan, that we're still going to be able to go out there
and do that.
Folks, we're out of area. There is nowhere else in Collier
County or Lee County, for that matter, that we can go with the family
and camp, except for a KOA campground.
Now, this has been part of our heritage, and people went out to
Picayune Strand and Bad Luck Prairie long before those roads were
ever built, as we just heard. If they tear these roads out, that's not
going to stop a lot of us if we have the legal ability to get out there
and enjoy the resources. Please don't criminalize, or write into the
agreement that you're not going to criminalize traditional activities.
You're our only hope. The Governor only hears three things, he
hears information three ways. When I was in Tallahassee on another
matter with the Governor and Cabinet, he voted to go ahead with this
acquisition.
Twenty-five years ago, that's when all this acquisition started,
but back then they only did it for willing sellers. Oh, we are not
going to force anybody to sell their land. Well, 25 years later here's
where we are. The Governor and Cabinet has voted on that, and I
cried sitting there in the Chambers. I was there defending my
livelihood against the lawsuits brought about by the Wildlife
Federation and friends so that maybe I can continue to make a living
for my family. I didn't know I had to be up there to defend my rights
of recreation, as well.
They need to hear information from our elected representatives,
which starts with you folks here in the County Commission, or they
hear it from the paid environmental lobbyists who are there every
single day, they are paid to be there, or they hear it from grass roots
people who all of these folks and myself took a day off of work to
come in and address you all. And we can't take any more days off
Page 145
July 29, 2003
work.
We've got county meetings, city meetings, state meetings,
federal meetings, all these meetings to try to keep our access to the
public lands, and any more, public lands is typified by a chain link
fence.
Please don't let that happen to the south blocks. And please don't
let them give us 640 acres of mudded up berms and call that access to
the outdoors for ATV enthusiasts. It means a lot to our community,
it means a lot to my family and it means a lot to all of the folks who
voted you all into office. Please, we ask you to guard our access and
make sure it's in writing. Because I have no credibility with anybody
who comes up to me and says, I'm from the government and we're
here to help you, with the exception of you folks. Thank you very
much.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nancy Payton and she will
be followed by Nicole Ryan.
MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon.
Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation, and
we urge you to sign the Memorandum of Understanding initiating the
southern Golden Gate Estates road system vacation process.
We do offer several comments on the MOU, Memorandum of
Understanding, and they have primarily to do with the
Comprehensive Plan and making it consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
First, regarding the secondary canal system, we raise the issue
of the County's Comprehensive Plan drainage subelement and the
level of service requirements. Who will be responsible for
maintaining those levels of services for the secondary canal system,
specifically, when the Big Cypress Basin takes over this
responsibility as suggested by the MOU? Is it the County or the Big
Cypress Basin? Also, there are levels of service amendments to the
Page 146
July 29, 2003
plan that may be necessary for southern Golden Gate Estates once it's
restored.
Regarding the AV (sic) park, and I'm getting a little confused,
quite frankly, whether this is a park for ATV users or a park for those
folks that go to Bad Luck Prairie and play in the mud, because I think
we are talking about two different types of activities, or I wish it
would be clarified, so I ask that.
An active park similar to what goes on in Bad Luck Prairie is
not an activity that we think that is allowed in the Comprehensive
Plan on Natural Resource Protection Areas, public conservation
lands, or lands designated conservation sending or stewardship on
our future land use map. In fact, we are confident that this type of
use that is a very active mudder type park is not allowed on sending
NRPA and conservation lands.
We have shared with the Division of Forestry our concerns
about the park being located within conservation lands or using
conservation lands, and potential problems with, conflicts with the
purpose those lands were purchased.
We've also raised the issue of panther habitat and incompatible
use with panthers.
We do not support wells in southern Golden Gate Estates. The
water that flows in there, stays there or falls on it is just nature's, and
that's something that is a result of the federal monies that have come
in.
We do ask that the County consider amendments to the Comp.
Plan, including the future land use map that designates southern
Golden Gate Estates as conservation lands. It's not currently
designated that on the future land use map.
And finally, we pledge to continue to work with the state, the
Big Cypress Basin, Collier County and all other interested parties on
locating the ATV park, resolving this issue of a mudding area,
working on the restoration plan, and developing a management plan
Page 147
July 29, 2003
that insures nature-based recreation, the recreational activities that
Mr. Adams mentioned that are compatible with southern Golden
Gate Estates restoration goals. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nicole Ryan. She will be
followed by Frank Denninger.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before Nicole says anything, I just
have a clarification for the County Manager or staff. As I remember
the Golden Gate, or the growth Management Plan, the only reference
to southern Golden Gate Estates is within the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan, it is not within the rural fringe amendments or the
eastern lands, am I correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Miss Ryan.
MS. RYAN: Good afternoon.
For the record, Nicole Ryan here on behalf of the Conservancy
of Southwest Florida. The Conservancy urges you to support and
sign on to this Memorandum of Understanding as it's been presented
today.
The restoration of southern golden Gate Estates truly is a
landmark project. It's going to be the first Everglades restoration
project to be completed, and all eyes are going to be on us, watching
us. It's very telling that the first Everglades restoration project is in
Southwest Florida. That's very important.
The Conservancy believes that the MOU that's presented to you
today is going to provide benefits in addition to the numerous
benefits from the restoration itself. $20 million over the next 20
years through the Big Cypress Basin for the canal projects will
ensure that necessary canal projects are being done in a timely
manner. That might not happen without this MOU being signed.
As a process moves forward, if you do indeed sign on to the
MOU, the Conservancy asks that the County add specific language to
any future written agreement that specifies where the section of land
Page 148
July 29, 2003
for ATV and recreational use should be located and, more
importantly, shouldn't be located.
As Nancy stated, we do not believe that this land should be
environmentally sensitive land. We're also concerned that if the land
is contiguous to any conservation lands there could be a spilling over
effect from the recreational to the conservation lands, and that's a
concern.
And we also ask that if the section of land is within the rural
fringe, or the rural land area, that it's in receiving, not sending.
Collier County continues to be extremely fortunate in the
funding that comes from the state and federal agencies for
environmental projects. At the state level, the budget is becoming
tighter and tighter each year, and the environmental trust funds
continue to be rated. We believe that the important relationship that
we have with the State of Florida needs to be maintained. We
believe that this MOU will help in that process. And we ask you to
support it today. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Frank Denninger. He will be
followed by Cindy Kemp.
MR. DENN1NGER: I don't have quite as sophisticated as what
other people had, but this is just kind of a basic concept I tried to
conceive of how this project works.
We're eastbound on 75, and the homes are here and the trees are
to the south.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, you have to use the mike on the
comer, right behind you.
MR. MUDD: Right behind you, that's it.
MR. DENNINGER: I just haven't figured out how we're going
to control no water from backing up higher than should be into the
yellow zone, which would be under the northern area north ofi-75.
It seems a bit impossible. I don't think -- the physical property of
water is that it seeks its own level no matter what, unless, which I
Page 149
July 29, 2003
thought the Corps, dropped, we put big pumps here to keep that
water down in that area.
But, in any case, I hope for you all to be the courageous and
brave Commission that you have been in the past, I believe, and
hopefully that courageousness and braveness could actually be
contagious to other counties and cities. Because, as you have been
pretty well made aware of here, there aren't a lot of physical benefits
for human beings anywhere in this project.
Or, if you read CERP documents, anywhere else in CERP, most
of this is to benefit Everglades National Park, period, and estuaries
within that park. And, I hope -- I don't know if the County has
thought about the fiscal impacts of what 65,000 acres of potential
increases in mosquitoes, I mean, it seems like a small point, but just
last night on the news in Miami they talked about malaria's being
carried by mosquitoes, they've got validated cases now, you've got
encephalitis, and West Nile virus in the blood supply in Dade and
Broward, already, in blood banks, has been spotted.
There may be, and I remember, like Franklin, he's got a few
years on me, but I used to run, walk in that area that we are going to
reflood and reswampify, and you've never seen mosquitoes like there
will be once that land is rehydrated. And that's okay if that's what
everybody wants, but there may be a fiscal impact.
And, I just would hope, due to the lack of any commitments or
firm statements here today that I've seen with regard to recreation,
access, or anything that people, you know, people want and need,
because they need it for their psyche and their culture, and their
heritage, and we're all proud of it. And there hasn't been any
affirmative statements of what will actually happen, and due to that
fact there probably isn't a big reason in my mind to sign the MOU.
And also in the MOU, it doesn't say the County has the power to
pick the place. You only have the power to reject it, and it shall be
suitable for recreational purposes, which doesn't give you that
Page 150
July 29, 2003
authority, someone else has it. So be aware.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is --
MR. DENNINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That was Frank Denninger, for the
record.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Cindy Kemp. She will be
followed by Karol Montalto.
MS. KEMP: Good afternoon. Cindy Kemp.
Commissioners, please keep the roads in Collier County in our
ownership to protect the property rights of your constituents.
U.S. Code, revised, Statute 2477, states, "The right of way for
the construction of highways across public lands not otherwise
reserved for public purposes is hereby by granted." Congress saw fit
to protect our access, please do not give it away.
Commissioners, could this law be challenged by a decision that
you make? If the right of way of the roads were relinquished, the
next logical conclusion one would draw would be stricter regulations
by bureaucrats and environmentalists resulting in the eventual
banning of the public. Do you want to be the commission held
responsible for keeping the public out?
Have you considered that we have taxation without
representation by decisions that the South Florida Water
Management implements, since their Board is appointed rather than
elected. Do you see why the public is putting so much faith in you,
our Commission, to protect our rights? As stated by Brian McMahon
of the Florida Outdoor Alliance, there are no plans for ATVs in the
Picayune. Being on that Board, even Brian cannot get a straight
answer.
It seems quite obvious that South Florida Water Management is
trying to circumvent the NEPA process because they know it would
delay and upset their plans. Are my Commissioners going to allow
such an important public tool be sidestepped?
Page 151
July 29, 2003
The matter of possible flooding into northern Golden Gate
Estates and the coincidental timing and map grid of the FEMA map
leave people very skeptical how they will be impacted, since history
has not been very pretty for the average Joe. Haste makes waste.
Doesn't it seem more prudent not to rush into a decision and to
answer these questions that have so much at stake?
Please take into consideration the jeopardizing of public safety
for evacuation routes and emergency services. Marco Islanders and
anyone in the south blocks are being put at risk. It's very sad to hear
the stories of those who have loved-- lost loved ones because of lost
time of getting aid due to poor road conditions. Imagine one of your
own in a similar situation.
Please also consider Jesse Hardy, who lives in this area, and
who the Governor just recently seemed to be protecting by not
implementing eminent domain. Is life meant to get harder, more
difficult for him because he demanded his rights and has gotten
countrywide support for his property rights?
Realize that the promoters of this land giveaway and takeover
are being done by environmental groups that are enriching their
coffers with similar deals. Did you know, presently, that the Nature
Conservancy is being investigated by Congress for their land
acquisition practices and are known as the government realtors? I
have provided articles for you in the past and I have more.
And my final comment is, after you make your decision about
the roads, and you look into the mirror, ask yourself, have I protected
the rights of my constituents, or am I responsible for them losing
their rights.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Karol Montalto. She will be
followed by Pat Humphries.
MS. MONTALTO: Hi. My name is Karol Montalto and thanks
for giving me this moment to speak with you.
Page 152
July 29, 2003
I would just like to make an appeal. I know we would have a lot
more people here if we could make some night meetings. I'm
currently away from work and I've got all of my stuff because I've
got to run back. I've got to make up this time, I'm not a paid
participant in any of this.
I'm just here. I don't own land in south Golden Gate Estates, I'm
right on the edge of that water, where they are trying to build it up.
You know, the other day I was watching the repeat of the last
meeting that you all had, and it was very interesting. Commissioner
Coyle made a comment at the end of it that he had seen a lot of
endangered species here that day. Now, whether he's being facetious
or honest, I have to say honesty is pretty well close to the facts. If
you look at the Endangered Species Act you can see that people who
have lived in Golden Gate Estates, in the southern area, do qualify
for that. They've lost their habitat, there is a diminished population
down there, their corridors are being jeopardized, soon they will have
no place to go. I mean, can't we be protected by the Endangered
Species Act if we meet all of the qualifications? (Applause.)
MS. MONTALTO: On a serious note, though, I do ask. You
are our representatives, please, don't be badgered, don't be
threatened.
I've read so many articles in the last few weeks that, well, you
don't play well with others, if you don't play now it's going to happen
anyway, so you might as well do what we want you to do now.
Well, it doesn't necessarily have to happen in those ways, but --
yes, Everglades restoration, it's a noble cause, it's a good reason to
have it done. I see the map, I understand water is precious. We have
to protect it. But people are precious and they need to be protected
too, and you are our defenders. And I
just ask that you keep that in mind, please, when you go over this
tonight. Make your decision today, and any future events that you
Page 153
July 29, 2003
have to take up on this. Thank you. (Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Pat Humphries, and she will
be followed by Brian McMahon.
MS. HUMPHRIES: Good afternoon. My name is Pat
Humphries. I live in Golden Gate Estates. I'm speaking for myself
today.
I have been watching the southern Golden Gate Estates
restoration project evolve since I moved to Golden Gate Estates over
10 years ago. By reading the papers, attending meetings and
accessing the Intemet I kept myself up to date on the progress.
From the very start 3 things were emphasized over and over
again to make this project more acceptable to the reluctant
landowners/residents of Collier County. This land would be restored
to its original state and would not be developed, it would create an
additional source of drinking water for all of the residents of Collier
County, and it would be accessible to the public for recreation,
including fishing, boating, hiking, bike riding, horseback riding, and
camping.
Now we hear no water supplies for local government because of
the federal government's participation in the project. Why are we
just finding this out now? And what will the federal government do
with this water? Sell it to the highest bidder for privatization? If you
recall, this was tried not too long ago by a subsidiary of ENRON.
The subject of recreation in the Picayune Strand forest is being
addressed in such a vague manner it can't help but arouse suspicion.
Why can't we see more specifics? I don't mean lip service, I mean
documented in writing, when, where, what and how are we going to
access these recreational services, as well as Jane's Scenic Drive. We
want to know now before the project starts.
The Southwest Florida Water Management addresses these
questions with, not now, maybe later, probably, but we don't know,
Page 154
July 29, 2003
it's not a question of if, it's a question of when. Why don't they
know? They have been working on it for 20 years.
They also tell us we should be grateful. For what? They act
like they are paying for this project. They seem to have forgotten that
the taxpayers are paying for this land and this project.
The plan, which started out as an innovative idea to replenish
water supplies for Collier County, healthy environment, and afford
recreation for its residents, has turned into the private domain of a
select few. Thank you. (Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker it Brian McMahon. He will be
followed by Robert Kohler.
MR. MCMAHON: My name is Brian McMahon. I'm going to
ask the Commissioners to, please, at least postpone initialing off on
this Memorandum of Understanding.
I have never, with the exception of the Defense Department,
seen a government project where they are so afraid to show the end
result. Every question that is asked is, I don't know, it's somebody
else's responsibility to develop this.
I had a conversation with Mr. Tears last week. I asked him why
it is that they are not up here showing us what the end result is, the
recreational plan. Why is it the government doesn't have, this is
where there is going to be camping, this is wildlife habitat. And
what is your answer, Mr. Tears? Why do we not have a recreational
plan involved with this thing?
MS. MAC'KIE: See if the chairman agrees you can go up --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's his three minutes.
MR. MCMAHON: My three minutes?
MR. TEARS: Basically, we are doing the restoration as part of
the original plan with the Corps of Engineers, and once the
restoration is completed, the Division of Forestry finalizes their
management plan.
Page 155
July 29, 2003
MR. MCMAHON: Why don't you have the complete plan is
what I would like to see.
But the reason you don't want to do a complete plan is because
of the law she is talking about, is the National Environmental
Protection Act, is it not?
MR. TEARS: We're doing a National Environmental Protection
Act --
MR. MCMAHON: Is the reason you do not have a recreational
plan because of the National Environmental Protection Act?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. McMahon, Mr. McMahon,
please.
MR. TEARS: I'm trying to answer your question.
MR. MCMAHON: Okay.
MR. TEARS: We're using the NEPA process to do the
restoration first, and after the restoration is completed, the Division
of Forestry will use the NEPA process for their management plan.
MR. MCMAHON: I think it would be much more palatable to
the public to come in here next week, next month, or next year and
show us -- have Forestry develop their plan -- and show everyone
what it's going to look like, okay. When they designed the space
shuttle, ten years before they had at least a picture of it.
Every government project always can tell the people what
they're going to get. You guys can't even tell us whether the roads
are going to be open. Miss Mac'Kie, you were quoted in the
newspaper as saying the roads will be open 24 hours, 24/7, excuse
me, during daylight hours, okay. 24/7 during daylight hours. But
this is up to Forestry to develop this management plan, and then you
go on and say, there is a question of access but what -- there is not --
or a question of access but what it will be. Can you please explain to
me what that means? Are the roads open all night, during the day,
whose roads, what roads? That was an actual quote in the Golden
Gate Gazette, so apparently you said that.
Page 156
July 29, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wait a minute. Ms. Mac'Kie doesn't
control what is written in the media.
MR. MCMAHON: Okay. Maybe she was misquoted, but at the
previous meeting you made the same reference to being open 24/7,
during the day. I still don't understand that. I'm glad you're not
running a convenience store.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's enough. You know, we are all
ladies and gentlemen here.
MR. MCMAHON: Right. I understand that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I would appreciate it if you would
respect other--
MR. MCMAHON: I apologize to her. I really do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. MAC'KIE: I thought it was funny.
MR. MCMAHON: Ami done? Okay.
I would be very careful in accepting a piece of paper for 640
acres. May be sure that there is a cash buyout at the end of it, if you
do not get the lands. The agreement specifically says, "suitable
lands". I don't necessarily believe you are going to find one square
mile of suitable land that will not be declared panther habitat. Thank
you very much.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Robert Kohler. He will be
followed by Hank Graham.
MR. KOHLER: Thank you for hearing me. My name is Robert
Kohler. I'm a homeowner in northern Golden Gate Estates. I'm also
a business owner in Collier County. My business is called ATVs
Only.
You were asked what benefits there were going to be monetarily
to the County with this project. I can tell you what benefits there are
not going to be. Businesses such as my own, Cypress Cycle, Power
Sports, Cycle Sales of Golden Gate out there, we are companies that
Page 157
July 29, 2003
rely on the ATV industry in this town, and there is no other place to
recreate.
640 acres is approximately a sixth of what they have at the
Croom (phonetic). The Croom is completely overrun with people.
You pack us into a small area such as that and it will be very
inadequate. Along with that they haven't said, you will get this, it is,
if we can find a place for it you'll get this. 640 acres is not going to
get the job done.
People such as myself with a business, if you say I am going to
have 640 acres to, people are going to go to, and that is going to be
what I draw my business from, I'm not going to have a business. I'm
going to be left with packing up all of my stuff, selling my house in
Collier County and moving somewhere else where I can make a
living for myself.
ATVs is all I know. Going out in the woods and sharing it with
my family is very important to me. I have a child that I look forward
to taking out and they are telling me, well they are not telling me
anything, they are telling me, possibly in the future this could be an
available place for you to go out to, but we won't say here now this is
going to be for you.
You people have a leveraging tool. They want our roads, they
want the access, and you will slow down their plans if you don't give
it to them. It is up to you to help the people in Collier County
maintain our access rights to this area. It is very important to all of
us. Thank you for hearing me. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before the next speaker, just a
question. What is your sales for last year?
MR. KOHLER: My sales last year, I believe, were in the
neighborhood of a $120,000.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 120 -- No, ATV vehicles, four wheel
drive.
Page 158
July 29, 2003
MR. KOHLER: I do not sell, I repair.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Hank Graham. He will be
followed by Mike Sorrell.
MR. GRAHAM: My name is Hank Graham. I'm the District
Manager with the Division of Forestry. I work out of Fort Myers.
I'm responsible for Lee, Collier and Hendry Counties.
I've heard a lot of comments today from the public, a lot of
concerns. We are the state agency responsible for managing this
parcel of land. Many years ago when this came to my attention, it
was a CARL purchase, I emphasized my, or expressed my desire to
help manage this land, the Division of Forestry to help manage this
land because I felt the need for an agency like Division of Forestry to
get involved down here.
The Division of Forestry as an agency believes in compatible
public use. And that is something that we do strongly believe in.
You can see that across the state in our state forests throughout
Florida. This is something we believe very strongly as an agency,
down to an individual.
Currently we have a five year management plan in place. It's
expired, it's in its seventh year. We need to rewrite the next five year
plan. Currently, we have all kinds of recreational opportunities out
there. Again, not to the degree that some of the public would desire,
but within our capabilities and the oversight that we are scrutinized
and are subject to.
We have 22 miles of horse trails which didn't exist prior to.
Camping, again, not to the degree that the public would like but
we're working on it to increase that. Three miles, over 3 miles of
hiking trails. We have a wildlife management area that the game
commissioner of Florida Fish and Wildlife Service designated just
recently. We're trying to get them to designate the south Golden
Gate Estates tract as a wildlife management area as well. There's
Page 159
July 29, 2003
fishing that exists in all of the canals, in the ponds. State forests is
open to foot traffic year-round. We're looking to evaluate and
possibly develop, if it makes it through the plans, an off-road vehicle
area. We're looking to develop a gun range in the future. We
currently sell forest products, palm fronds, pine trees, a salvage sale
we held out there bringing in money to the County. Any revenues
we generate, a portion of that goes right to the County, actually it's
the School Board that receives those funds.
Again, we are subject to as much as we want the public to
recreate out there, it must be compatible with the goals and
objectives that Ms. Mac'Kie stated earlier. And we're subject to
those as well, and all of the scrutiny from the various agencies, the
federal government, conservation and environmental groups, as well
as the general public.
We have a process. When we develop the next five year plan
we will have a process in place where we gather input from the
public. Commissioner Coletta, you sat on the committee in Hendry
County. We'll have a similar committee here which one of the
Commissioners will be invited to as well as the other public, to have
a real role in the development of the plan.
Again, we want to please the public, we're not, I know right now
we won't be able to meet all of the public's needs because of all of the
environmental and federal hoops and such we must jump through.
Again, the land was purchased for specific reasons and we must stay
within those guidelines or those boundaries in any of the uses we
come up with or recommend.
And again, it's a recommendation process. We'll make the
recommendation and then it goes, ultimately, up to the state ARC
committee, which is Acquisition and Restoration Commission,
Counsel, whatever, and it's made up of some public members as well
as state agencies represented, they ultimately vote on the
management plan.
Page 160
July 29, 2003
But let's get through our local process first. But we are trying to
meet the needs of the public, the road plan that Ms. Mac'Kie put up,
that was our road plan, that was the road plan we've been pushing for
better than half a dozen years, trying to push that. And the reason it
said "draft" on there is because we were never sure if it was going to
be part of the plan. It is now part of plan and that's the road plan that
we came up with. The uses out there, again, we believe very
strongly in that--
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
MR. GRAHAM: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
I have to ask you to wrap it up, sir.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Before you go, there's a couple
things I do want to give you credit for.
I did sit on the committee that was putting together the
regulations for the OK Slough. I was very impressed with how they
were working With Forestry along with all of the users groups.
Probably, I'm the only one there who got in an argument there, and
that was with a good friend of mine from the Audubon Society, but
we even resolved that and kept on going.
I was very impressed with the process. I know that it can work
when it can. I do have concerns though about it, about the process in
this particular case. If it was the same as we did in the OK Slough,
I'm sure everything would turn out relatively fine. I realize that we're
fighting for a resource that is shrinking in size while the population
keeps increasing, that the use of other places have disappeared over
the years, and more and more people are trying to recreate in the
small places that are left. And, regrettably, there has to be some
controls put into place to make it all work so everybody can share a
piece of the outdoor experience.
However, and Franklin Adams who I have the greatest respect
for and for the Florida Wildlife Federation, he represents them, he
also expressed the fact that he thinks we need more in the way of
Page 161
July 29, 2003
guarantees. Something that's factual that says, yes, this particular use
will be able to continue in the future, this is going to have to diminish
because of this reason or that reason. We're not getting any answers.
We're hearing very evasive type of avoidance of answers. It's less
than encouraging when it comes to that part. I think that if we put a
little more effort into it we can come up with something that will
work. And one of the things I'd like us to do is to think about today
not so much as a decision-making day but as a workshop where we
can send staff back to renegotiate certain terms. But I think you need
to be very much a part of this rather than somebody that's sitting in
the background, because you're the person that is going to be putting
together the actual users' plan; am I correct?
MR. GRAHAM: Well, Sonya, she's the one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sonya, how are you doing.
Sonya, you did an excellent job in partnering with the residents on
Sabal Palm Road in getting that road repaired for access, and I
appreciate that very much. So there are things that cooperatively can
be done. I can't say that I'm extremely excited about everything I'm
hearing here today, there is an awful lot of information that's all of a
sudden coming available to the public that wasn't here before. Not so
much on your end, but I don't think we're there, I really don't. But I
do appreciate everything that you have done.
MR. GRAHAM: Thank you. One last comment. It will
address some of your concerns and Mr. McMahon's concerns. Why
isn't there a recreational plan out there? We have a recreation plan
that's five, seven years old now. In order to develop the new plan,
we have to know what the water is going to do, what the restoration
project is going to do. Why have a camping area if the area is going
to be underwater? We can't develop that, we don't know what the
plan is, they have been tweaking that plan with half a dozen different
alternatives for the last several years. You can't develop a plan if you
don't know what the ground is going to look like. And as soon as
Page 162
July 29, 2003
that's done we will develop, we're starting to work on a recreational
plan --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean no offense, but I'm
going to make a suggestion to you.
Collier County is in a little bit of a disagreement, to put it
mildly, with FEMA, and one of the things we're doing to prove the
height of various residences out throughout the Estates and some of
the other agricultural lands out there is we're paying about $16,000 to
have these benchmarks put in to give the actual height. I'm sure that
Forestry could do the same thing, as far as that goes, so we can start
establishing where the water will go. There just seems to be a lack of
knowledge, in other words, if we are going to wait until the day we
start to flood the area three to five years from now, and where is the
water going to go, we're going to watch it and see where it goes.
That seems kind of counterproductive. I don't think that's what's
happening. They have to develop the model, the plan. The plan that
they are going to use is close, but do we have the final version yet?
Again, the models that are out there will tell us what the water is
going to do before it actually happens. We need to determine what
plan's going to be used so they can plug in the model, so we can see
what's going to happen today. If they determine what plan they are
going to use tomorrow, next week, we'll have the modeling in place
and we'll know what's going to, what's going to happen, where the
water is going to go, and then based on that, we will in turn develop
our plan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. I think if we get to that
point before we sign off totally on this that there would be a lot more
comfort on the part of the Commission and probably the public also.
That's the way I'm heading right at this moment in time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. GRAHAM: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mike Sorrell. He will be
Page 163
July 29, 2003
followed by Wayne Jenkins.
MR. SORRELL: Good evening, afternoon. I'm Mike Sorrell,
President of the Florida Outdoor Alliance.
I just wanted to point out some stuff. I'm not irritated with
everything that's gone on, just most of it. And you were just told that
they don't know where the water level is going to go, and they don't.
There is no way that -- you can look at what's happened over the last
five years in the paper, you've got one person saying this is going to
happen, one person says that's not going to happen.
I have two homes in this new FEMA flood area, because they
just enlarged the other one. I can't afford it. I'm a businessman, I
took off work today to come in. I can't afford their crap shoot. They
are going to roll the dice to determine what's going to happen to my
land. I already know it's going to cost me $600 a month in insurance
on two homes.
So you're just told they don't know where the water is going to
go and I tend to believe them.
I want to just point out a few things, just some inconsistencies
that I hope will scare you guys to the point that you will not sign that
agreement today. You will wait until it comes back with your inputs
that you're giving today in it. Another public input meeting, as we're
having today, so that we can give you guys our approval to sign it.
And I hope that that's what I'll bring up today.
One of the things that -- we were talking about Jane's Scenic
Drive. The last meeting you guys had here, Pam Mac'Kie stated
when I was here, and I've got it on videotape, that you will not need
Jane's Scenic Drive as soon as they get the rest of the private
landholders out. So your question about Jane's Scenic Drive, and
Everglades Boulevard, and Stewart and all that I think was answered
a month and a half ago.
Permit to camp at the Crew property, which is a similar
property, I brought the brochure for it here. You've got to contact
Page 164
July 29, 2003
Water Management to get a permit. This is the brochure that they put
out, it says camping allowed throughout the year with a permit.
Guess what, I've called 17 times. I cannot get Jim Goodwin to return
my phone calls, give me permission to camp on public lands, there's
no access there whatsoever this time of the year. There's a little bit
of a hunting opportunity, which I do take advantage of and
appreciate, but there is no camping.
OK Slough, which, Mr. Coletta, you sat on the Board for. You
were commending them for what's been done there. I sit on the
Board there now, and probably not after today, but anyway, there's
still no nighttime use of Okaloacoochee Slough whatsoever. There is
no camping. The only camping that is allowed there is during
hunting season, which I hunt, I agree.
I also have a horse. I also have children. I also want to use the
property other times of the year besides the hunting season. I
normally don't take my kids hunting, and they are 4 and 7 years old.
So when you're slapping them on the back or patting them on the
back, there's a little bit left to be desired there.
Nighttime use is out of the question, so there is no frog gigging.
That was a question I brought up 3, 4, 5 years ago in the process. I
do appreciate the property. It's just, it's not the access that they told
us was going to be there 5 or 6 years ago. Three minutes doesn't last
very long. I have several more notes. MS. FILSON: The next--
MR. SORRELL: Once again I would ask to see the science
behind the groundwater maps. I don't think you'll find any. And to
please not sign the MOU without having your concerns, which are
our concerns, put into it. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Wayne Jenkins and he will
be followed by Doug Rankin.
MR. JENKINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Page 165
July 29, 2003
Wayne Jenkins. I'm the President of the Collier Sportsmen &
Conservation Club.
First of all, I would just like to thank you for the opportunity to
be here today. I have to say I almost sat in amazement at this
meeting last month to hear our local representatives listen to the
public and understand some of the public needs here. It would be
very easy for you to take the stand of so many politicians of just
turning these right-of-ways over to another agency and shirking your
responsibilities to the public. I commend you for staying in it and
being involved representing us, very much. Thank you.
It was mentioned a spot for ATV use was one of the trade-offs,
if you want to call it a trade-off, for having this Memorandum
approved. It's an excellent beginning.
I had my eyes opened a little more from one of your speakers,
Jim Kalvin, about it may not be enough room for the activities that
does exist, there's a lot of use in this, but it's recognizing one use, but
I need to point out to you and a couple of other people have said it
today, there's a lot more that goes on out there than just mudding,
which is the term I'm hearing. There's also, the public enjoys
camping, wildlife viewing, biking, fishing, hunting and even just the
occasional sunny drive to get out and enjoy the outdoors. So there
are a lot of uses that this area provides for us.
Without the guaranteed access roads and trail easements these
activities are not going to be able to occur. I asked my lowly
assistant to hand out a little handout to you today. This is some
excerpts from the CERP, which is Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Program. And I know it's a lot to absorb and this is just a
small passage in it, but I would like to call your attention to the next
to last paragraph there and this is where we're losing out. And what
I'm hearing today, it's incomprehensible to me right now that
southern Golden Gate Estates is part of the CERP process. It's a state
and federal program. It does not have to adhere to NEPA, and
Page 166
July 29, 2003
economic studies, and the federal government is the one that
designed all this backlash. I can't imagine it.
And this is exactly what's happening. There is no thought
process, there's no coordination going on over this. We're going to
go in there and we're going to give them permission and they're
going to jerk all of the roads out. We need some parking spaces for
some of these activities, you think we're going to convince them to
haul this road right back in and give us a parking lot for a place to get
off the road? It's not going to happen.
If we lose this today it's gone. If you people do not back us up
and give us the opportunity, once it's gone we don't get it back.
We've seen it happen too many times in south Florida.
And I'm just saying, without some kind of guaranteed
easements, the use of airboats, swamp buggies, ATVs are gone. I
have run over my time.
One last point I want to leave with and why it's so important we
talk to you today, the -- what you haven't heard, I don't know if you
are aware of, the Division of Forestry policy is, unlicensed vehicles
are not allowed on their properties. That takes out your airboats,
your swamp buggies, your ATVs. And that's why we're fighting for
some use in there. I apologize for running over. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Doug Rankin. He will be
followed by Kathleen Slebodnik.
