BCC Minutes 09/09/2003 RSeptember 9, 2003
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, September 9, 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
Donna Fiala
Frank Halas
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Administrator
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
September 9, 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.
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
September 9, 2003
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Reverend Richard D. Ringenwald, Moorings Presbyterian Church
AGENDA AND MINUTES
Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended.
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. July 29, 2003- Regular
(Ex
C. July 31, 2003 - Value Adjustment Board Organizational Meeting
SERVICE AWARDS
Twenty-Year Attende~-
1) Joanne Soprano, Library
PROCLAMATIONS
Proclamation to designate September 22, 2003 as Family Day. There are ~o
representatives to accept this proclamation.
Proclamation to bring awareness to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society by
designating the Month of September 2003, as Leukemia and Lymphoma
Awareness Month. To be accepted by Nancy B. Fessenden, Ph.D., Patient
Services Manager.
Proclamation to designate September 15 through 19, 2003 as Industry
Appreciation Week. To be accepted by Tammie Nemecek, Executive Director
of the Economic Development Council and Fred Pezeshkan, Chairman of the
Economic Development Council.
D. Proclamation recognizing Dr. Charles A. Stokes for his outstanding spirit of
civic mindedness and his contributions to the community.
5. PRESENTATIONS
Recommendation to recognize Pamela Wilson, Administrative Assistant,
Traffic Operations and ATM Department, as Employee of the Month for August
2003.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Mr. Adam Mackey regarding proposed Traffic Light
at the Regent Park entrance on Immokalee Road.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Continued from the July 29, 2003 BCC Meeting. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. VA-2002-AR-2525 Robert Davy and Mark Allen, representing Little
2
September 9, 2003
Hickory Shores Unit 3 Re-Plat Property Owners, requesting a 15-foot variance
from the required boathouse sideyard setbacks 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.
B. This item re uires that all artici ants be sworn in and ex arte disclosure be
rop_[9._~_~ed b. Commission members. CU-2002-AR-3485, Terry Ke le.
Kepple Engineering, renresentin. p~,,.=..=_, ,., ...... - pp . of
,, ,- u ~,,-,,.,-. ,,. nyan, requesting conditional Use
"11 to allow a kiosk adjacent to the parking lot in the C-5 zoning district for a
food vendor. The property to be considered for the conditional use is located
at the Estey-Air Plaza, 1253 Airport Road South, located at the corner of
Airport Road and Estey Avenue, in Section 1, Township 50 south, Range 25
east, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 0.97+ acres.
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ao
This item to be heard after 10:00 a.m. This item requires that all participants
be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
Petition DRI-02-AR-2358, Robert Mulhere of RWA Inc., representing Parklands
Development L.P., requesting an amendment to the Parklands Development of
Regional Impact (DRI), to allow for a conversion in the mixture of multi-family
and single family uses while retaining the currently approved residential uses;
adding an additional 9 holes of golf for a total of 27 holes; establishing a
"Road Construction Agreement" with Collier County for the extension of
Logan Boulevard; revising the environmental commitments to include wetland
preservation and flow-way improvements for property located at the northeast
corner of the Logan Boulevard Extension and the future east/west Livingston
Road Right-of-Way and approximately two miles north of Immokalee Road
(CR-846), in Section 9, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, Collier County,
Florida.
This item to be heard after 10:00 a.m. This item re uires that all artici ants
be sworn in and ex arte disclosure be rovided b Commission members.
Petition PUDZ-02-AR-2357, Robert Mulhere,, of ,,RWA,, In,c,;. representing
Parklands Developments L.P., requesting a PUD to PUD '(Planned Unit
Development) rezone for the purpose of revising the Parklands PUD
document and master plan to allow for a conversion in the mixture of multi-
family and single family uses while retaining the currently approved
residential uses; adding an additional 9 holes of golf for a total of 27 holes;
establishing a "Road Construction Agreement" with Collier County for the
extension of Logan Boulevard; revising the environmental .commitments to
include wetland preservation and flow-way improvements for property located
at the northeast corner of the Logan Boulevard Extension and the future
east/west Livingston Road Right-of-Way and approximately two miles north of
Immokalee Road (CR-846), in Section 9, Township 48 south, Range 26 east,
Collier County, Florida.
3
September 9, 2003
Co
Do
E'
Go
Continued from the July 29, 2003 BCC Meetin.q. Al~proval of Items 17A and
17B are contin.qent ur)on the approval of this item. Petition No. CPSS-2003-1,
~ Small-scale growth management plan amendment (future land use element)
to expand the boundaries of Activity Center #16.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure b~'~
provided by Commission members. Petition CCSL-2001-5/AR-1922, Brett
Moore of Humiston and Moore Engineering, representing the Vanderbilt
Beach Motel; requesting a variance from the Coastal Construction Setback
Line (CCSL) to allow construction of a multi-story residential buildil]g, a
parking structure, two swimming pools with extensive paver decking, and a
wooden boardwalk connecting to a handicapped beach access ramp all of
which are located on property known as the Vanderbilt Beach Motel with a
street address of 9225 Gulfshore Drive North in an area generally known as
Vanderbilt Beach and more particularly described as Lot 4, Block A, Conners
Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit No. 1, located in Section 32, Township 48
south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
..This item to be heard after 2:00 p.m Recommendation to approve commercial
excavation Permit No. 59.814-1 "Golden Gate Quarry", located in Section 21,
Township 49 south, Range 27 east; bounded on the north by the existing
quarry operation, and on the west, south and east by land zoned Agricultural-
A (ST/WS4).
Public Hearing for the 2002 Cycle of Growth Management Plan Amendments.
(Adoption Hearing)
Adoption of a resolution applying the annual mid-cycle year indexing
adjustments to amend the road impact fee rate schedule, which is Schedule
One of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances (Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance No. 2001-13,
as amended); providing for a delayed effective date.
This item to be heard after 3:00 .m. Continued from the Jul 29 2003 BCC
~ 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.
.This item to be heard after 3:00 p.m. Approve an ordinance to be known as
the Fee Payment Assistance Ordinance; approve an associated budget
amendment for $1,500,000; establish a fee payment assistance program
available to eligible businesses to mitigate the economic effects of increased
impact fee rates.
This item to be .heard after 3:00 p.m. Approve an ordinance to be known as
the Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Ordinance, establishing
an advanced broadband infrastructure investment program available to
eligible businesses to encourage private sector investment in advanced
broadband infrastructure.
4
September 9, 2003
10.
This item to be heard after 3:00 p.m_ Approve an ordinance to be known as
the Job Creation Investment Ordinance; approve an associated budget
amendment for $500,000; establish the job creation investment program
available to eligible businesses to mitigate the economic effects of increased
development fees and relocation or expansion costs.
This item to be heard after 3:00 p.m Approve an ordinance to be known as
the Property Tax Stimulus Ordinance; establish a property tax stimulus
program available to eligible businesses to mitigate the economic effects of
increased relocation and expansion costs.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. This item has been deleted.
B. Appointment of member to the Development Services Advisory Committee.
C. Appointment of members to the Contractors' Licensing Board.
D. Appointment of member to the 1-75 Golden Gate Parkway Ad Hoc Advisory
Committee.
E. Appointment of members to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Advisory Board.
F. Appointment of members to the Collier County Planning Commission.
G. Appointment of member to the Collier County Airport Authority.
H. Appointment of members to the Emergency Medical
Council.
Local
Services Advisory
I. Appointment of member to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
J. Appointment of Commissioner to serve on the County Canvassing Board.
K. Appointment of members to the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
L. Discussion of proposed amendment to the County's Vehicle For
Ordinance regulating taxicabs. (Commissioner Henning)
.COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Hire
Board of Count Commissioners actin as the Communit Redevelo ment
~ Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
carefully analyze the four funding options and recommend to the Board of
County Commissioners the amount of funding that should be allocated from
Fund 186 (Immokalee Redevelopment) and Fund 187 (Bayshore/Gateway
Redevelopment) towards the funding of one and three quarters (1 & %) full-
time employees (FTEs) for FY03/04 necessary for facilitating the
Redevelopment Incentives Program. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Community
Development)
5
September 9, 2003
11.
12.
13.
Approve funding in the amount of $98,000 for 'the creation of a Non-Profit
Housing Development Corporation (HDC). (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development)
C. Approve Developer Contribution Agreement with G.L. Homes of Naples
Associates, Ltd. as developer for road impact credits ($344,250) in exchange
for the land dedication to the County's Transportation Network. All rights to
developer under the Developer Contribution Agreement are subject to
developer complying with all conditions of the Agreement imposed by the
County. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
D. Consideration to support the Southwest Florida Resource and Conservation
and Development (SWFRC&D) Council's Application for Resource
Conservation and Development Program Assistance after hearing a
presentation by a SWFRC&D Representative. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development)
E. !~em to be heard prior to Items 8A and 8B' Request that the Board of County
Commissioners approve donation agreements and accept warranty dee, ds
from Olde Cypress Development, Ltd., for Olde Cypress Unit One, Tract R-3,
Tract O and a portion of Tract R-1 for the purpose of future right-of-way to be
known as Logan Boulevard North and to approve a landscape maintenance
agreement with Olde Cypress Development. (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services)
Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners authorize staff to
negotiate agreements between the agency for Health Care Administration and
Naples Community Hospital for participation in the Upper Payment Limit
Program for services provided on behalf of Human Services Department,
County Health Department, and David Lawrence Center to generate an
additional $537,197 in federal matching funds. (John Dunnuck, Administrator,
Public Services)
Authorize an additional $163,900 to spray for mosquitos outside of the Collier
Mosquito Control District for the remainder of the rainy season because of the
medical alert by the Florida Department of Health. (John Dunnuck,
Administrator, Public Services)
H. Award a Construction Contract in the amount of $5,920,319.69 to Better Roads
Inc., and allocate $590,000.00 (10% of the construction cost) for contingency
purposes to construct the Golden Gate Parkway Six Lane Improvement
Project, from Livingston Road to Santa Barbara Boulevard, Project No. 60027,
Bid No. 03-3552. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
6
September 9, 2003
Item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. To discuss with the Board of County
Commissioners the Clerk of the-Circuit Court assisting the State Attorney's
Office with white-collar crime cases.
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Approve an agreement to accept a 100% reimbursable Caribbean
Conservation Corporation Grant in the amount of $6,000.
2)
Approve the settlement agreement relative to a Code Enforcement Lien
imposed on property located on 275 Singletary Street, Copeland, Florida,
and upon payment authorize the execution and recording of a Satisfaction
of Lien.
3) Establishment of a program to provide assistance to affordable housing
rental developments.
4) Final acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for North Naples
United Methodist Church.
s)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway (private), drainage,
water and sewer Improvements for the final plat of "Indigo Lakes Unit
One".
6)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway (private), drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Indigo Lakes Unit
Three".
7) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway (private), drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Pebblebrooke Lakes".
8) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway (private), drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Pebblebrooke Lakes
Phase 2".
9)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway (private), drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Pebblebrook Lakes
Phase 3".
7
September 9, 2003
lO)
Approve a TDC Category "A" Tourism Agreement with the City of Naples
for the Lowdermilk Park Parking Lot Reconstruction/Restoration in the
amount of $375,000.
11) Approval of the Satisfaction of Liens for Code Enforcement Board Case
No. 2002-013; 2003-018; and 2001-014.
12)
Lien Resolutions-Code Enforcement Case Numbers:
2003010033/Licimaco Ramirez; 20020602501Lizzie Holmes Glover;
2003041306/Abraham j. and Dotty Moses; 2003041305/Abraham j. and
Dotty Moses; 20030413041Abraham j. and Dotty Moses;
2003041303/Macquerira, Mercy; 2003050823/Buitrago, Alvaro;
2003030939/Gomez, Jesus; 2002120974/VVisniewski, Leonard;
2003010862/Smentek, Karen L.; 2002120433/Melendez, Miranda;
2002120967/Lewis Tr., Evelyn G; 2107300309/Family Storage Inc.,
20030112241Baur, Guy E. and Diane; 20030107721Joyce Et al, Wallace
Landon; and 2002110465/Aurora Bros.
13) Ratify County Manager authorization to. change the allocation of expenses
in Tourism Agreement with the City of Naples for the July 4th 2003
Celebration.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
To obtain retroactive Board approval of wording change to the amended
Interlocal Agreement with the City of Naples extending the current
distribution of the local option gas taxes revenues until December 31,
2003.
2)
To address a neighborhood association generated request that the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners (CCBCC) approve the
establishment of a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
(NTMP)/Traffic Calming Project via the adoption of Traffic Management
Petition Number 03-02, for the area of Estey Avenue, Pine Street and
Brookside Drive from Shadowlawn Drive to Davis Boulevard/SR 84 for a
total cost of $16,000.
3) Award a construction contract in the amount of $702,930.45 to Apac-
Southwest Inc., and allocate $70,000 (10% of the construction cost) for
contingency and budget purposes to construct the proposed Davis
Boulevard/Collier Boulevard Intersection, Project No. 60170.
4) Approve Work Order No. BOC-FT-03-03 with Bonness Inc., for intersection
improvements in the amount of $165,716.46 on Golden Gate Parkway and
Coronado Parkway Intersection, Project No. 66065.
5) Approve the Joint Participation Agreement between Collier County and
Sprint-Florida, Incorporated for construction of underground utilities for
the Golden Gate Parkway Six Lane Improvement Project No. 60027.
6) To address a neighborhood association generated request that the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners (CCBCc) approve the
establishment of a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
8
. September 9, 2003
(NTMP)/Traffic Calming Project via the adoption of Traffic Management
Petition Number 03-01, for River Reach Drive from River Reach Way West
approximately 3,200 feet.
7) Award Contracts 03-3480 "Fixed Term Professional Environmental
Consulting Services" (estimated dollar amount of contract not to exceed
$500,000 annually per firm).
8) Recommendation to award Annual Bid #03-3510-"Jack and Bore and
Directional Bore Operations" to Cabana Construction, Inc. and American
Boring and Trenching, Inc., for the approximate amount of $30,000.
9) Approve a Work Order No. KCS-FT-03-01 in the amount of $197,934 for the
construction engineering and inspections services by KCCS for the Davis
Boulevard/Collier Boulevard Intersection Improvements, Project No.
60170, RFP No. 00-3184.
10) Recommendation to award Bid #03-3483-to NR Contractors for the
construction of equipment noise barrier wall at the Davis Boulevard
Maintenance Facility approximate amount of $409,981.68 and include
additional engineering work and a contingency in the amount of $51,(~00
for a total amount of $460,981.68.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Award of Bid #03-3544 - Annual Contract for Sale of Baled Corrugated
and White Goods".
2)
Request a budget amendment to transfer funds between Stake and
Locate, Wastewater Treatment Plant-lmmokalee Road, Reuse, Wastewater
Labs, Collections, and South County Wastewater Treatment Plant in the
amount of $203,000.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt
resolutions approving the preliminary assessment as the final
assessment rolls and adopting same as the non-ad valorem assessment
rolls for purposes of utilizing the uniform method of collection pursuant
to Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes, for Solid Waste Districts No. 1 and
2, Municipal Service Benefit Units Special Assessment levied against
certain residential properties within the Unincorporated Area of Collier
County pursuant to Collier County Ordinance 90-30, as amended.
Revenues are anticipated to be $11,333,641.
4) Accept Right-of-Entry Agreement with Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc., related
to improvements needed to control unauthorized vehicular access to the
County's North Hawthorn Wellfield along a South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) Canal Easement, Project 70094
5) Approve Amendment 1 to Work Order GH-FT-02-3 with Greeley and
Hansen LLC, for the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant
Reverse Osmosis Wellfield Expansion to 20-MGD, Project 70892, in the
amount of $91,910.
9
September 9, 2003
6)
7)
Approve a budget amendment to transfer funds in the amount of $300,000
received from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)
Grant Contract C-13978 for brackish water' supply wells for the South
County Regional Water Treatment Plant (SCRWTP) Reverse Osmosis
Expansion, Project 70054.
Accept utility and temporary construction easements for construction of
Phase II of the sewer interconnect project to redirect flow between the
North and South County Sewer Systems at a cost not to exceed $7,500
(Project No. 73076).
8) Approve Change Order to Golden Gate Wellfield Reliability Improvement
Contract 02-3348 in the deduct amount of $160,968, Project 70066.
9) Approve the purchase and installation of one (1) two (2) ton bridge crane
in the amount of $26,055 from Crane Equipment and Service Inc., Bid #03-
3533.
lO)
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 amo~lnt
of $457,528.09, Project 70054.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
2)
3)
Approve a request to applY for a Florida Recreation Development
Assistance Program Grant in the amount of $200,000 for development of
North Naples Regional Park.