MR. RANKIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you
for your time. I'm Douglas Rankin. I'm the President of the Golden
Gate Estates Area Civic Association. I'm also late of the now done
Golden Gate Master Plan Committee.
And first of all, I heard a little something Nancy Payton asked
you to do. Please don't do it. There's a trap in doing that. If you
designate the southern Golden Gate Estates as conservation land you
just killed all these, a lot of these uses. Don't fall under that.
Page 167
July 29, 2003
It seems to me that you're being rushed into signing an
agreement when, like you said, Commissioner Coletta, you don't
have any of the answers. We need these plat -- Forestry's blaming
Water Management for not finishing their plan and Water
Management, I'm sure if you give them a chance, will blame Forestry
for why they haven't finished their plan. I think we need to wait and
see what these plans are, done, and see what they're going to do
down there.
Why do I care in the north, living in the northern Estates and
representing those people. Hey, if water, and Commissioner Halas
brought it up earlier, what if we need some water? It's not what if,
it's we need it.
Currently the City, the County and my residents all draw from
the same well fields. It's called northern Golden Gate Estates. And
if you check with them, they'll tell you in the wet year we're okay,
but if you get into a dry year like we had a few years ago where the
main canal was going dry, you'll find that we are about at it right
now, and my area is the fastest growing area of the second fastest
growing community in the nation.
If I'm wrong and I don't think I am, where you've got my people
looking for that water, you've got the County looking for that water
and you've got the City looking for that water, and if you can't get
water somewhere else, it's not going to be your grandchildren, it's
going to be next year or the year after that you're going to be out of
water. In fact, I believe they are already forcing new County or City
well fields into the Hawthorn salty aquifer. And I know how much
of that is available, and you know the cost involved in desalinating
that water. Of course my residents can't use that water, if that upper
Tamiami's gone we're done.
As far as ATV use, remember this is where Paul Frank invented
the swamp buggy. This has been going on since the twenties here
and like you said, they said, this is it, it's done.
Page 168
July 29, 2003
Why do I care about that? I don't happen to own one. I
occasionally like to borrow one and go out there, yes. But I also care
about that because I've got a lot of people in the Estates that ride
them, and I've got a lot of people in the Estates that don't like them.
And if you flat outlaw them everywhere, where are they going to go?
They are going to end up back in the northern Estates where they
already are, where they're illegal, and people are going to try and pull
them over, and all this, except for people realize you can go to
Tennessee and get them licensed, then I'd like to see them pull them
over. Because they could be licensed then. There's also Georgia is
going back to relicensing, too, so we might have a lot of imported
ATVs quickly.
But we don't want them forced into the northern
Estates because this is it. Look at the whole eastern part of Collier
County, it's gone.
Another couple of things. Legally, you're giving up in this
agreement all of Jane's Scenic Drive, but this agreement only covers
southern Golden Gate Estates, and if you listened real carefully to
Pam Mac'Kie, 99 percent of Jane's Scenic is in Fakahatchee, and they
are giving you no assurances.
Last thing, you need these roads for access. I have hundreds of
people that live on Everglades and DeSoto south of the Boulevard.
Their only access in a fire that starts near the Boulevard and bums
south or starts in the middle and bums south --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm going to have to ask you to wrap
itup.
MR. RANKIN: Okay. I'm wrapping up on this point. Is
through the southern Estates, if that's sealed off they are done. And
you've got hundreds of people with nowhere to go. (Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Kathleen Slebodnik. She
will be followed by Brad Comell.
Page 169
July 29, 2003
MS. SLEBODNIK: My name is Kathleen Slebodnik and I am
the Water Policy Chair for the League of Women Voters of Florida.
The league is also a part of the
Everglades Coalition.
And the first Everglades Coalition meeting I attended, the
proposition was Everglades first. Out of all of the uses that the
Everglades could have, Everglades first restoration was our focus,
and this is also the position of the league.
The league, along with other organizations were dismayed when
the legislature this last session passed what we call now the
Everglades Whenever Act, and the reaction of the federal
government to this is well known.
This is not just a local issue, the Everglades is truly America's
Everglades. I have attended the Everglades Coalition meetings for
the last several years and will do again this January. And it is a
national issue. Emphasized over and over again is that this
restoration project is the largest that the world has ever seen and its
results are going to be felt forever and for generations.
However, this is a good Memorandum of Understanding. We
need to send a message to the federal government, to the state
government and to our cohorts on the east coast that the west coast,
particularly Collier County, is in favor of Everglades restoration and
this is an excellent first step. If we save the Everglades, we perhaps
can keep the planet. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Brad Cornell, and he will be followed by
Bernard Nobel.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Brad
Cornell on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society.
We are very much advocating that you move forward with south
Golden Gate Estates restoration by signing this Memorandum of
Understanding with the Water Management District. There are many
public benefits which have been clearly outlined already, including
Page 170
July 29, 2003
habitat restoration of estuaries, fishing benefits for both recreational
and commercial fishing, fire prevention, water supply assurance.
In addition, as we've already also heard, there are many benefits
from the MOU itself of the $20 million potentially for canal
maintenance and the square mile for ATV recreation and other types
of recreation.
A few comments I would like to just add to the discussion, some
of which may echo others. Restoration is really the primary goal of
this whole effort. The $100 million or $125 million, whatever was
spent to buy the land, 55,000 acres, was spent to enable a restoration
project to go forward. So that is the primary purpose, and recreation
is the secondary benefit of that. And as we already heard from Hank
Graham of Forestry, we have 20 miles of horse trails that we didn't
have before. This area is now ripe for consideration of those kinds of
benefits, and I urge us to move forward with this restoration as the
primary goal of all of this expense and public effort.
Management and access issues need to have very clear
communications with these citizens, with all of us, as you've heard
many, many times this afternoon.
I think the ATV park is a good idea but I do have concerns
about where it goes. It should not go on ascending land or
environmentally sensitive land, obviously. We need to find
someplace, and it's going to be difficult, and I would like to help with
that process, but we need to identify lands and maybe even more
lands than this square mile.
I also want to point out that the south Golden Gate Estates is
now a natural resource protection area in the Growth Management
Plan. That is the current status as of the most recent round of rural
assessment amendments that we've adopted.
So it is a designated local conservation area as it stands now,
and the Collier County Audubon Society could end up here --
strongly urges you to sign this Memorandum of Understanding and
Page 171
July 29, 2003
move forward quickly with vacating the road easements so that
restoration can begin, and to whatever extent we can help we are
urging that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much, Brad.
I'd appreciate you staying here for just a moment. I need some help
with something. I've listened to you speak, I listened to Nancy
Payton, who I greatly respect, I also listened to Nicole Ryan. I've
listened to everyone who comes up and they are all giving the same
message to me, that they don't know where this land is going to be
for the 640 acres, that there's all sorts of problems because of the
receiving areas, the sending areas, because of the panther habitat.
I'm hearing so many negatives I'm beginning to wonder if, even
though the intentions might be the greatest for 640 acres to be given
to us, that your organization, or the other 2 or 3 organizations out
there are going to stand in our way to make sure we don't get it after
we sign this Memorandum of Understanding. What kind of
assurances can I have that you'll sign off when we find what we
need; I don't.
(Applause.)
MR. CORNELL: Commissioner Coletta, I can't give you
assurances, obviously, I don't know what we're talking about. We
need to see.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Neither do we, sir. Neither do
we.
MR. CORNELL: Let me tell you this. There's all the
motivation in the world for the Audubon Society, the Collier County
Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida to find someplace for
ATV recreation. Just recently, a couple of months ago, we had
trespassers come onto Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and tear up a
prairie that had been in restoration for 20 years. And in one weekend
they mined it. And so, you know this is something that we're
motivated, we need to find someplace for people to properly recreate
Page 172
July 29, 2003
and to do it in a safe manner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Comell, and I understand.
Excuse me if I just don't have that level of comfort that I need to be
able to give you a positive vote today on what we're doing.
If we were to send this back to have this reviewed and brought
in the other agencies together so that everybody sits down together
and they understand exactly what we're talking about and what we
can do and can't do, then I think we have something we can deal
with. You already put a number of negatives in this along with your
compatriots and the other Conservancy and the Wildlife Federation,
they all come up with the same things right down the line. The
reasons why it won't work. I know I can't listen to that. I have to
know the reasons why it will work. This can't be done on blind faith
and that's what you're asking me to do.
MR. CORNELL: Well, we know what some of the criteria are
going to be. It's going to have to be impacted, contiguous, it's going
to likely be some sort of agricultural land that's not utilized for that
purpose or economically for that purpose --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Possibly. We heard a number
of people here say, why rush the judgment on this if we don't have
the answers, and I'm leaning more and more in that direction.
Possibly, we ought to pick a dated in October where we can have an
evening meeting, come back and you can outline for us with
everyone else, sit down and tell us what can be done, can't be done,
and where it can be done and then we have something to talk about.
Right now all I'm seeing is smoke and mirrors, and I'm not
comfortable.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I hope the Board can refrain from
having a dialogue with the public and we want their input to get, to
help give us direction, and I understand your concern, Commissioner,
but we need to get through this process today.
Page 173
July 29, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't talk to anyone else now?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I would appreciate that you
would refrain.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about "refrain" meaning
not so much but a little less. Can I still do a little bit?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Whatever you can do would be
appreciated.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bernard Nobel. He will be
followed by A1 Perkins.
MR. NOBEL: I'm Bernard Nobel. I have property on 124 and
Miller, at the end of 124 Avenue, and --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, could you speak up. Mr. Nobel,
I'm sorry for the interruption. If you could speak up a little louder,
our court reporter can't quite get it recorded. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Bernard Nobel. Property owner on 124 and
Miller. And what I'm reference to is the part of the roads that are
going to be removed to grade, and that as the property owners, I just
heard it a few minutes ago in which they said to you people that there
would be no property owners below grade -- or above, they are all
going to be above grade. And I'm 7 miles down from the last grade.
Where it's above grade on that road. And I'm just there on a part of--
the statement, if that's a proper statement, or was that a statement that
was misquoted?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'll get that answer.
MR. NOBEL: They said the statement there a little while ago, it
was brought up by the south Florida Water Management, that there
would be no property owners, no property owners that were going to
have a road, all roads were going to be above grade. And we are,
we're 7 miles below grade, or at grade, our road's going to be, on
Miller Boulevard. We're going to have 7 miles there of grade to get
to our property. So I just wondered what the, what you had to say on
that.
Page 174
July 29, 2003
And also the part, is that, are we to be compensated for taking
the roads away from us in the area? Because Vince Door (phonetic)
has wondered the same thing. Vince can't be here, he's in Georgia
recuperating, and we talked last night until 12:30, and I mean, he was
just there, he'd like to know certain things too on this here. I mean,
are we going to be at grade or is it going to be below grade, or, I
mean, at below the grade level with our road.
And we have never had no water on 124, there's never been no
water on it. I have been there for 10 years and there's never been any
water on 124, on 124 Avenue. Now within the waterway on
Everglades Boulevard we go through water, but I mean, if they are
taking this here we're going to have a lime rock road for 7 miles, and
that's what we'll have to get into our property. So that's about, really,
all I got to say about it, any questions I had on it. I thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. We'll get those
answered at the end.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is A1 Perkins and he will be
followed by Don Peterson.
MR. PERKINS: I'm not going to let Bob Shank be
disappointed. Ladies and gentlemen, you people at home listen up,
also you Commissioners, and of course the rest of the paid parasites
who work for the government. Don't misunderstand my words. I
want to commend the Commission for not having amnesia today.
Normally they can never remember what's going on.
What you see on this map is divide and conquer. Today it's
going to be south of the Alley, down towards the big T. Tomorrow it
will be up Sabal Palm, and what you need to know big time is, water
runs horizontally. If I fill up southern Gate Estates south of the Alley,
I put East Naples in total jeopardy, and also part of the islands,
Everglades City and also Marco Island. For your information Marco
Island Water who is purchasing from Florida Waters has a well field
out there off of Miller, 160 acres. They paid $260,000 over 25 years
Page 175
July 29, 2003
ago. The reason why I know that, I have owned my land out there
for over 25 years, and I'm a new kid in this town, I have been here
since 1950. Do you know how -- right, I had hair, and I had a young
body, ! don't have that anymore.
If you approve this thing you're going to get sued big time.
Now when I say "big time", I don't know whether you think a million
dollars is a lot of money or not. I don't have $7 million hanging on
my wall like on the beach. Access. Big time access. You're talking
about discrimination and you're talking about 2050, you heard 2050.
If you take and pay attention to that map that Nancy Payton showed.
She showed you where and how the South Florida Water
Management are going to take over the entire southern part of this
state. They are going to flood you out. They have tried to flood me
out, I caught Mike Slayton of Big Cypress Basin Board and the
newspaper put it in the paper, showing pictures. Now, when you get
down to the point that these people will lie to you, especially Hanoi
Jane over there who made the presentation, you're going to realize
you're dealing with a bunch of Communist people out here who are
here for the money, they could care less about the environment.
They all live in a townhouse, or they live in a doggone condo, or they
live on the beach. Look them up, find out where they live. Okay.
I've got the -- don't forget when you tear out the road, you got
potholes, and one thing I need to make, very important, you've heard
it for years. The evacuation route up Miller from Marco Island and
Goodland needs to be put in place. Petit here and the County have
gotten in collusion with the state because they didn't want
prescriptive rights --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm going to have to ask you to wrap
itup.
MR. PERKINS: Listen up, just for a second. They didn't want
prescriptive rights put in place because it supersedes eminent
domain, making that road open from now and forever for your people
Page 176
July 29, 2003
to use. Wake up, you're paying for it, people, get nasty.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. PERKINS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Don Peterson and he will be
followed by your final speaker, Bobbie Billie.
MR. PETERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Don
Peterson, for the record, Fire Chief, Golden Gate Fire Control and
Rescue district. Chief Shank with East Naples asked me to also share
comments with you.
First of all, at the very beginning of this, I thought I heard
mention that all the parties involved in this would not oppose an
intersection at Everglades Boulevard and 1-75, and I would ask if
there's one good thing to come out of this agreement, potentially, that
we could get the parties to sign off and include that on whatever
agreement is done.
Currently, we don't have a viable access there. And the reason
for our comments ties with emergency access. East Naples and
Golden Gate are 2 of your 3 primary providers, along with EMS, for
emergency services in the south blocks. That-- there has been a lot
of conversation prior to this in regards to the disconnecting of the
Miller extension and also Jane's Scenic Drive. It was mentioned
today about the, Jane's Scenic Drive would be retained in here, but it
makes reference to the County would give up any rights, any rights
to Jane's Scenic Drive and Miller extension, so, potentially, my
understanding of the agreement is that everything would disappear
and you would only have Everglades Boulevard in there.
I would share with you that it is a financial impact to us, to us
all in providing emergency services. If there is only one means in
there, Everglades Boulevard and 1-75, it means only one significant
impact on the Golden Gate district, we are the only ones that can get
down there at this point.
Page 177
July 29, 2003
Currently, Miller extension, when it is not the rainy season, is
used from the south. It is underwater a lot, Jane's Scenic Drive is the
same way, that's used.
There is also -- I wanted to share with you that on Page 2 of the
agreement it identifies, paragraph number 2 that if you approve this
today you would have another 90 day window that we would be
going through this again today, so, just for your general information
there.
Sabal Palm is not necessarily an emergency vehicle access. I
would share that with you, so, four wheel drive trucks and things
may be able to get through but reliable emergency services could not
get through there.
Having sat on the Golden Gate Master Plan restudy committee,
I'm not sure if the south blocks was removed from that or not,
because that area was removed from our discussions and reviews, so
I'm not sure how that got left in the County's Master Plan for that
area, but that was totally separated out of this.
The other issue, the roads that would be removed, and they
would be scraped down to the dirt level, the folks that live in the
area, 124, 126, as I understand the map, would be that dirt area.
There are folks that live down in there, which are would mean that
during the rainy season we would not have access that far down to
the south, and, just to wrap up, there are several people that live north
of Stewart, on the west side, that are, potentially would be impacted
here as well. There are several people that are going to be living in
here regardless of what happens to the remainder of that south block
area, so I would ask somehow that emergency services be
considered, whether it's funding, is the funding going to continue, or
some type of verbiage be included in whatever agreement that you
end up with for the folks. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta has a question
for Chief Peterson.
Page 178
July 29, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Chief Peterson, I do appreciate
your input about the importance of the Interchange at Everglades
Boulevard and 75, and I couldn't agree with you more. And I don't
think it would be unrealistic to ask the parties that are involved in
this to just come across with no objection. The possibly of this
getting built in the next 15-20 years is remote at best but it would
certainly make it a lot easier if we could get to the point where they
would leave no objection. What I'm saying is there should be a cause
and effect, there should be a benefit tied in with what we have to give
up, and I couldn't agree with you more, sir.
MR. PETERSON: Thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think Commissioner Henning
has a question for you, too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Peterson, personally, do you
have emergency access from 1-75 onto Everglades Boulevard?
MR. PETERSON: The only access currently is if we have to
get ahold of the road patrol folks. There is a gate on the north side
on the overpass there so you're talking significant delay of getting
through there unless we somehow cut through the fence.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me give you a scenario.
MR. PETERSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If there is a fire in between DeSoto
and Everglades Boulevard, is it a potential that people would be
trapped in that area, to cut off the access if they have to go north?
MR. PETERSON: North of the Alley?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's say they are north of the Alley.
MR. PETERSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
MR. PETERSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG:
there, correct?
MR. PETERSON:
In between Everglades and DeSoto.
They only have one access out of
Correct. That area, you would have to, if
Page 179
July 29, 2003
you can't cross Golden Gate Boulevard to the north there's a dirt road
along the canal that could potentially be used, however, I wouldn't
call it a real good road. There are and there have been issues with
evacuations of people in there, the question being there are
significant issues with evacuating people out of that area, whether it's
a wildfire going through there, we get potentially hazardous material
that overturns on the Interstate, if you've got something going on in
the north end into Golden Gate Boulevard they are not going to get
out of there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So am I correct that you have a
concern about the public safety if the roads in southern Golden Gate
Estates are not available during fire season?
MR. PETERSON: Yes. And I would carry that one step farther
that if for some reason 41 is impaired, which has, we have had
incidents where 41 and Alligator Alley have been closed at the same
time, and if 951 is impacted the people south of 41, Marco Island,
specifically, but the south end would not have an alternate route of
getting out of there either--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. PETERSON: Thank you.
Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
MS. FILSON:
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON:
MR. BOBBLE:
Is Billie Bobbie.
Thank you.
I recognize the independent traditional Seminole nation of
Florida. We're still original owners of this property you're talking
about. And make sure -- we haven't even know this meeting took
place until last night somebody called us to come in to see what is
taking place. And we also, our elders used to meet with
commissioners or the lawyers and police and judges but we haven't
done that over the past 30 years. And that's why you don't even
know we still exist, the land owners still exist, but we're going to
Page 180
July 29, 2003
begin to do that because you haven't noticed us for 30 years ago, and
we have concern because talking about traditional use has been taken
away for over 30 years, pretty much so which is we hunt, we fish, we
hunt, we gather firewood, we build our own traditional use for
chickees, houses we call, and those things have been taken away by
park or all of those other things they create or the government
agency.
So we have concern not only just in this County, also
Everglades and north Florida, all of those things have been closed
down by traditional use or indigenous people. We have a right to go
in and protect their ancestors, their water resource for the generation
to generation. We have been living on this land we call Florida.
And those things have been taken away by bringing in so many
people in this area. That's why we have so much problem because
we are losing value of the wetlands, and ponds and the rivers; those
things makes the rain for us, for all of us. If you keep on destroying
them we also, like you said not only just certain amount of years
going to be drought.
Two years, 40 years haven't been rain for so long, we have been
drought for many, many years, but two or three years ago it started
beginning to rain. We lucky we have the rain today. We lucky we
still surviving today, but don't be playing God, you're not God.
Everything has been created, has been purposely put there to
nourishment to all creation, not only human, but fish, animals, trees,
all type of things. When you play God and try to replace the natural
resource it can destroy the life, and that's what happened. But I just
want you to know we're still here, we're going to use that land no
matter what kind of law it has been take place. Don't tell us we are
Communists because we are not, we're still original owner of this
property. If you look into government record it can show you who
we are. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 181
July 29, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have to ask our court reporter. Are
we okay? We're probably maybe 20 minutes to half an hour before
we take a break.
Ms. Mac'Kie.
MS. MAC'KIE: If I may, just to sort of wrap up I wouldn't
begin to attempt to rebut every statement with which I have a
disagreement that's been made, but I do want to point out to you that
maybe you're bad poker players too because you have already, by
virtue of this Memorandum of Agreement that's on the table before
you, you have already gotten for your constituency more than
anybody else has gotten. Other counties, remember, contribute cash
toward land acquisition for restoration projects. You didn't do that,
you were not asked to do that. In this case, how I come to be here
before you is that the Governor and Cabinet had authorized
condemnation of these road easements. I interject myself for the
purpose of hoping to mediate a settlement so that Collier County, that
I love, can be a partner in the restoration as opposed to --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Are you threatening us, Ms.
Mac'Kie?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, I have to ask you. You had your
time, thank you.
MS. MAC'KIE: As opposed to adverse parties in litigation. In
fact, the condemnation has been authorized, and if we can't reach a
settlement then we find ourselves having to go the ugly route. You
have -- this is my message -- you have already gotten more than you
could possibly get in court.
In court, if you go that route, in addition to losing the benefit of
being a partner, you become -- you get the appraised value of those
blue lines on that white piece of paper because the dirt has already
been bought by the state. You get the appraised value not -- you
don't get your cost, you don't get what it cost you to put those roads
in, you don't even get the current cost, the replacement cost, you
Page 182
July 29, 2003
don't get -- you get what is the value of those blue lines on a white
piece of paper because the dirt is already purchased.
Please recognize you have an opportunity to be a partner as
opposed to an adversary with the state and federal government in this
process, or you can be an adversary and then you can get for your
constituency what they are legally entitled to instead of what they
have the opportunity to receive today, which is much, much, more.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I ask the Board members for
their input whether we are going to accept this MOU, reject this
MOU or make recommendations to take it back for amending this
MOU. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to make a
recommendation to still partner up but to have negotiations take
place that will answer a lot of the questions that we brought forth
today.
And if I may, so far, from what I can see the issue of water and
what we gain from it here in Collier County is zero. We might gain
down the road, if everything goes right, ATV use on 640 acres.
Where, when, is there a cash guarantee?
We have the right to reject but do we ever know that we are
going to find something? We heard the Conservancy, the Audubon
Society, and the Wildlife Federation come up with all the different
stipulations of what the problem's going to be in finding it, rather
than coming up with the reasons we can find it.
Access to homeowners at 724, no guarantees, really. Access for
recreation, I'm sure in the end if we don't have the Conservation
interest standing in the way there will be reasonable access, but I
haven't seen it here today. $1 million from Water Management for
20 years. That's not awful exciting. All we're doing is we're taking
the money from one pocket and putting it in the other. The taxpayers
are still paying for it.
This original concept of dealing with the mitigation credits had
Page 183
July 29, 2003
some merits to it. It would have been the state giving up something
in return and it wouldn't have been coming from our taxpayers.
Blue lines may be, but the blue lines were set there by the
people of this County and maintained for years.
The road, the interchange; we all know that that's not something
that's going to happen in a short period of time. It's been a dream of
mine for a long, long time, but if we can have the interested parties
come back and say, you know, if you go forward with this some day
in the future we won't object. If these particular conditions are met
you can go ahead and put some conditions on it. Possibly also too,
they can identify a rural road for possible four laning where they
wouldn't object, where we get to 29 and 29 to 75 being four laned.
These are all different things that would have a positive impact.
I know eventually this thing's going to come to a head and I would
like to see Collier County come out ahead when it does happen.
We've heard many people make different quotes. Mr. Adams
said that you don't need guarantees for the access. I think a lot of
people here feel the same way. Nancy Payton mentioned the fact
that the level of service may have to be amended. When, in other
words everything is up in the air. Frank Denninger, there's few
benefits for humans, and he's probably right. It's great to have things
that are for the environment and for ecology but still, you know, we
have to look for that human element. I represent the people of this
county, not the manatees and the eagles.
Cindy Kemp mentioned the fact taxation without representation
and that's something that, she may feel that way but we're going to
get that representation for her, and I think if we bring it back another
time we'll be able to do that. Pat Humphries mentioned the fact we
were previously promised, and we were, that this would provide a
water supply and we find out that's not the case; some day in the
future, it might. Brian McMahon, who devoted a lot of time to this
ATV issue has asked us to please postpone this agreement, the
Page 184
July 29, 2003
Memorandum of Understanding, until we can be shown where these
recreational lands will be, or get a cash buy,out if that land won't be
there.
On, and on, and on. I won't go through it, just touch on Doug
Rankin. He was -- he thinks that we're being rushed. Many, many
people here. We heard from Billie Bobbie at the very end and I'll tell
you something, you have to listen to what he's saying. And as you
know I got into trouble trying to give these roads away to the
Miccosukee Indian tribe to hold everybody off. MS. MAC'KIE: The whole tribe.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Got called to Tallahassee --
MR. BOBBIE: We're not Miccosukee, though.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: ii know you're not. In any case,
we might have made a marriage there with them but we didn't
succeed in that.
We're coming down to the fact that there's a whole bunch of
unanswered questions and I think what I would like to see is this put
off until sometime in October for an evening meeting where we can
come back one more time after staff has a chance to work with you.
And you heard all the issues, Mr. Mudd, that came up here today,
some of them are doable, some will never be, let's be honest. We
would like to have the whole world if we could.
The truth of the matter is this is a diminishing resource that's
getting used by more and more people and we have to learn to share
it with everyone so that everybody gets some use. We want to make
sure we have the use and we have the access, and I think if we go
back and we revisit this and we brought it back again -- I consider
today to be a valuable lesson as far as a workshop goes and we might
be able to reach a final agreement in October. That's my suggestion.
MS. MAC'KIE: May I comment?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. I want to say that within the
MOU the County is to hold a meeting within 90 days about the roads
Page 185
July 29, 2003
in southern Golden Gate Estates. But I want to hear from the rest of
my colleagues because I think we can, with some tweaking and some
agreeing between both parties, that we probably will work out an
agreement. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I need to ask Collier County Judge
Manalich a question for just a moment, please. Hello, are you still there?
MR. MANALICH: I'm here, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Based upon what you've heard
today, is there a sufficient legal record to demonstrate the intent of
this Memorandum of Understanding with respect to providing people
access?
MR. MANALICH: I think the document goes pretty far. I
might recommend a few additional changes, some of which we
mentioned earlier. Ms. Chadwell has had some discussion in the last
few minutes -- I don't know if you have anything to add, I don't think
so -- but it certainly does not address some of the things that were
raised by Mr. Coletta at this point. It does provide a framework, it's
enforceable, there are some things that could use more specificity,
but it does provide a legal framework. MS. MAC'KIE: If I may?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I'm really interested in
determining. I think that we could probably meet five, or six, or ten
more times and still have some questions about how we're going to
do certain things. And I'm not sure that the poker game is going to
play out that long. I really do believe that the mark of a good poker
player is to know when to hold them and know when to fold them
and I think it's getting very close to folding them.
I think we have gotten a lot that we otherwise could not get and
will not get if we proceed through the legal path of resolution to this.
I would hope we could find some way to accept this agreement,
understanding that the public record that has been created today
Page 186
July 29, 2003
clearly indicates to me that there is a commitment by the state and
hopefully the federal government to allow these people to have
unfettered access to their property, to provide recreational
opportunities for this property, and, based upon what I have heard
everybody say, yes those things are certainly the intent of this
Memorandum of Understanding, but that there are processes that we
have to go through in order to get them finalized in a document. And
I can understand that.
And I feel reasonably comfortable at the present time
proceeding with this agreement, with the understanding that if some
of these things don't happen we might very well be back in a court of
law raising the questions about why we were told what we were told
today.
MR. MANALICH: Commissioner, what I would add is, this
document is not going to necessarily prevent you from having
litigation brought upon you by whatever party it may be. It does, as I
said, provide a legal framework, but it does not address what I heard
from Mr. Coletta and some of the speakers, some of those issues.
Some of those are policy issues. My answer though is with a couple
of caveats. It would provide a legal framework and some of the
caveats would be, for example -- this is now getting more into the
details of the document -- but we talked about the roads, that was all
important here. I think we were going to delete "draft" from that
exhibit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. MANALICH: And we may, and Ms. Chadwell mentioned,
we may even want a little more detail. Specifically, I don't know, do
you have any addition to that?
MS. CHADWELL: Yes. It wasn't entirely clear based on some
of the comments what was going to be preserved. Mr. Nobel stood
up and reminded us that he does live off of 124th Avenue, which is at
the lower end of the map.
Page 187
July 29, 2003
I thought I understood someone state that all roads that were of
asphalt construction were going to stay above grade. Well, it's been
drawn to my attention that Miller Boulevard south of 82nd Avenue is
an asphalt roadway but yet the map indicates that that isn't going to
be an above grade roadway.
MS. MAC'KIE: The map controls. If I've misstated, the map is
the answer to the question.
MS. CHADWELL: Okay. So now--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Excuse me. Pam, what is your
take on that? Can you make us feel more comfortable about those
issues without having to go into an extended series of additional
meetings?
MS. MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. I think I can. I have been -- while
you were talking with the attorney -- conferring with the folks here
from the Division of Forestry and I can commit, and we can put it in
the agreement if it is helpful, that there will always be human access.
I mean, humans will always be allowed on this property, where and
whether camping is in this place or fishing is somewhere else is to be
determined in the land management plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I understand and fully agree
with that.
MS. MAC'KIE: And in the interest of total honesty we have
recognized that the unmet need is likely to be the off-road vehicle
recreation. That's why 640 acres, the square mile of land, was
brought to the table to try to address that. There's not any, there is no
possibility that there will not be human access to this property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Other than by swimming, right?
MS. MAC'KIE: I'm sorry?
MR. MUDD: Other than by swimming.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In ways other than by swimming,
right?
MR. MUDD: Can you get there other than by swimming there?
Page 188
July 29, 2003
MS. MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. You can get there by foot.
Nonmotorized access can be guaranteed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right, that's helpful.
Commissioner Henning, to answer your question, I'm at least willing
to proceed on the basis of the record that has been established today.
And I think we've got a pretty good deal here and I don't think it's
going to get any better. I think we will actually do a disservice to the
residents if we carry this thing into court, and I don't think that we
will get nearly as much for them as we can get out of this particular
Memorandum of Understanding.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let me go down the line and
see how the other Commissioners feel. I would like to, it sounds like
we're going to put some language in there as far as recreation, and if
we can also put in there the Division of Forestry will ask for the
assistance of the Collier County Commissioners for their input for a
recreation plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. I think that would
be great.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The other thing is, I'm very
concerned about emergency access for the needs of the northern
Golden Gate Estates people. I've seen the outline, I have had
representation from the Estates Civic Association and the Fire
Department. What I would like in this agreement is unfettered access
to those gates on 1-75 and Everglades Boulevard. MS. MAC'KIE: By the Fire District?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. For the Fire District.
MS. MAC'KIE: We don't have the right to make that
concession.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You mean the environmental
agency within the State of Florida. Okay. This agreement is --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That gate is the Florida --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You'll have to go to the mike, sir.
Page 189
July 29, 2003
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The gate that you're referencing
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You'll have to go to the mike, sir.
MR. GRAHAM: My name is Hank Graham, Division of
Forestry. The gate you're referencing is the Florida Department of
Transportation gate that was added back in '98 during the bad
wildfires. They added that gate for emergency purposes. Only the
Florida Department of Transportation has any access rights to that,
they must open the gate for us. That's a gate that wasn't there prior to
'98, was added in '98, just a gate added between the barriers, the
concrete barriers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thanks for your clarification.
This agreement is between the Governor and Cabinet, Board of
trustees, South Florida Water Management and Big Cypress. So the
Governor and the Cabinet has input on this issue. MS. MAC'KIE: They said, of course.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I need your help, Pam, on this.
MS. MAC'KIE: Absolutely. All right, tell me what it is,
because if it's a health and safety issue you're going to get all of the
attention and all the agreement you could possibly need.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I want the EMS and Golden Gate
Fire District to have a key to that damn gate in case they have an
emergency in the lower Golden Gate Estates, that can be accessed.
MS. MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, I can commit to making,
personally making phone calls, encouraging others to, and to do
everything we can to get that, to use this partnership as -- and
frankly, the partnership that you've developed with the Secretary of
the DEP, I'm confident he would respond favorably to your phone
call on that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know, but that's not the
decision-making body that needs to give that direction. It's the
Governor and the Cabinet.