Approve a purchase in an amount not to exceed $75,000 for skate park
ramps from Bliss Products, Inc.
Approve budget amendments recognizing $4,000 revenue from donations
for memorial benches.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
2)
3)
Adopt a resolution approving a revised policy for the operation of Lake
Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery.
Request adoption of a resolution authorizing cancellation of ad valorem
taxes due on property recently acquired by the County for Copeland
Panther Neighborhood Park.
Approve a budget amendment to appropriate security special service
revenues totaling $13,000 for reimbursement of personnel expenses in
Fiscal Year 2003.
4) Report and ratify staff-approved change orders to Board-approved
contracts.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
10
September 9, 2003
1)
Summary of Consent and Emergency Agenda Items approved by the
County Manager during the Board of County Commissioners' scheduled
recess.
2)
3)
4)
Approve a corrected agreement accepting a matching (75/25) grant from
the Florida Department of Community Affairs to revise and update the
Collier County Local Mitigation Strategy.
Approve Agreement #04CP-11-09-21.01.023 between the State of Florida,
Department of Community Affairs and Collier County, Florida in the
amount of $9,118 for the preparation of hazards analyses reports for
thirty-eight facilities within Collier County.
Approve an agreement between the State of Florida, Department of
Community Affairs and Collier County, Florida accepting $9,257 in
matching funds (75~25) for shelter enhancement to Corkscrew Middle
School.
5) To adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating grants,
donations, contributions or insurance Proceeds) to the Fiscal Year 2002-
03 adopted budget.
6) Authorizing an Inter-fund loan from General Fund Reserves to the Isles of
Capri Operating Budget.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Coletta's request for approval for payment to
NAACP Freedom Fund Banquet.
2) Commissioner Coletta's request for approval for payment to
Leadership Collier Kick Off In Honor of the Class of 2004.
3) Commissioner Henning's request for approval for payment to attend
NAACP Freedom Fund Banquet.
attend
attend
4) Commissioner Coletta's request for approval for payment to attend the
EDC 20th Annual Excellence in Industry Awards Luncheon.
5) Commissioner Fiala's request for approval for payment to attend NAACP
Freedom Fund Banquet.
6) Commissioner Hales' request for approval for payment to attend the EDC
20th Annual Excellence in Industry Awards Luncheon.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
11
September 9, 2003
1)
That the Board of County Commissioners ratify the payment of sales tax
to the Florida Department of Revenue related to the lease arrangement
with Subway Real Estate Corporation, for the Subway and Dunkin' Donuts
located on the Campus.
2)
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.
Detailed report from .J, uly 19 thro,ungh August 1, 2003 and is on display in
the County Managers Office, 2 d Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building,
Collier County Government Center, Naples, FL.
3)
That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of
whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the Detailed
Report of Open Purchase Orders serve a valid public purpose and
authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said purchases.
Detailed report from Au,g. ust 2 thro,u,~lh August 15, 2003 and is on display
in the County Manager s Office, 2 Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building.
Collier County Government Center, Naples, FL. '
4)
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.
Detailed report from August 16 through 22, 2003 and is on display in the
County Manager's Office, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, Collier
County Government Center, Naples, FL.
5) Authorize the Supervisor of Elections to accept Voter Education Funds
with a 15% matching contribution.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents, William J.
Conran and Pamela J. Conran, for Parcel No. 192 in the amount of $62,000
in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. G JR of Naples Inc., et al, Case No.
02-2212-CA (Immokalee Road Project #60018).
2) Approve the Offer of Judgment relative to the Fee Simple Acquisition of
Parcel 180 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. Big Corkscrew Fire
District, et al, Case No. 02-2218-CA (Immokalee Road Project #60018).
3). Authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondent, GJR of
Naples, Inc., for Parcel No. 188 in the amount of $40,000 in the Lawsuit
styled Collier County v. G JR of Naples Inc., et al, Case No. 02-2212-CA
(Immokalee Road Project #60018).
4) Approve the Offer of Judgment relative to the Fee Simple Acquisition of
Parcels 178A and 178B in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. Roberto
Bollt, et al, Case No. 02-2217-CA (Immokalee Road Project #60018).
12
September 9, 2003
17.
5)
Board approval of a resolution calling for an
the Naples Heritage Community Development
Board approval of a resolution calling for an
the Heritage Greens Community Development
election to fill vacancies on
District.
election to fill vacancies on
District.
7) That the Board of County Commissioners, as the Governing Body of
Collier County and as Ex-Officio Governing Board of the Isles of Capri
Municipal Rescue and Fire Services Taxing District and the Ochopee Fire
District enter into amended interlocal agreements with independent fire
districts for the purpose of implementing the duties and obligations of the
various dependent and independent fire districts with respect to fire plan
review and fire code inspections for new construction, construction
projects and existing structures within the various districts.
8) Approve Special Master Agreements for Value Adjustment Board
Hearings for Tax Year 2003.
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.
Continued from the July 29, 2003 BCC Meeting. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. The approval of this item is contingent upon the approval of Item
8C. PUDZ-2003-AR-3151, Wayne Arnold and Richard Yovanovich representing
Richard Santerre requesting a rezone from C-3 and RMF-6 to "PUD" Planned
Unit Development known as the Miller Square PUD. This project will consist
of 19,000 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 re uires that all artici ants be sworn in and ex arte disclosure be
rovided b Commission members. The a roval of this item is continent
u on the a royal of Item 8C. Petition AVPLAT2002-AR3175 to vacate a
portion of the twelve foot wide alley and to vacate a portion of those areas
labeled "Reserved for Easement 3.0 Ft." and "Reserved for Easement 1.5 Ft.
on Each Side" in Block "E" as shown on the plat of "Shadowlawn at Naples,"
as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 37, Public Records of Collier County, Florida,
and to accept a 24 foot wide relocation alley over a portion of said Block "E",
located in Section 11, Township 50 south, Range 25 east.
13
September 9, 2003
C. Approve the County's Community Development Block Grant Program Year
2002-2003 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER)
as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and authorize
the Board of County Commissioner's Chairman to certify the CAPER for
submission to HUD. (CAPER draft documented currently available at all
Collier County Public Libraries, at the Public Information Desk and in the FAH
Department office for public comment period through August 25, 2003. Final
CAPER document will be submitted before September 1, 2003)
D. A resolution to expand the geographic boundaries of the Collier County
Water-Sewer District to incorporate areas within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District and to delete one area served by the Florida Government Utility
Authority (in the Golden Gate Area).
E. This.item re uires that all artici~ants be sworn in and ex -.arte disclosure be
rovided b Com~ PUDZ-2002-AR-2863, Karen Bishop, of
PMS Inc. of Naples, representing John A. Pulling Jr., and Lucy G. Finch,
requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit
Development to be known as Longview Center PUD for a maximum of 15
residential dwelling units, a maximum of 73,000 square feet of mixed retail and
service uses and a maximum of 70,000 square feet of medical and/or general
office space for property located at the northeast and southeast corners of
Airport-Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Road, in Section 1, Township 49
south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 14.73+ acres.
F. This item re uires that all artici ants be sworn in and ex arte disclosure be
rovided b Commission members. PUDEX-2003-AR-4325 j. Gary Butler, of
Butler Engineering Inc., representing Teryl H. Brzeski and Samuel
Hubschman, Trustees, requesting a 2-year extension to the Pine Ridge
Corners PUD, pursuant to LDC Section 2.7.3.4.6, for a 4.22+ acre tract located
on the north side of Pine Ridge Road, 116+ mile east of Whippoorwill Lane,
further described as Tract 77, Unit 35, Golden Gate Estates, as recorded in
Plat Book 7, Page 85, in Section 7, Township 49 south, Range 26 east, of
Collier County, Florida.
G. This item re uires that all artici ants be sworn in and ex arte disclosure be
=~ovided b Commission members. PUDEX-2003-AR.4383 Terrance Kepple,
Kepple Engineering Inc., representing JTM Corporate Plaza, Ltd., Antonio
and Carmen Briceno, and Velma and Charles Bland, requesting a two-year
extension of the Jacaranda Center PUD per LDC Section 2.7.3.4.6. Property is
located at the northeast corner of the Golden Gate Parkway and 55th Street
S.W. intersection, more particularly described as Lots 28, 29, 30 and 31, Block
219, Golden Gate Subdivision Unit 6, in Section 28, Township 49 south, Range
26 east, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1.5+ acres.
H. Adopt a resolution amending the effluent Irrigation user rates, which is
Schedule Three of Appendix A to Section Four of the Collier County
Ordinance No. 2001-73, titled the Collier County Water-Sewer District Uniform
Billing, Operating and Regulatory Standards Ordinance.
I. Adopt a resolution amending Schedule Two of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of
the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, as amended, the same
14
September 9, 2003
being the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinances, authorizing a
change in methodology for the assessment of non-residential water and
wastewater impact fees based on Equivalent Residential Connections (ERC).
Adopt a resolution repealing Resolution No. 2003-240 and amending
Resolution No. 2002-141 and adopt a resolution confirming the preliminary
assessment roll for the Price Street-Barefoot Williams Road Special
Assessment District has been prepared as a final roll and adopting same for
the purpose of utilizing the ad-valorem tax collection method, Project Number
70077.
18. ADJOURN
~"_C_~,"I"G C",^,GES TO T,E SO^RD'S ^~,D^ S,OULD a~ MhD
TO T,~ COU,~ M^"^~R S O~FiCE ^T ??4-8383. ~
15
September 9, 2003
September 9, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody come to order. I call the
meeting to order of the Board of Commissioners of Collier County.
Today we will have invocation by -- led by Jim Mudd. And then
follow that, we'll have Commissioner Coyle lead us in the pledge of
allegiance.
Would you all rise, please.
MR. MUDD: Let us pray.
Oh, Heavenly Father, we ask your blessings on these
proceedings and all who are gathered here. We ask a special blessing
on all the victims and their families from 9-11 as we approach the
two-year anniversary. And if I could have a moment of silence as we
pray for our own personal attention to memorialize that horrendous
day.
Father, we also ask your blessings on this Board of County
Commissioners. Guide them in their deliberations, grant them the
wisdom and vision to meet the trials and tribulations that come on
from day to day. Bless us now as we undertake the business of
Collier County and its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater
good of all citizens and be acceptable in your sight. Your will be
done. Amen.
(Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
CONSENT, SUMMARY, AND REGULAR AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES (WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF ITEM #17B, WHICH IS CONTINGENT UPON
THE APPROVAI~ OF ITEM #8C)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, County Manager Jim
Mudd. That was a nice touch to start out the day.
Mr. Weigel, do we have any changes, corrections or deletions to
Page 2
September 9, 2003
today's agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will have,
through Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney, one note for
the record relating to Item 17(A). Ms. Student is prepared to read it
into the record right now. Thank you.
MS. STUDENT: This is just a change in the effective date of
the Miller Square PUD ordinance to reflect that it is supported by a
small-scale comprehensive plan amendment that you have under
consideration today. And that revised effective date language should
read as follows: This ordinance shall not become effective until the
supporting small-scale growth management plan amendment
becomes legally effective, as provided by Subsection 163.3187(3)(a)
Florida Statutes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other changes?
MR. WEIGEL: None, because I think the county manager has
the rest of them. But I'll watch closely in case there's anything
further. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
County Manager Jim Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioners'
meeting September 9th, 2003.
Item 8(D), continued to the 23rd of September, 2003. That is a
Petition CCSL 2001 5AR1922. Brett Moore of Humiston and Moore
Engineering, representing the Vanderbilt Beach Motel, requesting a
variance from the coastal construction setback line, or the CCSL, to
allow construction of a multi-story residential building, a parking
structure, two swimming pools with extensive paver decking, and a
wooden boardwalk connecting to a handicap beach access ramp, all
of which are located on property known as the Vanderbilt Beach
Motel, with a street address of 9225 Gulfshore Drive North, in an
area generally known as Vanderbilt Beach and more particularly
Page 3
September 9, 2003
described as lot four, block A, Connors Vanderbilt Beach Estates,
unit number one, located in Section 32, Township 48 south, Range
25 east, Collier County, Florida. And that continuance is at the
Petitioner's request.
Item 9(M), and that's replacement for the value adjustment
board, and that's at Commissioner Fiala's request. And that's an add.
Item 10(A), BCC acting -- in this particular item, BCC is acting
as the community redevelopment agency. And that's just to give you
a heads up to make sure that you know you'll be wearing a different
hat during that item.
Item 10(D), continued to September 23rd, 2003, BCC meeting.
Consideration to support the Southwest Florida Resource and
Conservation and Development Council's application for resource
conservation and development program assistance, after hearing a
presentation by a SWFR C&D representative. And that would be
Mr. Wayne Daltry. And I talked to him this morning, he'll be here on
the 23rd. That's at staff's request.
Item No. 10(E), Olde Cypress landscape maintenance agreement
now includes three exhibits. Exhibits were not transmitted with
agenda item. The donation agreement for Tract O has been changed
to include a new paragraph, No. 14, which clarifies that this
agreement is not intended to create third-party beneficiaries to the
agreement, and adds "all at the county's sole and absolute discretion"
to paragraph one of the agreement. That's at staff's request.
Also in the executive summary of 10(E), under considerations,
item number three of the fifth paragraph should read: 3) The Ronto
Group agrees to a monetary contribution to Olde Cypress for their
cost to purchase and install an eight-foot wall for approximately 775
feet, vice the 500 feet that was mentioned before. So the 500 feet is
crossed out and the 775 feet has been substituted for it.
Moves us to the next item. Item 16(C)(3), the last sentence in
the first paragraph under consideration should read, the resolutions
Page 4
September 9, 2003
were set for a three-year period, beginning with fiscal year 2002-03
and ending with fiscal year 2004-05. And that's at staffs request.
Just a scrivener's error on that thing.
So basically the consideration is it's a three-year period of time.
2002-2003 is the first year, 2003-2004 is the second, 2004-2005 is
the third year.
Brings us to the next item, Item 16(C)(9), the sentence under
recommendation should read that the Board of County
Commissioners, ex facto the governing board of the Collier County
Water Sewer District -- and there was a misspelling there. Instead of
having "of', there was an "or" word. "Or" has been crossed out, "of'
has been substituted.
Brings us to the next item, Item 16(K)(7), continued to
September 23rd, 2003 BCC meeting. That the Board of County
Commissioners, as the governing board of Collier County, and as the
ex officio governing board of the Isles of Capri Municipal Rescue
and Fire Services taxing unit and the Ochopee Fire District, enter into
an amended interlocal agreement with independent fire districts for
the purpose of implementing the duties and obligations of the various
dependent and independent fire districts with respect to fire plan
review and fire code inspections for new construction, construction
projects, and existing structures within the various districts.
That's at staff and Commissioner Henning's request for that
continuance.
The next item, Item 17(A) and 17(B), and this is more of a
notice. The approval of these two items are contingent upon the
approval of Item 8(C). So when today you approve the consent and
the summary objectives -- agendas, you basically say except for
17(A) and 17(B), which will be determined at the conclusion of Item
8(C).
The next item, 17(J), requires a correction that is legally
necessary to show all properties located within the metes and bounds
Page 5
September 9, 2003
legal description. The preliminary assessment roll must include two
additional properties: One owned by Collier County that represents a
stormwater drainage easement, and the other owned by the State of
Florida. Either property will receive a benefit or an assessment chart.
The correction is required prior to recording said roll into the public
records as the final roll. And that's at staff's request.
Then a note. These are time certain items or items where we try
to bracket where we had a lot of people that wanted to attend and
speak so that we could at least get them locked in so that they didn't
have to sit here all day long waiting on their item. So time certain
items.
Item 8(A) to be heard after 10:00 a.m. Item 8(B) to be heard
after 10:00 a.m. Item 8(E) to be heard after 2:00 p.m. Items 8(H),
8(I), 8(J) 8(K), 8(L) to be heard after 3:00 p.m. Item 10(E) to be
heard prior to Items 8(A) and 8(B), which are going to both be heard
after 10:00 a.m. And last, Item 13(A), to be heard at 1:00 p.m.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, do you have
any changes to today's agenda or any ex parte communication under
the summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I do not have any changes to the
agenda, but I do have ex parte. First one being 7(A), board of zoning
appeals, and I have a file and I've had meetings and correspondence
and also e-mail on that subject.
7(B) also, no disclosure on that one.
8(A), I've had meetings, correspondence and e-mail, and that's
in regards to the parklands.
8(B), I've had disclosure -- I must-- have disclosures on
meetings, correspondence and e-mail on that also.
8(D.), Vanderbilt Beach Motel, but that's been pulled off the
agenda.
17(E), I've had meetings in regards to that item.
Page 6
September 9, 2003
And on 17(F), no disclosures on that.
And 17(G), no disclosures. That's it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Fiala, do you have any changes to today's agenda
or ex parte communication on the summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I do, thank you.
First of all, a change. I would like to request 17(A) to be
continued until September 23rd. I've spoken with the petitioner's
representative, he's in agreement, and I just ask that we can continue
~7(A).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And also ex page, that
would have been one of them. 17(B)?
Yes, I have a disclosure for 17(E). And I have no other
disclosures, and everything that I do have is in my file here for public
viewing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, the only thing I -- as far as
the agenda goes, I wanted to thank Commissioner Fiala for taking the
initiative for pulling 16(K)(8) for the value adjustment board and
moving it to the regular agenda. I was planning to do it also, for
obvious reasons, as you'll see later.
As far as any ex parte communications or disclosures, I have
everything in my file here that has to do with the summary agenda,
and it's available for anyone who wants to see it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to the summary
agenda, I have two disclosures for 17(A) and 17(E). In both cases I
spoke with Mr. Rich Yovanovich, the representative of the
Page 7
September 9, 2003
Petitioners, and we discussed their intentions with respect to the
property.
I also would like to pull Item 16(B)(2) only for a very, very
brief discussion and a potential modification. So it should not be a
lengthy process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You have that --
MR. MUDD: That would be Item 10(I). 16(B)(2) would be --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: B -- Bravo 2.
MR. MUDD: Bravo 2 will be 10 India.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Myself, I have no changes to today's agenda. I do have ex parte
communication on Item 17(E). Two years ago working with the
Lakeside residents and the petitioner's planner in the Greek church,
to try to find interconnection, it had to -- I had to do a lot with that
PUD. That's the only ex parte that I had.
Do we have any public speakers on today's agenda?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have any public speakers on
today's agenda?
MS. FILSON: On the summary agenda, no, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any changes?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weigel, is there anything
further?
MR. WEIGEL: No, nothing further, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Entertain a motion to accept
today's agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta, I
believe, seconded by Commissioner Coyle.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Page 8
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Yes, please.
Any opposed?
Motion carries, 5-0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to a apologize to you
and my fellow commissioners, my new used car wouldn't start this
morning and they had to come over and pick me up. So I'm sorry
that I arrived after the prayer and pledge.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Apology not needed.
Page 9
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
September 9, 2003
Item 8D - Continue to September 23, 2003 BCC meeting: Petition CCSL-2001-5AR-
1922, Brett Moore of Humiston and Moore Engineering, representing the
Vanderbilt Beach Motel; requesting a variance from the Coastal Construction
Setback Line (CCSL) to allow construction of a multi-story residential building, a
parking structure, two swimming pools with extensive paver decking, and a
wooden boardwalk connecting to a handicapped beach access ramp all of which
are located on property known as the Vanderbilt Beach Motel with a street
address of 9225 Gulfshore Drive North in an area generally known as Vanderbilt
Beach and more particularly described as Lot 4, Block A, Conners Vanderbilt
Beach Estates Unit No. 1, located in Section 32, Township 48 south Range 25 east,
Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner request.)
Item 9M - Replacement for the Value Adjustment Board. (Commissioner Fiala
request.)
Item 10A- BCC acting as the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency)
Item 10D: Continue to September 23, 2003 BCC meeting: Consideration to
support the Southwest Florida Resource and Conservation and Development (
SWFRC&D) Council's Application for Resource Conservation and Development
Program Assistance after hearing a presentation by a SWFRC&D Representative.
(Staff request.)
Item 10E - Olde Cypress Landscape Maintenance Agreement now includes three
exhibits. (Exhibits were not transmitted with agenda item). The Donation
Agreement for Tract O has been changed to include a new paragraph "14" which
clarifies that this agreement is not intended to create third party beneficiaries to
the agreement and adds "all at the County"s sole and absolute discretion" to
Paragraph 1 of the agreement. (Staff request.)
Also, in the executive summary of Item 10E under CONSIDERATIONS, item #3 of
the fifth paragraph should read: 3) The Ronto Group agrees to a monetary
contribution to Old Cypress for their cost to purchase and install an eight foot wall
for approximately 775 feet (500 fcc*.) ....
Item 16C3 - The last sentence in the first paragraph under CONSIDERATIONS
should read: The resolutions were set for a three year period beginning with
fiscal year 2002~03 and ending (eem~) with fiscal year 2004~05 (2005!05).
(Staff request.)
Item 16C9 - The sentence under RECOMMENDATIONS should read: That the
Board of County Commissioners, Ex-Officio the Governing Board of (e~) the
Collier County Water-Sewer District award .... (Staff request.)
Item 16K7: Continue to September 23, 2003 BCC meeting: That the Board of
County Commissioners, as the Governing Body of Collier County and as Ex-
Officio Governing Board of the Isles of Capri Municipal Rescue and Fire Services
Taxing District and the Ochopee Fire District enter into amended interlocal
agreements with independent fire districts for the purpose of implementing the
duties and obligations of the various dependent and independent fire districts
with respect to fire plan review and fire code inspections for new construction,
construction projects and existing structures within the various districts. (Staff
and Commissioner Henning request.)
Items 17A and 17B - The approval of these two items are contingent upon the
approval of Item 8C.
Item 17-J requires a correction that is legally necessary to show all properties
located within the metes and bounds legal description. The preliminary
assessment roll must include two additional properties - one owned by Collier
County that represents a stormwater drainage easement, and the other owned by
the State of Florida. Neither property will receive a benefit or an assessment
charge. This correction is required prior to recording said roll into the public
records as the final roll. (Staff request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 8A to be heard after 10:00 a.m.
Item 8B to be heard after 10:00 a.m.
Item 8E to be heard after 2:00 p.m.
Items 8H, 81, 8J, 8K, 8L to be heard after 3:00 p.m.
Item 10E to be heard prior to items 8A and 8B
Item 13A to be heard at 1:00 p.m.
September 9, 2003
Item #3
SERVICE AWARD: 20-YEAR TO JOANNE SOPRANO OF THE
I.IBRARY - NOT PRESENT
Go right into service awards. Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Service awards, we have one 20-year attendee
award for Joanne Soprano from the library.
MS. FILSON: I received a message that she's ill and won't
attend. I believe I put a note in the Chairman's-
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 AS
FAMII.Y DAY - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next would be proclamations. The
first one to be read by Commissioner Coletta. This proclamation to
designate September 22nd, '03 as Family Day. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Chairman Henning.
WHEREAS, "Family Day -- A Day To Eat With Your
Children" is a national effort to promote parental engagement as a
simple, effective way to reduce substance abuse by children and
teens and raise healthier children. Family Day emphasizes the
importance of regular family activities in parent/child
communications and encourages Americans to make family dinner a
regular feature on their lives; and,
WHEREAS, in 2001, the National Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse, CASA, at Columbia University launched Family
Day as an annual event which takes place on the fourth Monday of
each September, and on the 22nd in 2003; and,
Page 10
September 9, 2003
WHEREAS, since 1996, CASA research has consistently shown
that the more often a child eats dinner with his family, the less likely
that child is to smoke, drink or use illicit drugs; and,
WHEREAS, CASA's 1998 teen survey found that teens that eat
dinner with their parents twice a week or less were four times more
likely to smoke cigarettes, three times more likely to smoke
marijuana, and nearly twice as likely to drink as those that ate dinner
with their parents six or seven times a week; and,
WHEREAS, CASA's 1999 teen survey found that teens from
families that almost never eat dinner together were 72 percent likelier
than the average teen to use illegal drugs, cigarettes and alcohol,
while those from families that almost always eat dinner together were
31 percent likely (sic) than the average teen to engage in these
activities; and,
WHEREAS, research by other organizations has shown that
teens who eat frequent family dinners are less likely than other teens
to have sex at young ages, get into fights, or be suspended from
school, and are at lower risk for thought of suicide. Frequent family
dinner-- dining is also correlated with doing well in school and
developing healthy eating habits. The pattern holds true regardless
of teen sex, family structure and family socioeconomic level; and,
WHEREAS, in 2002, President Bush and the governor (sic) of
35 states, including Washington, D.C., issued proclamations
declaring September 23rd as Family Day. Coca-Cola was the first
national corporate sponsor. New national sponsors this year include
the AFL-CIO, National PTA, Publix Supermarket, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and
Families, and U.S. Department of Justice's Drug Enforcement
Administration. Numerous state, local and community groups helped
with Family Day 2002; and,
WHEREAS, in 2001, President Bush and 35 governors
proclaimed the fourth Monday in September as Family Day.
Page 11
September 9, 2003
Numerous national organizations endorsed and promoted Family
Day, including the Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America,
KidsPeace, the National Family Partnership, and the Partnership for a
Drug-Free America. Family Day received a tremendous amount of
grass roots support from the state and local groups across the
country; and,
WHEREAS, CASA is again working with the White House,
governors, mayors and above agencies and organizations, the (sic)
new ones to promote Family Day as September 22nd, 2003. For the
second year, Coca-Cola Company is a sponsor. Bus and subway
posters will advertise Family Day in nine metropolitan areas.
National Amusements has agreed to place a Family Day slide in
1,000 movie screens in 22 states, running for a period of six weeks.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that September 22nd,
2003 be designated as Family Day.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS the 9th day of September, 2003.
Tom Henning, Chairman.
And I move for approval, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Page 12
September 9, 2003
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION TO BR1NG AWARENESS TO THE
LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA SOCIETY BY DESIGNATING THE
MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2003, AS LEUKEMIA AND
LYMPHOMA AWARENESS MONTH. ACCEPTED BY NANCY
B. FESSENDEN, PH.D., PATIENT SERVICES MANAGER-
ADOPTED
Next proclamation will be presented by Commissioner Fiala.
This proclamation is to bring awareness to the Leukemia and
Lymphoma Society by designating the month of September, '03 as
Leukemia and Lymphoma Awareness Month. To accept this is Dr.
Nancy Fessenden. Doctor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is -- this really hits home,
because my daughter-in-law had Hodgkin's lymphoma. So -- and
she's in remission now, so this is especially important for me to read
this, and I thank you for this privilege.
WHEREAS, blood-related cancers currently afflict more than
670,950 Americans, with an estimated 106,000 new cases diagnosed
each year; and,
WHEREAS, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma will kill an
estimated 58,300 people in the United States this year; and,
WHEREAS, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, through
voluntary contributions, is dedicated to finding cures for these
diseases through research efforts and the support of those that suffer
from them; and,
WHEREAS, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society maintains
offices in Bonita Springs and Tampa to support patients with this
diseases and their family members in Florida; and,
Page 13
September 9, 2003
WHEREAS, the State of Florida is similarly committed to the
eradication of these diseases and supports the treatment of its citizens
that suffer from them.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, we join with the
Leukemia and Lymphoma Society in designating the month of
September, 2003 as Leukemia and Lymphoma Awareness Month, to
enhance the understanding of blood-related cancers and to encourage
participation in voluntary activities to support education programs
and the funding of research programs to find a cure for them.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 9th day of September, 2003.
Tom Henning, Chairman, of the Board of County Commissioners.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Coyle.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
If you'd like to say a few words, please feel welcome to.
MS. FESSENDEN: The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society is
dedicated to funding blood cancer research and also to provide
education and services to patients and their family members. By
issuing this proclamation, Collier County leaders have acknowledged
that blood cancer patients are local and do need our services.
Page 14
September 9, 2003
You have also helped us bring focus to the need for funding and
finding a cure for blood cancers, and we have also hopefully
encouraged local citizens to participate in our general public
fundraising activities. At the Society we are relentless for a cure, and
I thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE SEPTEMBER 15TM
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 19, 2003 AS INDUSTRY
APPRECIATION WEEK. ACCEPTED BY TAMMIE NEMECEK,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL AND FRED PEZESHKAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE
FJCONOMIC DEVEIJOPMENT COl INCII~- ADOPTED
Next proclamation will be presented by Commissioner Halas.
This proclamation is to designate September 15th through the 19th of
this year as Industry Appreciation Week. Here to accept this
proclamation is the Director of the Economic Development Council
and the Chairman of the Economic Development Council.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Fred Pezeshkan and Tammie
Nemecek.
It gives me honor to read this proclamation because of the fact
that as a Commissioner here in Collier County I sit on the committee
with the EDC.
WHEREAS, the industry of Collier County is vital to the
community's economic health; and,
WHEREAS, Collier County's existing industries are the key to a
prosperous future; and,
WHEREAS, the expansion of these industries account for the
Page 15
September 9, 2003
majority of new jobs created; and,
WHEREAS, Collier County industries help sustain our quality
of life, exemplifies high standards of excellence and positive,
responsible approach to economic diversification and community
enhancement; and,
WHEREAS, public knowledge of the contributions made by the
industry is essential in the maintenance of good community industry
relationship.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of
September 15th through the 19th, 2003 be designated as Industry
Appreciation Week, and urge all residents to salute our industries and
their employees for their contributions to our community.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 9th day of September, 2003,
Board of Collier County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida.
Tom Henning, Chair.
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second? There's a motion
by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. PEZESHKAN: If I may quickly, I want to thank the
Commissioners for designating the week of September 15th as
Page 16
September 9, 2003
Industry Appreciation Week. I want to report to you that the
private-public partnership between the EDC and the County
Commissioners is working very well in creating high-wage jobs.
I want to make the announcement that on September 16th, we
have our luncheon for-- at Ritz-Carlton to recognize 10 of our
companies in Collier County for the week of the Industry
Appreciation. It will be at 11:30 at September 16th, and you're all
welcome to attend. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Ms. Nemecek?
MS. NEMECEK: Again, thank you very much for the Board of
County Commissioners' recognition of Industry Appreciation Week
for September 15th through 19th. This is the 20th year for industry
appreciation in the State of Florida, and recognized by Governor Jeb
Bush and locally here by the Board of County Commissioners.
So we salute you and the industry here in Collier County, and
especially the employees that make the companies work. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Tammie. I want to thank
you for all your efforts in the community as your position of Director
of the EDC, and especially as we understand how hard it is for to you
get around these days. And we look forward to the relief that you're
going to have in just a few days. And I would like to know the
outcome of it.
MS. NEMECEK: I will definitely give you the update.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. NEMECEK: Thank you.
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING DR. CHARLES A. STOKES
FOR HIS OUTSTANDING SPIRIT OF CIVIC MINDEDNESS
Page 17
September 9, 2003
AND HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMMUNITY-
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next proclamation I have the honor
of presenting in recognizing Dr. Charles Stokes for his outstanding
spirit in civic mindedness and his contributions to our community of
Collier County. And I understand Dr. Stokes's family is here. If you
would come forward, please.
WHEREAS, Collier County resident Dr. Charles A. (Andy)
Stokes has devoted his countless hours of his time to betterment of
county process; and,
WHEREAS, this proclamation is presented to Dr. Stokes's
outstanding progress and accomplishments in the field of
environmental management, including public participation in the
solid waste management issues; and,
WHEREAS, Dr. Stokes is the recipient of the proclamation in
recognition of his public participation and input, professional
qualities, vision and tireless efforts on behalf of Collier County; and,
WHEREAS, Dr. Stokes has willingly shared his vast knowledge
and expertise in the field of environmental science with Collier
County government, and has fulfilled his civic duties by his
participation in the public input process.
NOW FOR (sic), be it proclaimed by the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that Dr. Stokes, Dr.
Charles Andy Stokes, is applauded for his outstanding spirit of civic
mindedness and his contribution of community.
Commissioners, it's an honor for me to make the motion to
move this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Coyle.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Page 18
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
If you could just give us a few words, and we want to get a
picture.
MR. STOKES: Well, it's nice to be here in the Collier County
Commissioner room. I happen to be a county commissioner in
Adams County, Pennsylvania, a veteran of 13 years. CHAIRMAN HENNING: God bless you.
MR. STOKES: And Dr. Stokes, his father, Harry Stokes, my
namesake, was a commissioner in Lake County, Florida for 29 years.
The Stokes's are native Floridians and worked hard to pioneer
Florida back in the 19th Century. Jeff Stokes is dad's oldest son, I'm
the middle son, and there's a younger son.
I just wanted to, on behalf of the whole family, say thank you
very much. Dad loved Collier County, really believed in Collier
County, had been coming here as early as the late 1920's. His
brother, Dick Stokes, was the head ranger stationed at the Everglades
here for many years; was responsible for saving the alligator, an
inconceivable concept at this point.