Page 190
July 29, 2003
MS. MAC'KIE: That's right and I will pursue that with all
deliberate speed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I think this MOU is important
for us. It's our first step toward protecting our future water source
and it's also to protect the fishing industry as well as the estuaries. I
mean, we're going to have to think of all of these things.
So I'm definitely in favor of moving forward with it, but as we
move forward with it I would like to continue the negotiations so that
we have access to the site, we negotiate continued access to this land.
People shouldn't just be robbed of their recreation at all and I know
you have that worked into a plan. The people in the community
should be allowed to be a part of that -- those proceedings as well as,
as Commissioner Henning said, to continue to negotiate access.
That's a must for health, safety and welfare. I mean, we cannot
overlook that. So I say move forward.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Petit.
MR. PETIT: I just want to clarify. I think Mr. Tears gave me
the answer to this, but I want to make sure that the Board -- I think
we heard it but I want to make sure it's on the record. My
understanding is that, as far as Miller Boulevard goes, there's a
certain point somewhere just below this, where Sabal Palm comes
over, and we are going to remove the asphalt and in fact have an
at-grade dirt trail, if you will, or dirt path, not a lime rock road; is
that correct?
MR. TEARS: It will be placed at natural grade.
MR. PETIT: At natural grade, and it will not have any kind of
MR. TEARS: Just past Sabal Palm.
MR. PETIT: Okay. And the issue is with respect to that, there's
two kinds of access we can talk about. A lot of emphasis is on access
of use to the area where the project's going to go on.
Page 191
July 29, 2003
We still have, and make sure the Board heard this today, that
there are at least two property owners that I've worked with over the
years in the Miller Boulevard extension issue, Mr. Door and Mr.
Nobel, who are south of that area, who I think will have access issues
to get to the property where I think they, at least Mr. Nobel lives at
this point in time.
And so I think that's an issue that's going to need to be
considered, at least I want to make sure the Board is aware of that
issue. It's a different access issue than the access to the use of the
property.
MS. STARNES: Janet Starnes, South Florida Water
Management District.
We agree, we understand that that is an access issue that we
need to deal with for both of those property owners. And that's why
when -- earlier when we said we'll take the "draft" off the map, we
didn't want to limit ourselves to just what's on that map. If there's, if
we determine that we need to maintain Miller at above grade for that
access in the future, and we're still making that determination, that
has not been made yet, then we want to be able to adjust the map, we
want to be able to do that and not be restricted by this agreement to
not being able to accommodate that access, and we recognize that
access problem and we are working with it.
MR. MANALICH: The other comment I would have, Mr.
Chairman, is in the event of litigation, and we've heard discussion
about the potential for that, the current agreement mentions that
litigation would be filed in Miami in federal court or another circuit,
and I think the state is willing to have that read our circuit or the
middle district, which is our federal district, so any litigation would
be here as opposed to another location.
MS. MAC'KIE: The state and Water Management District
lawyers will be very grouchy at my agreeing to that, but nevertheless
Page 192
July 29, 2003
it.
MR. MUDD: That's okay. Ramiro could be the one that hears
MR. MANALICH: I doubt that, I will hear about it.
MS. MAC'KIE: You will hear about it. And hopefully there
won't be a case, that's what we all hope.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just to clarify some areas of
concern that I have. In regards to the gentleman that spoke and he's
at 124th.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Nobel.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. How are you going to
address that issue?
MS. MAC'KIE: That's the one that Ms. Statues just referred to
that if it's determined, and it sounds like the facts speak to this, that
he does not have adequate access under the plan that I have shown
you today, we will raise the roadway adequately to allow him access.
We will not leave him without access, that's illegal and immoral.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And it's my understanding that the
only residents that are going to be in that area are going to be located
in the northwest quadrant comer, it that correct? Off of 52nd
heading west; is that correct?
MS. MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. What about the mining
operation that's presently out there, the fishing deal, what's going to
happen with that? Jesse Hardy, is that the gentleman's name?
MS. STARNES: You mean Mr. Hardy's property?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MS. STARNES: It's my understanding that the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection is continuing to negotiate
with him concerning his property and I am not, I do not know exactly
where that negotiation stands.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So that property is also
Page 193
July 29, 2003
going to be part of the reclamation.
MS. MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. The question is at what point will we
actually -- will the state acquire that land and under what conditions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Now the other issue is that
the southern end of Miller Road where it attaches to 41, that is not
going to exist at all whatsoever; is that correct? MS. MAC'KIE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, why -- in the discussions
today this had an effect on Marco Island. Can you refer to me how
this has an effect on Marco Island as far as evacuation? I haven't
figured that one out yet.
MS. STARNES: Commissioner Halas, that was not a comment
that we made, that was a comment the public made. There will be no
effect on Marco Island from this project at all.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what I couldn't understand
when this came up in discussion so I just wanted to find out if there
was any way that it was tied in. My understanding is the only access
that we have to this land at present is Everglades Boulevard, or the
back way through Jane's Way; is that correct? MS. MAC'KIE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. There was other discussion
about DeSoto being tied in, and I couldn't understand how DeSoto
was tied in.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Commissioner, in northern
Golden Gate Estates.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Northern Golden Gate, that's on
the other side of 75.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
it's not tied in that way.
MS. MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
I was thinking on the south side,
Okay. All right.
Page 194
July 29, 2003
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what the statement was, their
major route out is basically the Boulevard, and if you have a wildfire
in there then the residents have to get out somehow, okay. And what
they were trying to get at is, one of their evacuation routes would be
through the south and through the south of Golden Gate Estates, and
that was the issue that they were bringing up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we need to work out this
access.
MR. MUDD: With the gate.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not only with the gate, and it
needs to be in the MOU, but the long term, and I know
Commissioner Coletta is going to be diligent, is to get an access from
1-75 to Everglades Boulevard. If everybody will assist.
MS. MAC'KIE: I hope, and I'm confident that you've shared
with the rest of the Board members, the letter from Secretary Struhs.
That is phenomenal to have a letter from the chief environmental
agency of the State of Florida saying we will not object to that
intersection. That cannot -- I didn't think that could happen but I was
wrong, it did, and Mr. Henning was able to make that happen.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And it --
MR. MANALICH: Sorry, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would just like to finish up that
this is probably one huge step forward that Collier County is going to
take here and hopefully we can resolve a lot of the problems that
have come up in this discussion. But I think this is a big step forward
and I think that all of the eyes of the nation are going to be on this
County in regards to what we're doing towards mankind. And I
know I've heard a lot of discussion that we're not taking into effect
the human element, but we really are because we are on this planet
all together and there are things that we have to do to hopefully make
this thing a better place, not only for us but our
Page 195
July 29, 2003
great-great-grandchildren and also for the people that will be visiting
Collier County.
And I think we'll probably see a huge amount of outpouring of
citizens throughout the United States that will probably come to this
area just to see the reclamation of all this land, and the Everglades,
and the flow rates.
MS. MAC'KIE: All over the world, sir. We find that people are
already coming from all over the world to observe the restoration
plan and process. It is something to be associated with and hopefully
Collier County is going to be right out front.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, if I may just for a moment,
and I appreciate Ms. Mac'Kie's patience on this.
I just want to follow up on Mr. Petit's point that is, in talking,
following up on Mike's question about the two property owners
whose access was questionable, I was talking to, A1 Perkins was
telling me there are many more families that may be similarly
situated. I don't know directly the facts on this, my only question is,
is the intent of this legal framework and this document that, through
the access plans that's depicted in this drawing that not only those
two property owners that Mr. Petit mentioned but the others will --
the intent here is to try to make sure they have access to their
properties through this depiction?
MS. MAC'KIE: The law requires for residential, primary
residences to have access. I cannot tell you that everybody who
owns a vacant piece of land and goes out there with a tent will have
access. I can, however, tell you that if people own property and they
use it as a residence, then we reserve the right to amend the plan, the
road plan, to allow them access because we commit that there will be
access either through this roadway or through some other--
MR. MANALICH: For residences?
MS. MAC'KIE: For residences.
MR. MANALICH: And that's the intent here and that's why
Page 196
July 29, 2003
you want
MS.
MR.
record of
MR.
the flexibility in the depiction on the map.
MAC'KIE: That's exactly right.
MANALICH: I think you have that as a commitment of
intent.
MUDD: But Ramiro, we could add some kind of verbiage,
two lines or whatever, to the Memorandum of Agreement that says
some guarantee that you have access for, let's call them unwilling
sellers, or ones that aren't condemned that the Governor comes up
with an agreement, for instance, the gentleman in the donut.
MS. MAC'KIE: These are outside of the project, these are
properties outside the project boundary. Is that right, Janet? These
are outside the project boundary.
MR. MUDD: I understand, you didn't let me finish, ma'am.
Unwilling sellers within the project and, for instance Mr. Door and
other property owner that uses Miller Boulevard south in the issue.
And we can, and we can draft something in there that makes sure that
we have got some record of that particular case.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was agreed early on that anybody
that had historical easements or access to their property was, in this
project that you were going to allow --
MS. MAC'KIE: To their residences.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. People's property. That's what
was stated before and that's what I remember. Historical access to
people's property, that's one thing that was brought up --
MS. MAC'KIE: I don't even know if there are, I mean -- guys?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If there's private land down here,
and then it skips down to 124.
MS. MAC'KIE: And so how will they get access to their land?
Their access to their land will be over natural grade not improved
roads. Residences, primary residences get improved roadways,
others get natural grade.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas.
Page 197
July 29, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have one last question. The
residents that live there, do they, what's the deal on that, how long do
they live there for?
MS. STARNES: I think the reality is, because I don't know
exactly what parcels you're talking about or exactly where they are
located, what we probably need to do is sit down all of us together,
look at where those exact parcels are, and then we can work out
whatever is going to work in terms of access. I just, right off the top
of my head I know a lot of folks' access off of Sabal Palm, Miller
will be above grade to Sabal Palm so that's not an issue. I think it's
everything south of Sabal Palm that may be an issue, so I just need to
look at the exact parcels we're talking about. I just don't have a map
in my head that I can do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What I'm getting at is, do the
people that are going to be considered permanent residents, are they
there for a 99-year lease, or is the property going to stay in the family
forever, or how does that work?
MS. STARNES: I don't know what parcels you're speaking to.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we're talking about in the
glades ares, the northwest quadrant where the people presently live
there.
MS. STARNES: The Belle Meade area.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. Are they going to leave
that, is that property going to be in the hands of ownership to the
family, or do they have the option to sell to you at some time?
MS. MAC'KIE: We aren't trying to buy that property.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That is not eminent domain, that is a
willing seller program.
MS. MAC'KIE: Exactly. Right. So nobody is forcing those
people in Belle Meade to sell their homes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just so everybody understands
what page I'm on here, when you pass over Everglades Boulevard
Page 198
July 29, 2003
and you go down to 52nd Boulevard, I think it is, you head west, isn't
that part of the restoration project? When you come across
Everglades Boulevard--
MS. STARNES: Down Everglades Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Down to about 52nd or something
of that nature, which is way up in the corner, and you go west. MS. STARNES: Go west.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There is a group of people that
live there that's a residence. Now, is that --
MS. STARNES: You mean in the Belle Meade area not in the
southern Golden Gate Estates proper.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
MS. STARNES: Correct. Now I understand what you're
speaking to.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's not part of this whole
project.
MS. STARNES: The Belle Meade area is not a part of the
southern Golden Gate Estates project.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Time?
So what I hear was some amendment to the MOU. We can
move forward with this and we need to call for a vote on it, correct?
I don't know who is talking but if we can keep it quiet. Thank
you.
And I think we need to think about it, since the only thing we're
getting is PILT, money in lieu of taxes, because this land is gone and
PILT money is piddles (sic), as far as I'm concerned.
In case of a fire or emergency down there, how is the state going
to, or the agency going to reimburse the local emergency services for
their time spent of fighting a fire or rescuing a person? So that's
something that needs to be contemplated when we come back. MS. MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, do you have
Page 199
July 29, 20O3
anything else to add?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that's it for me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: With all the amendments to the
MOU, I'll entertain a motion at this time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There is a motion and second. Any
further discussion? Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you very much for
the opportunity. I appreciate the efforts of my Commissioners to try
to cover all of these subjects in enough detail and clarity so that we
can assure the traditional rights
however, I think we're falling a
I'm not going to be able to
of the people to use the area,
little bit short.
support this, to be honest with you.
understand the process, I just, I will be very diligent in trying to
recover what I can through the process as we go into the plan that's
going to be there for the recreation and the ATV lands. I plan to be
very much involved with it, but at this point in time I think that we're
a little bit faster on the draw than we should be and it should have
gone back for more consideration, but the will of the Commission
being what it is. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Anything else? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
Aye.
Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta dissenting.
I want to thank the public for giving us some guidance today.
Page 200
July 29, 2003
We're going to take a ten minute break.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take their seats, please.
Item #8B AND Item #8C
RESOLUTION 2003-255 REGARDING PETITION DRI-2000-01
FOR DEVELOPMENT ORDER 2001-01-ADOPTED WITH
STIPULATIONS; ORDINANCE 2003-40 REGARDING
COMPANION ITEM PUDZ-02-AR-2841 - ADOPTED WITH
STIPI JI~ATIONS
The next item is 8B. This item was supposed to be heard at
3:00. It requires all to be sworn in who is going to participate in the
discussion and the Commissioners to provide ex parte
communication. This is Petition DRI-2000-01 Richard Woodruff of
Wilson Miller Incorporated, representing U.S. Home requesting
approval of a development order for the Heritage Bay Development
of Regional Impact (DRI) to allow for 3,450 residential dwelling
units, and 200 assisted living units, and some golf and other related
facilities.
Would you all rise for the court reporter to swear in the
participants.
(Witnesses sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Ex parte
communications starting with Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I did have both E-mail and
discussions in my office with the people involved in this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I have had a lot of discussions
and many meetings. I could name all of the people but I have a few
things here in my packet that tell you who I've been with and so
Page 201
July 29, 2003
forth. I've also been meeting with other people outside of the
developer's representatives.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I've met numerous times
with the representatives of the petitioner and the petitioner himself,
taken him to a number of local civic association meetings where they
made their presentations. Talked with people on the Planning
Commission to find out what the result was, received E-mails, phone
calls, just about anything you can imagine. Numerous things.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have met a couple of times with
representatives of the petitioner and had a brief telephone
conversation concerning the opportunity to obtain some water wells
for the County on that property. And that's been the extent of my
discussion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: My ex parte communication is in the
file, on the Heritage Bay file, and also, I know it's not in there is, I'm
a member of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council which
is the council that hears this item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have to add that to my
disclosure, too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I asked the applicant to step
forward and present what they need to today. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For the record my name is Bruce Anderson. I'm pleased to
represent U.S. Home Corporation, a builder of quality residential
communities in Collier County for more than 20 years. I would like
to clarify that the public hearing has been opened on both the PUD
and DRI; is that correct, in order to save time? That would be items
8B and C.
MR. MUDD: 8B is the DRI, sir, and 8C is the PUD.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that okay with our legal staff?.
Page 202
July 29, 2003
MR. MANALICH: Margie, if you want to approach the
podium.
MS. STUDENT: Yes, that's fine. We typically take companion
items together in the interest of time. I just want to make sure that, I
think it's obvious that everyone was sworn in and the disclosures
were made for both items.
MR. MUDD: When the Board votes they take the items in
order, DRI first, then PUD. Two separate votes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we are hearing 8B and 8C at the
same time.
MR. MUDD: Correct. For the information, that's correct.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Anderson, is that suitable to you?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, that's fine.
I have one housekeeping item for section 3.3 of the PUD, to list
multi-family low rise dwelling units as a permitted use in areas
designated R-1, that's in order to make that section consistent with
Table One of the PUD which lists, in fact, lists development
standards for this kind of dwelling unit in the R-1 areas. It's a typo
but it was left out.
I'll give you a big picture overview to the project and after that
we'll open it up for any specific questions. Some of you will
remember reviewing this project twice before at hearings when a
very site-specific growth management amendment was brought
forward for this property.
The DR/and the PUD have been determined to be consistent
with the growth management plan by your staff and southwest
Florida Regional Planning Council, the Collier County Planning
Commission, and the Collier County Environmental Advisory
Council have all unanimously recommended approval of the Heritage
Bay project, as does your staff.
My client is in agreement with all of the stipulations from these
four groups. The Assistant County Attorney, Marjorie Student, has
Page 203
July 29, 2003
asked us to do some legal tweaking to the DRI development order
resolution which we have agreed to do. The only substantive change
is to replace the language regarding affordable housing with the
affordable housing commitments that we arrived at in meetings with
County Housing Director Cormac. That same change would be made
to the PUD, briefly summarized U.S. Home has offered to construct
on PUD lands at least 106 for sale town homes to provide work force
housing and to donate $475,000 to Habit For Humanity to buy land
across from Immokalee Road to provide low income affordable
housing. That's one option.
The other option is to simply construct between 350 and 400 for
sale condominium units on that same property where the town homes
would go within the PUD, that would be without any contributions to
any other group. So those are the two options for you to consider.
To the best of my knowledge, this is the first and only project in
this County to offer up housing commitments like these and there is
no law that requires it.
The Heritage Bay project is 2,562 acres. It's presently an earth
mining site. All this information is included in your executive
summary so I'll try to skip over some of those things. I'll be happy to
elaborate if you wish.
The maximum number of homes to be built on this 2,562 acres
are 3,450 dwelling units and up to 200 assisted living units. That
equates to a density of 1.35 homes per acre. Building heights have
been capped at 65 feet throughout the project except for the northern
end of the largest lake.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Up there. I got it.
MR. ANDERSON: Where building heights would be allowed
to 100 feet and, as presented and considered at the Planning
Commission hearing, Dr. Woodruff has conducted a view plane
study from the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee
Road and other locations along Immokalee Road, and demonstrated
Page 204
July 29, 2003
that none of these 100-foot buildings will be visible from Immokalee
Road.
The project utilizes a number of smart growth concepts which
are outlined in your staff reports, such as clustering of dwelling units
away from conservation areas and the village centers that are interior
to the project that will offer convenience commercial uses to the
residents in order to keep them off public roadways.
This project also features internal access to the activity center so
that residents of Heritage Bay will not have to travel out on
Immokalee Road to shop for their every-day needs.
Approval of this development will provide real and substantial
public benefits. And I'll highlight for you and for members of the
public that might be here interested in this.
When it comes to the County's road system my client has
stepped up to the plate to accept responsibility for much more than
the law requires. They have agreed to dedicate 100 feet of
right-of-way on their property from the intersection of Immokalee
Road for a distance of about a mile and a half up north to where the
conservation area begins. This dedication would be eligible for
impact fee credits under your ordinances, however, my client has
offered to give the right-of-way without any impact fee credits. The
value of this right-of-way donation is $2.89 million.
Also, if the County acquires some needed right-of-way at the
intersection of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road that is not
controlled by my client they will construct for a distance of half a
mile from that intersection a two lane arterial roadway, again without
any impact fee credits for construction, which they would otherwise
be eligible for. The estimated value of this construction is $812,000.
These donations along the potential future 951 extension total
$3.7 million.
Also on the issue of roads. My client has agreed to prepay to
the County $5 million in road impact fees in order to expedite the six
Page 205
July 29, 2003
laning of Immokalee Road between 1-75 and the eastern boundary of
this project. Providing this money up front and early to the County
will provide a six lane road much earlier than planned and before it is
necessarily needed. And the public will be inconvenienced by
construction only once.
Now you can explain until you're blue in the face, and I've done
this, that not all of the homes are going to be built immediately in the
first couple of years. But it seems that you still have trouble
convincing people. So to prove that point, and as additional
mitigation for roads, my client has agreed to a hold-back on 25
percent of the dwelling units, excluding any work force or affordable
housing units on site, until the County Road 951 extension question
is decided one way or another, or July 1, 2008, whichever occurs
first.
U.S. Home has also agreed to donate 7.7 acres of land adjacent
to the activity center to the County, again without impact fee credits,
for the County to use as a satellite government center including EMS,
sheriff's substation, fire station, well site and utility pump station.
The estimated value of this donation is $2,690,000.
With regard to parks and recreation, my client has also agreed to
pay up front its regional park impact fees in the amount of $2.8
million in order to allow the County to buy land at today's prices
before they continue their upward spiral. When impact fees are
increased my client must still pay the increase difference when
building permits are applied for. In addition my client has offered to
donate just over $700,000 to the County for use in developing
regional park facilities.
These public benefit commitments total more than $7 million in
outright donations, beyond the mitigation of the project's impacts and
there is an additional prepayment of $7.8 million of impact fees for
roads and parks.
Schools have not been left out of the equation either. U.S.
Page 206
July 29, 2003
Home has also agreed to prepay a portion of the project's school
impact fees. Although the exact amount has not been finalized it is
estimated to be $1.7 million.
At the request of County Manager Mudd my client has also
agreed to allow the County to have up to six well field sites
containing up to 12 wells at agreed upon locations within the
development. The agreed upon language and the maps for the wells
would be added to section 2.22 of the PUD.
With that I will stop talking, and take a breath, and I or members
of the consulting team would be happy to answer questions that you
may have. Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Did you mention that you were not going to have
any median openings any shorter than a half a mile?
MR. ANDERSON: No, I did not mention that that is in, I
believe, the staff report and it is in the PUD.
MR. MUDD: And they will not have any right-ins right-outs
any shorter than a quarter of a mile from that key intersection. Just
so you know, Commissioners, they are not going to be looking for
lights and we made sure they were far enough away from the key
intersection of 951 and Immokalee Road.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I want to commend Commissioner
Coletta for his due diligence in making sure this project goes above
and beyond what they are legally bound to, and I know he's spent a
lot of time with this in -- with the community. So thank you,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a couple of fast questions, now
they're easy. First of all I wanted to tell you one of my problems
before, you know the last couple months has been, I have been very
concerned about the traffic generated and about the road system. And
I knew that they were going to be enabling us to build this road, but I
Page 207
July 29, 2003
was still very concerned until -- they have offered to build, on their
own they have offered to build 400 affordable housing units, they
have worked with Cormac Giblin on that which means that those are
people that can remain right there, go to work right on the property,
and that's less traffic generated onto the road. And I just, I'm very,
very pleased with that, I can't tell you how much I appreciate that.
A couple of my questions, though, let me get on to them. In
here you mentioned-- we were talking about stormwater
management and so forth, and yet there is a provision in here that
nobody would be allowed from the County on the property. I just
wanted to clear up how the stormwater management system would be
maintained and who reports to whom. MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And in particular, Bruce, that statement is made
underneath the park and recs piece.
MR. ANDERSON: That reference to no access is for
recreational purposes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: If that's what it is for then it needs to be
specifically stated such so that it's very clear. MS. STUDENT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it says for any purpose
whatsoever.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, that's underneath the part where they
were talking about parks and rec, I went back and read --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but, you know, "for any
purpose whatsoever" doesn't just mean parks and rec.
MR. ANDERSON: We'll say, "for any recreational purpose
whatsoever".
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There you go. Now we've solved
it. Okay. Let's see. I think there are only a couple of other things
but they are also minor.
Page 208
July 29, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you in the PUD or the DRI?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 'I have just been in the DRI, now
I'm in the PUD. Let me just see. I think I might have had most of
my questions answered already.
Oh, yes. The final thing is, just to clarify, we were talking about
the housing, the affordable housing component and in here it said,
and we've already spoken of this, I just wanted it on the record, prior
to final Certificate of Occupancy for the development, and what
concerned me was before you built the last house you didn't have to
build one house of affordable housing. Could you clarify that for us?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I would be most happy to. The
Planning Commission, as part of their recommendation, and they
conducted a 3 hour hearing on this, they asked that we, at a
minimum, phase in the affordable housing units one-third, one-third,
one-third, as the project progressed. And we have certainly agreed to
do that and we've also added language that makes clear that if they
want to build them sooner than that, that that is allowed as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all of my questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wanted to thank Bruce for his
immense patience in working with me on this -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think there were times when he
wanted to throw his hands up and leave it all behind. I think we
covered about everything.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have been through this thing
so many times that I think I could rewrite it from memory. I will
leave it to whoever else wants answers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, do you have
any questions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This ear bud is really bad,
Page 209
July 29, 2003
Commissioner Henning, I'm not sure if I caught a description of the
agreement that has been reached with the County staff concerning
wells on the property.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, Manager Jim Mudd
gives the thumbs up on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So everything is okay
there?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We've gotten six well sites and three
potential other ones that are there pending our permitting process, so
we're good to go as far as the well fields on the property are
concerned.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you -- a couple of things I
would like to have you touch on, and that is the affordable housing or
work force housing. Was there a time frame that your were going to
have this available and then if those homes were not built then, or
sold --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- then that was going to be put on
the open market, is that my understanding? What is the time frame
on that, could you stipulate that?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
I'll read from Option 2, which reads the same as Option 1 with
regard to the conditions that you're inquiring about. Construction of
a minimum of 160 townhouse units and a maximum of 190
townhouse units to be offered for sale to persons meeting the Collier
County affordable housing guidelines for 80 percent moderate
income level for a period beginning with the issuance of the building
permit and continuing through 30 days after the Certificate of
Page 210
July 29, 2003
Occupancy for the building. Also from the date of the Certificate of
Occupancy, the developer shall offer the remaining units to the
County or its designee for purchase for a period of 45 days, after
which time any unsold unit may be sold at market rates.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you're saying that we've got 75
days from the time that those are open for occupancy for somebody
to purchase them at a reasonable rate that would be considered
affordable housing; is that true?
MR. ANDERSON: No. It's 30 days for anybody. The county
has 45 days, which includes that 30 plus another 15.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you're saying these are only
going to be on the market then for 30 days.
MR. ANDERSON: No. They are on the market from the day
the building permits are issued.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: I mean, that's how they market their normal
homes. I mean, you start selling sometimes even before then.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then 30 days after --
MR. ANDERSON: The Certificate of Occupancy.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if they are not -- if in that time
frame from the time that they review or issue the building permit for
it to the time it was completed, you have 30 days after the
completion of that to buy that piece of property; is that correct?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that could be anywhere in a
time frame of four months to eight months; is that about right?
MR. WOODRUFF: Good afternoon. For the record, Richard
Woodruff. The buildings that we are proposing to build here we
would project that it would take something in the vicinity of 120 days
to construct the buildings.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 120, okay.
MR. WOODRUFF: So what you're looking at in general terms,
Page 211
July 29, 2003
assuming that every month has 30 days so we'll set aside those odd
ones, you're looking at four months plus the additional 30 days. The
marketing plan that U.S. Home will use will be the same marketing
plan that they have used successfully for this product in the Orlando
area. We believe that that will result in a good market, a good
marketing of the project for approximately 150 days before they
would be eligible to sell them on the open market. Talking to
Cormac Giblin, your housing director, he does believe that the
townhouse unit is the better unit to build there and that is has a good
market.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When you say "townhouse", how
many stories is this going to be, two?
MR. WOODRUFF: As you're aware there are two options that
the Commission has. Under the townhouse option those are two
story buildings and you would own a unit that has a ground floor
with certain living amenities and a second floor with other living
amenities. No one would live above you in that concept and you
would own title to the property from wall to wall.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Now the other --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's on the 120 units, right?
MR. WOODRUFF: That is on the 160 unit to 190 unit plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But on the 400 unit plan?
MR. WOODRUFF: The other option which we have talked
with U.S. Home about doing, because Commissioner Fiala has said
that she would like for us to put as many units as possible on the
product -- on the project, what we have looked at is a different
product. That product would be a condominium product. Those
buildings would stay within the 65-foot cap but they would be
multi-story buildings in the form of three, four, possibly five-story
buildings, still under the 65-foot cap.
Under that option it is possible, because now you're stacking
units taller, that you can then obviously get more units per lot
Page 212
July 29, 2003
coverage, and you could get as many as 400 units. In that case those
units would be more of a conventional apartment even though they
would be a condominium, where it would be a horizontal living area
rather than a vertical as the townhouse gives us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what are we talking about as
far as each one of those apartments or whatever; what would be the
square footage of those apartments?
MR. WOODRUFF: First of all they would be a combination of
bedrooms. In the affordable house market we would need to look at
the ability to service the single person who is a nurse, or firefighter or
whatever who does not need more than one bedroom.
We would also have multiple plans that would show two
bedroom, possibly three bedroom -- I don't believe we have a mix for
four bedrooms, do we, Mike? So there would be one, two and three
bedroom apartments.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So are we looking at 500 square
feet to 12 to 1,500 square feet?
MR. WOODRUFF: Let me get that answer for you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other thing that I
would like to address is, when you said that the area out in front of
Immokalee Road, where you are going to build those buildings, and
they are going to be capped at 65 feet, when we take into FEMA and
everything else, what is the real height of those buildings going to
be?
MR. WOODRUFF: The definition that is in the Planned Unit
Development is the same definition that is in your current Land
Development Code. What that says is that you begin to measure that
distance from the finished floor, therefore if you were to put in, and
let's just pick a number, if you put in 5 feet of fill from the existing
dirt that's out there, then you're actually looking at 5 feet of fill, that's
where the point would begin and you would go 65 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We are not looking at 5 feet of fill
Page 213
July 29, 2003
and then parking under the structure and then going up, are we?
MR. WOODRUFF: No, sir, you are not. Let me answer that
very clearly this way. We have a building envelope of 65 feet. If we
chose to put parking on the first floor, then the height of that parking
consumes part of the 65 feet, it doesn't move the distance of that 65
feet upward.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, in some cases it has, and
that's why I wanted to get a clarification. Sometimes on a PUD it
comes in where it says it starts at the first occupant level and you
may end up with one story of parking or two stories of parking.
That's why I wanted to get a clarification to make sure that
everybody -- and get it on record exactly what we were talking about.
MR. WOODRUFF: Let me see ifI have an answer to your
question, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And while Mr. Woodruff is getting
that answer I would hope the Board of Commissioners would go with
the option of the affordable housing from 160 to 190, because that's
going to provide a quality of life of townhouses instead of tenements,
you know, four or five story condos. And it's a quality of life issue,
besides I think there's a partnership with Habitat and I know that this
Board is committed to Habitat.
And I think that it would just be overall a great quality of life for
everybody. Mr. Woodruff.
MR. WOODRUFF: Mr. Chairman, if I may. The answer to
your question is the smallest unit would be about 1,000 square feet, if
you have the second and third bedroom, those would go up to about
1,300 square feet. So we're certainly not talking -- I believe you used
a number of 500 square feet -- we would certainly not be talking
anything that small.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WOODRUFF: Thank you for your courtesy.
Page 214
July 29, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Let's talk about that a little
bit. We're just talking about this now, we're accommodating work
force in the area and that's a wonderful thing. MR. WOODRUFF: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Habitat is just going to be buying
across the street and they build for a different level in that work
force, which is also a great thing, and they are going to be close
enough where the streets won't be impacted that much, that's a good
thing. I would love to see, if we had townhouses, a few more. Maybe
we just go like 250 or something or 300, and then, rather than the 400
as you were saying you were worried about tenements, well it just
depends on what kind of, you know, who is managing it and how
they build it, you know, and I don't think anything in front of U.S.
Home would ever be a tenement just because of the quality of people
that you're talking about here. So I'm not concerned about that, but if
you're concerned about the type of a living structure maybe we could
reduce them a little bit and offer something to Habitat as well, so that
maybe it wouldn't be 400, maybe it would be 300 and offer
something to Habitat to accommodate the other. What do you think?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: My concern, Commissioner, is you
only have so much land being allotted for affordable housing and
then the partnership with Habitat for Humanity. If you want
townhouses you can only squeeze so much in there. If you want
more affordable housing units, then what Mr. Anderson was saying is
you're going to have a condo style building -- and in my opinion
that's a tenement, and that's why I just brought that word out. I
would like to see, for the quality of life of our work force, not that
type of product but a townhouse. And then, Habitat, we all know
what they provide. So if we try to squeeze more affordable housing
we are going to have to go to that condo style building instead of a
townhouse.