Dr. Stokes really loved county governance, loved what you do,
respected all of you, and believed that the best decisions could
always be made through a rational process with the application of the
proper knowledge and technology.
Good luck in all that you do, and thank you for remembering
Dr. Stokes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Page 19
September 9, 2003
Item #5A
RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE PAMELA WILSON,
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, TRAFFICS AND ATM
DEPARTMENT, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR
Al IGI IST 2003 - RF, COGNIZFD
Commissioners, each month the Chairman gets the honor of
recognize (sic) the outstanding Employee of the Month. And today,
without exception, we do have a true dedicated employee, and that is
Pam Wilson. If Pam would come up, I would like to acknowledge
her with a few words and give her a plaque and a small token of our
appreciation.
Pam Wilson has displayed a significant accomplishment beyond
the normal working responsibilities. When the transportation
operation department took over the insurance (sic) and commercial
right-of-way permits, Pam was trained to prepare permits in a permit
data and interface with community development and environmental
services staff, which is -- was still issuing residential right-of-way
permits.
Within six months, the transportation operations assumed the
full responsibility and insurance (sic) of all commercial right-of-way
and residential right-of-way permits and inspection. Pam was then
trained to issue the residential right-of-way permits.
During this time, the right-of-way permits and inspection
section was created and once was staffed, Pam trained the
administrative assistant in all aspects of preparing these permits.
Pam continued to perform the major (sic) of her assignment (sic)
position duties during this transition of permitting coming from
community development and transportation operations until the
recent (sic). When transportation services reorganized, Pam
Page 20
September 9, 2003
continued to assist the right-of-way inspection permits and inspection
section of (sic) the daily basis and exemplary customer service with
excellency (sic).
Pam has been working with risk management department staff
to establish a method of reimbursement for damage of public
facilities such as traffic lights and highway lighting poles as a result
of traffic accidents. To date, approximately $20,000 has been
recovered because of Pam's due diligence in government funding.
Pam, I -- as Chairman, I want to give you this plaque as
Employee of the Month for August, 2003. Also with a small token of
our appreciation for your dedication as a public employee of Collier
County, and also just a few words from myself. So thank you very
much.
Thank you. Great employee.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Item #2B, Item #2C
MINUTES OF JULY 29, 2003 REGULAR MEETING; MINUTES
OF JULY 31, 2003 VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
ORGANIZATIONAI~ MF, F, TING- APPROVF, D AS PRF, SF, NTFD
Commissioner, before we turn the page, I think you need to get
some kind of motion on 2(B) and 2(C).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 2(B) and 2(C)?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay. My cheat sheet was
reorganized.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to accept the July
22nd, '03 regular minutes and July 31 st, '03 value adjustment board
organizational meeting.
Page 21
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle made a motion,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. ADAM MACKEY
REGARDING PROPOSED TRAFFIC LIGHT AT THE REGENT
PARK ENTRANCE ON IMMOKAI~F, FJ ROAD - DISCI JSSF, D
Okay. Page 2, public petitions. We have a petition by Mr.
Adam Mackey regarding proposed traffic light at the Regent Park
entrance on Immokalee Road. Mr. Mackey?
MR. MACKEY: I'm Adam Mackey, President of Regent Park
Master Association. I want to thank Manager Mudd's office for
arranging this schedule and I want to thank the Commissioners for
letting me address you.
To locate us, I'd like you to assume that you -- or I imagine
you're in a car, we're driving Immokalee Road, we're going
Page 22
September 9, 2003
eastbound toward 75, we're about a mile past Airport-Pulling Road
and Sam's. We've just passed Circle K gas station, and right next to
that, Regent Park.
If you look at this plot plan -- incidentally, the notations that are
very obvious that I have made -- added to this filed plan are to help
explain what I'm about today and what our problem is.
Looking to the left of the plot plan, you'll see that we have a
main entrance from Immokalee Road into Regent Park, and one
circular road running through the entire length of the park. This was
a U.S. Homes plan that was developed in 1985, presented as a PUD,
approved as such, and really was ahead of its time. It really is an
excellent plan for these reasons: There's no gatehouse house, traffic
is permitted to go through in two other entrance/exits on this plot
plan. Great plan. Doesn't interfere with traffic, it allows traffic to go
through, it doesn't block it off.
Something happened on the way to the forum. If you'll go
around from the north side, on the left of your plan, and follow
around that circular road, you'll see an exit on the back into Four
Seasons. That still exists.
Then you'll come around full circle and at the top of the plan,
toward the left, you'll see another marvelous exit. And I have made a
notation; the only thing wrong with this exit is it doesn't exist. This
exit, had it existed, and with the good planning that was envisioned,
would allow -- would not necessitate my even addressing you today,
because it would allow us a way out into Quail Woods to access
Immokalee Road, both east and west where the new bridge is being
built.
If necessity is the mother of invention, greed is the father of
exploitation. Somehow or other this got exploited out. I dare say, I
assume, somewhere along the line, a County Commission allowed
this to happen. The greed? Well, two houses got built where that exit
to the east no longer exists. It never did exist, it never got built. All
Page 23
September 9, 2003
eastbound toward 75, we're about a mile past Airport-Pulling Road
and Sam's. We've just passed Circle K gas station, and right next to
that, Regent Park.
If you look at this plot plan -- incidentally, the notations that are
very obvious that I have made -- added to this filed plan are to help
explain what I'm about today and what our problem is.
Looking to the left of the plot plan, you'll see that we have a
main entrance from Immokalee Road into Regent Park, and one
circular road running through the entire length of the park. This was
a U.S. Homes plan that was developed in 1985, presented as a PUD,
approved as such, and really was ahead of its time. It really is an
excellent plan for these reasons: There's no gatehouse house, traffic
is permitted to go through in two other entrance/exits on this plot
plan. Great plan. Doesn't interfere with traffic, it allows traffic to go
through, it doesn't block it off.
Something happened on the way to the forum. If you'll go
around from the north side, on the left of your plan, and follow
around that circular road, you'll see an exit on the back into Four
Seasons. That still exists.
Then you'll come around full circle and at the top of the plan,
toward the left, you'll see another marvelous exit. And I have made a
notation; the only thing wrong with this exit is it doesn't exist. This
exit, had it existed, and with the good planning that was envisioned,
would allow -- would not necessitate my even addressing you today,
because it would allow us a way out into Quail Woods to access
Immokalee Road, both east and west where the new bridge is being
built.
If necessity is the mother of invention, greed is the father of
exploitation. Somehow or other this got exploited out. I dare say, I
assume, somewhere along the line, a County Commission allowed
this to happen. The greed? Well, two houses got built where that exit
to the east no longer exists. It never did exist, it never got built. All
Page 23
September 9, 2003
of the development in the lots two, three, one are all fully enclosed,
block five is fully developed. We now have 294 residences,
approximately 800 family members living in Regent Park.
Why am I here? The six-laning of Immokalee Road is so
detrimental to our community as to raise serious issues of danger,
endangerment to life and loss of property values that will be
mentioned later.
Why is this so? Well, when the transportation department
originally developed its first plan -- and we've been at this for almost
two years now with them -- there was to be a new bridge built to the
north side of Regent Park's entrance/exit with the traffic lights there.
In the course of development, the bridge disappeared, the traffic
lights disappeared, and what we wound up with is a bridge
approximately 700 feet to our east that is towards 1-75 on the north
side of Immokalee Road, and a series of traffic lights going in of
course to control the traffic from that bridge. That bridge crosses the
canal and feeds into Piper Boulevard. It then, as you go south, it
crosses the canal and feeds into Immokalee Road. It also feeds into
Quail Woods, which is a development -- a more recent development.
I might mention that Quail Woods has approximately 70 houses in it,
if I counted correctly at last count. Regent Park has 294 houses.
The problem we run into is when they build that bridge -- it's
being built now -- and they put the lights in, we have exactly 700
feet. We will no longer be permitted to make a left mm, we
understand that. It is dangerous at best. But that would be
eliminated. The only way we can go east or west from our main
entrance is by turning right, crossing three lanes of traffic -- as you
know, you're right on 41, which you do, speed of 50, 55 miles an
hour is pretty standard. We have 700 feet in which to cross three
lanes of speeding traffic to get into the left-hand lane in order to
make a turn to go west toward Airport-Pulling Road or toward 41.
That is the way most of our traffic takes place.
Page 24
September 9, 2003
Incidentally, Commissioner Halas was kind enough on our
request to visit our site and travel this route that I just outlined to
you, can verify that that exit that I'm speaking of no longer exists.
There are two houses there now. The plan that was an excellent plan
is not so excellent anymore. And we are left with the opportunity of
exiting our main entrance, which is two lanes in each direction with a
center divider, and the only way we can get out is to turn right, dare
us to cross 700 -- within 700 feet to cross three lanes of traffic on
Immokalee Road in order to make a left turn.
My purpose in being here today is to request this Commission to
instruct the transportation department to establish an eastbound
traffic light at our entrance/exit. It could be done one of two ways.
Commissioner Halas, if I may quote you, said, traveled it, tried to get
into the traffic -- this was off season at business hour-- and we had
great difficulty cutting into the traffic. I'll show you photographs of
what happens in high season on that road right now, and we can only
anticipate a greater amount of traffic because of the three-laning.
We're not fighting the three-laning, even though it takes away our
front property, puts the county road and paths within five feet of
1,560 trees at the front of our property. We accept that as a growth
factor.
What we do not accept is exposing us to the perils that this plan
that the transportation department presents to us. And we have been
over this many times, we've also met with the county advisory board
on this, and we are at our wits' end. This is our last opportunity.
You are our last hope to straighten out a serious, serious problem.
I have just very briefly mentioned to you an alternate plan,
which is really the traffic light. But I want to show you -- in my
diagram, it's not to scale -- what will happen when this road is
completed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Mackey, your time is running
out. Thanks for giving that--
Page 25
September 9, 2003
MR. MACKEY: I thought I had 10 minutes. Do I not have 10
minutes?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I think you do.
MS. FILSON: He has another minute or two.
MR. MACKEY: The plan I've presented that you're looking at,
it shows you what the condition will be when the six-laning is
completed, and what we are faced with when trying to get out of
Regent Park.
I'm also going to ask Nancy (sic) to distribute a set of
photographs, actual photos taken in high season, showing the actual
condition at our entrance during 4:30 to 5:30, done over a period of
one week. They are all separate photographs taken at that time.
They are not duplicates. You can just look at them and pass them on
one to the other, if you will, please. And then I'd like to read-- in
order to cut it short -- I'd like to read to you my letter dated June 3rd,
2003, to Norman Feder of the transportation department, if I may,
and then I will have concluded.
In 1985, when Collier County approved the PUD for the
development of Regent Park, our main roadway, Regent Circle, was
designated a county road, providing residents with direct, safe,
east-west access to Immokalee Road. However, the scheduled
six-laning plan, as drawn by the Collier County transportation
division, will negate this safe access for the 294 homes -- families
living in Regent Park. The plan configuration has a traffic light 700
feet to the east of Regent Circle at the entrance to Quail Woods
development of 70 homes. Members of our board of directors have
repeatedly voiced our concerns because of the short distance we will
have to cross the three lanes of traffic.
Why is your present plan flawed and dangerous for Regent Park
residents? The enclosed photos taken at different times during rush
hours -- those are those you're looking at now, they're all separate
photos -- taken during high season show how Regent Park's only
Page 26
September 9, 2003
direct access to Immokalee Road becomes completely blocked when
the nearest existing traffic light one quarter of a mile east of our
entrance at Livingston Road turns red. That traffic back up there is
the light turned red at Livingston Road a quarter of a mile away, and
that's what it does to our traffic. The new traffic light will only be
700 feet, give or take, east of us. So the problem will be
compounded. The traffic will back up, block our entrance
completely, and that's what we're left with.
Commissioner Halas has visited our site, traveled the route with
me, and will verify what I am saying. We tried to get into the traffic,
it wasn't even high season, and we had great difficulty.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Mackey --
MR. MACKEY: There is a simple solution that will not
increase cost but will eliminate a very dangerous situation --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Mackey, I ask you to wrap it up.
MR. MACKEY: -- relocate the traffic light planned for the
entrance to Quail Woods to the entrance for Regent Park, controlling
traffic going east and coordinating the new traffic light planned for
Lakeland Avenue controlling traffic going west. This will afford safe
access to Immokalee Road for the residents of both Quail Woods and
Regent Park. Your present plan not only endangers lives, but will
cause a drop in the market value of 294 homes of up to 10 percent, a
total property loss potential of over $6 million.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Mr. Mackey, I have to ask you to
wrap it up.
MR. MACKEY: Thank you. I'll just ask that these be
distributed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Any questions by the
board members for Mr. Mackey?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I'd like to get some
clarification by the transportation department, if they could give us
an insight. I realize the residents out here are very, very upset. I
Page 27
September 9, 2003
believe they have a back entrance that leads out onto Airport Road; is
that correct, Mr. Mackey?
MR. MACKEY: That is correct. And if you look at that plot
plan, you'll see I've dotted in what we would have to do to get out to
either Airport Road or to get out to Immokalee Road. It is circuitous
at best. It takes us through another development, which we don't
object to but I think they will have objection to.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is a very difficult situation,
and I know that staff has spent numerous hours on this thing, trying
to figure out the best way. My con -- I have a real strong concern for
the residents there in regards to the point that you brought out, and
that's making a right-hand turn and trying to get all the way over in
the 700 feet to make a turn to head in the westerly direction. And I'm
hoping that the traffic -- transportation department here can give us
some insight into this, if they would, please.
MR. MACKEY: Mr. Halas, I've written to the Naples Daily
News at one point. I call this a killer situation. There will be blood
on someone's hands when this thing is done, I tell you that. You
cannot get people of all ages in our group, five, 600 cars going in and
out every day, get across that with (sic) someone being seriously
injured or worse yet, killed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions for Mr.
Mackey?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, one other question.
Is that entrance gated?
MR. MACKEY: It is a non-gated entrance. That was the beauty
of the plan, you could come in, you'd get through, and there were two
other exits. Unfortunately, somehow or other it slipped past the
commission and that exit on the east side got knocked out and the
builder, U.S. Homes, was able to build two houses.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One last question.
MR. MACKEY: Sir?
Page 28
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Would it be poss -- is it possible
for your Homeowners Association to see if they could buy those two
homes and then proceed with an exit so that you have another way of
getting out of your community?
MR. MACKEY: At best we're middle class people. I think my
term of office would end if I asked them for $500,000 to buy that
exit, Mr. Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm just looking at the whole --
MR. MACKEY: Yes, marvelous solution. The transportation
department developed that, too. And had the original Commissioner
looked ahead, saw the necessity of that, that exit could never have
been eliminated. So I think the present commissioners owe us one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Mackey, then I need to ask you,
what date was the PUD amended and what state --
MR. MACKEY: The date I have on this --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I finish my question?
MR. MACKEY: I never found the amended one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I finish my question?
MR. MACKEY: Sir, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Was it at a time that the community
was under developed-- under development?
MR. MACKEY: Under development, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, so there were public speakers
that had the opportunity to give input at that time.
MR. MACKEY: I do not know. I do not know. I do not know.
It started in 1985. The plan was approved in 1985, so I would
assume that construction started 1986. The full head of steam was in
1987, completed approximately 1998, 1989 -- 1999, I should say.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. I don't see any further
questions for you. If you would move to the side, we do have some
questions for our staff.
MR. MACKEY: Thank you very much.
Page 29
September 9, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Norman Feder
for the record.
First of all, what I can tell you is we can't speak to the access
point to Quail Woods. What we can tell you is we've worked with
Mr. Mackey throughout the design of the six-laning on Immokalee
Road. The evaluation of that project and those issues is something
we've taken very seriously.
First of all, the reason that the bridge -- or the new bridge is
being located at Lakeland is -- rather than at Euclid is that at
Lakeland where we previously had a bridge, we access all of
Willoughby Acres, Palm River and the like. And so the placement of
the bridge was for overall circulation within the county.
Also, we were trying to look at reasonable placement relative to
Airport and Livingston Road. That's why initially we had looked at
across from Regent's, as well as the old Euclid. So the placement of
the bridge is very specifically by traffic needs and to service even a
broader population needs.
We have tried to address some of the issues. Of course Curling
is open to the community, not as direct a route but an open route.
They do have the opportunity to try to move over to the left mm, but
they could also, if they're uncomfortable or the traffic won't warrant
that at that time, go a little bit further and make that U-tum at
Livingston Road. So there is that opportunity and not the necessity
to immediately try to get all the way over the three lanes to make the
left mm.
There are some, and I won't advocate this, who'll say they can
stay in the right-hand lane and turn around in Quail Woods' opening,
where they said they can come out to a signal which would be across
from Lakeland bridge anyway.
So there are options. We don't minimize it. The pictures that
you saw are real. There's a lot of traffic out there today. Obviously if
Page 30
September 9, 2003
you extend the lanes, the backup won't be as long. But what we have
done is we put up Do Not Block Intersection signs, much like we did
south of Pine Ridge on Goodlette-Frank Road for the community so
that we make sure that that opening is open to them when they go to
take their turn when there's a signal in operation.
So we're trying to do what we can. We do not meet warrants.
We'd be happy to discuss anything else you would like to. I have
Greg Strakaluse or Bob Tipton, traffic office engineer.
But I do want you to know that we've taken the issues seriously,
but we're not in a position -- we do not meet warrants with overall
progression and with an issue that we face all throughout the county
to put a signal or to respond further than we've done already.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would like the transportation
department to monitor this situation very closely -- MR. FEDER: We will.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and get close to the completion
of Immokalee Road here, the six-laning. And I really think that we
need to keep our eye on this. And before -- just so that we take care
of the welfare of those citizens that live in that community.
MR. FEDER: That's a major concern, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I ask that this be taken
seriously and that we address this issue as more traffic gets involved
in this, because I'm very concerned for the residents in that
community.
MR. FEDER: And please be assured, Commissioner, we take
every one of these issues very seriously.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I concur with Commissioner Halas's
concerns.
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Any further discussion?
Okay.
Page 31
September 9, 2003
MR. MACKEY: Commissioner, might I respond to the
transportation part?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, sir.
We have a time certain at 10:00, or no later than 10:007
MR. MUDD: No, it's after 10:00, Commissioner. And I figured
that you'd get through 7(A) and 7(B) before we handled that item, but
we'd get it finished before lunch.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want to go to 7(A) and 7(B)?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Item #7A
PETITION VA-2002-AR-2525 ROBERT DAVY AND MARK
ALLEN, REPRESENTING LITTLE HICKORY SHORES UNIT 3
RE-PLAT PROPERTY OWNERS, REQUESTING A 15FOOT
VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED BOATHOUSE SIDE YARD
SETBACKS 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 - DF, NIF, D
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anybody have a problem
with that? 7(A) is the continuation of the July 22nd, BCC meeting.
This item is -- requests all parties to be sworn in by the court
reporter, and for the Commissioners to give any ex parte
communication. This is the variance of 2002-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 --
for the required boathouse side yard setbacks of 15 feet to zero, and a
30-foot variance from the 20-foot minimum protrusion of the
Page 32
September 9, 2003
boathouse and the maximum of 50 feet for the property located on
Hickory Shores subdivision. And lots 1 through 20 and 22, Block G,
lots through -- 3 through 9 and 10, Block H, Section 5, Township 48,
Range 25 east, of Collier County.
Any participants wishing to -- any people here wishing to
participate in this exercise, please rise and the court reporter will
swear you in.
(All parties were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, do you have
any ex parte communication in this matter?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do. I met with Tony
Pires and also with Rich Yovanovich on 7/28 and 9/28 (sic). And I
had correspondence from a Mrs. Walls and a Patricia Stark.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I met with Mr. Yovanovich, a
representative of the petitioners yesterday, and I have received
correspondence from supporters and opponents of this particular
petition, and that correspondence is included in my file.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have correspondence, and they are
in the file, if anybody would like to review it. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I've met with Mr. Yovanovich
and I've also met with Mr. Pires and Mrs. Maggio. I have a great
deal of correspondence that I have in my file. And also, I went out
and took a look at the site and rode down the road completely and
looked up all the addresses of the people that I found on my
correspondence.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, you gave your
correspondence ex parte communication. Is there any more?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just the fact that I met with the --
Tony Pires and I met with people that live in that general area, and --
homeowners in that area, and I've had correspondence, e-mail, both
Page 33
September 9, 2003
for and against, so that's where we stand on this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Yovanovich, you're representing
the petitioner for this variance?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.. May I start?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead. It's your time.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning, Commissioners. Rich
Yovanovich, for the record, representing the petitioners in this
matter.
What you have before you today is a request for a variance for a
number of lots to allow them to come through the process to request
a boathouse. These lots, as your executive summary indicates, are in
fact boat dock lots and were created that way back in the Sixties.
None of the lots themselves are large enough to support a principal
structure, they're all about 450 square feet and about 40 feet in width.
Prior actions of the Board of County Commissioners was a
conditional use and variance, and I think also what was called a
provisional use, to allow boat docks to be constructed on those lots
and allowing a zero-foot setback for the boats to be moored at the
boat docks.
So in effect, these lots have already been determined by a
previous board to be boat dock lots. And essentially what happens is
a finger pier is built approximately at the center line of the lot and the
lot owner has the right to put two boats on that lot.
Now, there was a lot of-- there was a letter written prior to the
planning commission that raised some issues that I would like to
address that really are not related to the variance petition, but I
wanted to address those anyway.
The -- one of the concerns that was raised, what about the fact
that these lots -- or these boat docks could be rented out? Well, that
could happen anywhere. That's a code enforcement issue. A dock
behind someone's house can be rented out. These lots are prohibited,
from the prior legislative action taken by the Board of County
Page 34
September 9, 2003
Commissioners, from being rented out. They're intended to serve the
person who owns the lot. So that is the purpose of these -- the boat
docks.
Also, it is required that they not be commercial. One of the
concerns was that this was now going to turn into a commercial
marina. It's not going to be a commercial marina, it's going -- it's a
boat dock lot that serves somebody who doesn't own a home on the
water. It provides access for boaters of the community to have a boat
dock.
What we're simply asking for is the same right that any other
property owner who owns property on the water has, is to request the
ability to ask for a boathouse. If you have a principal -- if you have a
house, a lot big enough to have a house on the water, you have the
right to request a boathouse. We're asking for the same privileges.
Now, in order to do that, there are -- we have to obtain some
variances from the code provisions, because they just don't work for
these lots. One of the provisions that we need a variance from is the
fact that we cannot have a roof that meets the same -- can't be similar
to the roof of the principal structure, because we can't have a
principal structure. So we're asking for a variance from that
requirement that the roof match the roof on the principal structure.
Second we're asking for is the 15-foot side setback requirement.
It won't work for the lots, they're only approximately 40 feet in
width, and with that requirement we are already allowed to go up to
the lot line for the boat anyway. So we're just simply asking for the
ability to the house to go and cover the boat which is already allowed
to go basically to a zero setback.
And finally, we're asking for the ability for the boathouse to go
out beyond 20 feet, because this is shallow water, and you basically
can't build a dock and get your boat in the water at 20 feet.
Now, keep in mind that we're not asking for an exemption from
the criteria to go through a boat dock extension. We still have to go
Page 35
September 9, 2003
through a boat dock extension to extend out into the water. And
when that happens, the planning commission analyzes impact on
boater traffic, impact on view. All of those things are addressed at
the time we go through a boat dock extension, and we would still be
subject to those criteria when we come through with a boat dock
extension.
I'll briefly take you through where the lots are and a little history
of how we got to where we are.
This is -- these are the lots. This is Third Street West. This is
from your property appraiser's GPS. Right here are the affected lots.
Now, I don't represent every one of the lot owners, a few of them
chose not to be part of the petition, but a vast majority of the lot
owners have chosen to be part of this petition.
How this started was Mr. Allen and Mr. Davy went to staff
originally because they were approached by an installer of these boat
covers. They went and they asked, do we need a building permit for
these covers. And the response that they got was no, you don't need
a building permit for these covers, so they installed the covers.
Subsequently to that, staff has determined that these are in fact a
structure, therefore requiring a building permit. And since it's now a
structure, it's technically a boathouse, and you go back and follow the
circular logic, it comes back to well, you can't have a boathouse
because you don't have a principal structure.
So the mechanism to get in front of the Board of County
Commissioners that was arrived at with staff was to come forward
with this variance petition to address all of the lots in a global
situation, recognizing that we still needed to address the boat dock
extension when each individual boat dock comes forward.
So we went to the planning commission with the staff
recommendation of approval on the variance. The recommendation
was for hard covers versus soft covers, if you'll let me use that
terminology. And we got to the planning commission, and the
Page 36
September 9, 2003
planning commission preferred and imposed a condition that instead
of hard covers, they preferred soft covers in this location, because
they felt it blended in better with their surroundings. And it was a
recommendation just for this area to allow soft covers.
And I'd like to point out again on this map that you can't even
really see the soft covers. And this is -- I wish I could blow the ariel
up and get a little tighter. But right where my finger is pointed, those
are Mr. Allen's boat covers, and across the way right there are Mr.
Davy's boat covers. So they are -- they do blend in nicely with the
community.
Now, when I first took this case, I was a little concerned about
how those boat covers would look. I wasn't sure -- and my
recommendation was let's just go with the hard covers, because I --
my personal preference was I thought that would look better. But I
went out on the water with my clients to see what's around the
community and what do these things really look like. And if I can,
I'll show you some pictures.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can just give that to the County
Manager.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The first picture is -- I would have never
gotten that right in lining that up.
The first picture, those are Mr. Allen's boats, and that's from the
water, obviously. You virtually cannot see them as you drive by on
the road. The mangroves have grown over to block them.
The next picture is across the way; that's Mr. Davy's two boats
and covers.
That picture is a picture looking in -- into the waterway, facing
east.
And that's basically the view coming back the same way. That's
what you see going in. I mean, there's already a boat on a lift, so the
cover or house, whatever is approved, will not block the view,
because all these boats are on lifts already.
Page 37
September 9, 2003
That's another look of-- that's looking in east, and you'll see
there's already an existing boathouse in the area. And that's what it
looks like. And I don't -- this next picture is not the best -- oh, it's
real fuzzy, let's not even take it. What that picture was is looking
from the east to the west, and what you see is the hard cover -- the
hard-- and before you see Mr. Allen's boat covers, you see that
existing boathouse on a boat dock lot.
And finally, one of the questions was what do these things look
like when they're placed together side by side, so to speak.
That is the Vanderbilt Towers boat basin. Now that's a mid-rise
condominium. That's what these people look out from their windows
and see in their boat basin. And I'm assuming, since the condo hasn't
objected and those things are in place, it hasn't really been an issue
for people in these mid-rise condos to look at these boat covers
aesthetically.
And you will also notice, by the way they're constructed, there's
a natural separation from the boathouses, so they are not rooftop to
rooftop to rooftop. They do line up nicely and provide, you know, a
view, if you can, between the -- through the core.
Also in the area, if you want, I've got pictures of other
single-family homes that decided that these boat covers were for
them, and they've gone ahead and constructed them as well. So I
mean, the neighborhood on the single-family lots seems to like these
covers as well.
The planning commission wanted to make sure that the
aluminum that holds up the canvas was in -- does in fact meet the
hurricane standards, and it does, it's a requirement that the aluminum
frame meet the hurricane standards.
Now, obviously the canvas does not. They wanted a
requirement that the owners come and remove the canvas cover if
there's a storm coming, and we've agreed to that requirement. Mr.
Davy and Mr. Allen live locally, and we would be fine with that
Page 38
September 9, 2003
being a condition on any of that, if we went the boat cover route, as
recommended by the planning cormnission.
We're also okay with going with what staff recommends, the
hard cover, if that's the preference of the Board of County
Commissioners. We do believe that this is a unique situation, these
are unique lots. We're only asking for the same rights that anybody
else who owns property on the waterfront would have, is the right to
ask for a boathouse, go through the process of getting a boat dock
extension. And we fully intend to comply with the building code
structural requirements.
I don't have much more to add. Your staff report was thorough,
you have all the backup material in your packet.
I do -- would like to respond to any comments from the public
as to why they may or may not object. And with that, unless you
have any questions of me, I'll --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the members of the
board?
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Mr. Yovanovich, up in the
upper left-hand comer, there's a red line that intersects the boat
docks, from best I can see. What is the significance of that line?
MR. YOVANOVICH: To be honest with you, I don't know. I
just pulled the map up just for purposes of showing the location of
the lots.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I really would like to know
what the significance is. Is it a property marker of some type?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know. We are constructing -- we
would be required to construct our boat docks within our riparian
lines for our lots. So we'd still be required to be consistent with the
riparian lines set forth in your code, and we'll address that at the time
of permitting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Does it have anything to do
Page 39
September 9, 2003
with it about the state owning land under the water?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The particular case, I mean, as
far as applying for this.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We would be required to obtain
whatever per -- if we needed to get a state permit to build a boat dock
there we would get a state permit. If we don't have to, we wouldn't
get one.
MR. MUDD: Red lines on that overlay, Commissioner,
normally designate lot lines, okay? That's the way the property
appraiser has them laid on that sheet. You don't see them on the
individual ones so well on the visualizer, but if you get close to that
picture, you can see them, so that every lot is squared off with a red
line.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And sometimes they're not correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's just a line on the map. Because I
can tell you that my neighbor's shed is on my property, but my
survey says that it's not.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's an approximation, it's clearly not a
surveyed line.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You should bring that before the
County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No thanks.
I have some questions.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- what's the lots platted -- the
plat for the lots, they're platted for what use?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, actually, it was silent. And the
determination has been through legislative history of granting of
conditional uses. Since they never met the minimum size
requirements for a single-family structure, I'm told through, you
Page 40
September 9, 2003
know, verbal history that the intent always was that these were boat
dock lots. And that's in fact what the Commission has said in the
past, that these were going to be boat dock lots.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Was this a PUD or is it just a
subdivision --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think it's straight zoning. Straight
zoning from way back when in the '60s.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What is the property appraised as?
Is it -- I mean, commercial, single family?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's appraised at RS-4, which is what
they are. They're RS-4 lots, but
to be constructed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
they don't meet the minimum lot size
Okay. One minute, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure, I just let you know.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: On this map that's not very clear --
you might be able to answer my question or not, but on the road to
the north, there looks like a structure just next to the vacant lots.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right there?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, to your other left. Yes, that way.
Right there. Yeah, right there. You had it. Back. Never mind.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Go ahead, ask your question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we know what that is?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the boathouse. That's the one I
showed you, the hard cover.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your voice changed.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I got coached.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just one thing: The boathouses
that exist right now -- well, there's the boathouse and then the canvas
cover.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
Page 41
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What kind of setback are they
using presently?
MR. YOVANOVICH: They're using the width of the boat slip
as their setback. They're built on the existing pilings, so under the
existing regulations the pilings can go to a zero setback.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
setback?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
it's going to look like.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
So they're set right now at a zero
So you have a good look of what
These boathouses that you're
referring to that presently have a hard fixed roof, are these in
compliance? Were these set up, were they permitted?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't represent that parcel, so I didn't
look at the history, I'm just --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what are you representing
here as far as the parcels?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm saying that right now there's already
a boathouse out there. Nobody's tagged it --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm just asking which parcels do
you represent?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I represent lots one, two, three --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Show me where -- show me with
your pointer there what we're talking about here exactly.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It would probably be easier if I put -- if
you look at your Page 9 of your agenda package, you will see the
shaded lots.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Those are the lots that we represent.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a problem with putting
boathouses up to start with, right from the get-go. And this just
compounds it, when there's no other structures that are there, such as
a home or whatever else.
Page 42
September 9, 2003
And the other thing that bothers me is the fact that these are just
lots. And I'm wondering how we're going to address landscaping
needs in that area, and keeping these docks from being rented out.
Because I can't believe that everybody up there owns two boats.
That's -- that's hard for me to believe, that a person owns two boats
for each one of these lots.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I mean, that's going to be just like
any house that has two boats stored there. How do you know?
You've got to at some point either trust the people to tell the truth and
do the right thing --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we have a code
enforcement problem.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And then you have a code enforcement
issue if people are not following the rules. But the requirements on
those lots specifically prohibit the rental of those. And we're willing
to stipulate to that as part of the approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to hear from the audience
here.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We also -- Commissioner Halas, if I
may, we did offer to install additional landscaping, if that was
preferred, from the roadside. We were happy to do that. We did
attempt to meet with the nay-sayers, and there was no room for
compromise, so we're always open to compromise.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, any further questions for the
petitioner?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions for our staff?.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, let's go to public
speakers. ·
MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to wanted to put
on the record that this is one of the few times that the planning
Page 43
September 9, 2003
commission and planning staff have different recommendations, ours
being more from the safety viewpoint that we wanted to have the
hard boathouse, the planning commission went more towards the low
profile, I guess more aesthetically pleasing was the general intent. I
just wanted to put that on the record for you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. Let's go to public
speakers.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have eight speakers, the first
being Anthony Pires. He will be followed by Jim Boswell.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. PIRES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Commission. My name is Anthony Pires with the law firm of
Woodward, Pires and Lombardo. And with the board and
Chairman's indulgence, I'm representing 14 different property owners
in this area that are opposed to this request, and I would request some
additional consideration at this time, perhaps 10 minutes. I believe
the petitioner went approximately about 15 minutes or so. I'll try to
keep within the 10 minutes, with the board's indulgence.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please.