Page 215
July 29, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I don't know how many can fit
on 60 acres of a townhouse type of a product. They have 60 acres,
and by the way in the 60 acres that they are offering for this, I'm
looking at our affordable housing guys or our community
development guys, because they are going to build a quality product
there, they are going to offer amenities and everything. I'm really
pleased with what they are doing, I'm just trying to work this out so
that it's the best thing that we can do for the whole community
without, you know, hurting anyone at all.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would think a way that we might
like to approach this is that, as you brought up, Commissioner Fiala,
that what we're trying to, I think, get across here is that we would
like to have a neighborhood style of living instead of being in an
apartment type of living. And I think that maybe we can come to
some agreement here whereby we don't have as many units of
apartment style living but more in the line of a neighborhood style of
living, of atmosphere.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I wanted to assert, too, could
we somehow make it that we don't have an investor that comes in,
buys them all and rents them out, so that they are owner-occupied. I
don't know if we want to assert that or not, but I think that -- because
we want them to serve the purpose we're building them for.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And if it's affordable housing it has
to meet the criteria and it will accomplish that. Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to have the
gentleman come up and address this situation and hear from the
expert what he would recommend. You're going to reach a point
where it may no longer be affordable.
MR. GIBLIN: Thanks, Commissioners. For the record,
Cormac Giblin, your Housing Development Manager.
I have been in talks with the developer for the past several
Page 216
July 29, 2003
weeks and when they initially approached our office it was their
intent to build around 350 to 400 condominium style units, and it was
actually our direction to try to create more of a neighborhood
atmosphere with these townhouse type style duplexes, even single
family homes, if possible.
We think that reaches our target market of the work force that
we are trying to house more adequately than four to five story
condominium buildings. The number of units is completely up to the
Commissioners, there is no law that says you must do so many units,
it is a negotiation give or take between the Commission and the
developer.
The planning council, the Regional Planning Council
recommended that they set aside 60 acres for use for affordable
housing purposes. Now, that -- you can translate that into, multiply
that by their gross residential acreage to arrive at a unit total, which
translates into about 82 units that the Regional Planning Council was
requiring them or suggesting that the development include.
Both options presented by the development today surpass that
recommendation. It is again our feeling that the neighborhood style
or community style of work force housing would be much better for
your target demographic. In this situation, a two parent household
and 2 children and a golden retriever are not going to want to live on
the fifth story of some condominium of a development. The
townhouse style is much more in line with that kind of lifestyle.
One caveat, we agreed, or we suggested the 45 day priority
marketing period to affordable or work force housing buyers based
on that neighborhood style of development. We think that the market
is there for that style of development in those income ranges. If the
unit style agreed on today were to go with Option 1, the
condominium style units, you may want to look long and hard at that
priority marketing period because, as has been stated today, if the
buyers cannot be found and our working families continue, would
Page 217
July 29, 2003
rather commute in from Lee County or Cape Coral or wherever they
may decide to, after a period of 45 days those units become market
rate units and we end up with, in a sense, no affordable housing on
site.
So you have to try to balance your target demographic with the
maximum number of units you can put on the site in that
neighborhood style of development.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Giblin, this original concept
came up in a Southwest Regional Planning Council meeting and you
brought it forward for everything it was worth. And the concept
behind it at that point in time was to provide something that was
going to take care of the 600 some people, that would be working in
that area. Would what we're talking about meet that need, would
they be able to afford to live in these, or are we going to build
something that's going to be out of their price range?
MR. GIBLIN: The agreement that we have today. In either
case, either in the condominium scenario or the townhome scenario,
that priority marketing period would be only to low income, or
persons, or families at 80 percent or less of the County's median
income which is our target work force demographic. MR. MUDD: Unit prices?
MR. GIBLIN: Unit prices are not specified. It is only specified
that the people who buy them must be income eligible. The units
could theoretically sell for $250,000 each if the developer were to
find some private foundation grants or zero interest, 50 year loans
that would make it affordable to a working family to buy. In the real
world we'd be translating it into something in the sub-$150,000 level.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The way this thing is structured
in the 45 day window that we have, is this designed to fail, is there a
possibility you can actually find markets for these in 45 days?
MR. GIBLIN: That was my caution on the Option 1, the
condominium unit scenario. You may be setting yourselves up for
Page 218
July 29, 2003
failure for adopting that type of unit structure and the 45-day
expiration period. But it's not 45 days, it's from the -- day one that
they start marketing them, they could walk out the door today and
start trying to market these. They have up to a maximum 45 days
after the CO is issued on each unit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you cut right to the bone
and make a suggestion of how this thing can be structured so that we
will meet the needs that we are looking to cover and it won't be
something that would just become a lost venture because of the fact
of the time element entering into it.
MR. GIBLIN: I would have to agree with the recommendation
which you are heading, and Commissioner Halas, that we should
concentrate more on the quality of life issues and the quality of units,
and be sure that you're asking the developer to build something that
fits in with your target demographic in this income range rather than
just be focused on purely the gross number of units, as many as they
can fit on there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So can I say, can I ask, if we built
250 units, but of the quality we're talking about now, that does not
accomplish that, but maybe they can donate something to Habitat
which then would build for a different part of the market, and so you
would have both types there? Is that something that you can do, is
that something acceptable?
MR. WOODRUFF: Mr. Chairman and members of the
Commission, that is really the intent of Option 2. Richard Woodruff
for the record.
Let me go back and clarify a couple of things and I'm going to
give what I think is maybe a good example. The last time I went to
buy my beautiful F150 Ford truck I didn't set the price, the company
set the price and what I did was try to figure out a monthly payment
that I could afford.
Well, as Cormac said, that's not the way you calculate who can
Page 219
July 29, 2003
live in these units. What we actually have to start off with according
to the formula is, what is the income of 80 percent of the median
income for Collier County. Once you determine what that is, that is
the calculation base that then determines how much you can charge
for the unit.
So you know, Cormac said $250,000. I can tell you right now
he did not mean that. He knows that on the formula today the 80
percent of median income means that these units are going to sell
somewhere between 140 and $170,000 depending on which size
family you are. Because the 80 percent rule applies to a single
person, but it also applies to two people working in the same home, it
also applies differently to those two people if they have multiple
children. Now it doesn't help if you have a Labrador, that's out. But
the formula works from the income to what you can charge, not the
other way around.
Now the other thing that I do want to clarify, the Regional
Planning Council -- I would like to read to you what their
recommendation actually was because I want you to understand
exactly what we're proposing. "The applicant shall provide a site
within the boundaries of the project for development of affordable
housing as defined in the Collier County Comprehensive Plan."
That's what we're proposing to do. "This site shall be 5 percent of
the total developable acreage of subject site or at least 60.6 acres in
size with a number of residential units consistent with the land
development approval granted by Collier County."
Now let's keep reading. "The applicant may reduce the size of
the affordable housing parcel if an appropriate number of multiple
family units as identified by the County are provided in a mixed use
portion of the development."
I want you to understand, we are not proposing 60.6 acres. If
you go by the first part of this rule what it says is 60.6 acres
multiplied by the density of the development, that's 1.35 units per
Page 220
July 29, 2003
acre. That gives you 81.81 units. You might as well say 82 units. So
under one option we could build 82 units on 60.6 acres. We don't
think that's a good way to do it. We think it's better to do the second
part. "The applicant may reduce the size of the affordable housing
parcel." We are appropriating a parcel that's 26 acres in size.
If an appropriate number of multiple family units is identified
under Option 1, which is condos, we have site plans that could
actually accommodate between 350 and 400 condos on that 26.6
acres. But as Mr. Halas has stated, they go up. The better option
which we think, is to build 160 and maybe as much as 190, because
we have to finalize the site plan with the County Development
Department, to build 160 to 190 town homes on that 26 acres of land.
The other part of this that I do want to stress is the second part
and that is the donation to Habitat. So what we would ask you to do,
and I believe what the staff has also recommended to you, we believe
that home ownership is essential, we believe that the townhouse
approach is better even though it is a lower number. I can tell you,
though, that on that site we can put, we believe, a maximum of 190
units. However, we would want the flexibility, we would pledge to
you that if we can get a site plan approved by the County government
for 190 units we will build 190. If we can only get a site plan
approved for 181 or 178, or any number down to 160, we are
guaranteeing 160 and we are saying if we can get you approvals
through the staff we'll go to 190. And then of course the donation to
Habitat.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the donation to Habitat will take
care of a different sector of needs out there, besides the work force
housing that you just described and affordable, and this is even more
affordable with what Habitat provides.
MR. WOODRUFF: That's a correct statement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Based on your best guess, if we go
Page 221
July 29, 2003
with the second plan of townhouses, what price range are we looking
at, because obviously you're building less. So what's the price range,
are we still looking at a price range of $140,000?
MR. WOODRUFF: $140,000 to $170,000, because as you can
appreciate, the type of construction you go into for a two story
building is different than the type of construction you go into for 50
or 60. You don't have to have elevators, you don't have to have some
of the other issues, so that is still the price range.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now can you, for the record
basically state what demographics this is going to fit into?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Commissioner.
MR. WOODRUFF: Let me read it for you. Here's what it will
actually be. "These will be offered for sale to persons meeting the
Collier County affordable housing guidelines for 80 percent
moderate income level." Those are your guidelines that you've
adopted, so were not establishing any new guidelines, what we're
doing is saying --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For your information, moderate
income level is $69,000. A moderate income level is $69,000. He's
not talking moderate wage, he's not talking median wage income,
he's talking -- I don't mean that, again, please don't -- I just want to
make sure everybody understands.
MR. MUDD: If you go to the visualizer where it's $61,400
which is the median income for 2003, and the bottom line that I
covered up is that 80 percent right here, it starts talking about one
person at about, and it's three times --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've been told it's $69,000. Why
does yours say $61,4007
MR. GIBLIN: That was last year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was last year. Then it's
reduced?
MR. GIBLIN: It actually went down.
Page 222
July 29, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. MUDD: But if you're one, 80 percent is $39,000 in this
particular example for a one person and it's three times that 80
percent wage, that brings you into 117 K. If you're two persons, it's
$44,600, three times brings you to a $133,900. And then three is
$50,000 and change, brings you to a $150,000 purchase price of a
home. Four persons is $55,800, three times that brings you into
$167,000. I think that supports Mr. Woodruff's assertion that he's
basically, he's basically in the $140,000 to the $170,000 range at that
80 percent.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are we ready to go to public
speakers?
MS. FILSON: We only have two public speakers, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. Go ahead, please call them up.
First is Dr. Sam Durso. He will be followed by
MS. FILSON:
Douglas Rankin.
MR. DURSO:
My name is Dr. Sam Durso. It's my honor to
serve as President of Habitat for Humanity of Collier County.
I think I can say that I'm here as an expert witness, having
donated the last 11 years of my life along with my wife to affordable
housing in this county. We have been building houses, Habitat for
Humanity has, for 25-and-a-half years in this County, longer than
U.S. Home. We're your main partner in providing owner-occupied,
affordable housing for the work force in Collier County.
In 25 years, we've completed 265 houses in Immokalee and 280
houses in East Naples. We would welcome the opportunity to try to
build houses someplace else besides Immokalee and East Naples.
We have been hearing that argument for years: Why don't we build
someplace else. This may be our opportunity to do it.
And the reason we don't is because of the cost of land, because
Habitat has to pay for land the same as everybody else, and all the
Page 223
July 29, 2003
new government regulations make the cost of land more. We now
are paying $100,000 an acre for land. That's what we paid for land
recently that we bought in East Naples. And we now have a piece of
land under contract across the street from this property, except it's
half a mile down a dirt road, so as part of this we're going to have to
pave a road.
We have a hard contract on ten acres and we have a verbal
acceptance on 14 acres. I will have a hard contract on that,
depending on what happens today. The total amount of land is 21
good dry acres of land and we're paying $2.1 million for it.
The most we have ever built is 4 units an acre. The densities
they are talking about, even the townhouse density they're talking
about, is 8 units an acre. We've never built more than 4 units an acre.
We now have plans to try to build 6 units an acre. To do that it's
going to take some ingenuity on our part, but we'll do it. If you take
6 units an acre and plop them on this 21 acres that we're going to
buy, the land cost is $17,000 per unit.
So, the first problem I have is the amount of money that they are
offering us will only pay for 28 units of raw land. It's not up to me to
decide how many units we need, okay. Obviously we would like
money to help us buy this land, it's very expensive, and we would
like to build in this area.
With 3,400 units of housing going up there, how many people
are going to work there? The number may be 600. Of those 600,
how many of them are going to be making the money that we see up
here, okay? And these numbers are fine, the numbers we go by is
still the $69,000 median income because that's the numbers the
government still uses. I don't think they use these numbers, the
actual number has dropped, but the actual number never drops as far
as shipping and some of these other things that go on. But the people
in this price range are not the entire work force.
The other problem that I have a major problem with, I'm smart
Page 224
July 29, 2003
enough to realize it is difficult for people to qualify for mortgages,
it's difficult even for people in this price range, and if you agree to
their terms of 160 or 190 houses, or whatever number houses it is,
and you agree to this deal where for, you know, four months it can be
offered on the open market to that price range, and later on it's not,
what's going to happen, the retirees are all going to buy this stuff,
because there are not enough people to qualify for this.
All the people doing affordable housing in this County except us
have a problem getting people to qualify for mortgages. And you
can ask them. We asked that question of Cormac again.
Obviously 190 -- I'm going to offer an alternative now, let's get
to the point. I think the 160 to 190 is the most that you should ask
for on site. They can't fit more than 190 decent products on site.
They probably can't fit more than 160 and that's why they just said
that, because 190 on 26 acres is 8 units an acre.
Let's go with that option as part of Option 1, but instead of
requiring them to give us $457,000 -- I won't tell you the number of
units you want to require, that's up to you -- we can provide, for
$17,000 a unit of raw land, as many units as they want. We can
provide 104 units now, on this 21 acres we have, okay, at six units an
acre. If we do that at $17,000 for raw land that helps us immensely,
it helps us buy the land. It's still a drop in the bucket. The
developable lot costs for us will be $40,000 a unit, maybe more
because we've got to pay to put that road in and do everything else.
So $17,000 a unit is nice.
We've still got to spend $100,000 a unit by the time we are
done. The guarantee you have, though, is that the units we sell will
go to the work force.
And, as we did on our other project -- we're going to agree on
Henderson Creek that will come before you later on -- we're
committed to sell 80 percent of our homes to people making less than
50 percent of the median income, but we will also sell 20 percent to
Page 225
July 29, 2003
those making between 50 and 80 percent, which is the same range
here, okay, so you have a guarantee of those units.
So by making some sort of deal with us you have a guarantee
that the affordable housing will be there. And that's the way you've
got to look at it, you've got to look at 5 years from now or, let's say,
10 years from now, how many affordable housing units will be here.
And so, I strongly urge you to accept the offer for 160 to 190
units, and perhaps you decide how many units you want them to do
for us. Instead of 40, or 50 or 128 is what they are offering, why not
require them to do 160 on site and 110 off site, and let them give us
$17,000 a unit, that's $1.7 million. This project, if you multiply out
the cost per house times the number of units they are building, is a
multi billion dollar project, and $1.7 million is about .02 percent of
that, of their total project costs. We like U.S. Home, they are
partnered with Habitat in other parts of the country. I actually
received a phone call from our Regional Director asking me why I
was being hard on U.S. Home, and I wasn't --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I need you to wrap up.
MR. DURSO: I'll wrap up. I strongly urge you to support this
project. It's a good project. You definitely need affordable housing.
This is your chance to get affordable housing in North Naples. Help
us out, and come to some kind of agreement that will help us as well,
and the end product will be much better than anything else you can
ask for.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Douglas
Rankin.
MR. RANKIN: Yes. I am Douglas Rankin. I'm here in two
capacities.
The first capacity is as President of the Golden Gate Estates
Area Civic Association, same as I was earlier. And on that we
congratulate Commissioner Coletta, as you did earlier, and the others
Page 226
July 29, 2003
of you for the concessions that are necessary to be extracted from this
developer. I think you've done a fine job.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's call it partnership not
extraction.
MR. RANKIN: Well, partnership. I understand. Let me say
that I think that they are absolutely necessary in order for this project
to be approved because otherwise the community would suffer if you
didn't get them so there's definitely a public need for them. I only
see one weakness in this. And it's something that I know has been
worked on, but we maybe need to put a little more work into it,
which is access to the north. You've got the university coming in, I'm
not getting in the way of that steamroller, it's coming in. You've got
them coming in, they have done a fine job in dealing with Immokalee
Road and some things like that, but I don't know how in the world
anybody is going to get north to Fort Myers or anywhere else when
this is all here.
Because one of the things we discussed-- we have a new
association in the fifth district that the head of, all the association
presidents go to along with some other people, and at that point we
learned that 1-75 is due to be torn up, to be six laned allegedly. In
2009. That's about the time they are going to be done with this
development from what I understand and in fact I heard earlier that
2008, they are moving some of the units back to 2008.
Unfortunately about the time this thing is done, 41 is going to be
overloaded, Livingston is going to be overloaded. You know Logan
isn't much, it's going to be two lanes when it crosses the county line,
if that, because of the way it goes through Village Walk. And 1-75 is
going to be torn up. What a mess.
I know just the other day I was trying to go south in the
afternoon and there were no accidents, and I was doing 30 miles an
hour on 1-75, which, south in the afternoon should have been clear.
We need to do something about north. We need to get these
Page 227
July 29, 2003
people -- I know nobody wants to get in a fuss with the
environmentalists and since 951, at least as far as we're concerned, is
going to be controlled access, it's not going to open any lands to
development. We need access to the north because my people in
Golden Gate Estates have to be able to get out of there and get north.
Now I'll take off that hat and put on my Habitat for Humanity
hat, so I'm Assistant Secretary for the Board of Directors of Habitat.
I agree wholeheartedly, of course, with what our president just said.
And I will tell you some other advantages of Habitat.
Their housing, you're going to have all sorts of different
mortgage companies watching these people. As you know Habitat
not only assures you that the right people get in there but we put
second and third mortgages on this property to make sure that it stays
affordable housing, that these people don't flip the places on us. And
we require those people to come in in person for the next 20 years or
however long it takes them to pay off their mortgage and make their
payments in person. That's why you don't have any trouble with
Habitat areas because if we hear of something going on in the
neighborhood we deal with it.
I doubt if anybody other than Habitat is going to be around that
long to make sure the neighborhood stays good and provides
affordable housing and all that. Therefore, of course, I'm always in
favor of donations to Habitat for their impact.
But I think everything else has been addressed. It's just how are
we going to get north out of this community, when we add their
houses and the University and all that together there's no capacity
left. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's a very good
question. That's one of the things I was driving for since day one and
gave Mr. Anderson, I'm sure, considerable heartburn over the whole
situation. And you're right, there was environmental groups out there
Page 228
July 29, 2003
very much opposed to them coming forward and making it a part of
the deal, but in the end they did. That is part of the deal, the
right-of-way that we have through there, the fact that we have 25
percent held in reserve. Basically we did what I wanted to do and
brought them in as partners, maybe not quite as willing as I wanted it
to and to the process that's going to be taking place. I'm going to
need the help, of course, of you, Mr. Rankin, and other people to start
attending the meetings that will take place in Fort Myers on the 951
study that is taking place to make sure that stays on schedule. In the
end I'm sure we're going to have the highway.
MR. MUDD: As a reminder, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners, item 16B(6) today, you put $250,000 to the PD&E
study for 951 going north to Lee County.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, do you
have anything?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, nothing at all except I think
the combination of a donation to Habitat for Humanity and the
building of the 160 to 190 town homes is a good combination. I
think we get the best value out of them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any questions to my right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I hope that we can come up
with some kind of compromise here in regards to the homes that we
require you to build on site and also some kind of a compromise here
to work with Habitat for Humanity because I think they have a great
product there and I think we are looking at an income that is
probably more in line of what the average person, worker in Collier
County is, and I'm sure a lot of these people who will obtain these
homes from Habitat for Humanity will be working in that complex,
and I'm hoping that we can come up with something a little bit more
than has been on the table at this present time.
If we make a compromise in regards to homes being built on
that site, but I would like to pass it on to my next commissioner to
Page 229
July 29, 2003
my left here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. I'm still in a
quandary. I like the idea of a combination package. That's good. I
really wanted to get as many work force housing units on the
property, really to save that road out front. I figured that the more
people that could live there, and work there, and own a place for
themselves the better off our road system would be, when you
consider how many homes that they are going to be building in the
area.
I would prefer if we did 250 and donated to Habitat a nice chunk
of money as well, maybe $1 million to Habitat and 250 homes. I
don't know, maybe that would work.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sounds good to me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know if they can do that,
though. I don't know.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on, Commissioners. What we
need to do, unless there's science based on their project, we need to
get them to agree to it, so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They have been so agreeable they
have been working beautifully, I want to work with them, too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Woodruff.
MR. WOODRUFF: As to the issue of the number of units that
we can construct on site. The only way we can construct more than
160 to 190 units on site is to transfer the product so that we're not
building townhouses.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're not going there.
MR. WOODRUFF: What I would say to you as a planner is, we
do not recommend that. Your staff has said to you, they do not
recommend that. Our commitment on site is to build as many units
as your development process will give us approval. So if we can get
190, and I will tell you, and I will tell you straight up, we produced
two site plans to show to U.S. Home.
Page 230
July 29, 2003
One site plan is 160, it results in what we think are quality open
spaces and views because, remember this is not 26 acres we're going
to develop, in that 26 acres it's not all asphalt and built. We've got to
meet your open space requirements, we've got to meet your on site
water management requirements, we've got to meet your parking
requirements, the buffering from other uses. So, when you start
looking at all of those packages what it really says is that we cannot
have, I believe, a quality of life that you're after and we're after if we
jam units in there. We are committed to build the townhouse units,
somewhere between 160 and 190 units. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. WOODRUFF: Now, the other part of the equation has to
do with money. I am not a lawyer, I'm not the lawyer for this
project. I will tell you there is no legal basis for establishing your
dollar figure. This is not like the issue of road impacts where you
have a concurrency program and we can calculate and we can do all
of those things. The Regional Planning Council has set the scale and
that scale results in 82 units. And I'm going to tell you is that we're
building, under the townhouse arrangement, we're building twice
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask, let me interrupt. When
you say Regional Planning Council recommended 82 units. They
said 60 acres, right, but they didn't give you any affordable density
bonuses on that 60.6 acres, and did they take into consideration 3,450
dwelling units? And they say 630 jobs that would be generated but
that isn't the daily jobs of, you know, you have 3,450 dwelling units
with maybe somebody coming in to clean a house, wash a window,
mow a lawn, every single day. So you've got many more than 630
jobs generated. I was wondering how the planning council came up
with 82, you know, for an immense project like that.
MR. WOODRUFF: Without belaboring this I then need to add
the following to the record. DCA and every Regional Planning
Page 231
July 29, 2003
Council in the State of Florida uses what's called the East Coast
Regional Planning Council Methodology for Determining Affordable
Housing.
When we started this process we used that methodology, and
that study showed that, yes, we have an impact, but that methodology
allows you look at affordable housing units in that methodology ten
miles or 20 minutes away. When we did that methodology what it
actually said was that under that methodology, yes, we had an impact
but that impact was being fully met by existing vacant units.
There is no one going to stand in front of you and testify that
people will come from somewhere else and they don't live in this
development, to work in this development. But that what
methodology that every DRI that's been before you -- I mean,
honestly, you can check the record every DRI that's been before this
County Commission or its predecessors has used that methodology.
That methodology said, yes, you have an impact but that impact is
being met by available units in the area.
The Regional Planning Council did what I consider to be a good
thing. They said well, that's true, there are units out there in the open
market, but in addition to that, we think that the developer needs to
do more. And so they rejected the methodology as being the final say
and what they said was we now want you to do 5 percent of your
developable land, which is 60.6 acres, and do it at a number of
residential units consistent with the land development approval
granted by the County.
If you're kind in giving the approval today you're giving a
density of 1.35 units per acre. We are not standing in front of you
asking for four units an acre over 3,000, or 2,500 acres of land.
We're asking for a very low density. And when you multiply that
low density times acreage it gives you what it is saying here: With a
number of residential units consistent with the land development
approval. Technically, that's 82 units.
Page 232
July 29, 2003
When we first met with Commissioner Fiala, and with all due
respect, she said, gentlemen, 82 units doesn't even begin to make me
smile, it doesn't do anything. So we went back to U.S. Home and we
said we've got to come up with more units. And what we came up
with is a proposal to build 160 units on site, townhouse units and
then make a donation to Habitat.
I would stress to you again the monetary part, whatever number
you pick, I believe it has to be based on some type of legal standard.
Any number that we pick to donate does not have to be based upon
that, it has to be based upon goodwill and the, what I will call
philanthropic humanitarian aspect that U.S. Home has always shown.
So we would stand in front of you today and we would say that we
would encourage you to approve 160 units up to a maximum of 190
on site and that we would voluntarily donate $475,000.
The other reason, I want to stress, I recognize very clearly and
in my testimony to you I have never said that that donation to Habitat
could build X number of units. There is no question that in addition
to land you must do other things in order to build a house.
What the alternate -- when the planning -- when the Regional
Planning Council looked at the issue they said you can build them on
site or you can build them off site. And what it says is, in the
alternative to the above on site affordable housing development
requirement the applicant may provide an equal quality parcel of
developable land off site. The off site parcel must be at a location
acceptable to Collier County government. And then it goes on to
say, as a third option, in lieu of the above requirements the applicant
may provide a financial contribution to meet the affordable housing
demand created by the applicant.
My testimony to you, with all due respect, is that we have
chosen Option 1 and Option 3. We have chosen to build or at least
request you to sanction us to build 160 to 190 units on site, that is
244 percent of the number the Regional Planning Council calculates,
Page 233
July 29, 2003
and we are choosing to make a voluntary donation to Habitat. If that
can build one house, or 80 houses or any number in between, then
that's good. But that number is a voluntary donation by U.S. Home.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What we have here is a new
beginning. Granted, it's not everything that we would like to see in
this world, but Dr. Woodruff is correct, it's actually a gift, there's
nothing requiring them to do this. I was quite surprised, to be honest
with you, and now that we're at that point that the Southwest
Regional Planning Council actually agreed to do it. I thought at that
point in time they would probably walk rather than agree to do it, and
when they did I was flabbergasted.
But it gives us the door, it opens the door for us here in Collier
County so for the next PUD that comes in of any kind of size we can
say, well, this is a new benchmark. Now it's still only a gift because
it's not part of our land development code, but this is what we would
like to see what you can do and we can negotiate.
And I for one am quite pleased with what we have. I'm a little
bit concerned about the wording about the time element, but other
than that I think we've done very well with it and I don't think we are
going to get anything more out of this other than just dragging it out.
Sounds like this is the bottom line that they are willing to do on it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What I'm concerned about is the
fact that we have a timeline on the units that are going to be built on
site and then what's going to happen is it's going to be put on the
open market, and basically the people that are going to be able to
afford this are not the people that we're trying to work on behalf of
but it's going to be people that come down here to retire, and they are
the ones that are going to be buying up all of this property.
And what we're trying to address here is we're trying to address
the idea of instead of having people commute back and forth on 1-75
Page 234
July 29, 2003
that we can get them closer to where they possibly would work, and I
think that this huge development that U.S. Home is involved in here,
I think you're going to have a huge spinoff of people that are going to
make not the standard medium wage that we think that is going to
happen but we need to provide housing for these people that it will fit
in that category of the wages that they are going to be earning. And
I'm sure that people that are mowing lawns or doing laundry or
housework are not going to be able to afford a product that's
$175,000. And that's what concerns me, okay.
And then what you're doing is you're putting restraints on this
by saying it's only going to be in a timeline of anywhere from four to
eight months and then it comes on the open market, and we know
who is going to pick up those, and rightly so, they should.
But I'm saying that we're constrained to a point where
schoolteachers, even firemen that qualify, can qualify for this are
going to have a difficult time trying to qualify for this price range.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Anderson. If you would, please,
let's cut to the chase and finish this out.
Give us some extended time to where we can close the door for
the work force housing and provide these products. Is it 60 days, is it
six months?
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner Henning, if I could offer some
insight. Currently in our land development code we have a resale
provision on units that receive an affordable housing density bonus.
This is to deter people from buying the units initially and then
flipping them within a fairly short amount of time and reaping the
windfall benefits of the next seller not meeting the affordable.
On those units we have a 15-year affordability window. Those
units must be occupied by low income or 80 percent of median
residents for a period of 15 years. If the subsequent next buyer is not
low income, then the property is given at a 5 percent per year
appreciation rate. Anything above that the unit is sold on the open
Page 235
July 29, 2003
market for the proceeds are then split 50-50 between the owner and
the County. That money is put back into the affordable housing trust
fund with which we further the goals of our affordable housing
strategy. That's just one option that we already have on the books.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Woodruff.
MR. WOODRUFF: I apologize. Cormac may have said
something that we needed to listen to while we were caucusing.
Although I multi-task for my wife I don't multi-task for others.
Could I -- I do apologize with all due respect. Could I ask Cormac to
give his testimony again?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's already in the record, why
don't we change our court reporters and you can walk over there and
ask her.
Let's just change court reporters.
(A recess was taken.)
MR. ANDERSON: In specific response to Commissioner
Halas' question regarding the time period, we would be willing to
offer up a minimum six months from the date that the building permit
is issued, and remember that these are -- we're going to be building a
series of buildings that will, you know, probably stretch over an 18-
month period. As each building gets sold out, others will be started.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I -- do you know what the
average wage of a firefighter is or somebody that's working as a
nurse in this county or a police officer? And when you go to get a
mortgage, it's about three times your base salary to qualify. I guess
that's where I'm coming from.
MR. WOODRUFF: IfI may answer that question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, sir.
MR. WOODRUFF: For the record, Richard Woodruff.
In a former life, as you know, I had the privilege of doing
something in the public sector, and in that, we certainly negotiated
contracts with police and fire. We did not have any issues with
Page 236
July 29, 2003
nurses. Donna Fiala is certainly more competent in many fields than
I am, and that's one of them.
I would tell you that when you look at the entry wages for
police and fire, and we're talking about the rookie police officer, that
those are certainly -- my memory, which may not be totally accurate,
is that's in the mid thirties to higher thirties. Now, whether that is
still the base salary, because I have been out of that assignment for
about four years.
MR. MUDD: That's good.
MR. WOODRUFF: So that's generally what you're looking at.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. And so when you --
somebody who wants to qualify for your product that's considered
affordable housing, and they go to the bank, it's about, I think, the
bank will only go about three times of what your annual wage is, if
I'm correct.
MR. WOODRUFF: I don't know that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So that's -- that's where
we're at right now. That's where we're at in this loggerhead, trying to
find out the best way to approach this so that it is -- basically, the
product is what it really represents, and that is affordable housing,
and not housing that somebody, after six months time, will come in
and buy four or five of them and mm around and sell them for a
larger profit.
MR. WOODRUFF: Let me address that part for you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WOODRUFF: First of all, the way that the housing
program will work, is U.S. Home will have a second mortgage on all
units. If you are familiar with the product over in the Immokalee
area that's called Jubilation, and I know that I think all of you have
been over there many times, there is a mortgage that is held back.
Now, why is that held back and why is U.S. Home going to hold
back a second mortgage? That is to avoid the issue of flipping. If a
Page 237
July 29, 2003
person comes into our unit, they will have to get funding for a first
mortgage through the normal financing that is available. U.S. Home
will have a second mortgage on the product. That second mortgage
will not require interest or principal for a set period of time.
Now, we have not determined whether that's a three-year period,
a four-year period or a five-year period. But what it's intended to do
is if that person can document that they've lived in that unit
throughout that time period, then it is possible for that second
mortgage to be released and forgiven.
If, however, and let's just use a theoretic example, at the end of
six months, you know, John and Mary Jones decide that they are
going to sell this unit. Suddenly, that second mortgage is now
payable. So they now not only have to satisfy in the sale the original
first mortgage, but they're going to have to satisfy in the sale the
second mortgage.
What I will tell you is that has been very successful in
Jubilation. It has been very successful in many affordable housing
products, and the reason why that approach was created is to
eliminate flipping.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I just -- the example that
Commissioner Halas is bringing up is one salary per household, and I
can tell you, today's standards and, you know, not that I want it, is
that both parents have to work or both spouses have to work. And
then it's almost difficult for them to meet the criteria for the hundred
and seventy thousand or hundred and forty thousand dollar home,
very difficult.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If it --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's take this. We take a
policeman's $35,000, and then a spouse, 35,000? MR. MUDD: About that, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thirty-five thousand, and then a
spouse at 25,000. Okay. Where are you at? You're at 60,000.
Page 238
July 29, 2003
Multiply it by three. You're right there, Commissioner. You're right
there on the units that we're talking about. So any further questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One question, but it doesn't
have to do with affordable housing, if I may. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The TDC, transfer
development credits on the part of the land in the sending area, the
receiving area, is that still as originally understood?