MR. PIRES: Thank you. Within this particular application we
have serious concerns. We raised those concerns before the planning
commission.
One of the primary concerns, some of them -- some people may
say gee, Tony, you're being hyper technical, these are just legal
arguments, but I think they are important issues with regards to your
process and the process generally.
A variance is for the desire to waive or get a modification to a
particular Land Development Code regulation to enable the property
to be utilized that may not otherwise be usable. You would have to
show unique land-related hardship not caused or created by the
applicant. The staff, in its executive summary to this board in its
package said, there is no land-created hardship.
Page 44
September 9, 2003
Additionally, it is difficult to see, when you have an application
en masse of 25 with one variance fee of probably $450, how each
one is unique. No individual parcel has been identified for its unique
characteristics.
Also interesting, in the time that I have practiced in front of this
board and other boards, I've always been required to and I always
thought I was compelled to and appropriate to, in order to show the
nature of the request being desired, to have some sort of graphic.
The existing lot, the existing setbacks, what's proposed to be waived,
what's proposed for the variance. There is no such animal in this
packet. The only graphic that is part of the application process is a
copy of the plat.
The checklist for the application says provide a survey that
shows the encroachment. There is none in this packet. It is then
difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the effect of the variance
being granted.
What's also interesting is there are no surveys or graphics
depicting the water depths. Mr. Yovanovich made a bald assertion,
comparable to the bald assertion made during the course of the
planning commission meeting, that there are shallow water depths.
That's also in their application. There is no evidence in the record,
no testimony that shows there are shallow water depths.
Question was raised as the ownership. I think the question was
raised as to, gee, what is that red line. I'm not an expert, but I like the
surveyors -- I like the survey lines that are part of variance
applications to ascertain property boundaries.
It is our understanding that is a bulkhead line, and that is a line
of differentiation between the property owned by the Hickory Harbor
Condominiums.
So whether it's exact or not, whether it's a tolerance of one foot,
whether it's a tolerance of two feet, prima facie on its face, based
upon the documentation from the property appraiser's office, part of
Page 45
September 9, 2003
these boathouses and part of the proposed extensions go into property
which is controlled by a bulkhead line possibly owned by Hickory
Harbor Condominiums.
I'm not telling you that is the answer, but I'm telling you that if
you had an application that provided the requisite data, you would
know that, as opposed to guess, surmise and guess and by golly.
That's what the applicant is wishing you to do.
The applicant has not indicated and shown any graphics as to
how this would look in its relationship to adjoining properties and to
the residential properties and communities to the west and to the east.
What kind of effect would be created in a single-family residential
community?
Mr. Yovanovich says Vanderbilt Condominium are happy, the
mid-rise, high-rise people are happy with types of covered structures
in their boat basin, but they are not this residential community of a
long-standing nature, about a 50-year-old community that does have
a canonization effect caused by boathouses that could occur by virtue
of this application.
Additionally, the application itself concedes that boathouses do
not qualify for the use. In essence they're asking for a use variance,
which is not allowed by law, as opposed to a variance merely from
the requirement.
In the application-- the variance petition, the applicant himself
said due to the size of these lots, and inability to provide a primary
structure on them, they do not qualify for boathouses under the
current rules. The current rules provide a definition of boathouse,
and I'd like to introduce that into the record, and I will have a copy
for the record. Boathouse: A roofed accessory use to a residential
structure. It's not accessory to the dock, it's accessory to a residential
structure.
Our position is if they wish to have boathouses, they need to go
back to a conditional use process, because the original conditional
Page 46
September 9, 2003
use didn't even say docks. The original conditional use allowed for
boat launching facilities. At the time the conditional uses were
approved, the conditional uses authorized -- had the ability to
authorize either boat launching facilities or multiple docking areas.
Multiple docking areas were not authorized as part of that prior
conditional use process. So we're saying, and our position is, the
boathouse can't even be allowed.
What I also find interesting is that Mr. Yovanovich asserts and
the applicant has asserted that well, we'll give you all the data you
want when we come in for the boat dock extension request.
My response to that is why not provide it now when you're
asking for a variance. Let's do it all at one time. And I can see the
argument later on as to why the boat dock extension request should
be granted. It's hey, we told you it was shallow, you granted a
variance based upon that representation, how can you now deny us a
boat dock extension request? I think it will be difficult to do. And it
may even be an issue about res judicata or collateral estoppel that
you allowed this to occur before.
There's been no evidence or testimony of hardship. The
applicants have never even testified before the planning commission
or even today. The staff has found no land-related hardship, and the
court cases are replete with the fact that a hardship needs to be shown
in order to have a grant of a variance application.
Mr. Yovanovich -- and I'd like to introduce into the record also
some additional photographs. One's a little closer up. I had
problems with my computer this morning printing the full size out.
But if I could go to the visualizer and not fall over the new podium,
which is very nice, by the way. Thank you.
I believe this one shows the red line in greater detail as we come
closer to that. What it also shows is something that wasn't disclosed.
The lots may extend down to the water, but there are seawalls there.
Again, when you start measuring where is the boat dock extension
Page 47
September 9, 2003
going to be made from? From the property line in the future, from
the existing seawall line, from the existing shoreline? And where
this is variance from? There are just too many unanswered
questions.
You have a process where it's designed to have each individual
come in on their own accord, on their own merits, lot by lot. This is
akin to a neighborhood of 25 homes where people want to change
setbacks as to their garages. And they come in with 25 applications
all in one, without any drawings, without any surveys and say, you
know, we got pretty skinny lots, we want to put garages on them
closer to the side yard setbacks. Trust us, we'll do the right thing.
Each one needs to be weighed on its own, each one needs to be
evaluated on its own. So therefore, we believe that this application
should be denied in its entirety.
Mrs. Maggio from -- will be one of the speakers who will have
some additional information about the question I think Commissioner
Halas raised about the one covered structure that's a hard structure
that was used by Mr. Yovanovich as an example. We believe that's
an unpermitted structure, and that's part of the problem that's been
going on out there.
In summary, based upon all the -- the deficiency in the
application, the failure to comply with the requirements of the
ordinance for the application, the failure to show a land-created
hardship, the failure to show a non self-created hardship, all they
want to do is they want to put more boats on their lot. Their
application even says that they're not -- they're usable. They can be
used. They just want to put two as opposed to one. And they want to
cover it. They've shown no real hardship, no individual application
has been provided.
We respectfully request then that you deny this petition, and if
they wish to submit, submit each one on their own merit, have each
one evaluated on their own merit with the requisite data.
Page 48
September 9, 2003
Once again, I've never seen a variance application without
supporting data showing what it's going to look like, what effect it
will have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. PIRES: And also, I have some items that I'd like to make
part of the record -- thank you, Mr. Mudd -- the photographs,
correspondence I provided to the planning commission, and the
transcript of the planning commission hearing, a verbatim transcript.
And I'll give those to the court reporter with the Chairman's
indulgence.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jeff Boswell.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Followed by?
MS. FILSON: Jeff Garard.
MR. BOSWELL: Good morning, Commissioners, my name is
Jim Boswell. I reside at 270 Third Street with my family. I'd like to
point that out to you, that is the stealthy looking building right there
on the plat.
It's a two-story stilt home. I've owned the property for 18 years,
I've lived there for the past seven years. I guess I should have
brought some photographs, but obviously, based on that
photographic plat there, you can have some idea of my view down
the street.
Obviously I have no opposition to any type of structure being
built on there as far as a cover to protect people's boats. I presently
don't own a boat. Hopefully in the future I will. But I don't have any
opposition to a soft cover or a hard cover.
If I haven't -- if it seems as though all of a sudden I popped out
of nowhere and -- when I had an opportunity to supposedly attend
any of the meetings at the Bonita Shores Association, that was
because I was not invited. So I would have been there to show an
opposing view, but I simply wasn't invited.
Page 49
September 9, 2003
There's quite a bit of history in regards to these, obviously. A
lot of the things that have been brought up here had already been
resolved through the petition that Mr. Davy and I had brought forth
years ago when it was determined that this RSF-4 zoning had been
applied to these properties when the Land Development Code had
been adopted back in the Seventies. That was arbitrarily applied
because these simply were not recognized at that time. Nobody
knew really for any purpose that they existed. That's why we've had
to go through a lot of these jumping through hoops, is because they
simply weren't recognized and taken care of at that time.
Mr. Davy and I, during the period of getting these lot lines
adjusted in order for us to better utilize these properties, followed the
recommendations of the planning commission. So we've followed all
of the rules along as they've been posed to us.
Anyway, I don't want to take any more of your time. I can't get
into a legal dispute here. That's for our attorney to do. But I just -- I
did want to bring you up to speed on a little bit of the history as
someone who lives right there on the street and overlooks these lots.
Nobody else has that vantage point. I do. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jeff--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta has a
question, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Before you go, sir,
do you own one of those boat lots?
MR. BOSWELL: I own two of those boat lots. I just bought
one just in the last three months, as a matter of fact.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are they the ones that are
facing your house?
MR. BOSWELL: I wouldn't say anything faces my house. Can
I point it out to you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you, please.
Page 50
September 9, 2003
MR. MUDD: Tell me where you want me to move it.
MR. BOSWELL: Actually, you're very accurate, right there.
Right there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Next speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Jeff Garard. He will be followed
by Emily Maggio.
MR. GARARD: I just wanted to thank you for your valued
consideration in looking at this proposal. We're just simply
requesting the rights to -- that any property owner on the water has,
and that's to protect our value and our investment in our boats. I
think it will add to the aesthetic appearance to it. And that's basically
all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Emily Maggio. She will be
followed by Richard Stocksdale.
MS. MAGGIO: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Emily Maggio. My husband Frank and I have resided in
Little Hickory Shores for 34 years. I am here today representing my
husband and myself, and I am also one of the 14 households
represented by Mr. Pires, and I am here today representing the other
13 who couldn't make it for whatever reason. I have nine letters from
those homeowners. The majority of them live right there on Third
street. Two of us live on Second Street, which is where I live, and
one person who also owns a boat lot lives in Bonita Shores. Most of
them are out of town; one had a hip replacement, the other is
chaperoning her child's class. So these are their input other than
what I and our attorney have to say.
Let me start out by saying, first of all, we as homeowners knew
when we moved there that these boat dock lots were there. The
Walker family who developed this subdivision, when they extended
Third Street created those lots.
Page 51
September 9, 2003
We have, as residents there, no objection to those lots being
used for the docking or launching of boats. We knew they were
there. People pay taxes on their property, they're entitled to a use.
We have no objection to that. However, and I have here a copy of
the original provisional use that was given, and it was for boat launch
facility. All other code requirements were required, only that they
could have a dock without a principal structure.
We feel that that was reasonable. However, when the county
went forward and gave them zero lot line, we felt that the county
went beyond reason and beyond good judgment. And I'll explain
why.
That's kind of a big view. I'm going to give you a closer up.
When the county granted zero lot line to these boat lots, they in
effect gave these boat lot owners more rights than the residential
homeowners in that neighborhood. We have no variance and no
right to build anything lot line to lot line. And I believe that if we
were to come in here en masse and ask for a variance to build
anything lot line to lot line, I sincerely can't imagine the scenario
under which you would grant such a thing.
The second thing they did which makes their decision
irresponsible, you look and you see what's there now. With zero lot
line -- and you'll see three boats in one and you'll see the roofs. And
just imagine when every one of those lots -- and the majority of them
so far are not developed -- but when they're all developed, the reality
is you're going to have what you see, lot line to lot line to lot line.
One boat catches fire, just one, just one, what are you going to have?
A disaster. You add roofs, you're only adding fuel. You put them
50 feet out in the water and you're making it darn challenging for the
firefighters. And I'm not just pulling wool. My husband was the fire
commissioner of the Little Hickory/Bonita Shores Fire Control
District for 21 years and was a working firefighter. It is a real
danger.
Page 52
September 9, 2003
The county was irresponsible to give these boat lot owners more
consideration than they gave to the residential lot owners in that
residential neighbor. You plopped -- the county plopped -- not you
particularly, but the county plopped a terrible fire hazard right in the
middle of our neighborhood. I don't think anybody would want that.
As far as this issue of renting, which is another concern, this
will become commercialized. I want to show you an ad that
appeared the beginning of this year. It is for one of these boat dock
lots. They are 30 feet by 20 feet is the plat. I don't know where
somebody came up with 45 feet. There may be one that's 45 feet.
The majority of them are 30 feet. This is for a boat dock lot. The
price is $239,000. I won't read the whole description to you because
it's directions, you take Bonita Beach Road, blahbidy blah, and it gets
you right there to those dock lots. The remarks: This is a unique
opportunity to own great boating access dock with two lifts. Buy one
for your boat and rent the other out. The dock has a chickie hut for
relaxing after a long day of boating. Water and electric. Beautiful
bay view. This is a perfect solution for the closing of Wiggins Pass
marina.
Anyone who -- these people who own these lots right now may
not want to rent them. They're not going to own those lots forever.
And if you don't think that this is where we're going, you're ignoring
the obvious.
I would like to show you also this, which I got from zoning.
Michelle Arnold sent it to me at my request. This is a list of all the
zoning violations that have taken place on those boat dock lots from,
what is it, '98 to --
MR. MUDD: 5-98 and it goes down through 5-01, at least on
the first page.
MS. MAGGIO: That's it. It is replete with building permit
violations, and the second largest infraction is renting. And we're not
talking about phantom owners; some of these people that are here
Page 53
September 9, 2003
before you today are those violators.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm going to ask you to wrap up,
please.
MS. MAGGIO: Yes, I will. I realize it's long.
You do not need a variance, a boathouse or a 50-foot dock to
clean up your property, to plant trees and to improve its appearance.
You do not need a variance, a boathouse and a 50-foot dock to install
security lighting. You don't need a variance, a boathouse and a
50-foot dock to protect your boat from the elements. Boat covers are
available and widely used.
You do need a variance to build a boathouse on these dock lots,
you do need a variance to cure the zoning violations from which this
petition emanates. This is a zoning violation.
And if I could ask, aren't those canvas covers illegal? I believe
they are.
You do need a variance to extend a dock 50 feet into the
waterway. Ask yourself, why do existing docks that are being used
and are apparently functioning quite well need to be extended to 50
feet? Why do non-existent, and as yet unplanned, docks need a
variance to extend to 50 feet? Where is the hardship that requires a
variance to the law?
Most of the docks are still vacant, there's nothing there. There
are no plans in evidence to show what will be built, when or by
whom, the current or the future owner. So why do empty lots need a
variance? The variance will be in essence a blank check.
The final thing I have here is a copy of the Little Hickory
Shores deed restrictions. It requires a principal residence before any
other structure, and it also requires setbacks. We may have been
asleep a couple of years ago, we are awake and organized. We can
and will do whatever is available to us to enforce our deed
restriction. Thank you so very much for your kind attention.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker?
Page 54
September 9, 2003
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Richard Stocksdale. He will be
followed by Dennis Santos.
MR. STOCKSDALE: Good morning. My name is Richard
Stocksdale and I'm a resident of the condominiums that are facing
here.
There's 51 condominiums there and I represent a group in that to
say to you as commissioners that we are not in favor of looking out
our condo windows into a Tin City atmosphere which could be
created by the fact that they're building these covers over these boats.
And one is a hard cover and the other one is a soft cover. We have
25 slips that belong to our condominium association, and we have no
need for any covers and no desires to put in any covers. So we're
opposed to the fact that the covers may exist.
The other option we have -- or opposition we have is the fact
that we're taking a community and we're inviting people into the
community that really don't have any interest in our community to
dock their boats. They have a right to dock their boats, but we're
saying that you -- that's going to create a traffic condition on Third
Street, and these boat docks are going to create an unsightly thing
that we don't appreciate. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Dennis Santos. He will be followed by John
McCrohan.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. McCrohan, if you'd come up and
stand by the next -- or the speaker before you, we can speed up and
get some of the speakers in on a timely basis.
MR. SANTOS: Good morning, if it's still the morning, I'm not
sure. My name is Dennis Santos, I am the president of the Bonita
Shores Boating Association, and our association is right in this little
area right here. It was donated to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, you have to be by the mic.
MR. SANTOS: Oh, I'm sorry. It was donated by the Walker
family to the association back in the Seventies, I guess, Sixties. We
Page 55
September 9, 2003
are a volunteer board of directors, and we're appointed by boating
association members.
I'd like to say that this has been difficult for all of the board
members, because we have friends in the boating association, and we
are very concerned about everything that's been brought up today, by
the traffic, the commercialization and all that other stuff.
We have petitions, basically 45 people have signed. I'd like to
leave these with you folks, if I may. Those are signed by members of
the boating association. And I believe there's 45 signatures there,
and we have approximately 70 members.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are they for or against?
MR. SANTOS: They are against it. They are against it.
As the boating association, we're really concerned about the
impact it would have on our land, because we are -- you know, we
try -- we maintain that land fairly well, and we're just really
concerned about the parking, the street activity, if it does get to the
point where everybody is buying up these lots and installing boat
docks. From what we understood, that Mr. Davy -- and which it
wasn't brought up and correct me if I'm wrong.
MR. MUDD: If you do it over here, please.
MR. SANTOS: I'm sorry. I'm not used to this.
He -- the one he's mentioned is the one that is on the bay side,
but we also understand that he owns -- I think the bay side, that green
right there, the bay side. He also owns two lots on the bay. Now, I
guess this kind of brings to the -- the question to some of the boating
association members is that why would one individual want to own
three lots totaling 150 feet of dock space out into the water, total of
six boats? And I guess the questions are just something that have to
be answered.
Mr. Allen has approached me, and Mr. Allen -- I think he's -- he
has said to me that he's almost sorry that he ever got involved with
this because what's happened is is that I guess because of some of
Page 56
September 9, 2003
these canvas violations, he has now brought -- he has now some code
enforcement issues that he has to deal with.
So to wrap it up, the boating association thinks that you ought to
vote no. That is the bottom line for us. And I thank you very much
for hearing it. If you have any questions, I can --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions by the members?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, sir. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John McCrohan. He will be
followed by your final speaker, Doug Fee.
MR. McCROHAN: I'm going to read real quick so I can maybe
take a little bit less of your time.
I would like to thank the commissioners for an opportunity to
speak and be heard on the variance before you.
I am here to represent myself, John McCrohan, and my wife
Cheryl Lewandowski on this issue. We are 13-year residents of
Bonita Shores and we also own a boat dock lot down there in Little
Hickory Shores.
We are aware of what this variance is about and what is being
asked of the Commissioners. My wife and I have always considered
ourselves as being interested and active in the community. For the
past six years my wife has served as the secretary/treasurer of the
boating association and is now the president of the Bonita Shores and
Little Hickory Shores Improvement Association.
Because of this, it has been brought to our attention that there
has been much misinformation given to the Bonita Shores and the
Little Hickory Shores community. We have had many calls to our
home to ask about the allowance of a variance to allow a marina on
Third Street with 50-foot commercial docks and boathouses.
We have tried to explain to our neighbors that there is no marina
being proposed, that these boat docks are non-commercial private use
facilities only, that the only reference to 50-foot docks is the
Page 57
September 9, 2003
limitation of how far the proposed boathouses can protrude, and that
these boathouses have no walls, just a roof.
I believe that there has been an effort to misinform and
unnecessarily alarm the community about this variance in order to
gain petitions for the opposition against it.
As a long-standing member of the community and as a voting
members of the boating association, I have not been offered the
opportunity to sign a petition for or against this variance, even
though I have made several requests.
Many of the petitions against this variance have been obtained
through misrepresentation, and the -- many of the opponents of this
variance are in fact the greatest offenders of the county ordinances
and density impacts in the community. The variance only asks that
the boat dock owners be able to protect their boats and be afforded
the same rights afforded all other water property owners in Collier
County.
I hope the Commissioners' good judgment will not be swayed in
the face of the rhetoric brought before you that has nothing to do
with this petition.
And if I may, just a quick few things. One, why would you want
two boats? Well, I like my stinky fishing boat. My wife does not
want to take my family or her family out on a stinky fishing boat.
So, therefore, she wants her pontoon boat. Two boats. You have a
three-car garage, you may not have three cars.
People say 50-foot docks. If you look at my dock, the first 13
feet of it are on land. You do not touch the water for the first 13 feet.
Therefore, I have a 50-foot dock. It does not go 50 feet into the
water, it just allows, according to the erosion of that property, to get
a 21-foot boat in the water.
During certain times of the year you can walk out on the sand,
from the land out on the sand about another ! 0 feet. So is the
variance -- it is by each lot and makes a difference. And the county
Page 58
September 9, 2003
takes all of this into account. And that's why we have not one survey
as to the size of the lot, but we have several surveys by different
surveyors for mean high water and how deep the water are (sic) for
each lot and each petition dock.
A zero lot line. The reason this was granted was that we could
have lifts. As many people say, gee, we can't have zero lot lines.
Well, my lot is 30 feet wide. I have a four-foot dock. I can't have
two 13-foot slips, which is standard, I had to cut one down to 12 foot.
So now I have two lifts to hang the two boats, which is a launching
facility. I launch my boats off of those lifts.
There is a lot of misunderstanding, I think, and a lot of the
neighborhood has been come up in arms. You speak of a lot of these
petitions against. Even Mr. Santos says he has 45 out of 70 plus
members. I don't believe that he has the support of the voting
membership. I am a voting member, I have not been offered this
petition. I have asked for one and not been offered.
And I think that there is a lot more than meets the eye here. I
think there are a lot of people who have boathouses and have
canopies but don't want anyone else to have them. Not everybody
down there -- not everybody down there does not live in the
neighborhood. I do, and so do several others. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. McCROHAN: And one other thing, ifI may add, as far as
will the roofs go roof to roof to roof, I don't believe that every house
that's on the water in Collier County will build a boathouse. I don't
believe everyone who owns a lot down there -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. McCROHAN: -- will build a boathouse. I don't believe
everyone will paint their house pink at the same time. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Doug Fee.
MR. FEE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Doug Fee. I'm president of the North Bay Civic Association,
Page 59
September 9, 2003
which includes the area of Bonita Shores and Little Hickory. We
have several of our members who live in this area.
The mission of the North Bay Civic is to preserve our Florida
coastal lifestyle. I won't repeat all the specifics of the variance being
asked today; however, I wanted to point out on the visualizer, a
picture is worth a thousand words. And I have in front of you, with
all respect to the Port Royal community, a picture of zero lot line
boathouses. Many of you will remember several years ago there was
a fire that occurred. And, you know, I'm seeing a parallel here as far
as this community. And at the planning commission I spoke and I
showed this picture; it went into the public record. And a couple of
the commissioners on the planning commission tried to make a
motion, I believe, to limit the zero lot line to somehow bring in so
that we wouldn't have roof to roof. And so that was one of the things
that they discussed.
So I'm here showing you that there is an example here in the
county of zero lot line boathouses, and that is what we see along this
shoreline.
Also, I might mention, with this shoreline being -- it's not
consistent. You'll have 50 feet -- you know, so it's going to be
boathouses that are varied and so it's going to look different than this
picture in front of you. That's my point, and thank you very much
for your time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Mr. Yovanovich, you know, rebutting all the remarks from the
speakers, I'm not sure if it's necessary. So maybe you want to just
represent some facts so the board can hear your input.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll just hit a couple highlights. I don't
want to rebut everything.
One, I'll let your county attorney address the process. I'm
assuming if the process was flawed, we wouldn't be here today. So
I'm assuming the county attorney's office has agreed with the
Page 60
September 9, 2003
process.
I didn't realize you could have a canyon effect when'you only
have 15-foot buildings, so I thought that was an interesting comment.
We are -- I don't know how to make this any clearer, we are not
asking for a boat dock extension today. We are simply asking for the
right to come and ask for a boathouse. And we still have to meet the
boat dock extension criteria, one of which includes impact on view.
We're not asking for a waiver of that requirement.
To show you that ordinary people do in fact own two boats,
Mrs. Maggio has two boats at her house and I'm assuming they're
both hers, and she does have a boathouse. So if we're opposed to
boathouses, I think we ought to just go ahead and take that boathouse
down and show the community that she truly believes that
boathouses are bad things.
There are others in the area-
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know if that's necessary. Just
give us the facts, please.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Well, I guess the reaction was is
people are saying we don't want boathouses and the people who are
saying that own them. And I think that's the point I was trying to
make. I apologize if it came across a little stronger than that. But
this has turned into -- I'll leave it at that.
Mrs. Maggio pointed out that code enforcement does work.
There have been people who were cited for illegally renting boat
docks, so your code enforcement staff is handling the situation.
We've already addressed the commercialization. This is not a
commercial marina. The traffic is going to come there to serve those
boat docks anyway, because there's still going to be boat docks.
We're just talking about a cover to the boat dock. It doesn't affect
traffic and it doesn't affect the number of boat docks that are going to
be out there.
And finally, you know, the Bonita-- the Bonita Shores Boating
Page 61
September 9, 2003
Association; or Boat Association, I may have the title incorrect --
candidly is the biggest traffic offender because their members come
to their launching facility and park there and they come there and
there's more members and users of that boating facility. So a lot of
the traffic issues are related to one of the associations that are
complaining.
We do have a land-related hardship. Mrs. Maggio pointed out
that I overestimated the size of the lots at 40 feet. They're smaller.
They're 30 to 35 feet. They're small and they can't have a principal
structure. I don't know what other land-related hardship you can
have when it involves the particulars of a boathouse because you
have to have a principal structure and you have to meet the setbacks.
They're too narrow.
I can testify to all those pictures. I've been on that waterway, I
have seen all that. My testimony is evidence. I don't know that there
was any other evidence presented contrary to what I stated. And we
need to focus on the criteria, not issues related to a boat dock
extension, not issues related to traffic, not issues related to
commercialization. Because frankly, none of that is applicable to
what we're asking for. And if you have any questions of me, I'm
happy to answer it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm a little confused here. What
staff has given me is an objective here, and it says the petitioner
requests a 15-foot variance from the required 15-foot required side
yard setback for a boathouse to 0 feet to 30 feet variance from
20-foot maximum protrusion from the boathouse to a maximum of 50
feet.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: For the boathouse lots, which
cannot support a single-family home. But you just said that you
didn't want the extension, but yet in this information here, it says a
Page 62
September 9, 2003
maximum of 50 feet.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me explain that to you, okay? What
they're saying is that if a boat dock extension is granted for 75 feet,
you can't have a boathouse go out more than 50 feet. That's what the
50-foot limitation is on.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fifty foot into the water.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Into the water, correct. If you get a boat
dock extension for 70 -- let's say 100 feet, you couldn't come in and
ask for a boathouse at the end of that dock. So that lot, by definition,
could not have a boathouse.
Now, regarding the side setbacks, if the lot is 30 feet wide and
you have 15 feet on one side and 15 feet on the next side, that's 30
feet. You have a zero house.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other question I have, I do a
lot of boating in this particular area, and I can assure you that the
only way that I can get back over here to the Back Bay Marina to
pick up fuel or go to the fish house, is I have to run my -- as it stands
right now, I have -- when I take my boat out, I navigate as close to
those docks as possible, because that's where the deep water is. You
go to the north of this area and you run into shoals.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And Commissioner Halas, that is also
something that will be addressed when someone asks for the boat
dock extension, how far out can they go, and will they impede the
traveling boat traffic. And if they will, they will not get a boat dock
extension.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, any further questions?
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if I may, I'd like to
address this question to our county attorney. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, was there anything
here in this process of asking for this variance that gave you concern?
Page 63
September 9, 2003
MR. WEIGEL: No. Mr. Yovanovich is correct that their
petition has come through the process properly, and they have
provided, as -- in their submittal that which is required under the
Land Development Code.
If I may comment, Mr. Pires has indicated that he felt that there
was information that wasn't provided that may, in prior submittals of
a similar nature for a variance, have been provided to the Board of
County Commissioners or the planning commission, which assist
them in making their determination. That information is not required
under our code and, therefore, is not a deficiency in allowing the
petition to go forward.
Mr. Yovanovich has, in responding to the most recent questions,
has again stated, and correctly, that there is a petition process that
goes forward with the planning commission, I believe, in regard to
the length of extension that may come to be requested at some future
point, and it will most expectedly have all of the issues relating to
depth of water, relating to the appropriateness of the length of
extension request, and that that is not a question that's actually
formally before you today in regard to testimony of depths of water
and things of that nature.
They have discussed, the petitioner requests, the ability to
construct, and the placement of a boathouse in regard to the
extension that may occur would come at a later time and have some
limitations based upon what you would provide today, if you were to
approve the variance.
You've had discussion in regard to whether there is a hardship
related to the land or not. That is a decision that you have in every
variance petition that comes before you.
Is there -- is it a property owner created hardship or is it a
hardship that, as we say, runs with the land, appears as part of the
facts of the property that exist?
You have on the record from various testimonials made here
Page 64
September 9, 2003
that the property has limitations, it does have some use that is
allowed for it presently, it cannot -- although it's within an RS-4
zoning area, it is of too small dimension to support residential and
other principal uses for that parcel.
There have been-- the board, as Ms. Maggio and others have
pointed out, have approved certain uses related to launching of craft
into the water. Those pertain to these properties today. And I think
that's my summary.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, just a comment, if I may. I
was very pleasantly surprised about how code enforcement's been
actively involved in that area, when I seen that list of violations. And
regardless of what the outcome of this Commission's decision will
be, I hope that they continue that effort.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I'll just make a comments
also.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'll close the public hearing, if
there's no further questions of staff.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, you're done? I didn't hear that, I'm
sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we haven't -- haven't closed
the public hearing. But if we don't have any questions of staff or the
petitioner, then we can -- let's close the public hearing and make our
comments and formulate a motion.
Entertain to close the public hearing. Any objections?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, the public hearing is
closed.
Commissioner Fiala, thank you.
Page 65
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks. I'm really wrestling with
this. One of the reasons is because we're trying to encourage boat
access, and we find that there are less and less areas where people
can park their boats -- I don't know what the proper word is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Moor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Moor their boats. I'm not a boater.
And yet we try and protect property rights. Everybody on this --
on these 33 lots already has a right to build a dock, from what we've
heard today. They have a right to have two boats on each dock,
while at the same time they are prohibited from renting them.
Obviously not everybody has taken that prohibition seriously, but
they are prohibited to do that.
We want to protect these people in the area by not encourage --
or by prohibiting -- let me use that word strongly -- by prohibiting
any marinas or any commercial activity whatsoever. Yet at the same
time I'm putting myself in the people who own these lots' shoes. And
I'm thinking, you know, if I had a boat dock, I would sure like
something to cover my head and just to protect me while I'm cleaning
my boat, while I'm cleaning my fish, whatever it is, and to protect the
boat itself and possibly lift it out of the water so that you can protect
the engine.
I took a look at the boathouses up close and personal. I wanted
to just see with my own eyes. Actually, I didn't find them offensive.
A lot of them were shrouded by all of the mangroves that are there
already.
And so I'm having -- I'm really wrestling with I want to protect
these people's right, but I think we can put limitations on these
boathouses. All they're doing is requesting boathouses now, they're
not talking about docks or anything. We can put limitations as far as
rentals, marinas and commercial activities, as well as the structure
itself, and maybe we can come up with a compromise for both sides
here.
Page 66
September 9, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, this, in my opinion, is
not an issue of boat access. The boat access will occur whether
there's a boathouse and a boat cover or not.
The problem I have here is that the fundamental principles
which lead us to allow boathouses for single-family residents are
substantially different when you're talking about a boat lot that is not
-- does not have a principal residence, and is substantially narrower
than a principal residence.
And to summarize that essentially, I'm saying that I believe it's
necessary to have different requirements for a 100-foot wide lot
rather than a 30-foot wide lot. So I think there are reasons why these
smaller lots should not have the same privileges that a larger
residential lot might.
But in fact, the rights of these property owners has been
extended by prior commissioners to include rights which don't exist
for anyone else, which is zero lot line construction.
I think the owners of these lots are very fortunate to have the
lots in a place to launch their boats. I think it's a good thing. But I
think if you push the envelope too far, you might lose some of those
rights. And I think the envelope has been pushed about as far as it
needs to be pushed, quite frankly.
I think the zero lot line issue was probably a mistake by a prior
commission, and to compound that by permitting the construction of
either soft covers or hard covers and line them up along a shoreline in
this manner in the midst of a residential community leaves the
impression of a commercial marina sitting right there in the middle of
this community.
I'm a boater too, and I've been out there and I've spent time
looking at these things, and the people have some pretty nice docks
there. And that's good. But I don't have a boathouse. I've had the
Page 67
September 9, 2003
boat there for almost 10 years. I don't have a boat cover-- a cover
over the boat. I have a boat cover that protects my boat.