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, yes, sir. Yes, sir. The-- for the golf--
the portion of the golf course that is constructed in the rural fringe
sections, TDR credits must be purchased. That's a requirement of the
comprehensive plan, and that same language has been inserted in the
PUD.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. And the other
question would be, how long do we have before we have to get our
bank going, the TDR bank going? TDC, the transfer development
credits, yeah, when will we have to have it in place to be able to
satisfy your needs?
MR. ANDERSON: Four years. But please don't take that long.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm going to close the public hearing
if there's no other further questions. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No further questions. I'm ready
for a motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Close the public hearing.
Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion we approve with
the stipulations that have been discussed including the option to build
Page 239
July 29, 2003
the 160 to 190 townhomes with a donation to Habitat for Humanities.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to be more definitive.
Rather than 160 to 190, I'd like to just say 190.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would be fine, although I
understood that that would be determined by our building code, and
if the building code would permit that many, that they could get that
many, but that's fine with me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Determined by our staff?.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Are you okay with that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I'm okay with it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And there's a second. There's a
motion by Commissioner Coyle. Second by Commissioner Coletta.
MR. MUDD: And that's with the time, and the time is CO plus
six months; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: CO plus six months.
MR. ANDERSON: At building permit.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: At permit.
after
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
CO.
At permit? What does that mean?
At the time they pull their permits.
No. I thought it was six months
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Building permit. That's what it was
stated on the record, and we can clarify that, and if you can clarify
how many days -- you're going to sell this product once you start
building it, correct?
MR. WOODRUFF: Remember, we are market driven. It
doesn't do us any good at all to drag out the sale. U.S. Home will put
together a good-faith marketing program. That program will
guarantee, guarantee six months.
Page 240
July 29, 2003
Now, if you want it stated 180 days, if you want it 183 days,
you pick a number. But we're saying from six months from the
building permit. Also remember, we're not talking about building 16
buildings in one day. This is going to be just like you do any
development. We're going to start off building probably two or three
buildings. As those sell, we're going to pull permits for another two
or three buildings, another two or three buildings, until it's over.
As Mr. Anderson said, in all, we would be very pleased to have
that sold out at about a three-year period.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's not lose total concept of
what we're looking at here, because we're voting on not only DRI.
We're looking also, we're going to vote on the PUD, and we're
looking at a huge, huge development here that's going in.
We realize that you worked as a partnership to try to address
some of the problems that the county's going to have. We've
addressed building heights. We've addressed a lot of areas.
I'm very concerned about where we stand at this point in regards
to helping out Habitat of Humanity, and I'm hoping that we can --
that U.S. Homes can donate a little more to that product, because I
believe that the people that will be involved with Habitat of
Humanity will be working in that complex, what you're going to be
building, and I have great concerns that we're not addressing that.
I think what we're trying to do countywide, we've talked about
transportation issues and everything else, and we're trying to address
the idea that we want people closer to where they work. Not to drive
up and back and forth up to Lehigh Acres and all over. We want --
we'd love to have those people that are going to have this very
moderate income be able to live near where they're going to work,
and without the congestion on the roads.
I guess I'm asking if there's any way that you can accommodate
helping out another community here.
Page 241
July 29, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean with a larger donation?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: With a larger donation, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't see anybody jumping up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, they're talking about it.
They're talking about it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh. You've got a better view than I.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that one of the things we
have to keep in mind is that as much as we would like things to work
out in a certain way, it is the market that really determines these
things. And I have -- I have seen areas where a company will
provide housing for its employees in a very structured setting, and
that works out fairly well initially. But then what happens is that the
people who bought those homes find other jobs because they get
promotions, they have better opportunities. And over time, you will
find that the people who might have worked near this particular
location at one point have found employment somewhere else. They
have bettered themselves.
And as a result, you don't necessarily achieve the permanent
objective of making sure there's a place for the employees here. It is
a great goal. I think it's something we should try more and more to
do, but I don't think they should -- we should make the success of the
project hinge on whether we are going to be able to guarantee that --
that the people who live in this affordable housing will actually work
on the development or even anywhere nearby.
People tend to live wherever they can live the best, and they
tend to work wherever they can earn the best salary and have the
greatest opportunities for advancement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's the American way,
correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the way it works.
Page 242
July 29, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We can't dictate where people live or
where they work.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It just gives them an opportunity.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It just doesn't work. And -- but
from the standpoint of traffic congestion, it certainly is a great goal,
and we should do whatever we can to encourage the market to do
that, but I just don't think we can find a way to mandate it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Woodruff?.
MR. WOODRUFF: Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the
commission, the -- U.S. Home is willing to propose the following.
For -- we would like to build 160 to 190 units on site, townhouse
units. For every unit below 190 that we build, but we will guarantee
160, for every unit under 190, we will make an additional donation of
$10,000 per unit.
Now, if you -- that's a $475,000 donation, and that is a donation.
It's not a requirement that you're establishing on us, and we're
agreeing that we will build 160 to 190 units on site, and for every
unit below 190 that we're not able to put on because of your own
development code, as it's currently adopted, please don't go adopting
any regulations, then we will increase the donation by $10,000 per
unit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Richard, what would happen if the
Board of County Commissioners were to say, we only want you to
build 160, and give that additional $300,000 to Habitat for
Humanity?
MR. WOODRUFF: Well, I would probably thank Mr. Coyle,
but what we think is that in fair play on both sides, that this is a fair
deal both ways, and we would ask you to look at it from a fair
Page 243
July 29, 2003
arrangement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm willing to incorporate it in
my second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Accepted in the second. Is it
accepted in the first?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it is. I think this is a good
compromise. This is not going to be perfect for any of us. I, quite
frankly, think this is a huge development, but the point is that it's
being done in accordance with all of the regulations and the
approvals, and I think that -- that a lot has been accomplished by
partnering or at least cooperating in the approval process, and I think
the developer should be congratulated for the benefit they will be
providing to the community as a result of this. But it still isn't
perfect, and I don't think we're going to get it perfect, but I am happy
to incorporate that in my motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing no further discussion, I call
the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have one further thing to say.
And that is just, you guys have been wonderful, and thank you so
much for working with us. It's a big thing for all of the county. It's
the biggest thing that's hit Collier County in many, many years. And
by the way, I live in a U.S. Homes development that I bought 29
years ago. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 244
July 29, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Entertain a motion to accept Heritage Bay PUD.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion made.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta.
Second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion?
Seeing none. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Clarify the six months, would you?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to deviate from the --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Mr. Chairman, before we switch
to page 8D.
MR. WOODRUFF: Mr. Chairman, one moment of personal
courtesy. We would like to thank each of the commissioners. We
would also like to especially thank Colonel Mudd and his staff. They
have negotiated in good faith, and they have represented the public
well, and we thank you.
Item #8D- Continued to September 23, 2003 BCC Meeting
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve -- continue item
8D, NICAEA Academy.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
Page 245
July 29, 2003
MR. MUDD: Till 23 September.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: To the 23rd of September. Motion
by Commissioner Henning. Second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Commissioner Coyle, are you still with us?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're going to deviate from
the agenda and go to item--
MR. MUDD: You don't have to deviate. You go right to 8E,
sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. MUDD: You can go right to 8E and stay in that order, or
you can go -- you can either do Immokalee or you can do the fire
district, and I'd ask Sue, how many speakers do we have for each
one.
Item #8E
ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,
AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2001-13, THE COLLIER
COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, 2001-
13, AS AMENDED, BY ESTABLISHING A DEFERRAL
PROGRAM FOR THE IMMOKALEE AREA TO REDUCE THE
Page 246
July 29, 2003
ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF INCREASED IMPACT FEE RATES-
CONTINIIED TO SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 MEETING
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 8E is a simple one. It's an adopt an
ordinance amending --
MS. FILSON: Eight speakers for 8E. There's eight speakers for
8E.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- consolidating impact fee
ordinance 2001-13 to amend and establish deferral for the Immokalee
area, reducing the economic effects of increase of impact fee rates.
This is the Immokalee piece, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to -- never mind.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You would like to what?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have eight speakers.
MS. FILSON: We have -- actually, there's nine speakers for
item 8E. Is that the item --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 8E, yes.
MS. FILSON: You have nine speakers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor to
accept. Is there a second? At the time, the motion fails. Mr. Schmitt
MR. SCHMITT: I was trying to keep track. There was already
a motion on the floor.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It failed.
MR. SCHMITT: Good evening, Commissioners. As you well
know, this initiative developed out of the June 1 lth workshop. The
Irntnokalee Community Development Corporation presented various
proposals from the Robert Charles Lesser and Company report, and
that was during the 11 June workshop.
Page 247
July 29, 2003
What this basically is, is to defer impact fees for all homes
under $175,000. The dwelling criteria are as follows. The dwelling
unit must be within the geographic boundaries of the Immokalee
enterprise zone. The dwelling unit must be owner occupied and must
be homesteaded to the owner. And the maximum sales price of the
qualifying dwelling unit must not exceed $175,000.
You've read my executive summary, and what I do want to point
out to you, just so that both you, and I know Commissioner Coyle
does not have access to the overheads, but he has these in his packet,
and just to give you an idea of the impact fees in Immokalee. This is
a breakdown of the impact fees. And as you well know, during the
last round of impact fee amendments, we approved an impact fee for
-- or you did approve and staff proposed and you approved an impact
fee for homes less than 15,000 -- 1,500 square feet, but this shows
you the breakdown in the impact fees.
Principally, we're talking about road impact fees, which is the
largest chunk within the impact fees that are hit, and to give you an
idea of the total cost. Impact fees right now for a home under 1,500
square feet, almost $7,000. So that's what we're talking about.
Receipts for impact fees in the Immokalee area, and this may be
hard to read, but I know it's in your packet, is about less than 2
percent of the overall impact fees collected when we're looking at
strictly impact fees for roads. And I'll just highlight for those in the
audience that can't read this.
We really collected in fiscal year '02, about 50 homes, about
$343,000, and this projects this year will be somewhere around
480,000 on up, actually, out to about maybe 500 homes in fiscal year
-- or in -- if we in fact -- this shows, if in fact we built homes, up to
500 homes, we would defer almost 3.3 million dollars in impact fees.
I think the purpose here or the critical issue here is the purpose
of the Collier County consolidated impact fee ordinance is to ensure
that development -- that the development and the adequate public
Page 248
July 29, 2003
facilities are available to support the development, and that's, frankly,
what impact fees are for.
And although Immokalee is in need of a plan to facilitate
growth, a deferral program for impact fees in the Immokalee area
undermines the CIFO, the consolidated impact fee ordinance
requirements for equitable and lawful imposition of all impact fees
throughout the county, and staffs proposal, you've read that, we're
going to go through this, because I know you -- it's late and you want
to have speakers speak, but the issue here is, frankly, the concern of
staff in regards to the proposal that we have an ordinance here that is
-- you asked the staff to develop, but some staff has difficulty
supporting because what this, in essence, is doing, is beginning to
pull the threat that undermines the legal fabric of our entire impact
fee ordinance because, frankly, what's happening here is in regards to
Immokalee, if we looked at waiving all impact fees or deferring
impact fees, we in fact -- the next question is going to be, what about
other areas of the county, and our concern for that.
So in conclusion, a deferral program of any type over a
specified period of time would provide economic incentives to the
Immokalee area. We know that. However, it would also
significantly impact the county's ability to provide adequate funding
for capital projects necessitated by growth.
Although Immokalee is in need of economic incentives to
stimulate growth, it is not unique in that need. Therefore, staff does
not support the implementation of the deferral program that is now
funded, unless it's funded by a specified source.
So in our recommendations, what we are asking is that we'd like
your guidance as to how you would like this brought back, but we'd
like to bring this back for the September 9th Board of County
Commissioners meeting to be discussed along with the other
economic incentives.
We're also going to be bringing back four other economic
Page 249
July 29, 2003
incentives. Now, those other economic incentives are geared towards
commercial incentives in promoting commercial development in the
Immokalee area. This is the only one that involves residential. So
it's really not an economic incentive, but it is tied to the economic
development in Immokalee, and certainly in Collier County.
So that is our-- that is our recommendation one.
Recommendation two was to identify a source to support the
Immokalee impact fee deferral program. We have no problem with
an impact fee deferral program, but like SHIP, there's money that
comes into the county coffers that basically pays those impact fees
that are incurred by development, because right now, if in fact there
is no income source to pay for those impact fees, we in fact are
passing the cost off to other developments and other purchasers or
other builders throughout the county.
Or the third alternative is to direct staff to do further research to
possibly look at other deferral programs and funding sources. But
quite frankly, we've been through that. This was, again, based on
your direction. The ordinance was written based on your direction.
But from -- in conclusion, our staff proposal is that we do one of
two things. We bring it back and discuss it amongst the other
alternatives being presented on the 9th, and at that time, we can
discuss possibly finding some alternative source for funding to pay
for this deferral program.
Now, we and staff also looked at, as you recall last November,
we brought before you an impact fee deferral program specifically
targeted at road impact fees, and that in fact was one of our
proposals, discussing with Mr. Feder, your administrator for
transportation services, and considering the impact that that would
even have on the impact fees associated with the rest of the county,
Mr. Feder did not support that alternative, but we could certainly
look at that as well. It, again, is almost a mirror image of what we
presented you back in November, and that was strictly a deferral of
Page 250
July 29, 2003
the road impact fees.
Understanding that we're still going to need to collect the impact
fees for the other services, but please understand again that that does
impact Mr. Feder's program, and it also begins to undermine the
impact fee ordinance in regards to the road impact fees for the rest of
the county, and it opens up the door again for, if Immokalee, then
why not East Naples, why not wherever. So I caution you on that.
So with that, I'll await any of your questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, do you have
something?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I like the idea of deferring it
until September. I had some questions as to why one seventy-five. I
thought maybe it could be something like one forty. I like looking
for other funding sources. I was concerned about that.
I think that through Commissioner Coletta's great support for the
Immokalee area, we're making many strides in that area, and I love
continuing on that same way, because now is the time. I don't think
they've ever had anybody like him. And actually, he's got a
supporting board here too, which is good.
But I think this maybe needs to be discussed a little bit further
and brought back in September.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If that is a motion by
Commissioner Fiala to delay it until September, I will certainly
second that. I think that there are merits here, but it really is
premature to consider this. I think there are many other issues that
have to be taken into consideration before We make a decision such
as this, and I really think notwithstanding the fact that we might have
members of the public there who wish to speak, I simply don't
believe it's possible to make a decision on that at this particular
meeting.
Page 251
July 29, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion by
Commissioner Fiala. Second by Commissioner Coyle.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When this comes back before the
board, we're going to talk about other economic incentives? Is that
what we're going to be basically discussing and -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, there will be four other
economic incentives that are being developed by staff in conjunction
with the economic development council. I highlighted those in my
recommendation in the staff summary. I won't go over those now,
but those were the four--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Because I'm concerned
about also the people out there, and we need to make sure that we
can assist them, but I think we need to look at the whole picture here
before we make a decision.
MR. SCHMITT: And those were the incentives that you have
already identified money in the '04 budget to fund.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: How many public speakers do we
have?
MS. FILSON: Nine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have nine public speakers. I
must limit the public speakers to three minutes, or if you would like
to defer until the September 9th meeting, you just waive. Please call up the first public speaker.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Fred Thomas. He will be
followed by Steve Price.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Steve Price had to leave. He
waited as long as he could.
MS. FILSON: Okay. He will be followed by Ann Olesky.
MR. THOMAS: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is
Fred Thomas. I'm representing the Immokalee Community
Page 252
July 29, 2003
Development Corporation, Community Development Corporation in
a small agricultural community 47 miles away from this area that is
trying to become a full partner in the overall tax base within Collier
County.
Our existing problem is that 80 percent of our school teachers
do not live here in Immokalee that work in Immokalee. 90 percent of
management level retail and management level government that
works in Immokalee does not live in Immokalee, and 95 percent of
our deputies and our medical professionals that work in Immokalee
do not live in Immokalee.
We helped pay for and thank you for helping to pay for a Lesser
study to identify the need to reverse that trend, and that's where the
$175,000 figure came. So we can attract the middle management and
the professionals that work in Immokalee to live in Immokalee.
What would be the benefit of that? One, we increase the tax
base. Two, we increase the attractiveness for commercial to come.
Therefore increasing the sales tax base. We increase the gas tax
base. And you know what else we do? On that 51 percent of the
impact fee, we decrease the impact on roads, because those folks
don't have to come in the morning and leave in the afternoon to
impact the roads.
We're just asking to give us an opportunity to grow. We're a
totally different community than this. We're way out there. We don't
have the attractiveness where people are begging to bring
development here. We have to compete with central Florida. We've
got to compete with the Wachulas, the Clewistons, and they put a lot
on the table because they know the value of a dollar turning around
four times in your community, a thought we've forgotten here on
coastal Collier County.
So we ask you, with all due respect to staff, we're a total
different world. We've got a clear zone that's part of a federal
empowerment zone. It's a federal empowerment zone where
Page 253
July 29, 2003
everybody across the country does incentives to help us do things,
and we need to keep this separate from our commercial side.
We understand we're coming back in September to talk about
commercial development, but we need to get started. We've got a
couple of large developments that want to get started to attract our
teachers, our professionals to our community, increase our tax base,
increase our commercial sources, decrease the impact on the roads,
and be a positive part of the county.
We've got to understand that we are different from the coast.
That's all I can say to help with this situation.
One other thing. They always talk about widening Immokalee
Road to 43rd. We've got to help pay our portion of that. Immokalee
Road at 34 -- at 43rd is 22 miles from Immokalee. We in Immokalee
don't use that road. We go down 29 and then come in on 75. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ann Olesky, and she will be
followed by William McDaniel.
MS. OLESKY: Good evening. For the record, Ann Olesky,
proud resident of Immokalee, Florida, also work there.
I just wanted to say, staff had said that this incentive program,
they keep saying, you know, a deferral. All that means is delayed. It
doesn't mean that we're not going to pay it. But stop and think.
Really, would that be a bad thing for other communities in Collier
County?
If this works for three years for us, and we start bringing in
revenue to our county in a positive way, so maybe it would sunset on
Immokalee, but maybe there would be another area that would need
it and you could pick up on it.
I ask you to look at this favorably because it is important to
Immokalee. We want to bring in the people that we need. And the
word, impact, we would be less of an impact if we had more people
living in our area.
Page 254
July 29, 2003
And one other note. Our sheriff has deemed Immokalee,
Immokalee, as the lowest crime rate in Collier County, and I'm very
proud of that for several reason. One, it means we're taking a step
forward in the right direction. With your guidance and
understanding, and working with us on this deferral program,
meaning that it'll be paid, it could open doors for other communities
that are in need, maybe in a different light, but we would have plenty
of time to work on it.
So I ask you again, please look at this favorly (sic) and get out
here to Immokalee and see us. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is William McDaniel, and he
will be followed by Patrick McCuan.
MR. MCDANIEL: Good evening, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is William L. McDaniel. I am the owner of Big
Island Excavating, a mining operation on Immokalee Road on the
way to Immokalee. I also serve, thanks to Commissioner Coletta, as
president of the Corkscrew Neighborhood Association.
I'm here this evening to ask a couple of questions, if I may, one
of staff, with respect to their executive summary. Is it your -- and I
don't know which one to address, but is it your intention to stymie
this deferral program completely or allow some community input
into the thought processes as to how to effectuate it so that none of us
will lose?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, the real issue here is certainly not to
stymie the initiative, and staff has no problem with the initiative.
The critical issue here is from a legal perspective that I would caution
the board, when we do this for Immokalee, it opens the door for
many others to come in, and it's going to begin to undermine the
entire consolidated impact fee ordinance, and I would have to turn to
the county attorney to clarify that, because it does create an
opportunity, and that was staff's probably greatest concern in looking
at this ordinance, was the potential.
Page 255
July 29, 2003
We know and fully understand and identify the issue in
Immokalee. It's just that if in fact this were to be adopted, it was
staffs recommendation or staff was considering recommending that
it be adopted county-wide, which certainly would have a tremendous
impact on the ability of raising impact fees and having growth pay
for growth. And that is truly, was staffs concern.
MR. MCDANIEL: And the general consensus here is if in fact-
- because one of my concerns in reading the ordinance, in reading the
executive summary that staff put out is that you're looking to our
board to promote, put money to an already low tax-based community
that can, in fact, stand on its own, and I don't refute the opportunity
of other communities.
There are far more communities in Naples, in Collier County,
that have and require, need economic assistance packages put to
them, but the concern here is we're not wanting a handout. We have
an opportunity here, or the perception here is the commission has an
opportunity, in my review of the ordinance in and of itself, where
you can, through the review processes, analyze what in fact this
ordinance has for the effect for the whole community.
There's enough review processes in place in the ordinance to not
let you get too far along before you get yourself in trouble. The
sunshine aspect of it in and of itself is a three-year window there that
stops the process.
There's a creation of a -- do I have to count his minute of--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, you do. You asked the
question. It was your time.
MR. MCDANIEL: The final point, there's a creation of a
receivable here with the deferral of the impact fees that hasn't
necessarily been accounted for in staffs report. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Patrick McCuan.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Patrick is not here. I'm his
business partner. I've also registered.
Page 256
July 29, 2003
MS. FILSON:
Crews.
MR. KLOHN:
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: Barbara Cacchione.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: Dr. Sam Durso.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker.
Bill Klohn, and he will be followed by Floyd
Good evening. My name is Bill Klohn. I'm
here on behalf of the Immokalee Community Development
Corporation, MDG Capital Corporation, which is the developer of
the Arrowhead community out at Immokalee, and probably a lot of
people that work in Collier County that don't have the opportunity for
a home.
Number one, I echo the comments of Mr. Thomas and Ann
Olesky. And let me jump into this real quick. I apologize for my
casual dress. I'm off an airplane from a family vacation, but made it.
I think what we need to be very serious about is some of the
process and what our little group has gone through. We felt we were
very organized in getting the Lesser company to demonstrate in our
workshop and to staff the pros and cons of the residential impact fee
deferral. We had public meetings before the workshop. We had an
opportunity to present the staff what was being discussed and
proposed before the workshop so that we could have all of our
organizational skills together so that when we came to our workshop
that you would have all of the information, and I guess I'm
disappointed that at least I'm finding out tonight of all of these
problems and things that are coming up, when as recent as a week
ago, I was working with Amy Patterson on what the language of the
deferral ordinance would read.
I think that the time is now in Immokalee. I don't think we have
until September. I think that -- you know, I know that I've got
builders on the fence ready to go in our project, and this was a big
Page 257
July 29, 2003
evening or I guess a big day to determine whether or not we were
going to have the opportunity to defer these monies so that these
builders could get going and people could have homes in Immokalee.
So I'm a little bit disappointed with how it's all been handled. I
think that we were in good faith very organized in the way that we
presented our case and the discussion in the study. I don't like the
fact that we might have to think of going again until December. I
think that what we're asking for is not a lot different than what was
almost approved back in November by this board, which was the
five-year deferral.
The difference between that deferral and this deferral is simple.
There was that five-year speeding bullet. All we're asking for this
time is a compromise, and I'll quote Commissioner Coyle. This is
not going to be perfect for any of us. We would just like this
deferral, which is as was previously stated, it's a receivable. It's
going to get paid.
Please give us a chance. Let us get this program going. We've
worked very hard for it, and we all believe that it works.
Thank you. Please support it and please consider the time and I
hope we don't have to have a delay until September. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala. Before you go,
Mr. Klohn--
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
really believe in this, by the way.
Let me just explain, because I
I really believe in this. I want to
see it happen, but I want to see it happen, and I want to make sure
that legally it can happen. And of course, that's why I made the
motion or kind of made the motion, but I mean, I would be happy to
vote on it tonight. I just don't know that you'd get all the votes
tonight. That's the problem.
But anyway that's all I had to say. I just wanted to make sure
we did it right.
MR. KLOHN: Well, I'm all for that as well, and we've had
Page 258
July 29, 2003
months to work on this, and I thought everything was going along
nicely, based upon my meetings and conversations with --
MR. SCHMITT: Let's throw an option on the table. Again, Joe
Schmitt for the record.
During the presentation of the workshop, we talked about
economic incentives, and part of that included a half million dollars,
which staff was already looking at for an economic incentive
program in the four that I identified in the staff summary. The one of
which had to do with the revolving loan. There was a revolving loan
to mitigate economic effects of increases in development fees and
that. There was a half million dollars, and then there's another
million dollars.
There was also a half million dollars identified during the study
that supports strictly Immokalee initiatives. The legal aspect of this
is like SHIP. We need money to pay the impact fees to support the
deferral program. I truly would love to see us pass this deferral
program.
The issue here is seed money to pay for the program, and
frankly, we budgeted two million dollars in the '04 budget for
economic incentives. One and a half million dollars of what was
identified for the staff initiatives. The other half million was strictly
for Immokalee. We would look at taking some of that half million, I
can't tell you what it would be, to support this program.
Basically, it would be, again, a three-year program as -- well, it
would sunset in three years, unless the board agreed or brought it
back to extend it, but also as with the proposal was in November,
instead of balloon this one, the homeowner would pay the deferral
impact fees upon transfer, sale or refinancing of the home, and that's
the way the ordinance is written. So --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The impact fees upon the date of
purchase. Like, if the --
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
Page 259
July 29, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- the impact fees of this year,
rather than in three years.
MR. SCHMITT: Like the SHIP program, yes. You pay back
today's impact fee rate, not the rate that would be or may be in three
years.
COMMISSIONER
that you're looking at or
what price range are we
MR. KLOHN: We
COMMISSIONER
these?
HALAS: I have a question. This product
that you want to develop in Immokalee,
looking at?
have 1,245 dwelling units.
HALAS: The price. What's the price of
MR. KLOHN: Currently, even though this impact fee ordinance
is recommended for 175,000, our target market right now for the
builders that we have that want to come into this project would be
135,000 to 155,000, maybe 160,000.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're talking an impact fee of
about $6,000 -- well, 6,000 -- almost $7,000?
MR. KIJOHN: The impact fee deferral, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right, $7,000 per unit, based on
between 135 and 155,000, and that would be over a 30-year period;
is that correct? Because you would pass the cost of this on to the
person that's going to buy the home?
MR. KLOHN: Yeah, the person that ultimately purchases the
home bears the cost of the impact fees at some point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. So you're saying you
have a product out here that's 135,000 to 155,000, and what we're
looking at here is deferring about $7,000 of that money for a later
date, three years or four years or 20 years down the road when they
sell; is that correct?
MR. KLOHN: Yes. And as you recall in the Charles Lesser
study, the national average, I believe, was somewhere around 2.8 or
3.3 years.
Page 260
July 29, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so basically, what you
do is you add the $6,000 to the cost of that product -- excuse me,
$7,000 to the cost of that product, whether it's 135,000 or 155,000; is
that correct?
MR. KLOHN: I believe that the $165,000 figure would have
included that, so you need to back that out.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, 155.
MR. KLOHN: You have to back out the $7,000.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Either you were going to add it to
that price or you were going to take it out of that price. MR. KLOHN: Take it out of that price.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're going to take it out of that
price. Okay.
MR. KLOHN: The price is still the price. It gets paid someday.
So when I cited that range of home costs, it included that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where I'm going with this, okay,
and bear me out, where I'm going with this is that the person that's
going to buy your product, whether it's 135,000 or whether it's
155,000, you're going to -- you're basically adding $7,000 to the
product as it stands today with the impact fees, okay, and so that
would be, if a person took the mortgage out over a 30-year period of
time, really, that there's not that much of an incentive, because
eventually, if we weigh the impact fee, that person's going to have to
pay the impact fee when he goes to sell the house. So where we're
looking at here is really not that much as far as a monthly payment
goes when you base it over a 30-year period of time.
MR. KLOHN: I don't know the exact numbers. I think Cormac
can address that, but it's actually quite huge, Commissioner Halas.
The difference of $7,000 --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Over 30 years.
MR. KLOHN: The difference of $7,000 for a person to buy
their first home, $7,000 is huge, and maybe Cormac could address
Page 261
July 29, 2003
how many people would be eliminated by that $7,000 difference.
MR. GIBLIN: Cormac Giblin, housing development manager,
for the record.
$7,000 amortized over 30 years is not a huge difference in
monthly mortgage payment, but what it does in Collier County
specifically is every $1,000 increase in purchase price knocks out
311 potential buyers that would otherwise qualify for that unit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What was that again?
MR. GIBLIN: For every $1,000 a home price is increased, you
knock out 311 potential buyers that would otherwise qualify for that
unit.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Combs (sic), what I just heard
was your highest price home is going to be 155. And now, if you get
a deferral, you're going to add another 6,000 on this?
MR. KLOHN: No, the range that I gave you, which is the price
range that our builders anticipate to build in, 135 to 155 or 160,000,
that would include the impact fees that we propose to be deferred.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thanks.
Commissioner Coletta.
MR. KLOHN: One more statement, please.
What it does is it brings us into hefty and reasonable
competition with the work force that's leaving Immokalee and going
to Lehigh Acres. It brings us closer into alignment with the home
prices in Lehigh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did you have something?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did, but I -- well, I guess my
question, if I may, to you, Mr. Schmitt--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Combs (sic).
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
This money that we have for the Immokalee initiative, that
$500,000, what was that earmarked for? I'm trying to remember
now.
Page 262
July 29, 2003
MR. SCHMITT: There was a proposal that was made at the
workshop, and based on that proposal, County Manager Jim Mudd
identified a half million dollars. Now, there were two initiatives
moving at the same time here. The staff, along with the EDC, was
working on economic proposals requiring one and a half million
dollars, half million dollars for one program revolving fund, a million
dollars for the other program. You're going to hear those in
September.
There was another half million dollars out of the workshop that
Mr. Mudd took from notes in the workshop and we budgeted. We all
sat back and said, what really is it that they want to do with this half
million dollars. We finally determined that that was very much, very
similar to the proposal that we had involving the revolving loan
program. So instead of the one million for that program, we were
going to come back for a million and a half to make the two million.
MR. MUDD: What the differences were in Immokalee,
Commissioner, specifically were, there were going to be more dollars
that we're going to be putting aside for training that individual person
that was going to work in Immokalee. It was an extra thousand or
$2,000 there, and it was a longer time period that that particular
commercial vendor, and it was not only vendors that EDC is trying to
attract, which is on your high scale list of high tech and low
pollution, I'll call it that way, okay, type vendors, but they also added
manufacturing to the Immokalee proposal in that process, and when
you do that, I was sitting next to Tammy Namachek (phonetic), and I
said, Tammy, what are we talking here, have you done some of the
numbers, and she said, yeah, it's about a half a million dollars.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hate to give up the initiative
on one end to be able to do the other end. That's the part that
bothered me.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, we're going to have it covered,
because the million dollar program is specifically geared towards
Page 263
July 29, 2003
commercial -- promoting commercial development, and to help pay
for the deferral of impact fees for commercial development
throughout all of Collier County to include Immokalee. And that
was the revolving loan program.
So we could look at this half million dollars as a way to begin to
pay for this revolving loan program, because it would serve almost
like SHIP does right now, where you pay and then at the moment that
this is -- whatever the trigger may be of selling the home or
refinancing -- now, we do promote refinancing for lower fees, but if
it's a refinancing to take money out, we would ask then for those
payments to be made and it would pay back the revolving loan.
So we would -- we would use this half million dollars to start
the revolving loan program to support this initiative.
MR. MUDD: But I don't want to give you the false impression
that a half million dollars covers all of the deferrals if all 1,245 of
those buildings in Arrowhead come forward. That's about eight and
half million dollars worth of deferrals that you're talking about as far
as impact fees are concerned.
So, Commissioners, let's put the numbers on the table so that we
all know. Now, I'm going to say that not everybody that's going to
buy a property in Arrowhead is going to ask for the deferral program.
Okay. If somebody comes in and says, I can afford it without having
to use the deferral program, then you do it.
Now, if you do the numbers that Cormac gave you, he basically
said for every thousand dollars increased price, you lose about 300
people. Well, $7,000, you're going to lose 2,100 people based on
that increase of $7,000 to that price on that home with the statistics
that Cormac gave you on the average.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to ask legal staff, where
does this leave us?
MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White.
Page 264
July 29, 2003
If I understand the question, Commissioner, I'm assuming you
mean if you go forward with the program today that's proposed? Our
concern is, as expressed by the staff, that we have essentially an
equal protection problem.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Even with the 500,000 that we --
MR. WHITE: No, I believe that that cures, from our
perspective, in large measure, and I believe that there's some wisdom
in hearing the next four economic incentive matters in September at
the same time as this, because although they're not identical
programs, they're sufficiently similar that you can tell from the
structure of those programs how it would be that this program could
operate as well.
The difficulty is having that initial appropriation in order to
cover the deferred fees. The thing that's the legal defect is not having
the money up front at the time that those impact fees are due and to
be paid.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. WHITE: If you have a way of doing that from
appropriations from general fund, and you keep track of those monies
and cycle them through, then I think that this is something that is
very defensible. There are other things that potentially could be as
well in terms of flat out deferrals, and I think that's something that
your staff has mentioned to you as an option, but from the legal
perspective, I think either of them are defensible.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In other words, we really know
where the money is going to be coming from right now, right?
MR. SCHMITT: In essence, yes, but there's -- as Mr. Mudd
pointed out, that's this year. We may need another half million next
year in order to prop up this program. I can't tell you today, in the
projections and the figures we show, as Mr. Mudd just mentioned,
that if in fact somebody comes in and they buy -- well, we were
looking at 100 homes, that's $686,000.. That's going to eat up the
Page 265
July 29, 2003
entire lot, and then some, and then next year, and we may not see that
money paid back into the revolving fund. Average of seven years for
a mortgage.
In fact, that's kind of-- to forewarn you, that's the telltale saga
that may impact the economic incentives as well, is the following
year commitments, the out years that we're going to have to budget to
support these programs. All great programs. Just a matter of are the
resources there to support them.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, in one of the staff-- and I've
talked to the staff and I've beat them about the head and shoulders,
okay. You got three revenue sources. You got impact fees, general
fund and sales tax, okay, and you got other fees for water and sewer
and stuff, but you can't touch that money, and for solid waste and
stuff. And you basically have to be able to look at those revenues
and figure out how you're going to lay those things out, and then you
tell the staff you want to be -- or you tell me you want to be millage
neutral, we're going to come in millage neutral, but when you defer
impact fees that we're counting on in order to do a project, it might
not be a total road in Immokalee, but at someplace else, or it's a
neighborhood park or whatever.
Now you're going to go out and you don't build it, and then you
get yourself into a -- you might get yourself in a concurrence
problem. Or if you say go do it, build it, and we don't have those
dollars in impact fees, then I'm either looking in the general fund to
go get it, or I'm taking out a bond issue and taking out a loan and
now I'm paying interest on it. So I'm making our plate worse.
So what we're trying to do, and the reason I had the staff put in -
- let's look at the whole -- let's look at all the initiatives at the same
time and see how we want to stretch those dollars in the best way we
possibly can as a county and as the board of county commissioners to
kind of take a look at that in the whole light of things so that you can
-- and if part of the deferral is good to go and you want to fund parts
Page 266
July 29, 2003
of it with some of those dollars that we brought forward for
unfinanced requirements, you'll have that opportunity, and I'd like
you to see the whole thing together so that you got a good idea.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have to admit that Mr. Mudd's
right. I'd hate to cut off, you know, the 500 and put it into this, and
then find that it only went for like 100 homes, and we're standing
there with mud on our face, and then maybe the economic incentives
we're looking to go forward with might be at a loss.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mudd isn't going to be on your
face. He's gonna stay right over there.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, you have one more speaker.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. MANALICH: Floyd Crews.
MR. CREWS: I'm the last one. I've been standing up here. I'm
Floyd Crews.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Fire Commissioner Floyd Crews.
MR. CREWS: We need a little help in Immokalee. I hope you
all can figure out how to give it to us. I think that if we had some of
these houses in progress that maybe the ad valorem taxes that came
from that would help put money back into the kitty on the other end,
and maybe we could get it done. I'm not going to go back over
everything everybody else has said. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. The motion and the
second on the floor is to continue this item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Until September.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Until September the 9th. Any
further discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Page 267
July 29, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion is continued. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Coyle, is he still with us?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, are you still
there?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How'd he vote?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You voted with the majority?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. 5-0.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH THE FIRE AND EMERGENCY
MEDICAI. SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE-DENIED
Next item, we've got some folks from the fire districts, item 9-
D, resolution to establish the fire and emergency medical services
advisory committee.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Dunnuck will be presenting, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Dunnuck.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good evening, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is John Dunnuck, public services administrator.
This item is a follow-up item from an item that was continued
previously, and before that was a direction given during the strategic
planning workshop of the board of county commissioners where they
requested that we create an EMS, fire advisory board to the board of
county commissioners to discuss ways that we can improve
efficiencies between the two areas.
Page 268
July 29, 2003
The resolution you have before you is to create that committee.
What it comprises of is one elected official from each of the
independent fire districts, one elected official from each
municipality, and then it would have one commissioner acting as a
chairman of this committee from the board of county commissioners
who would represent EMS and the two dependent fire districts.
Recognizing the late hour and recognizing we have speakers on
this issue, I can answer any questions that you may have, or we may
just want to go straight to the speakers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. I don't see anybody's
hands raised. Commissioner Coyle, do you have your hand raised?
He's gone.
Please call up the public speakers. How many public speakers
do we have?
MS. FILSON: Four.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. FILSON: The first one is Terry Lewis. He will be
followed by Floyd Crews.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think Mr. Lewis is the legal staff
for the fire steering committee, and there were some questions raised,
and continuing, so hopefully we can --
MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir. I am Terry Lewis. Excuse me. I'm here
on behalf of the Collier County fire service steering committee. If I
could for a moment defer to our president for the moment, let him go
first, I think that might be appropriate, and I'd be happy to follow
him, if that's okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine.
MR. LEWIS: Okay.
MR. CANNON: For the record, my name is Tom Cannon. I'm
chairman of the East Naples fire commission and chairman of the
Collier County fire steering committee.
In your agenda package, you have a letter that I authored in care
Page 269
July 29, 2003
of Mr. John Dunnuck. Just to point out a few highlights there or I'll
answer any questions that you may have regarding that.
I still feel, as I felt on June 24th, that what we're doing here is
duplicating an ongoing committee that's been in place since 1991,
which is the Collier County steering committee. What is being
passed out to you right now is accomplishments that this steering
committee has accomplished since 1991. I've heard many comments
in the past that the steering committee is just a committee where we
can get together and share a good laugh a few times, but I think you'll
see from that handout that it is a committee made up of the
independent fire districts on occasion, more times than not, from the
municipal districts, and we normally would have somebody from
EMS there.
We have accomplished a great deal in the last 12 years. We're
going to accomplish another great deal in the next 12 years. This
steering committee is not going to go away. We're only going to
accomplish more. So what are we trying to do by putting another
committee together.
I read about the cooperation between EMS and fire. I don't
know how many commissioners have read the latest East Naples
Civic Association newsletter, but there's a story in there about a
program that East Naples and EMS started July 7th of-- this month,
regarding a paramedic intermediate program.
After numerous years working with EMS, working with Dr.
Tober, East Naples is now providing ALS engines, whereas our
paramedics that are trained by the state, passed the state test, are now
able to practice their skills. That sounds like there's some pretty
good cooperation going on right now.
Three departments are under an ALS program with the county
EMS right now; East Naples, Marco Island and I believe the City of
Naples.
We're trying to do, and it seems like we're trying to meet, start
Page 270
July 29, 2003
another committee that's just going to do the same thing the steering
committee has worked on in the past. I do have concerns on the
makeup of the steering committee. I'm glad to see that now you're
going to add a representative from the municipalities.
I still do the invitation to where we can include a member of the
board of county commissioners onto the steering committees. We're
more than willing to change the day of our meetings, more than
willing to change our by-laws and our articles of incorporation, and
I'm happy to have with us tonight Terry Lewis, who will speak to
you on the questions and legalities that were brought up last meeting
on the 24th of June regarding the sunshine law violations, and I'd like
to just refer back to TelTy and let him go through his research and
what he has advised us.
MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission,
thank you for your time and I'll be speedy, at least as quick as my
southern tone will allow me to go.
For the record, the steering committee has existed since 1991. It
is open to all the fire rescue districts, to all the cities in the county
here in Collier County, and it exists in perpetuity. It's a continuing,
not for profit corporation, is the way it's organized. So you do have a
mechanism in existence for coordination among the fire and the fire
rescue professionals and the elected officials in the county.
The meetings that I have attended do include elected officials,
fire chiefs, emergency rescue and code enforcement officials. So you
have a broad array of resource people as well as elected officials
participating, and you have an institutionalized forum.
The issue that was put to me, the legal issue, was the issue of
whether, as organized, the steering committee ran afoul of
government and the sunshine prescriptions in the way that it met.
We had a similar situation with a very similarly organized group in
Lee County, and as a result of that, the actual issue is, and I think it's
the same issue in both places, is whether when you have two or more
Page 271
July 29, 2003
elected officials from the same governing board attending a meeting,
does that require notice under the government in the sunshine act. In
an abundance of caution, the general answer is yes. I mean, you
could modify that by saying provided there is some issue discussed at
the meeting that will then come before the board for a decision. But
the answer is yes.
The cure for that, and the -- I'm pleased to say that the attorney
general's office confirmed this when I asked that question, and I do
have that in writing, is to cure that with notice. The notice provisions
that I've prescribed that we've prepared for our steering committee
not only notice the meeting of the steering committee in advance,
they notice the meeting potentially as a meeting of all the
participating governments that are signatories to the agreement.
So you can have two or more of your -- you could have two or
more of your elected officials attend if you wanted to, and you were
members, but we take care of the matter by simply noticing all of the
meetings that way, and we do the same thing in Lee County, and that
-- that's routinely done.
Our firm represents more than 50 local governments around the
state. A number of the counties and cities that we work for, you
know, as an example, like to go to Tallahassee during the legislative
season and lobby. When you have two or more of your
cormnissioners lobbying your legislators, the typical cure for that is
to notice that meeting as a government in the sunshine for the day or
two that those commissioners are there and allow any member of the
citizenry or the press to follow those commissioners around to any
meeting that they go to with their legislators.
So I'm just describing a practice that's routinely done and so far
as I'm concerned, as between me and at least the last attorney
general, I think we have a cure in place for any kind of notice
requirements that government in the sunshine would require, and I'll
stop talking at this point and respond to questions if you have them.
Page 272
July 29, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, this -- right up here.
MR. LEWIS: I'm sorry. I swear it sounded as though it was
coming from that area.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He has a way of doing that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's why he's our chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just don't refer that when you talk to
my wife.
Somebody -- I was reading the notification, the recent revised
notification for the fire steering committee, and is the meetings open
to the public?
MR. LEWIS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, I'm not sure if it's correct or
not, whether that meets the sunshine, because I didn't see where it
said where you can get a copy of the agenda.
MR. LEWIS' It doesn't. I don't think that the notice says that. i
have advised the steering committee that once the notice is in the
paper, anyone that calls needs to be provided with an agenda. It isn't
a requirement under -- may I continue? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. LEWIS: It isn't a requirement under chapter 286 that you
publish an agenda. The actual language in the act is reasonable
notice under the circumstances. But my advice is that an agenda
needs to be prepared when the notice goes out so that anybody that is
curious about content of the meeting can lay hands on one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
MR. LEWIS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But it didn't say where you could
obtain an agenda.
MR. LEWIS: It doesn't. And if that's -- I guess that could fall
into the category of a technical deficiency, but it's pretty easily cured
with a second notice. But yeah, it would be my intent -- it is not my
intent to avoid that. My intent would be that, you know, those
Page 273
July 29, 2003
agendas be made available days in advance of the meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Floyd Crews, and he will be
followed by Joyceanna Rautio.
MR. CREWS: Again, I'm Floyd Crews.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Fire Commissioner Floyd Crews.
MR. CREWS: Good morning. Or good afternoon, sir.
The problem that I have, other than it takes all day just about to
come to a meeting, and we're really duplicating a meeting, is that
everybody that's here is a part of my reference books. In order for
me -- because I'm probably the newest one at this committee, there's
all kinds of things I don't know. I have to rely on Ray Alvarez, our
chief. I have to rely on Leo Rogers, the fire inspector. I have to rely
on all the rest of them out here for my knowledge in order for me to
make and understand how some of these things work.
If we had it singled out into a committee, I would still have to
bring my same books and knowledge with me. That's all I have to
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
MR. CREWS: He's right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Mr. Crews, Tom Henning.
Your voice does come from there.
I was told after I left last night,
talking to the fire steering committee, that a vote was taken and the
majority of the fire districts said that if the board of commissioners
created this horizon committee that they would participate with this
horizon committee.
MR. CREWS: Now tell me this again now. You said they
would or would not participate?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would participate. They took a vote
last night.
MR. CREWS: Yes, sir, because we have to have representation.
That is on my part, but whenever I come with my part, I'm going to
have to bring my books, and we're duplicating the committee again.
Page 274
July 29, 2003
So actually, we're back to the same point of having the same
committee that we have now. So why duplicate the thing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly my thoughts, too.
Why would you create another committee with the same people on it
when you already have the committee. Why not just fix what you
have?
MR. CREWS: That's my thoughts.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if you have to notice the
agenda, fine, notice the agenda. If you definitely want to have
somebody from county commission on there, fine, have that. I don't
see why we can't just fix what we have.
MR. CREWS: I agree with you. Thank you, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. CREWS: Thank you all.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Joyceanna Rautio.
MS. RAUTIO: Good evening. For the record, my name is
Joyceanna "JA" Rautio. I'm a North Naples fire district
commissioner, and I'm also here today to represent our board and
report the action that we took at our meeting on the 24th of July.
At that meeting, our five member board voted unanimously, five
to zero, to reject the concept of the fire/EMS advisory committee.
We did this for a number of reasons. I was somewhat surprised that
for once there were five people all agreed on a controversial issue at
North Naples.
The first item probably was the duplication issue. The fire
service steering committee has been there 12 years. Long list of
information that -- accomplishments that were provided to you.
Another one was why would we need the fire/EMS advisory
committee at the county. Well, you all can cooperate with the five
independent fire districts, both individually and as a group, and today
we notice the partnership issue with Heritage Bay. We got 7.73 acres
Page 275
July 29, 20O3
of a government, fire, EMS, sheriff substation donation from a
developer, and Carl Reynolds, our fire marshal, has been involved in
that issue since Heritage Bay ever existed.
So on an individual basis, the county's been cooperating with us
on that type of thing, which would be a land use issue.
As far as we're concerned, we'd like to invite a board of county
commissioner member to become an elected official of our group.
We will still welcome Jeff Page, who is the EMS director. We'll still
welcome, let's see, Ochopee Fire Chief, Chief Wilson. We would
still welcome at our meetings the Isle of Capri Fire Chief Rodriguez,
and of course, we'd still welcome John Dunnuck when he has a
chance to come for staff from the county. But that it would make
sense to go ahead and change our by-laws and have an elected
official from the county there.
Speaking of being elected officials. I believe there are 19 fire
commissioners in Collier County for the independent districts, and
we are all part of governmental entities, five of them. We operate
through enabling acts, and we feel that there should be an even
playing field.
So the concept of having us serve at the pleasure of the board of
county commissioners on a fire/EMS advisory committee really
didn't feel comfortable, and we just want to say that we want to
remind everybody that fire commissioners do serve at the pleasure of
their voters.
Now, I just want to suggest again with the partnership concept
that we will suggest to you, we will offer to you, we'll invite that a
county commissioner come and become an active member of the fire
service steering committee. We urge that person to attend each of
the monthly meetings, and we're more than willing to change our by-
laws or articles of incorporation to include a county commissioner,
and I think we have two options there. One, we would go ahead and
that county commissioner would take the place of the two
Page 276
July 29, 2003
independent fire districts that we have now as it's been suggested in
the resolution before you. Or we could go ahead and add another
voting member, which would be an elected official and keep those
two independent-- excuse me, dependent districts, so we use them as
a resource.
So I think this is something that's worth really exploring, and I
just want to say, once again, that the fire service steering committee
is a very inclusive group of people. We do not want to be exclusive.
The public's welcome. A whole variety of command staff can come,
and they're a great resource, as the previous fire commissioner
mentioned.
So I'm standing here today to ask you to reject this proposal and
come join us at the fire service steering committee on a monthly
basis. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. No further speakers.
Ramiro, I think that the concern was the advertising and the
sunshine law of the fire steering committee, and I think it's
appropriate for you to weigh in on this issue.
MR. MANALICH: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've had
the pleasure of speaking to Mr. Lewis, who I found to be very
knowledgeable and cooperative in calling me this morning and
talking about it.
I really don't have any major issue with what he says. The crux
of the problem that I saw, and I echo what David Weigel had said
previously, it's not our practice of our office to pass on the practices
of other governmental entities. However, we're more than happy to
respond to your question. And essentially, the concern can arise,
when you have two or more members of a particular entity, elected
representatives, that serve on this steering committee, and the
concern is if you don't advertise it in the way that Mr. Lewis
described, then if those two members attend the steering committee,
so we have, for example, a number of any particular district, two of
Page 277
July 29, 2003
them, elected officials come to the steering committee meeting, if it
were only advertised as a steering committee meeting, and those two
individuals talk to each other at that steering committee meeting
about business relating to their fire district, then you could have a
violation.
You also raise a valid point, Mr. Henning, with regard to the
agenda. My reading of the attorney general's manual is that while I
agree with Mr. Lewis, technically it may not be required, it is
reasonable notice under the circumstances, certainly it's highly
encouraged and advisable to have an agenda either as part of your
notice or referred to as to where it can easily be obtained, and I think
that they've mentioned that they will be addressing that. So those
were valid concerns that existed out there prior to this discussion.
I hope I've made myself relatively clear as to the crux of the
concerns.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: One more question before I go to
Commissioner Halas.
Last night when I was there, there was some approval of the
agenda or the minutes by a member -- well, fire chief, and then I
asked the question, who was the representative -- the spokesperson
for each of the districts, because I was told there's one voice for each
of the districts, and I was told that it was the chief from the one
district was different than the representative. There was a
representative from the same district, the chief. Is that problematic
under --
MR. MANALICH: It could be. I mean, I don't know exactly
what their by-laws say or what authority they have to, you know, to
have someone in place of another representative there. I mean, it is
from the same district, but I don't know if their documents obligate
them to send a particular individual or if they have some flexibility
there.
MR. LEWIS: The way I read the documents, there's supposed
Page 278
July 29, 2003
to be one voting member from each of the member districts or each
of the member governments that are there. Who the designees were
for the individual governments, I don't know. I mean, I was there.
You asked a good question on that, but ifs not uncommon at
meetings where you have other people coming for somebody to
forget that they're not a member and make a motion or something
like that. But I don't know that that happened, but I did advise them
on that. Under their own articles, it looks as though their board of
directors needs to conduct the business of the steering committee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If you had -- if you have two
county commissioners present and you said that you didn't think it
would be in violation of the sunshine law. Would it be perceived that
that might be a violation?
MR. MANALICH: I mean, my advice would be to steer clear
of any perceptions as you say, and perceptions can be significant as
to -- if you were to do that, just have one county commissioner
attend, and then those questions don't arise. I'm not saying that
technically you can't notice it in a way that it can be complying with
the law. I agree with Mr. Lewis in that, but certainly you're sensitive
to perception issues, and avoiding any appearance or potential for
problems.
MR. LEWIS: That's consistent with my advice to the boards
that I represent. I generally don't think it's good to encourage travel
with two or more elected officials together.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Quite frankly, I feel that I
would prefer not to move forward on this, but go ahead and fix what
we have in place. It's a 12-year standing committee that seems to
have worked well together and done many, many things already. I'd
like to see that committee stand, be fixed a little bit and I would like
to reject this proposal.
Page 279
July 29, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would just like to ask the staff
what --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Make a motion to reject this
proposal. I'm sorry. I didn't say that before.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor to
reject item 9E -- 9-D.
MR. MUDD: 9-D. Delta.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, delta dog.
Is there a second to the motion?
Motion fails for a lack of second.
Do you have a staff question?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'd like to ask Mr. Dunnuck
here just exactly what are we trying to accomplish, the end result
here, in regards to starting this other group or to continue with the
group that we presently have in place, and if you could enlighten me
just a little bit of what we're trying to accomplish.
MR. DUNNUCK: Well, ultimately, it's a board policy decision
on how you want to proceed, but the goal of this advisory board, as
we discussed in the strategic planning workshop several months ago
was to look at ways where we can facilitate communication at the
elected official level to work on areas where we can have more
efficiencies between the operations, EMS and the fire districts all
together, and that, you know, there are lots of opportunities out there,
and yes, we have made lots of-- we have made strides with those fire
districts over the last couple of years and over an 11-year period as
outlined in that fact sheet that they've provided you. This is just --
this is a way of taking it to the next level from our standpoint and
bringing some issues to bear and talking about those issues in a
setting that is comfortable for the board of county commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The next question I have.
If we -- if we instruct the fire commission to address the issues that
they have that Commissioner Fiala brought up, will that take care of
Page 280
July 29, 2003
the situation, the problem?
MR. DUNNUCK: Well, my recommendation before, and
Ramiro can weigh in more so from a legal standpoint, but that if you
wanted to stick with the present steering committee and they've made
a good faith effort today to say that we would -- we'll change our by-
laws to add and tighten up, add a commissioner onto that committee,
if that's the way the board wanted to go, before you would go that
route, you would make sure that the sunshine laws are to the level of
comfort from our county attorney's perspective, and I think that's
probably been the one thing that to date has been missing, because
the county attorney's office isn't going to weigh in on the issue of an
independent board district, and I think that's what Ramiro touched
upon previously.
MR. MANALICH: Once you're a member, then obviously we
would have great interest if you were to be a member in making sure
that -- because if you're just an attendee, you don't have any exposure
to the sunshine law violation allegation. You become a member.
Then we need to make sure in working with you that, you know, we
all agree that the notices are done properly and, you know, the
attendance is proper.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, the fire steering
committee does a lot of great things within the community, not only
for the fire districts, for the whole community. It's the intent to -- of
this horizon committee of how can we deliver a great level of service
to the taxpayers for the best bang for their buck. Okay.
Some of the things that the fire steering committee does, I'm not
sure if you would be interested in. The fire official code is one of the
main things that they administer, and that is something that was taken
out of government and given to the independent fire districts.
There are things -- like they do -- I mean, they work with 4th of
July and halloween and other things and, you know, from my
perspective, that's great if they want to work on it, but the things that
Page 281
July 29, 2003
I want to do, and I did some research this morning on the reporting
stuff, is one thing that we want to do is cite fire stations throughout
Collier County so it works in the best interest of the taxpayers again,
and that's under the insurance rating. So the taxpayers should get the
best insurance rating throughout Collier County.
It was said that that was given to the board of commissioners on
an annual basis, I have it here for anybody's review, North Naples,
last year, did cite where they need future sites, but the other
independent districts, the rest of it was financial reporting, which
they're supposed to do under the state statutes.
So if I know where in Commissioner Coletta's district, where he
needs fire stations, Commissioner Coletta is a great advocate for
doing some cooperative effort with developers, whether a PUD or
DRI, to get that land for free or put in a reserve, and I think that's a
great benefit to the taxpayers, and the ultimate is lowering the
insurance rating, and that's just one of the items that we can work
out.
That's - but we need to plat that and put it up on the peg board
so when these developments come through that we have the ability to
do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if you're having the same
people -- I mean, because the steering committee is going to continue
on, and then you're going to have the same people on the other
committee, which just means another committee a month. Why don't
you just incorporate it into one?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let me explain it to you,
Commissioner Fiala.
It is -- it's not my interest to deal with fire code official items,
and that's the main thing that the steering committee does. Okay. So
it's not really a duplication, and again, the fire steering committee
does a great job of doing that, but they do things that, you know,
really wasn't -- the horizon committee wasn't set up to do.
Page 282
July 29, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can't you do them together? I
mean, can't you incorporate both of them into one just so you don't
have another committee meeting for all of these people?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you know, what is wrong with
elected officials getting together to work to the best interests of the
taxpayers?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No matter if it's another meeting or
what. Does it really matter, as long as you're working for the
taxpayer?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know I -- it must be late. I
can't see why you would create another committee. If you want to do
a few more things, why not just task the committee that exists to do
it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I understand what you're saying, but
they do a lot of other things, and I'm not sure that you would be
interested in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I probably wouldn't, but you might
be.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, I want to do the best
thing for the taxpayer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So do we all.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But I also want to spend some time
with my family. So if I don't need to be there for decisions, I'm
going to be with my family. Okay? That's the bottom line.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, sure. I understand. The
same with them. They don't want to go to two meetings.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do want to recognize the fact
that of all the people sitting up here, Commissioner Henning does
have the experience that we lack as far as fire commissions go. I've
been very quiet about this because I didn't want to weigh in until I
Page 283
July 29, 2003
could hear from Commissioner Henning, and I understand where he's
coming from. I do understand that we're going to be asking these
people to attend an additional meeting from what they're already
doing, and if we only have 50 percent participation, that's my
concern.
You know, I -- if you really want to do it, I'll vote for you to do
it, but I just want to make sure that you're not going to get into
something that's destined to fail because you're not going to have
enough support.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And what I learned after I left,
Commissioner, is all the fire districts, except for one, said they would
participate.
MR. CANNON: Can I correct you on something? My name is
Tom Cannon, chairman of the steering committee.
There was no vote taken last night. I don't know where you got
your information. We asked the other districts how their board voted
in their regular meeting. And I'll just let you know, 19 fire
commissioners in this county, 17 voted against it. Two voted for it.
But there was no vote taken last night. Only consensus on what the
districts voted in their regular board meeting.
So -- and I don't know what we do for halloween. You keep
bringing up halloween. We don't do anything for halloween.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, it's in your minutes.
MR. CANNON: Our minutes?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. The minutes of the steering
committee.
We got public speakers. Everybody spoke. Thank you.
Any other further questions? Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I still would like to make a motion
that we reject this proposal and join -- and encourage the steering
committee to improve and modify their meetings so that they have a
commissioner there, so that they post them correctly, and take on the
Page 284
July 29, 2003
issues that Commissioner Henning has mentioned.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Reluctantly, I'm going to give
the second, for the simple reason that I think you've got something
here that will work, and we can use your expertise in this particular
group. Have them modify their particular agenda so that it fits what
we need to do, too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I'm not sure if they're willing
to do that, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just heard them say they
were.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not sure if they're willing to
remove, because the fire official code, and that reporting period,
which you know, the county gave that up years ago.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Possibly their meeting agenda
could be set up so that you'd attend the first part, and then the last
part, you could leave and they could handle this other business that
they have and you'd be able to participate in the part that's important.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Here's another problem with their
by-laws, is they don't have the ability for the municipalities to
participate as a voting member.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Point of order, we do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, and I don't want to get
into an argument. I'm not. I'm just trying to find a solution for this.
Is there a possibility you might consider letting this thing go and see
what they can do and if they can't come to some sort of solution that's
going to make it work as far as bettering the situation out there with
the county's involvement, at that point in time, bring it back to us,
and you know, let us run with it then, and then it just -- it would just
work.
Page 285
July 29, 2003
They've got every incentive in the world right now to try to
make it work. I think you've come a long, long ways with this from
where it was the last meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: At this point, I think it would be out
of order to do something different than what's on the agenda. So if
it's appropriate to reject the item instead of creating something and
have --just have that on a future agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Forgive me, though.
You're saying if we reject it, you're not interested in pursuing this
other end?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, I'm not saying that at all. It's
just --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I didn't think so.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. It's the fact is it's not
advertised for the agenda with the agenda set, and if the commission
doesn't want to approve the horizon committee, then reject it, and
then we'll move on with the other steering committee stuff at a later
date.
There's a motion on the floor, but it's a different direction.
MR. MANALICH: Yeah. I think where we're at is,
Commissioner -- or Mr. Chairman, I think you're requesting that the
motion be amended --
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Right.
MR. MANALICH: -- to either be a straight up and down
rejection or not of the proposal?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
MR. MANALICH: And I guess Commissioner Fiala has the
motion. She can decide whether she wishes to amend it or stand by
the one that she's already proposed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right. I guess I thought that's
what I did, but let me see.
MR. MANALICH: Your motion, Commissioner Fiala, was to
Page 286
July 29, 2003
reject the present proposal, but combine with asking the steering
committee to have a member of the county commission comply with
the sunshine law and address issues of interest to Mr. Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. MANALICH: That's your present motion.
He's requesting if you would consider amending that to just
simply be a straight up and down vote on the proposal rejection or
not, without the other aspects of the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Excuse me. I'm going to weigh
in here. You can't force them to attend the meeting. You can't force
Commissioner Henning to do something either. That's going to have
to come from him. So I think he's probably going in the right
direction with this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll amend it to what
Commissioner Henning said, just to reject the --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Item 9-D.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- reject item 9-D.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion on the
motion?
All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-0.
Thank you.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #9A
Page 287
July 29, 2003
RESOLUTION 2003-256 APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE
IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN AD HOC COMMITTEE-
ADOPTFD AND SECTION 5D WAIVED
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Going down the list,
and I tried to come up with a balance, and of course, I would love to
have any opinion that you may wish to put in, but I know the people
personally, and I've gone through all their resumes, Mrs. Serrata, Mr.
Crews, Clarence Tears, of course, Mr. Starling, Holloway, Leo
Rodgers, of course Fred Thomas. You can't have a committee
without him. Raymond Holland, Mr. Olesky, Ed Olesky, better
known as Ski, and Carlos Aviles. That's the ten that I would
recommend. Not that there's anything wrong with the other three
people that I skipped over. It's just that these people are residents
and very involved in the community with exception of Clarence
Tears.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Was that Leo Rodgers?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Leo Rodgers, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So which ones did you skip? I'm
sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I skipped over the names
O'Phelia Allen.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: O'Phelia Allen and Tuten.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bill McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: McDaniels and Sonya Tuten.
And the reason being is Allen is a newcomer and he hasn't been
involved in much of anything at this point.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a motion.
Page 288
July 29, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to the motion?
MS. FILSON: On this particular committee, Mr. Fred Thomas
and Mr. Olesky both serve on more than two boards.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I add to the motion the
fact that I'd like to see that particular item waived.
MS. FILSON: So you need to waive section 5D of 2055.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Add that to the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion passes unanimously, and it
was motion made by Commissioner Coletta and second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2003-257 APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE
CONTRACTORS IJICENSING BOARD- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: 9-B, which is appointment of member of the
contractor's licensing board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I make a motion to appoint Mr.
Blum.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning.
Page 289
July 29, 2003
Second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2003-258 APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE
BOARD OF BUILDING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next one is 9-C, which is appointment of member
of the board of building adjustments and appeals.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I nominate Leo Rogers for that
position.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second that motion.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #10I
Page 290
July 29, 2003
DEVELOPER AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER LAND
DEVELOPMENT INC., FOR PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE
OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FUTURE LELY CANAL
STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT SUBJECT TO
DEVELOPER COMPLYING WITH ALL CONDITIONS OF THE
AGREEMENT IMPOSED BY THE COUNTY-CONTINUED TO
SF, PTFJMlalF, R 23, 2003-APPROVF, D
MR. MUDD: Before we go to the next item, which is 9-E,
which is the attorney personnel pay plan, Commissioners, if you
would go to 10-I, we're in technical default right now and we would
like to defer 10-I until 23 September, and that's approve developer
agreement with Collier Land Development Corp. for proportionate
fair share of costs associated with future Lely canal storm water
improvements project subject to developer complying with all
conditions of the agreement imposed by the county.
We really -- and I've just talked to both counsels, we would like
to get that deferred until the 23rd of September so that we can get --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second.
MS. ROBINSON: One correction for the record. The county is
not -- my name is Jacqueline Hubbard Robinson, assistant county
attorney.
The county is not in default. Collier Development Corporation
is in default. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta.
Second by Commissioner Henning.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 291
July 29, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
Item #9E
APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF THE 2003 FISCAL YEAR
PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN FOR THE OFFICE OF
COl JNTY ATTORNEY - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: That brings us to 9-E, which is the attorney
personnel pay plan approval.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning.
Second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item # 1 OB
RESOLUTION 2003-259 REGARDING FY 2004 MILLAGE RATE
- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: That brings us to item 10-B, which is to adopt the
proposed FY 2004 millage rates, and Mike needs to read something
Page 292
July 29, 2003
into the record, no doubt.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: For the record, Michael Smykowski. I'm
the county budget director.
The board is being requested to adopt the maximum property
tax rates to be levied in 2000 -- fiscal year 2004. These rates have to
be provided to the property appraiser then by August 4th for use in
preparing a notice of proposed taxes commonly known as the trim
notice that each taxpayer or property owner in Collier County will
receive. It must be mailed by August 24th.
The proposed tax rates for the general fund in unincorporated
area general fund are consistent with the adopted board budget policy
which was to be millage neutral, which is the same tax rate as that
proposed in fiscal/tear 2003.
I propose that final budget hearings by September 4th and
September 18th, although we will take input on the budget prior to
adopting the tax rates as well as the final budget.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Question by the board?
Mike, you made a statement, I might have missed the previous
thing, that includes the quarter of a mil for the green, the green
initiative?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, the conservation Collier program is a
quarter of a mil, as adopted by an overwhelming majority of
residents in Collier County in referendum that is equivalent to $25
per hundred thousand dollars of taxable value and this will be the
first year that program is a ten-year millage levy.
MR. MUDD: Some good news, Commissioners, if there is good
news in a tax year. The school board, by law, has to decrease their
millage rate so there will actually be a reduction in taxes when you
take a look at your net tax bill and it's on this chart.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: On a county-wise basis, the school
millages are dropping .387, which is $38.70 per hundred thousand.
The net impact, after you add in the conservation Collier quarter of a
Page 293
July 29, 2003
mil, is a decrease of the county-wide taxes per hundred thousand
dollars of value equivalent to $13.70, which is that number Mr.
Mudd just pointed out. The taxpayers will see that in their notice of
proposed taxes that they will receive in August prior to the public
hearings on the budget.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion we accept this
millage rate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas.
Second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISS. IONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item # 1 OD
RESOLUTION 2003-260 REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR
AN IMPACT FEE WAIVER, IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,500 FOR
COLLIER HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED, THE
COl JNTYS PRIMARY CARE CI~INIC- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 10-D, which
is the adoption. 10-C, you did at noon. 10-D is the adoption of a
resolution approving the application of an impact fee waiver in the
amount of $7,500 for the Collier Health Services, Incorporated,
which is the county's primary care clinic, and Mr. Schmitt will --
Page 294
July 29, 2003
Amy will do it.
MS. PATTERSON: Good evening, Commissioners. For the
record, I'm Amy Patterson, impact fee coordinator from community
development.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions for Ms. Patterson?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion by
Commissioner Fiala. Second by Commissioner Coletta to approve. I
can tell you that being consistent with my policy, I will not vote for
this item. I do not believe in waiver of any impact fees.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I may add something to that.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: To what I said?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, in addition, just to be
able to clarify, because we have one member on this board who
hasn't been here for one of these waivers before.
The funds come from a special bank of funds that the interest
from -- would you please explain that for Commissioner Halas --
MS. PATTERSON: Sure. We have a hundred thousand dollars
set aside per fiscal year and each organization that wants to apply for
this, there's specific criteria. They must be a charitable organization,
501 C3, or the like, and they must provide a community service, and
that $100,000 each year can carry over. So this year, actually, our
total is $177,000, approximately. It can be used towards the
charitable organizations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The last recipient was Hospice.
MS. PATTERSON: Hospice of Naples, their inpatient care
facility was the last recipient. Other recipients have been --
Neighborhood Health Clinic was another notable --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you give me some
background on Collier Health Services, Incorporated?
MS. PATTERSON: Sure. They're a 501C3 non-profit
Page 295
July 29, 2003
corporation, and they meet their requirements set forth by our
consolidated impact fee ordinance. The clinic is on Golden Gate
Parkway and will be the county's primary care facility, and the clinic
serves as a direct health care benefit to the needy and also provides
services that may reduce cases that would otherwise require
emergency room visits. That's a little bit of the background on that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 3-0 -- 3-1.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
Item # 10E
APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 3 FOR
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES BY CH2MHILL,
INCORPORATED, RFP NO.99-3020- APPROVFD
MR. MUDD: The next item is 10-E, which is approve a
supplemental agreement number three for professional engineering
services for CH2MHILL, Inc. for six-laning design of Immokalee
Road, which is project number 618 -- excuse me, 60018. The fiscal
impact is $418,979, and this is RFP number 99-3020.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Commissioners, Gregg Strakaluse, for
the record, transportation division.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Strakaluse, is there anything you
need to get on the record?
Page 296
July 29, 2003
MR. STRAKALUSE: No, I do not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta.
Second by Commissioner Halas.
I'm going to support this. I'd rather put the lanes on Golden
Gate Boulevard east of Wilson, but I don't want to impact the users
of Immokalee Road twice going from four lane to a six lane.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #1 OF
APPROVING CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO APAC-
FLORIDA, INC. FOR THE IMMOKALEE ROAD FOUR LANE-
WIDENING PROJECT FROM CR951 TO 43P'a AVENUE NE-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 10-F, and that's approve a
contract amendment number one in the amount of the $1,121,212.33
to APAC-Florida, Inc. for the Immokalee Road four-lane widening
project from CR 951 to 43rd Avenue Northeast, project number
60018, and this is going from four lanes -- excuse me, this is the
four-laning widening project, correct?
MR. STRAKALUSE: These are cost increases associated with
the delays in permitting. Since we bid out the project, some material
Page 297
July 29, 2003
costs and labor costs increased.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta.
Second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item # 10G
REJECTING PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED BY THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS AND PARAMEDICS-
APPROVED WITH FI INDS TO COME FROM EMS BI JDGF, T
MR. MUDD: The next item is 10-G. It's a recommendation
that the board reject a proposed settlement agreement submitted by
the Southwest Florida Professional Firefighters and Paramedics and
authorize the county attorney's office to proceed with arbitration
hearings, and Mr. Dunnuck will present.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Dunnuck.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good evening, Commissioners. For the
record, John Dunnuck, public services administrator.
These are two issues that the proposed settlement we feel, from
a standpoint of management, we feel very good and very defensible
from our perspective on these two issues, and frankly, on a matter of
Page 298
July 29, 2003
principle, I'm recommending that we take these items to arbitration,
because I do believe that they don't have any legal standing when all
is said and done. And you know, we don't want to get too much into
the legal issues specifically, but in each case, it has to do with
management rights, and I believe very much so that we were very
fair in how we administered both cases and that we've done the right
thing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And which fund is this going
to come out of?.
MR. DUNNUCK: This would have to come out of the EMS
budget would be my recommendation, but we don't have -- you
know, we don't have funds specifically budgeted for this, and I think
part of why my recommendation is that we take this forward is
because I want to discontinue a trend of putting together items that
would, you know, in hopes of being settled before they go to
arbitration, because I -- you know, I've seen the trend starting to
occur where we've asked -- more grievances have gone, have gone
to this level, and I believe that taking them forward, where, frankly,
the union is going to have to pay their fair share to defend their side
of the case is going to be more to our benefit in the long run.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve staffs
recommendations along with the funding coming from EMS budget.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning.
Second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
Page 299
July 29, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #1 OH
APPROVING THE AMENDMENT OF THE INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPIJES - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 10-H, board approval to amend
the interlocal agreement with the City of Naples extending the
current distribution of the local option gas tax revenues until
December 31st, 2003, and Mike Smykowski will present.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners. For the
record, Michael Smykowski, budget director.
You have a recommendation to amend your interlocal
agreement extending it through December 31 st. It is set to expire on
August 31st. We are in the process of recalculating the percentages
accruing to Collier County and the various municipalities based on
the five years of historical transportation expenditures from fiscal
years FY '98 through 2002.
Currently, you have different percentages for your five cent and
six cent local option gas taxes, and different expiration dates. By
amending this, they will both expire at the same time, and then we'd
be on a parallel track in terms of the calculations required every five
years to redetermine. It would apply to both the five and six cent
local option.
So staff is recommending that you extend the existing
agreement for three months while we go through the process of
recalculating those percentages.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta.
Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Page 300
July 29, 2003
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. DUNNUCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item.
Item # 10J
APPROVE THE BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND THE
CREATION OF A NON-PROFIT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION- FAII.F,D
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's 10-J, which is the former
16A. 1, and that has to do with the Housing Development Corp.,
HDC, and a hundred thousand dollars out of the general fund, and
Mr. Cormac Giblin will present.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Giblin, I asked to have this item
pulled off the consent agenda, so we could just go through the
exercise of why I pulled it off the agenda.
Commissioners, during our budget deliberation we had a
number of unfunded requests. One was the Housing Corporation,
and there was only one commissioner that voted to fund that. So
keeping with the integrity of the budget process, if we're not going to
nix this program, we need-- need to guide our staff of where we're
going to find the money for the '04 budget.
MR. MUDD: And Commissioner, I'd like to -- I'd like to jump
on that particular statement that you made. And at the end of that
Page 301
July 29, 2003
vote, I made a statement that said, Commissioners, this is funded,
because I had asked Joe Schmitt, and he said it had been funded in
the SHIP budget for this year. And after we looked at the SHIP
budget, we asked Cormac, and Cormac said the SHIP budget, he
said, yeah, it was something that we presented to the board in May,
but it was coming out of the general fund reserve, and it was so -- it
was so listed. However, the executive summary was not very
specific about that $100,000 coming out of general fund reserve, and
he kind of, as you read the executive summary, it said we're dealing
with SHIP funds, we're not doing general fund reserves for particular
items.
And so that's why we added it to the agenda, to make sure that
we brought it to the front so the commissioners knew that it was on
that May agenda, but it wasn't very clear, and I don't think you
picked up on that. I know I didn't pick up on that, and I know Mr.
Schmitt didn't pick up on that, and I wanted to make sure that the
board had, and it seen that, and it wasn't -- and it wasn't murky in any
way and it was crystal clear. And that's all I have.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker. I don't
believe he's here, but I wanted to see if he's out in the hall, Mario
Valle.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A couple of questions, if I may.
Would you explain a little bit about what this hundred thousand
dollars is going to buy?
MR. GIBLIN: It will fund the creation and first year start-up
costs of the Housing Development Corporation, a non-profit, 501 C3,
that would be a true public, private partnership in assisting the county
in meeting our work force housing needs and goals. In addition, the
creation of a Housing Development Corporation is objective two of
our housing element in our growth management plan. That was to be
done by the year 2000. We're already three years behind in meeting
Page 302
July 29, 2003
that goal. This would fulfill that objective.
It was a clerical mistake that the item was presented to you at
your '04 unfunded budget hearings. This is proposed to be paid by
FY '03 general fund reserves, and as Mr. Mudd just mentioned, was
actually approved with the housing budget on May 27th, about two
weeks before your unfunded FY '04 budget hearings.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This ties in with all the other
incentives we have for the housing?
MR. GIBLIN: Correct. This was a phase one recommendation
of your two-year long work force housing horizon committee that
Commissioner Fiala chaired, and it was the only one of the options
presented at their work force housing workshop on April 4th that
received a consensus of-- a majority of the group, not from all the
members of the board of county commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There will be addressing linkage
fees then, too; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you, somebody, one of the
commissioners who made the motion tell me where we're going to
get the money? We got the UFR list, economic development we cut
it from, street lighting in East Naples.
MR. MUDD: Coming out of the '03 reserves out of the general
fund, sir. It's not out of the '04 budget.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That was less -- less of a
carry forward we're going to have then, right? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you've got a lesser carry forward,
then we're not true to the budget process that we just went through.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wouldn't say that. It looks
like it would be coming from the reserves from --
Page 303
July 29, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I didn't --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir, you did. Coming
from the reserves from the previous year, I see no problem at all to
try to move this forward. It's right in line with what we've been
trying to accomplish.
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, when the budget amendment
was prepared in June -- or I'm sorry, in May, the balance in that
reserves for contingencies account was $7,251,400.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you'd take a look at-- if you'd
take a look at the millage rate backup documentation that Mike
Smykowski had provided today, you would notice that on the UFR
update, it was based on the exact millage rate for one eleven fund.
There's another $300,000 in there, and there was another million
dollars in the general fund that's sitting there. That total for the
general fund will not be one million two thousand and -- excuse me,
$1,002,300. It will be nine hundred and -- $902,300. So that's in the
carry forward Commissioner, you're absolutely right, there will be
$100,000 less there, in that particular item.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The only thing I might add, I
didn't want to speak out of turn, but I guess I'm doing it anyways,
was the fact that when something like this comes up, I think it would
behoove us to put it right on the regular agenda rather than put it
back there in the summary agenda. Thank you for catching it,
Commissioner Henning, and raising the question.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you approved this in May. I just
wanted to make sure you knew what you approved, okay, because it
was not clear, and I wanted to make sure we brought it back up
again. You approved that SHIP budget and everything that was
itemized on that process, and I didn't like the way this particular item
was laid out, nor the way it was noted on the executive summary, and
I wanted to make sure we were straight forward with the
commissioners and you actually go to see that, because I had some
Page 304
July 29, 2003
problems with the administrator myself, Mr. Ochs, Mr. Smykowski,
and I wanted to make sure you got to see it again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No further questions.
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.
Motion fails.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We go to the next item.
Item # 1 OK
APPROVING THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING
ORGANIZATION BUDGET FOR GRANT YEAR 2003-2004 -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 10-K, which is approval of the
MPO budget. Mr. Feder will present.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that mean -- let me just ask.
That motion failed. Does that mean then that the money that was
appropriated doesn't go there after all?
MR. MUDD: That's right, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Norm Feder,
transportation administrator.
The fiscal year '03, '04, unified planning work program that was
approved for submittal by the Metropolitan Planning Organization,
subsequently approved by the state and federal highway provides for
a total of $861,820 of which there is a local match required of
Page 305
July 29, 2003
$6,528. The state fiscal year starts July 1. That's why we had to
bring this to you at this time rather than October 1 as the local and
federal budget goes, and every time when we do the MPO process,
we have this lag period that we have to address because of the
difference between the state's fiscal year and the federal fiscal year.
So we're bringing this budget to you.
This is for the FTA planning grants. The rest of the
local match is done through a soft match with the state's total revenue
process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Question by the board members?
Seeing none, entertain a motion.' Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning.
Second by Commissioner Fiala. Approve the request.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries four-- unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have to go back to the last one,
one more time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So the thing that we approved in
May, that Mr. Mudd brought back to us just to make sure we know
we approved in May, has now been voted down. Is that what I
understand?
MR. MUDD: With a 2-2, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I have a question for legal.
That's what I was trying to go through a few minutes ago.
Page 306
July 29, 2003
When you vote, if you vote with the majority, you can ask for it
to be brought back at some other other time. What happens when
you've only got four people and it's a divided vote?
MR. MANALICH: The motion fails if you have a tie vote,
whatever the motion was. Now, there is provision for
reconsideration, reconsideration within the same meeting, within
tonight's meeting. I can check that if you're interested.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But Commissioner Henning
brought up the fact that when we sat down and looked at our list of
what we wanted to fund, at that time, we had a full board of
commissioners, and only one commissioner voted for it that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but this was a separate
process. This was in May where we voted for it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're picking it out of a--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I can tell you that the last item
that we took under the budget hearings, we voted no, so that was
after the May -- the May one. So, you know, what's the difference?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it's a big difference. We
had to pick and choose from a very limited number of items that we
could pick from, and it was accidentally put into that particular item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It wasn't an accident. It's still
coming out of the general fund, right? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's what we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 2003, not 2004.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The funds carried forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think it was part of the --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me -- let's go down this thing
Page 307
July 29, 2003
just a little bit, okay, to make sure that we're all squared away.
We did the workshop and we did it with -- the affordable
housing work-- the work group, when it came forward, one of the
things they talked about was an HDC, a Housing Development
Corporation that would monitor and keep track of and work grants in
order to help us with the affordable housing side of the house. It was
one of the things the board said go forward, staff, and go work on
that.
The other thing that was addressed besides linkage fees and you
name it, inclusionary zoning, was the topic of a modified linkage fee,
and you told staff to go work on the modified linkage fee in that
process. Staff is still working on the modified linkage fee.
The way the HDC was laid out on that workshop, it was a multi
-- it was a three-year program. You pay $100,000 a year every year
for three years. That's the way it was laid out to you during that
workshop. Okay.
Based on that information, I put down $100,000, because it
wasn't in the budget for 2004 for the HDC on the UFR list. At that
time, I did not know, nor did Mr. Schmitt know, that there was an
item that was in front of the board in May that had $100,000 coming
out of the general fund reserves. All right? I'm going to tell you, and
Mr. Smykowski didn't know. Didn't pick it up because you had to
have magnifying glasses on to see that. And when I got my specs on,
I even picked up on it on the third page, about two-thirds of the way
down on a five-page handout that was an Excel spreadsheet.
I don't think it was -- I don't think it was there to be deceiving or
anything. I think Cormac and-- and I think it had to do with state
budget and some other things that came out, and I think they listed
that thing based on the board direction in order to get after HDC from
the workshop.
When I asked Mr. Schmitt about the hundred thousand dollars
on the UFR list for '02, he said, Jim, he says, that's covered and it's
Page 308
July 29, 2003
covered within the SHIP budget. That's -- basically, the SHIP budget
came forward in May, and it was part of that budget. So what he told
me was correct.
I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't part of SHIP. It wasn't
SHIP dollars, per se, that was coming as far as the grant was
concerned in that process. It was coming out of the general fund, and
I wanted to make sure that the board knew it was coming out of the
general fund, because I said you didn't need it for '04.
Commissioner Henning is perfectly right. If you take it out this
year out of reserves, you're not carrying those forward -- you're not
carrying those funds forward in '04, so you have $100,000 less in a
reserve account or whatever on that unfinanced requirement dollar,
whatever you have in that reserve account.
Now, I will get staff to go out there and work their feet off to
find a grant to try to keep this program alive, because it was the
board's intent in order to try to do that, that the board -- that these
two members of the board are having a hard time with the fact that it
should come out of general fund reserves, and I will push Mr.
Schmitt and Mr. Cormac Giblin to go try to find grant money in
order to fund this particular entity.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Judge, do you have an answer for
us?
MR. MANALICH: I'm glad you asked that. I happen not to
have an answer, through consulting with Ms. Filson --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're in trouble.
MR. MANALICH: -- and her long-term experience.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In her legal opinion.
MR. MANALICH: Actually, this is an interesting one, because
all of the reconsideration talks about when there is a motion made by
someone that voted in the majority, but here we have no majority,
because there was a 2-2 tie. So my view would be that this doesn't
apply at all. You can simply bring the item up anew right now if you
Page 309
July 29, 2003
wish, and have -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At a future meeting when we
have --
MR. MANALICH: Or you can bring it up at a future meeting.
I just don't think this applies because you don't have a majority vote
on this. It dies. It's not like you -- so I don't think you're bound. It
can either be discussed tonight or at another meeting. I don't know if
Mr. Mudd, do you have any quarrel with that view? MR. MUDD: Well, it says in the majority.
MR. MANALICH: I just don't think this applies in this context.
So you're not restricted is what I'm saying. It can come up either
again tonight or at a future meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if it comes up tonight, we
better start thinking about bringing out the sleeping bags.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You asked to bring it back?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I ask to bring it back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, if we have to do that--
MR. MUDD: In the interim, over this next month, I'm going to
have Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Cormac Giblin see if they can't shake the
trees as far as grant funds are concerned or programs that look -- that
could be used in order to fund this program and make sure that we
haven't left any stone unturned to try to find that, with the board's
approval.
I think the board still thinks it's a good program. It's just the
funding.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The funding, exactly.
Item # 10L
APPROVING ENDING NEGOTIATIONS WITH INTERSTATE
Page 310
July 29, 2003
WASTE TECHNOLOGIES AND START NEGOTIATIONS WITH
FIRIGHTSTAR- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 10-L, which is 16C-1, which
basically is the staff from solid waste asking that the IWC
negotiations be stopped because the price that they want per ton is
rather high, higher than what we thought was a feasible range, and
based on submittals and prior approval of the board, the course of
action, we now go to number two on the list, which is Brightstar, to
begin negotiations with them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Widdis, don't say a word. I'm
going to ask for the public speaker to come up here and ask his
question.
MS. FILSON: Actually, I have two public speakers. The first
one is Bob Krasowski, and he will be followed by Jan Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I don't have a question. I have a comment,
and I would like to keep the normal procedure, and will hear from the
county and their presentation first. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jan Krasowski.
MS. KRASOWSKI: Good evening. It is really hard to make a
comment when we don't know exactly what Mr. Widdis is going to
say. I really don't think that you calling the speakers before we hear
the report is correct, nor do I think it's fair. I thought that we were
supposed to be a county -- a character here, and then you expect
people to be able to speak on things when they haven't even heard
what our government officials are saying?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Widdis -- and the reason
I asked the public speakers to come up is because the public wanted-
- had some concerns about this, so I wanted to hear the public's
concerns, but Mr. Widdis, go ahead.
MR. WIDDIS: Commissioners, good evening. For the record,
Page 311
July 29, 2003
Tom Widdis, public utilities operation director and a member of the
gasification negotiation committee.
What I'm going to share with you tonight is paraphrased from
the charts that have been inserted into the executive summary that are
part of that package, and I will basically walk through a couple of
those charts that are in there. So that will be the scope of my
presentation.
First off, the first chart that you can see, hopefully you can see
this, the county public utilities division is involved in an integrated,
multi-faceted program to provide environmentally sound, cost
effective, solid waste management services to the citizens of Collier
County for the next 30 years or more in compliance and in direction
of the board of county commissioners.
Looking at this first slide on the charts, you'll note that in June
of 2001, the board directed staff to issue an RFP for processing and
gasificiation of a portion of the county's municipal solid waste. In
November of 2001, in compliance with the board's request, the
county issued a request for proposal for municipal solid waste
processing and gasification.
The county recognized that gasification is an innovative
technology due -- to process municipal solid waste. To minimize the
risk to the county, the following provisions were inserted into the
RFP. Bottom line, what we're negotiating on is the vendor shall
design, they'll build, they'll own, they'll operate and will finance the
project.
The county shall provide 150,000 tons per year of municipal
solid waste. And there is a put or pay guarantee in that negotiation,
that we will come up with 150,000 as they show capability to
process.
Successful commercial operation of a reference facility is a
condition precedent to executing a contract. Bottom line, they have
to demonstrate, the potential bidders have to demonstrate or potential
Page 312
July 29, 2003
contractors have to demonstrate a commercially viable facility.
The county's put or pay obligation will begin only after passing
the acceptance testing.
Finally, the vendor must post a bond payable to the county to
allow the county to recover its costs should the project fail to pass the
acceptance test.
Again, thinking in terms of the time line from the previous
chart, in April of 2002, the proposals were submitted to the county by
Interstate Waste Technologies and Brightstar, and they were deemed
responsive. As a result, after evaluating the two proposals, the
county selection committee ranked IWT ahead of Brightstar and
proceeded into the findings and bringing them to the board in March
of 2003.
At that time, the board instructed staff, best and final price
negotiations with IWT, and then report back to. the board before
proceeding any further.
In July, on July 2nd of 2003, IWT, in fact, submitted their final
price proposal and met with the project delivery team on July 8.
Bottom line, the project delivery team assessed, in fact, what IWT
has proposed to us. We found the cost to be much, much higher than
we could recommend to the board.
Just a couple of brief items here. If you look at the middle of
this chart marked consideration, you'll note that our current landfill
cost is about $33, $33.28. Our current contingency disposal cost is
approximately $54, which would basically be finding some other
source other than the county landfill.
And the last slide I'll show you shows the best and final price
proposal from IWT. Solid waste provides 150,000 tons a year. The
county provides a site. The county provides utilities to the county
boundary. However, we found the price from IWT in excess of $100
per ton as being excessive, and as a result, our recommendation to
the board is that we notify IWT that the county does not wish to
Page 313
July 29, 2003
proceed further with negotiations at this time, and number two, we
request that you authorize staff to commence negotiations with
Brightstar, based on the county guarantee of 150,000 tons.
That's the extent of my presentation tonight. Are there any
questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions of the board?
Entertain a motion. ! make a motion that we approve staffs
recommendation.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Can I please make a comment, sir?
I can't know what's going on with the issue unless I hear the
presentation. That was the whole point of my requesting earlier that
it be taken off the consent agenda and put on the regular agenda,
which Commissioner Coletta did accommodate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And sir, I told you what it was all
about, is the price per ton from the first contractor was too much, so
like I said, we're going to the second contractor.
MR. KRASOWSKI: But that's not my -- that's the point I want
to make and I'd like to hand out this documentation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I knew that you had something, so --
MR. KRASOWSKI: It's a one page. I'm not going to lay stuff
on you--
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: But you had your time.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I didn't have any time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You came up and spoke.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I don't think this is appropriate. Before
the presentation--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You had something written that you
could have gave to the commissioners.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, I just wanted to share this.
Brightstar Environmental, Commissioner, of which you're suggesting
we move on to, has -- their parent company has released a press
release as required by the stock exchange that they have to provide
Page 314
July 29, 2003
information and I don't know if you have heard about this yet. I'm a
bit disturbed that this information wasn't involved in this presentation
today. Not saying anybody intentionally left it out, but I think our
consultant should have been here to provide this to you, but the
parent company of Brightstar that owns -- that -- or this paralysis
operation environment EDL, the NE it goes by -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bob.
I'm going to make a motion to approve. We gave public
speakers the --
MR. KRASOWSKI: Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to the motion?
MR. KRASOWSKI: These people have bailed out of
Brightstar. It's no longer a viable entity, and you're going to tell
these people to spend $76,000 on a chance to negotiate with a
company that has just loss 88 percent. This doesn't make sense at all.
How can this be this way, my commissioners?
MR. MUDD: Because they submitted a proposal, Bob. The
selection committee said that it was viable and went through it. And
oh, by the way, Bob, we asked you to be a member of that selection
committee, if I remember correctly. You--
MR. KRASOWSKI: A non-voting member.
MR. MUDD: The next thing I'll tell you is those slides that Mr.
Wides presented today were on the agenda, okay, all the agendas
were submitted, they're out in every library in Collier County in full
view. There's no slide that was presented tonight that wasn't part of
the commissioner's packet in the process, and all we're basic -- and
all we are basically doing was notifying the commissioner that IWT
was too high, and that we needed to go to the second on the list in
order to do that process.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Now, are you sure you want to do that
now that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We need to do that. Legally, we
Page 315
July 29, 2003
need
have
to do that.
MR. KRASOWSKI: No.
to do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
You have the option. You do not
You have to sit down.
I made the motion to approve. Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a second to the motion.
Any discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Next item.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker under public
comment, and I'm sure he's gone, but I wanted just to call his name to
be sure. A1 Perkins.
Item #12
COl JNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Comments from the county
attorney.
MR. MANALICH: Yes, real briefly. I did speak to Mr.
Schmitt about this yesterday, and I just wanted to give you, in
conjunction with Mr. Schmitt, a very quick update on the Naples
Park survey matter, and basically, and Joe, correct me if I misstate
this, but when you look at the discussion in the minutes of the board
Page 316
July 29, 2003
on this topic previously, I think the clear intent that we've determined
is the board wanted a survey by an independent firm that would be
sought through an RFP to do the Naples Park survey. I don't think
the board intended to have a full election through the elections office.
At this point, that's the direction which we're proceeding. This
matter will come back to you in September with the RFP process
well underway, and I believe more information. Joe, if you want to add anything.
MR. SCHMITT: Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt,
administrator, community development and environmental services.
When the -- when we came before you in the spring, we used
the term, ballot. Ballot triggers events in Florida statutes that require
a full-blown election type of process, and that was not the intent. The
intent is an official survey. I just wanted to make sure we clear the
record that it's termed an official survey and not a ballot, because a
ballot triggers subsequent events which we had no intention of doing
so, and so the public record, it will be an official survey.
We'll be coming back to you in September with your -- at your
direction to bring that survey before you so you can review that
before it goes out to the public in Naples Park, and that was the onlY
purpose of this brief conversation, was to correct the record and be
sure that's called a survey and not a ballot, even though it will be
referred to as a ballot, it fundamentally is a ballot, but if it's official
ballot, it triggers events through the supervisor of elections, and we
don't -- we didn't want to do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is this an official, binding question
then?
MR. SCHMITT: That in itself-- you can initiate an MSTU
without any input from the public, but this input will provide you the
necessary, in fact, legal backup to support or defend whether you do
or do not want to form an MSTU if there's any interest in
implementing any portion of the community character plan in Naples
Page 317
July 29, 2003
Park.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I also think that this is probably
the better way of doing -- of addressing this, because of the fact that
not every homeowner would be a registered voter. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And this way, we know that we'll
get to every property owner, whether they're a registered voter or not,
and that way we have hopefully a better sampling of the overall
community there.
MR. SCHMITT: It was not -- it's not our intent to change what
we presented. It was our intent all along, exactly what we presented.
Just for the record, we had to make sure that you concur that it wasn't
a ballot, because a ballot, again, triggers very specific legal events,
whereas, official ballots -- official surveys.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's late.
MR. SCHMITT: You got me saying it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I also think that's what the
property owners -- that's what they demanded, that they would like to
make sure that every property owner who has two properties or three
properties, that each of those properties is included in the vote, one
each for each of those properties. MR. SCHMITT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you need to vote on this or is --
MR. SCHMITT: No. I just wanted to make it a matter of
record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anything else?
MR. SCHMITT: Nothing further.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager, Jim Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Sir, I wouldn't dare. I hope you have a nice next
month. Spend some time with your family. You deserve it, and the
staff is here. We're taking notes, and I will tell you your executive
Page 318
July 29, 2003
assistants are doing a great time -- a great job sending those e-mails
from constituents out to us that need information and we're trying to
respond in keeping you copied on them, and so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, we haven't been here for a
month, and I'm sure a lot of things happen in a month. Would you
like to update us?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A very detailed update and talk
slow.
MR. MUDD: Sir, can I send you an e-mail?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I want to say that I think today it's
probably going to go down as a mark in the history of Collier County
on what the commissioners today voted on, and that was the south
estates property, and I think that we got something to be proud of,
and it's going to be interesting to see how this all tums out in the next
ten years, and I think we're going to be amazed at what we have
accomplished today as commissioners, and I'm proud to be part of
this team.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Ramiro, I just want to say
congratulations. We're so proud of you, and we hate losing you. We
just hate losing you. And tell us, I know you're going to miss me
while I'm gone, but see ya.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you. For you out
in the listening audience that are still up and can't find something
decent to watch on television, the original intent was to go two days
with this meeting. However, due to the fact that we had a number of
people waiting to be heard, we tried to do this marathon meeting and
get everything done at one time. And with that, I'd like to conclude
by saying I didn't get everything I wanted today, but you all behaved
admirably.
Page 319
July 29, 2003
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I do have a file about this big
about all the things that the staff has accomplished over this two-
month period of time, and I'll get you a copy.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Today is seven month my son
was born, so happy birthday, Austin, and we are adjourned.
***** Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner
Halas and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Coyle out), that the following
items under the Consent and-Summary Agendas be approved and/or
adopted: *****
Item #16Al
RESOLUTION 2003-232 SUPPORTING MARCH
PERFORMANCE, INC., AS A QUALIFIED APPLICANT AND
ASSIGNING ROADWAY MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
FOR A ROAD TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE NORTH NAPLES
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK PURSUANT TO A
ROADWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND NORTH NAPLES GOLF RANGE,
INC., AND AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA OFFICE OF TOURISM, TRADE AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND COLLIER COUNTY ACCEPTING A
$2007000 GRANT
Item #16A2
A $50,000 REIMBURSABLE GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR FUNDING EXOTIC
VEGETATION RFJMOVAIJ ON COl JNTY ROAD 92 AND IJ.S. 41
Item # 16A3
Page 320
July 29, 2003
RELEASE OF LIEN FOR CASE NO. 2001-024 STYLED BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
VS. CHARLES AND CHRISTINE MORRISON FOR VIOLATION
OF ORDINANCES NO. 99-51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE
NO. 91-47, AS AMENDED OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVEI,OPMENT CODE
Item # 16A4
A CONTRACT WITH AWARD VACATIONS CORPORATION
FOR WEB ENABLED VACATION PACKAGES FOR COLLIER
COUNTY VISITORS AND PAYMENT OF RELATED FEES IN
THE AMOIJNT OF $5,000
Item # 16A5
A TDC CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE
LOWDERMILK PARK PARKING LOT
RECONSTRUCTION/RESTORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF
$375,000
Item # 16A6
REQUEST BY BRADLEY N. CANCE, GENERAL MANAGER OF
THE RITZ-CARLTON GOLF RESORT, FOR AN EXTENSION OF
THE NUMBER OF DAYS PERMITTED FOR HOSTING SPECIAL
EVENTS - TEMPORARY-USE EXTENSION FOR UP TO FOUR
WEEKS
Item # 16A7
A TOURISM AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR
SEMI-ANNUAL MONITORING OF DOCTORS PASS, PROJECT
90003, IN THE AMOIINT OF $10,000
Item # 16A8
Page 321
July 29, 2003
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "DELASOL PHASE ONE", AND
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY- WITH
STIPI HJATIONS
Item # 16A9
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "DELASOL PHASE TWO",
AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY, AND ACCEPT THE COUNTY PARK DEDICATION
A GRF. F. MF. NT - WITH STIPI IIJATIONS
Item #16Al0
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "VALENCIA LAKES-PHASE 4-
A", AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY, AND TO ACCEPT CERTAIN OFF SITE DRAINAGE
F. ASEMF. NTS - WITH STIPI IIJATIONS
Item # 16Al 1
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "CAYO COSTA", AND
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY- WITH
STIPI H~ATIONS
Item #16A12
Page 322
July 29, 2003
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "CASA DEL LAGO", AND
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY- WITH
STIPI H~ATIONS
Item #16A13
RESOLUTION 2003-233 TERMINATING THE TEMPORARY
OPTIONAL FUEL COST SURCHARGE THAT AUTHORIZED
TAXI DRIVERS TO RECOVER SOME OF THE COST OF
MOTOR VEHICIJF. FI IF.I~
Item #16A14
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "STRATFORD PLACE" AND
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY- WITH
STIPI JI~ATIONS
Item #16A15
CONTRACT #03-3504, IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,945, WITH
HENDERSON, YOUNG AND COMPANY FOR CONSULTANT
SERVICES FOR AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
IMPACT FEE 1JPDATF. STI IDY
Item # 16A 16
CONTRACT #03-3504 IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,632.50 WITH
TINDALE-OLIVER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR
CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR A LIBRARY SYSTEM IMPACT
FEE l JPDATF. STI IDY
Item # 16A 17
Page 323
July 29, 2003
A $4,500 REIMBURSABLE GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR FUNDING EXOTIC
VEGETATION REMOVAL IN BAREFOOT BEACH PRESERVE
- FOR FY02/03-FY04/05
Item #16A18
DETERMINATION THAT THE ADVERTISING AND
PROMOTION EXPENSES LISTED IN THE ATTACHED
INVOICE SERVES THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND PROMOTES
TOURISM IN COLLIER COUNTY, AND AUTHORIZE
PAYMENT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES - IN THE AMOUNT
OF $1,552.16 TO KELLEY SWAFFORD & ROY FOR KSR
INVOICE #1 7633
Item #16A19
ONE (1) IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT OF $26,768.41 DUE
TO OVERPAYMENT- TO PHOENIX ASSOCIATES FOR
PERMIT NI JMBF. R 2001051831
Item # 16A20
THE TOURISM DEPARTMENT MARKETING PLAN BUDGET
AND ITS RELATED EXPENDITURES FOR FY02-03 AND A
FINDING THAT THE PLAN IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND
PROMOTES TOIIRISM IN COIJ,IFR COIJNTY
Item # 16A21 - Moved to Item # 10J
Item # 16A22
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "MARKET CENTER", AR-3336,
AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
Page 324
July 29, 2003
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECI JRITY - WITH STIPI JIJATIONS
Item # 16A23
A F1ND1NG THAT THE TOURISM DEPARTMENT
INITIATIVES ARE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY
PROMOTING TOURISM IN COLLIER COUNTY, AND TO
AUTHORIZE PAYMENT FOR EXPENSES INCURRED FOR
THOSE INITIATIVES - AS OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SIIMMARY
Item # 16B 1
RESOLUTION 2003-234 ADOPTING CHANGES TO
ORDINANCE NO. 2003-37 REGARDING THE
"CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS HANDBOOK FOR WORK
WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA"
- PROVIDING FOR REFERENCE AND GUIDANCE FOR
IJANDSCAPF. WORK
Item # 16B2
CONVEYANCE OF A UTILITY EASEMENT TO FLORIDA
POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY FOR THE RELOCATION OF A
UTILITY POLE AND GUY-WIRE ONTO COUNTY-OWNED
PROPERTY (FISCAL IMPACT $15.00) GOLDEN GATE AND
CORONADO PARKWAYS
Item # 16B3
THE UTILITY LOCATION AGREEMENT WITH TAMPA
ELECTRIC COMPANY DBA/PEOPLES GAS SYSTEM
ASSOCIATED WITH THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, COLLIER COUNTY PROJECT NO.
Page 325
July 29, 2003
60027 (SIX-LANING FROM LIVINGSTON ROAD TO EAST OF
SANTA FIARI:IARA lqOIH.EVARD)
Item # 16B4
RESOLUTION 2003-235 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF
A STATE HIGHWAY LIGHTING, MAINTENANCE, AND
COMPENSATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COIJIJIF. R COl INTY
Item #16B5
CONCEPTUAL MEDIAN MODIFICATIONS AND REVISED
LANE CALLS ALONG GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY EAST OF
THE INTERSECTION OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND
GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD- STAFF TO FINALIZE PROJECT
DESIGN, PROCURE BIDS AND RETURN TO THE BOARD FOR
AIITHORIZATION TO AWARD WORK ORDER
Item # 16B6
RESOLUTION 2003-236 AUTHORIZING AN INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT WITH LEE COUNTY REGARDING COUNTY
ROAD 951 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL (PD & E) STUDY 60171 IN THE AMOUNT
OF $250,000
Item #16B7
RESOLUTION 2003-237 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF
A TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AND COMPENSATION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COLLIER
COl INTY
Page 326
July 29, 2003
Item #16B8
WAIVE THE FORMAL BID PROCESS AND APPROVE A
CONTRACT BETWEEN TEMPLE, INCORPORATED AND
COLLIER COUNTY FOR SERVICES RELATED TO THE
COMPLETION OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) ADVANCED TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ATMS) PROJECT, PHASE I, COSTS
REIMBURSED BY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Item # 16B9
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 8 FOR PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING POST DESIGN SERVICES BY HOLE MONTES,
INC., FOR THE LAKELAND AVENUE BRIDGE, (PROJECT NO.
660427 FISCAI~ IMPACT $15,000) RFP #00-3057
Item # 16B 10
CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR WORK ORDER #AEC-FT-01-
04-A02 (PSA CONTRACT #98-2835) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$28,832, TO COMPLETE STORMWATER CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 51704, LAKE MOCKINGBIRD
Ol ~TFAI.I, 1N IMMOKAIJF, F.
Item # 16B 11
AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO BETTER
ROADS INC., FOR THE COUNTYWIDE PAVED SHOULDERS
AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, BID NO. 03-3528
IN THFJ AMOI INIT OF $549,370.25
Item # 16B 12
Page 327
July 29, 2003
RESOLUTION 2003-238 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION
BY DONATION OF EASEMENT AND FEE SIMPLE INTERESTS
REQUIRED FOR PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTING AND
MAINTAINING DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN THE LELY
AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT AREA, (PROJECT
51101). FISCAL IMPACT: LIMITED TO RECORDING FEES,
NOT TO FJXCF, F,D $6000
Item # 16B 13
SUPPLEMENTAL WORK ORDER # WMI-FT-0305 FOR THE
FOREST LAKES MSTU TO WILSON MILLER IN THE
AMOIINT OF $56,000 - CONTRACT # 01-3290/PHASFJ 4
Item # 16B 14
CONTRACT 03-3465 "ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR TRAFFIC
ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES" (ESTIMATED
ANNUAL AMOUNT $300,000) - AWARDED TO CARTER &
BURGESS, INC., TBE GROUP, INC., TEl ENGINEERS &
PLANNERS, T.Y. LIN INTERNATIONAL AND
WII,SONMII JI,F,R~ 1NC.
Item #16B 15
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 03-3509 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,063,253 FOR CONSULTING AND DESIGN
SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY AMERICAN CONSULTING
ENGINEERS OF FLORIDA, LLC, FOR PROPOSED CAPACITY
IMPROVEMENTS TO GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD FROM
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY TO PINE RIDGE ROAD, PROJECT
NO. 60005
Item # 16B 16
Page 328
July 29, 2003
DONATION AGREEMENT AND WARRANTY DEED FROM
OLDE CYPRESS DEVELOPMENT, LTD., FOR OLDE CYPRESS
UNIT ONE, TRACT R-3, TRACT O AND A PORTION OF
TRACT R-1 SUBJECT TO THE MODIFICATION OF THE
REVERTER LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN THE WARRANTY
DEED AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REVIEW
AND RF, COMMENDATION OF THE REVISED I~ANGI IAGE
Item # 16B 17
RESOLUTION 2003-239 PROHIBITING TRUCKS AND OTHER
COMMERCIAL VEHICLES HAVING A RATED LOAD-
CARRYING CAPACITY IN EXCESS OF FIVE (5) TONS FROM
OPERATING IN THE LEFT LANE, EXCEPT WHEN PASSING
OR PREPARING TO MAKE A LEFT TURN, ON IMMOKALEE
ROAD FROM AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD TO COLLIER
BOULEVARD, GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD FROM COLLIER
BOULEVARD TO WILSON BOULEVARD, AND COLLIER
BOULEVARD FROM GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD TO US 41.
INSTALLATION OF LEGALLY REQUIRED SIGNAGE FOR
NOTICE TO MOTORISTS; COST APPROVAL OF $3200.
(FJFFF, CTIVF, DATE SF, PTEMBF, R 17 2003)
Item # 16C 1 - Moved to Item # 10L
Item # 16C2
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST
REAL PROPERTY FOR ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND
DIRECT THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RECORD SAME IN THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. FISCAL
IMPACT IS $106.50 TO RECORD THE LIENS - AS CONTAINED
IN THF, F, XECI JTIVF, SI JMMARY
Page 329
July 29, 2003
Item # 16C3
BID #03-3523 FOR "FURNISHING AND DELIVERY OF
HOUSEHOLD RECYCLING CONTAINERS"- ESTIMATED
COST PER FISCAL YEAR IS $20,000 - AWARDED TO REHRIG
PACIFIC COMPANY
Item #16C4
RESOLUTION 2003-240 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
141 PERTAINING TO THE PRICE STREET-BAREFOOT
WILLIAMS ROAD MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT,
PROJF, CT NI ~MBFR 70077
Item #16C5
AWARD CONTRACT 03-3484 "FIXED TERM
INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROLS ENGINEERING
SERVICES (ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT $1,000,000) TO
THE FOLLOWING FIRMS: RKS ENGINEERING, INC.;
CAROl J JO FJNG1NF, F,RS; WF, STIN FJNGINF, ERING~ INC.
Item # 16C6
AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE AND RECORD
SATISFACTIONS FOR CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER
IMPACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS
$28.50 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS - AS CONTAINED
IN THFJ F, XF~CI JTIVF, SI IMMARY
Item # 16C7
PAYMENT OF CONSENT ORDER NUMBER 03-0866-11-IW
ISSUED TO THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TRF~ATMF, NT PliANT IN THF, AMOI JNT OF $750.00
Page 330
July 29, 2003
Item # 16C8
ELECTRICAL UTILITY RATE AGREEMENTS FOR THE
NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY AS
NEGOTIATED WITH FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT
COMPANY
Item #16C9
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,760 TO
REALLOCATE FUNDS FOR THE TRANSFER OF SAFETY
COORDINATOR POSITION FROM WASTEWATER
ADMINISTRATION COST CENTER TO THE WATER
ADMINISTRATION COST CENTER
Item # 16C 10
RESOLUTION 2003-241 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT IN FULL
FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAl, ASSESSMENT
Item #16C 11
RESOLUTION 2003-242 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIENS FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT IN FULL
FOR THE 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SFJRVICFS SPF, CIAIJ ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C12
RESOLUTION 2003-243 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIENS FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT IN FULL
Page 331
July 29, 2003
FOR THE 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAI~ ASSESSMFiNTS
Item #16C 13 - Withdrawn
TRANSFER OF FUNDING SOURCE OF WORK ORDER NO. UC-
023 IN THE AMOUNT OF $535,600 FROM FUND 414 (USER
FEES) PROJECT 73051 TO FUND 413 (IMPACT FEES) FOR
PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS TO KYLE CONSTRUCTION
INC., PROJECT 73495
Item # 16C 14
SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKING OF FIRMS FOR
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS FOR RFP 03-3517,
"PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR WATER
MAIN PROJECTS" (ESTIMATED DOLLAR AMOUNT OF
CONTRACT IS $1,000,000)- STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS WITH GRFiEI~FiY AND HANSEN I,I~C
Item #16C 15 - Withdrawn
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 WITH UNITED ENGINEERING
CORPORATION FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER
TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION (BID NO. 01-3194) IN THE
AMOIINT OF $4597881.57
Item # 16C 16
WORK ORDER GH-FT-03-8 IN THE AMOUNT OF $149,812
WITH GREELEY AND HANSEN LLC FOR THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF PIGGING STATIONS FOR THE EXISTING
30-INCH PARALLEL SEWER FORCE MAIN ON IMMOKALEE
ROAD, PROJECT 73943 - CONTRACT # 00-311 9
Item # 16C 17
Page 332
July 29, 2003
AFFIRM THAT THE MANATEE ROAD 6 MILLION-GALLON
GROUND STORAGE TANK IS AN ELEMENT OF A PROJECT
PLANNED FOR IN THE 2002 WATER MASTER PLAN
ENTITLED MANATEE ROAD FOUR POTABLE WATER ASR
WELLS, PROJECT 70157, IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT
OF $2 MIIJ,ION
Item # 16C 18
THE SELECTION COMMITTEE SHORT LIST RANKING FOR
RFQ #03-3522, REGARDING TESTING SERVICES FOR THE
INFLOW AND INFILTRATION STUDY FOR THE SOUTH
COUNTY WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA, PROJECT 73164-
SEVERN TRENT SERVICES, RJN GROUP, INC., ADVANCED
IJNDFRGROIJND IMAGING AND F, QIJITAS SEWER SFRVICES
Item #16C 19 - Deleted
Item #16C20
CONTRIBUTION OF $20,000 TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR A FURTHER
FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A REGIONAL IRRIGATION
DISTRIBIITION SYSTEM AT A SIJB-REGIONAI~ I~F, VEI~
Item # 16C21
ASSIGNMENT OF A CONTRACT THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED
BY RICHARD K. BENNETT, TRUSTEE, (ASSIGNOR) TO
CITYGATE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, (ASSIGNEE), PROJECT
7OO54
Item # 16C22
AMENDMENTS TO CLOSE OUT WORK ORDERS GH-FT-02-05
AND GH-FT-02-06 WITH GREELEY AND HANSEN, LLC, TO
Page 333
July 29, 2003
UPDATE THE 2002 WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER
PLANS, PROJECTS 70070 AND 73066. (IN THE AMOUNT OF
$74~600) - CONTRACT #00-3119
Item # 16D 1
THE HOME CARE FOR THE ELDERLY GRANT CONTRACT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA AGENCY ON AGiNG FOR
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, iNC., D/B/A SENIOR SOLUTIONS OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AND APPROVE THE BUDGET
AMENDMENT- CONTRACT # HCFi 311.203.04
Item #16D2
THE ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE iNITIATIVE GRANT
CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA AGENCY ON
AGiNG FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, iNC., D/B/A SENIOR
SOLUTIONS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AND APPROVE THE
BI JDGF, T AMFNDMF, NT- CONTRACT # ADI 305_203.04
Item #16D3
THE COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE ELDERLY
CONTiNUATION GRANT CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE
AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA,
iNC., D/B/A SENIOR SOLUTIONS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA-
CONTRACT # CCF, 302.203.04
Item #16D4
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT REVENUE iN THE AMOUNT
Page 334
July 29, 2003
OF $46,500 FOR THE HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO
PROVIDE PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS TO LOW 1NCOME
RESIDENTS IN IMMOKAI.F.F.
Item #16D5
RESOLUTION 2003-244 AMENDING AMBULANCE SERVICE
1JSER FEES
Item # 16D6
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES
FOR THE RECIPROCAL BEACH-PARKING PROGRAM AT A
COST OF ~390:000 FOR FISCAIJ YEAR 2003
Item #16D7
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO
APPROVE FUNDS NOT TO EXCEED $20,000 TO SPRAY FOR
MOSQUITOES OUTSIDE OF THE COLLIER MOSQUITO
CONTROL DISTRICT SHOULD THE COUNTY BE PLACED ON
MEDICAIJ AI.FRT FlY THE DEPARTMF. NT OF HEAIJTH
Item # 16E 1
AWARD BID #03-3518, FOR SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND
SUPPLIES, TO SAFETY SUPPLY WAREHOUSE AND
GRAINGF, R. (ESTIMATED NOT TO EXCEFD $100~000)
Item # 16E2
REJECT ALL PROPOSALS RECEIVED UNDER RFP 03-3543,
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES CONTRACT- STAFF TO
RF. ISSI JE AN RFP
Item #16E3
Page 335
July 29, 2003
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO MOVE FUNDS FROM THE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT BUDGET TO
THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BUDGET IN
ORDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE FUNDING TO MEET
STAFFING NEEDS FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE CURRENT
FISCAIJ YEAR
Item #16E4
AWARD OF BID #03-3527, "GASOLINE AND DIESEL FUEL",
TO EVANS OIL COMPANY (PRIMARY VENDOR) AND
PETROLEUM TRADERS CORPORATION (SECONDARY
VENDOR), ESTIMATED AT $1.8 MIIJJON ANNIIAIJ~Y
Item # 16E5
PAYMENT OF $34,467.43 TO AAA GENERATOR & PUMP,
1NC., FOR USE TAX ASSESSED BY STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND FOR USE TAX INCURRED
AFTER ASSESSMENT ON CONTRACTED WORK- FOR THE
PERIOD OF 1996 THROUGH 12/31/02 UNDER CONTRACT #03-
3466
Item # 16E6
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVE
CHANGE ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED CONTRACTS-
FOR PERIOD BEGINNING ON OR ABOUT 6/9/03 THROUGH
7/16/03
Item #16E7
PARTIAL FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,622.67 FOR THE
GOLDEN GATE FIRE SAFETY COMPLEX KITCHEN
REMODEl, TO IMPROVE FACII.ITY ACCOMMODATIONS
Page 336
July 29, 2003
Item #16E8
CHANGE ORDER #3, AMENDMENT FOUR, CONTRACT 98-
2867, IN THE AMOUNT OF $338,000 FOR THE DESIGN OF THE
EXPANSION AND RENOVATION OF THE NAPLES JAIL
CENTER TO AEC NATIONAl,
Item # 16F 1
CONSENT AND EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED
BY THE COUNTY MANAGER DURING THE BOARD'S
SCHEDI II,ED RECESS
Item #1'
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND THE EAGLE LAKES
NATIIRE INTERPRETIVF. CENTER; PROJECT 74050
Item #2'
CONTRACT #03-3497, "AUDITING SERVICES FOR COLLIER
COUNTY", AWARDED TO KPMG IN THE ESTIMATED
AMOI INT OF $285;000
Item #3'
BUDGET AMENDMENT #03-404 FOR SABAL PALM ROAD
EXTENSION; #03-405 FOR GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION
MSTU; #03-406 FOR VANDERBILT BEACH MSTU; #03-407
FOR NAPLES PRODUCTION PARK MSTD; #03-408 FOR LELY
GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTD AND #03-410 FOR
COIJ.IER COl JNTY lIGHTING
Item #4'
Page 337
July 29, 2003
BUDGET AMENDMENT #03-389 FOR MSTD GENERAL
I,ANDSCAPE PROJECTS
Item #5:
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND THE PROCESS OF LEGAL
ADVERTISING
Item #6:
BUDGET AMENDMENT #03-414 FOR MSTD GENERAL
IJANDSCAPE PROJECTS
Item #7:
BID #03-3542 FOR THE "BOARDROOM TECHNOLOGY
ENHANCEMENT" PROJECT AWARDED TO THE WHITLOCK
GROI JP IN THE AMOIJNT OF $105~398
Item #8:
BID #03-3547 FOR LONG DISTANCE SERVICES AWARDED
TO TEL QUEST COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION IN THE
ESTIMATED AMOIINT OF $847000
Item #9:
BUDGET AMENDMENT #03-422 FOR PUBLIC SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
Item #16F2
AWARD BID #03-3520 IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,800 FOR
PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF PINE STRAW MULCH TO
FORESTRY RESOI IRCES~ INC.
Page 338
July 29, 2003
Item #16F3
RESOLUTION 2003-245 AUTHORIZING COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA TO ACCEPT A $20,000 MATCHING GRANT (75/25)
FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS TO REVISE AND UPDATE THE COLLIER
COUNTY'S LOCAL MITIGATION STRATEGY AND APPROVE
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE AND
APPROPRIATFi RF, VFJNI IF,
Item # 16F4
RESOLUTION 2003-246 FIXING THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE
FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPROVING THE SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT (NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT) TO BE
LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PELICAN
BAY MI JNICIPAIJ SF. RVICE TAXING AND FIFJNFJFIT I1NIT
Item # 16F5
RESOLUTION 2003-247 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE BY
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA GAS TAX REVENUE BONDS,
SERIES 2004 AND ADDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL GAS TAX
REVENUES TO THE PLEDGED FUNDS FOR THE PRINCIPAL
PURPOSES OF FINANCING THE COSTS OF VARIOUS
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE COUNTY
AND REFINANCING CERTAIN INDF. BTFDNF. SS
Item # 16F6
RESOLUTION 2003-248 REGARDING REIMBURSEMENT OF
CERTAIN COSTS RELATING TO THE ACQUISITION,
CONSTRUCTION, AND RENOVATION OF THE COUNTY JAIL
COMPIJFJX ADDITION
Page 339
July 29, 2003
Item #16F7
A BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED FOR PAYMENT OF
REBATABLE ARBITRAGE ON THE ROAD IMPROVEMENT
REFI INDING R EVENI IF, BONDS. SERIFS 1 995
Item # 16I 1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE- FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 340
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
July 29, 2003
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
Bo
Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for
the period:
1. Disbursements for May 10, 2003 through Ma.v 16, 2003.
2. Disbursements for June 14, 2003 through June 20. 2003
3. Disbursements for June 21, 2003 through June 27. 2003
Districts:
Cedar hammock Community Development District - Minutes of
Meetings dated Monday, February 10, 2003.
2. Cow Slough Water Control District - Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-2004.
Heritage Greens Community Development District - Minutes of Meeting
dated Monday, August 12, 2002, Operating Budget for FY 2003,
Description of Outstanding Bonds, Minutes of Meeting dated Monday,
March 10, 2003, Independent Auditor's Report for the Fiscal year ended
Sept. 30, 2003, Management Letter and Rebuttal to Management Letter.
Immokalee Water and Sewer District - Annual Local Government
Financial Report FY 2001-2002, Independent Auditor's Report,
Independent Auditor's Report to Management and Rebuttal to
Management Letter from Immokalee Water and Sewer District.
Mediterra South Community Dev. Dist. - Minutes of meeting for February
26, 2003, Minutes of meeting for March 31, 2003 amd Description of
outstanding Bonds.
6. Port of the Islands Community District - Minutes of April 18, 2003
Fiddler's Creed Community Development District- Minutes of Meeting
held on February 26, 2003, Minutes of meeting held on May 7, 2003,
Public Facilities Report.
Minutes.:
H:Data/Format
5.
6.
7.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Minutes of
May 21, 2003.
Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for June 9, 2003, Minutes of
May 12, 2003.
Library Advisory Board - Agenda for May 28, 2003, Minutes of April 30,
2003.
Isles of Capri Fire/Rescue District - Agenda for June 5, 2003.
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Advisory Board - Minutes of May 7. 2003.
Development Services Advisory Committee - Agenda for June 4, 2003.
Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for June 17, 2003, Minutes
of May 20, 2003.
Historic & Archaeological Preservation Board - Agenda for June
2003, Minutes of May 21, 2003.
Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board - Minutes of January
22, 2003, Minutes of March 26, 2003, April 16, 2003, April 23, 2003,
Minutes of May 28, 2003.
Collier County Contractor's Licensin~ Board - Agenda for June 18, 2003.
Pelican Bay Services - Agenda for June 18, 2003, Agenda for July 2,
2003, Minutes of June4, 2003,t4±nu'ces of June 18, 2003
Collier County Planning Services - Agenda for June 19, 2003, Minutes of
May 15, 2003.
· . J
Lely Golf Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for June 19,
2003, Minutes of May 15, 2003.
Productivity Committee Meeting - Minutes of May 21,2003.
Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee Meeting - Minutes of Marcl~
24, 2003.
Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee -_Agenda for July 1,
2003, Minutes of June 2, 2003.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board -Age~ad~a.. of June 25, 2003,
Minutes of May 21, 2003.
Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee -
Agenda for June 27, 2003, Minutes of May 30, 2003.
H:Data/Format
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Citizen's Advisory Task Force Committee - Agenda for May 9, 2003,
Minutes of March 20, 2003.
Bavshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory BOard
Minutes of June 3, 2003; Minutes of February 5, 2003, Minutes of January
8, 2003.
Collier County Citizen's Corps Advisory Committee - Minutes of May
22, 2003; Agenda for May 22, 2003.
Bayshore Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Adisory Board - Tues.
July 1, 2003
Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda for July 2, 2003, Minutes of
June 4, 2003. Agenda for May 7, 2003, Agenda for April 2, 2003,
Minutes of April 2, 2003
Development Services Advisory Committee - Agenda for July 2, 2003,
June 4, 2003.
Collier County Library Advisory Board - Agenda for June 25, 2003,
Minutes of May 28, 2003.
Development Services Advisory Committee - Agenda for July 2, 2003.
Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for August 13, 2003, June
11, 2003.
Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Committee - Minutes for Jan. 9,
2002.
H:Data/Format
July 29, 2003
Item # 16J 1
PURCHASES OF GOODS AND SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN
THE DETAILED REPORT OF OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS
DETERMINED TO SERVE A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND
AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY
SAID PIJRCHASES (JIJNE 28-JIIIJY 117 2003)
Item # 16J2
PURCHASES OF GOODS AND SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN
THE DETAILED REPORT OF OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS
DETERMINED TO SERVE A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND
AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY
SAID PIIRCHASES (JIJNE 14-JIINF, 27, 2003)
Item # 16J3
PURCHASES OF GOODS AND SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN
THE DETAILED REPORT OF OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS
DETERMINED TO SERVE A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND
AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY
SAID PIIRCHASF, S (JIHJY 12-JIIIJY 18_ 2003'}
Item # 16J4
DESIGNATE THE SHERIFF AS THE OFFICIAL APPLICANT
AND PROGRAM POINT-OF-CONTACT FOR THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE
ASSISTANCE, LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM, ACCEPT THE GRANT WHEN AWARDED AND
APPROVE APPI,ICAFIIJFJ FIIIDGET AMENDMFNTS
Item # 16K 1
Page 341
July 29, 2003
THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 159B IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ANDY R. MORGAN,
ETAL., CASE NO. 02-5169-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT
#60018). (IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,382.96)- STAFF TO PAY
$2~820.96 TO FIJORIDA POWER & IJGHT
Item # 16K2
THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
ACQUISITION OF A ROAD EASEMENT DESIGNATED AS
PARCEL 128 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY
V. GERALD A. MCHALE, JR., SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE UNDER
UNRECORDED LAND TRUST AGREEMENT DATED 12/10/92, ET.
AL. (PINE RIDGE ROAD BETWEEN CR 31 AND LOGAN BLVD.,
PRO. IECTNO. 600111.) (IN THE AMOIINT OF $3~394.14)
Item # 16K3
THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
FEE SIMPLE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 142 IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. OWEN M. WARD, TRUSTEE,
ET~4L., CASE NO. 99-1291-CA. (IN THE AMOIINT OF $18,716)
Item # 16K4
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATING TO THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 132 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. TREESOURCE, INC., ETAL., CASE NO.
02-5167-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NO. 60018.) (IN
THE AMOI JNT OF $200,100)
Item # 16K5
Page 342
July 29, 2003
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 FOR
OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN
SUPPORT OF RESOLUTION 2002-428 EXPRESSING THE
COUNTY'S CONCERNS REGARDING THE ACQUISITION OF
THE MARCO ISLAND/MARCO SHORES UTILITY SYSTEM BY
THFi FI.ORIDA WATER SF, RVICF. S AI~THORITY
Item # 16K6
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE CASE OF BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA V.
MANATEE RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, ET AL,
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NUMBER 2001-086 -
COUNTY TO RECEIVE $55,140.13 FOR IMPACT FEES
ASSOCIATF, D WITH THF. CHANGF. OF IJSF~
Item # 17A - Continued to September 9, 2003
ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CHANGE IN
METHODOLOGY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF NON-
RESIDENTIAL WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES
BASED ON EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL CONNECTIONS
(F RC)
Item #17B - Continued to September 9, 2003
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL
ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBERED 0511S BY CHANGING THE
ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED
REAL PROPERTY FROM C-3 AND RMF-6 TO "PUD"
Page 343
July 29, 2003
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE MILLER
SQUARE PUD. THIS PROJECT WILL CONSIST OF 20,000
SQUARE FEET OR LESS OF RETAIL AND OFFICE
COMMERCIAL USES, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF U.S. 41 EAST AND SHADOWLAWN DRIVE,
CONSISTING OF 1.9+ ACRES. (THIS ITEM IS A COMPANION
TO CPSS-2003-1 GMP AMF, NDMF, NT~ ITEM 1 7 C)
Item # 17C - Continued to September 9, 2003
PETITION NO. CPSS-2003-1, A SMALL-SCALE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT) TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARIES OF ACTIVITY
CENTER #16. (THIS ITEM IS A COMPANION TO MILLER
SQl ~ARF, PI JDZ-2002-AR-31 51~ ITEM 17 B)
Item # 17D
ORDINANCE 2003-38 RE: PETITION PUDZ-03-AR-3605,
WILLIAM L. HOOVER OF HOOVER PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT INC., AND JEFF DAVIDSON OF DAVIDSON
ENGINEERING, INC., REPRESENTING PHILIP MCCABE OF
GULF COAST COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, REQUESTING
A REZONE FROM "RMF-6" RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY
ZONING DISTRICT TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS BOTANICAL PLACE PUD
ALLOWING 218 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING
UNITS OF WHICH 64 UNITS WILL BE FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF AN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
BAYSHORE DRIVE AND APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET NORTH
OF THOMASSON DRIVE
Page 344
July 29, 2003
Item #17E
RESOLUTION 2003-249 RE: PETITION AVROW2003-AR3572
TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S
AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-
WAY FOR 45TM LANE SOUTHWEST, WHICH WAS
DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY BY THE PLAT OF "GOLDEN
GATE UNIT 3", AND TO VACATE TWO 6 FOOT WIDE
DRAINAGE AND PIIFIIJIC IITII.ITY EASEMENTS
Item # 17F
RESOLUTION 2003-250 RE: PETITION AVPLAT2002-AR3183
TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S
AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE 15 FOOT WIDE
DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON A PORTION OF LOT
42, BLOCK "B", ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "FOREST
LAKES HOMES", AND TO ACCEPT A RELOCATION
DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON A PORTION OF SAID LOT 42
AND ON A PORTION OF THAT PARCEL OWNED BY THE
PF, TITIONF, R WHICH ABIJTS SAID I.OT 42
Item #17G
ORDINANCE 2003-39 IMPOSING A $3.00 SURCHARGE TO
FUND DRIVER EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN PUBLIC AND
NON-PI IBI,IC HIGH SCHOOI,S IN COIJJIF, R COl 1NTY
Item # 17H
RESOLUTION 2003-251 INCREASING THE REGULATORY
ASSESSMENT FEE FROM ONE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT TO
TWO PERCENT OF GROSS REVENUES FOR NON-EXEMPT
PRIVATELY OWNED WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
Page 345
July 29, 2003
SUBJECT TO LOCAL REGULATION, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1,
2003
Item # 17I
RESOLUTION 2003-252 RE: PETITION SNR-2003, AR-3979,
RONALD WALDROP OF WALDROP ENGINEERING, P.A.,
REPRESENTING LELY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE FOLLOWING FIVE STREET
NAME CHANGES LOCATED IN THE CLASSICS PLANTATION
ESTATES PHASE TWO:. FROM HEMINGWAY STREET TO
TRENT COURT; FROM KIPLING ROAD TO NELSONS WAY;
FROM CASABLANCA STREET TO PALMER COURT; FROM
BROWNING STREET TO HOGAN COURT; FROM EMERSON
STREET TO SNEAD COIJRT
Page 346
July 29, '2003
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:55 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECI~,~~m~T~LTq. DER ITS CONTROL
TOM HENNING, ChaimllPfl
'~- Qq-O~
DWIGHT E~BROCK, CLERK
These mingtes approved by the Board on
presented,,,,/ or as corrected
, as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM,
ELIZABETH BROOKS AND DEBRA DELAP
Page 347