Boathouses are no longer even permitted in all of the City of
Naples, nor are boat covers of any kind. There are thousands of
people who have boats and they do not have covers over their docks,
and they survive quite well, and they launch their boats quite well,
and their boats survive.
So I have to tell you that I'm not excited about continuing this
progression of variances which started back some years ago. I think
it's gone as far as it should go.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I concur wholeheartedly and I feel
the same way, that I think boathouses have gotten to the point where
they're getting out of hand. And I hope some day that we can change
the codes accordingly.
I also look at these lots that -- again we're affording the ability
here of the people that own those lots to build docks in current
standards that's available to them, and I don't feel that we need to
push the envelope any farther, as Commissioner Coyle said here.
But I think also, this is just a tip of the iceberg in regards to
what this county is faced with in the upcoming years with access to
the waterways. I think this is just the start of what we're involved
with as we find that land values near the water increase in value to
the point where we lose a lot of these precious marinas, whereby
people could store boats and keep them covered in commercial
storage.
I'm doing everything possible to ask individuals that presently
have any type of marinas to try to expand on that so that we can have
additional boat storage. So I think this is only just the beginning.
And I also look that this is a residential area, and if you look at
what they have there, they have a nice home and they have a boat
dock and possibly a boathouse in the back of their yard, which is
Page 68
September 9, 2003
afforded them through the codes as they presently are in the
community.
But when you look at a lot that's strictly defined as a boat lot, I
have to go along with Commissioner Coyle, that where this lot is
strictly a boat lot, they should not have the same requirements or they
shouldn't have the same requirements as somebody with a house. So
that's where I stand on that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, great.
I'm going to ask for a motion here, and then before I do that, I
just want to give my two cents.
This is an accessory use to a principal structure. There is no
principal structure. If the property is assessed as residential property,
there is no resident there, accessory use, how can we approve this
accessory use? Just like if I had a lot in Golden Gate Estates, can I
put a garage up there without putting the house up? I can tell you
that I would catch holy heck by neighbors around there if I tried to
do that. Couldn't get a permit. And can you imagine trying to get a
variance? What would it look like, a commercial operation for
storage?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Put it on your neighbor's lot. His
garage is on your--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: His shed is. That's where the
property appraiser's lines are.
But anyways, with that I'll entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I entertain a motion for denial.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Coyle for denial. Any discussion on
the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
Page 69
September 9, 2003
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta opposed.
We have an agreement with our court reporter to give her a
break every so often. I think this is the so often. So let's take a
five-minute break.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, if you may, I'd like to jump to
10(E) after the break.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
MR. MUDD: After that item we can start the Parklands issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(A short recess was held.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
We are moving on to --
MR. MUDD: Item 10(E).
Okay.
Everybody take their seats, please.
Item #10E
APPROVING DONATION AGREEMENTS AND ACCEPTING
WARANTY DEEDS FROM OLDE CYPRESS DEVELOPMENT,
LTD., FOR OLD CYPRESS UNIT ONE, TRACT R-3, TRACT O
AND A PORTION OF TRACT R-1 FOR THE PURPOSE OF
FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE KNOWN AS LOGAN
BOULEVARD NORTH AND TO APPROVE A LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANACE AGREEMENT WITH OLDE CYPRESS
DEVELOPMENT. (NORMAN FEDER, ADMINISTRATOR,
TRANSPORTATION SF, RVICES)- APPROVED W/CHANGES
Page 70
September 9, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- 10(E), and that is request the
Board of Commissioners approve the donation agreement and accept
the warranty deed of Olde Cypress Ltd. for Olde Cypress --
MR. MUDD: Unit 1, Tract R-3, Tract O and a portion of Tract
R-1 for the purpose of future right-of-way to be known as the Logan
Boulevard North, and to approve a landscape maintenance agreement
with Olde Cypress Development.
And Mr. Feder-- ladies and gentlemen, if you could please take
your seats. And Mr. Don Scott will be the presenter. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Scott?
MR. SCOTT: Morning. Don Scott, transportation planning.
This item is for the acceptance of right-of-way to be used for
Logan Boulevard from Immokalee Road to Bonita Beach Road. On
the visualizer you see the section that we're dealing with between
Olde Cypress and Long Shore Lakes.
Currently right -- we own -- county owns right-of-way north of
this location that was dedicated by Terafina and Parklands, but this
portion of right-of-way was never dedicated.
This right-of-way is restricted, it's only 60 feet wide, and
Parklands has plans to build a two-lane undivided section on the
southern portion of this, and then north of this where we have 80 feet
of right-of-way will be a divided two-lane section.
The current roadway plans call for a 1 O-foot multi-use bicycle
pedestrian facility on the eastern side. I have to note that this is not
consistent with the Land Development Code, but what has been
approved by staff, due to the restricted right-of-way that we're
dealing with within the section, the Pathways Advisory Committee
has recommended it be 12 feet. But again, we're dealing with
restricted right-of-way, and that's why we previously had approved
10 feet multi-use pathway.
A landscape maintenance agreement with Olde Cypress is
Page 71
September 9, 2003
attached, since we are accepting right-of-way that has some
landscaping within it currently, and this is also at the request of the
Olde Cypress developer who wants to keep some of this landscaping
up.
One of the issues that remains with that is that there are plans to
add walls and landscaping to this right-of-way. All of this will have
to be permitted by the county and demonstrated by the developers
that they have notified the homeowners that are involved, since they
will be required for -- to pay for the maintenance for an indefinite
period of time.
Staff recommends acceptance of this warranty deed for Tract
R-3, R-1 and a separate deed for Tract O. Also recommends
approval of donation agreements for Tracts R-3, R-1 and O, and the
landscape maintenance agreement with Olde Cypress.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions for Don Scott?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have any public speakers on
this item?
MS. FILSON: Ten.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please call out the first public
speaker.
MS. FILSON: Gene Mayberry. He will be followed by Tony
Pires.
MR. MAYBERRY: Good morning. My name is Gene
Mayberry, and I'm a director of the Olde Cypress Homeowners
Association.
I was at a meeting with a number of the people in this room on
the 29th of July and participated in the agreements surrounding this
particular item. There were a number of issues at that point in time,
and at the end of that meeting, we had an agreement and we
requested that those agreements be documented and sent to the
participants in the form of minutes of the meeting.
Page 72
September 9, 2003
We also had asked that Item 8(A) and (B), to be addressed later,
be preceded by this discussion, but that has been ignored.
We followed up with several phone calls to determine the status
of the minutes of the meeting, and we were constantly or consistently
told that they were in typing.
Five weeks after the 29th of July, we were provided with the
county's version of the minutes; which also happened to be one day
before today's hearing.
Within those minutes, the county acknowledged that there were
changes to the agreements on the 29th of July. The most significant
being the issue on reverter clause in the warranty deed and ingress
into Long Shore Lakes.
We initiated efforts to contact Mr. Brian Stock of the Stock--
president of Stock Development Company, and Brian was out of
state on vacation. We learned late last night that Stock's attorneys,
along with other attorneys, brokered a deal in a back room.
These corridors are tainted with less than arm's length
relationships. As homeowners and highly taxed property owners, we
are chagrined to have relocated to a community of insider deals.
This process smells.
That's all I have to comment to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Tony Pires. He will be followed
by Brian Farrar.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is
Anthony Pires, with the law firm of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo,
representing Long Shore Lakes Foundation, property owners within
Long Shore Lake.
Making a presentation with the appreciation and recognition of
how hard the parties have worked, very candidly and openly, in
exchanging thoughts and concerns and expressing their particular
positions in a very candid fashion as to the desire to achieve the
Page 73
September 9, 2003
construction of this roadway segment, but yet recognizing the
impacts it has on existing, mature, established, valuable residential
communities.
Long Shore Lakes is one of those communities, a very well
established, you know, community that could be impacted by this
roadway segment on their eastern boundary.
As a result, we have a couple of concerns about this donation
agreement. And some of the comments -- or most of the comments I
have also bleed over into the Parklands, a discussion with regards to
what details will be part of that roadway construction of Logan
Boulevard extension in order to mitigate the impact on Long Shore
Lake.
But as to the specific donation agreement involved here, just a
couple of comments. One might be deemed to be picky, but in the
first whereas, in the third to last line from the bottom, it calls it a
landscape berm. I'm not aware of there being any berm along the --
in this Tract O. I think it's proposed to be a wall with landscaping.
And that was just once again a picky comment.
But the second whereas is troubling because in the last line -- in
the second to last line, in the second whereas, it states quote, and
Long Shore Lake's assuming all future maintenance responsibility as
to these improvements.
Long Shore Lake is not a party to this agreement. Long Shore
Lake is impacted by this roadway segment on its easterly border.
And we have, in our discussions, been consistent that we don't
believe any maintenance obligations for any landscaping east of the
wall, outside Long Shore Lake, would be their maintenance
responsibilities.
I know, Commissioner Henning, you look surprised, but that's
been my understanding. I could be corrected -- or we could be
corrected.
With regards to the paragraph eight at Page 2, language again
Page 74
September 9, 2003
states, it says: To the extent that third parties may desire to install
and maintain landscaping and a noise abatement wall within Tract O,
the county agrees to allow the use of Tract O for such improvements,
which is actually, you know, once again, very much appreciated and
applauded by Long Shore Lake, provided all proposed improvements
meet applicable county standards and the appropriate permits and
approvals are obtained. But the question is, who will be maintaining
that?
I have a hand-out -- I'm not sure if this is the right subject matter
or item, or wait till the Parklands DRI -- as to the various items
concerned with the issues that would address the concerns of Long
Shore Lake as to the maintenance. The construction of the wall, the
type of wall. An eight-foot high wall is a visual noise barrier. That
the construction of the wall would be completed prior to any use of
the road right-of-way for any vehicles or equipment. That the
existing perimeter fence at Long Shore Lake would not be removed
or relocated until the new wall is completed. That no vehicles or
equipment will utilize Logan Boulevard extension right-of-way until
the first lift of asphalt is on there. That once completed, the speed
limit on the two-lane portion of Logan Boulevard extension -- MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Pires, this needs to be addressed
in Parklands.
MR. PIRES: Okay. I wasn't sure which item. I just didn't want
to be told that I should have addressed it at this donation agreement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. PIRES: Once again, those are the primary concerns on the
donation agreement we have. Generally the other items that would
be addressed are with the Parklands.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Pires?
MR. PIRES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please don't go away.
Page 75
September 9, 2003
What's the basis for the need for a wall? Is there any -- does it fit
the criteria of FDOT or our local noise abatement? Does it exceed
decibels?
MR. PIRES: I just was handed a noise study today. I
understand there was a noise study earlier that was provided by
Parklands, which was part of the Parklands DRI PUD consideration.
But from the standpoint of the wall on the eastern boundary of Long
Shore Lake, this road is a road that will have a higher trip generation
rate than originally I believe anticipated at the time it was designated
in 1996 as a local road.
It is now becoming a collector road by virtue of the desire for
Parklands to make it a collector road and all those other reasons. And
we are not in a position to say don't connect the road, don't go all the
way through. But in 1996, the roadway right-of-way was switched
from 100 foot wide on the east side of Olde Cypress to 60 feet wide
on the west side of Olde Cypress, up against Logan -- Long Shore
Lake.
Additionally, the PUD for Olde Cypress states that this is a local
road. It says quote, in section --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that we can address that at the
MR. PIRES: Right. But what I'm saying is that -- the nature of
the roadway segment has changed, we believe. And so the impact to
the established community has changed considerably over that that
was initially--
CHAIRMAN
MR. PIRES:
CHAIRMAN
MR. PIRES:
CHAIRMAN
MR. PIRES:
CHAIRMAN
HENNING: I recognize the impact.
And this will mitigate that impact.
HENNING: You represent the Long Shore --
That's correct.
HENNING: -- association.
That's correct.
HENNING: Did your clients enter in an
Page 76
September 9, 2003
agreement with G.L. Homes for improvements on Tract O?
MR. PIRES: We've had discussions with G.L. Homes with
regards to that agreement. And one of the concerns I have on
advising my clients on that agreement is that there are a number of
concerns precedent to the G.L. Homes obligations, and one of those
would be that G.L. Homes gets their necessary development order for
their amendment to Terafina. And so the level of certainty that I
would desire to have on behalf of my clients is not there. But G.L.
Homes has been fantastic to work with. They've been very --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We can get something -- maybe
something on the record, but--
MR. PIRES: They've been very good to work with, I want to
make that statement also, my understanding talking to my client that
they've been--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's my understanding and belief that
they don't have to make this improvements (sic) for Long Shore.
Would you agree with that?
MR. PIRES: I'm not sure. In looking at the documents, I'm not
sure who has to make them. I believe there is an obligation for there
to be that sort of landscaping and buffering on the westerly portion of
that roadway segment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct, there's landscape buffering
required, but no wall.
MR. PIRES: I'm not sure if you can say there's no requirement
for a wall.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I am.
MR. PIRES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's my opinion.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm getting confused here. The
first speaker talks about back room deals but doesn't really outline
any objections to the warranty deed acceptance, and I haven't heard
Page 77
September 9, 2003
you tell us what you don't like about the warranty deed acceptance,
which is the subject of the issue we're discussing right now.
MR. PIRES: The warranty deed acceptance, per se, no. But as
to the donation agreement, it has language in there that I mentioned
in the second whereas, where it says the owner, that is Olde Cypress
Development, is willing to convey and county is willing to accept,
contingent on G.L. Homes installing an eight-foot sound wall and
landscaping in Tract O and Long Shore Lakes assuming all future
maintenance responsibilities as to these improvements.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're concerned about Long
Shore Lakes having to pick up landscape maintenance. MR. PIRES: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the primary --
MR. PIRES: As to disagreement, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: And who do you think should pick
up that maintenance?
MR. PIRES: Those who may benefit. The landscaping is
outside Long Shore Lake. It doesn't offer any visual effect or any
buffering as to Long Shore Lake.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So who should pick up the
maintenance of the landscaping?
MR. PIRES: Other than Long Shore Lake, that's a decision I
think for this board to make.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What is your recommendations?
MR. PIRES: There's a couple of parties I believe would be the
more appropriate parties for that. I know it's a county roadway
segment, so possibly the county should. But I think the county
would probably not inclined to do that. Then it would devolve upon
the county to make that determination. But since it's outside of Long
Shore Lake, on the eastern side of that proposed wall, we don't
believe it's appropriate for Long Shore Lake to pay that maintenance
cost.
Page 78
September 9, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who is the other person that you feel
should be responsible besides the county?
MR. PIRES: Once again, from my perspective, it's -- my
position is I believe that my client should not be responsible for it.
Any I think any other determination would be that of this body.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, in regards to the sound
study that you say was presented, I'm a little concerned about putting
up an eight-foot wall. I think the only thing that would be missing
would be a moat then. And I'm wondering why we just can't do this
with just landscaping, maybe with a dense landscape -- or a dense
amount of landscaping, versus putting up a concrete wall.
MR. PIRES: From our perspective, it's a visual barrier, as well
as a possible noise atten -- I haven't read the noise study, but it's
noise and visual. Because, once again, you have a roadway segment
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd be very interested in the --
MR. PIRES: -- abutting the neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- what the levels of sound are in
that general area, prior to putting up a wall. Because that would act
as a reflective surface.
MR. PIRES: My understanding, from talking to Chuck Basinait
-- I've not read the study -- is that there is no rebound effect of any
significance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Pires, I am going to be diligent
to get your questions answered -- or your request before we vote on
this item.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question of staff. This
agreement clearly states that Long Shore Lake agrees to take over the
maintenance of the landscaping. If they didn't agree, how is it
possible that this obligation's appeared in this --
Page 79
September 9, 2003
MR. SCOTT: It shouldn't be written as that, because at this
point there is no agreement with Long Shore Lakes at this point.
They're only agree -- right now the landscape agreement is with Olde
Cypress, not with Long Shore Lakes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what is your recommendation,
you're going to take that phrase out of this particular agreement?
MR. SCOTT: Yes, we can do that. At this point we can, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have an alternative for the
maintenance of that landscaping?
MR. SCOTT: No, in the sense of it's still going to be an issue as
to who maintains -- whatever comes up as the landscaping or wall
that's put in there is still going to be an issue on who pays for the
maintenance of that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, maybe I might
be able to help you out. If the board accepts this with some language
in there about buffering a wall, according to our Land Development
Code, does it have to be landscaped on the public side?
MR. SCOTT: I think the wording that's in there is landscaping
on the Olde Cypress's side.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The public side?
MR. SCOTT: Public side, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: R- 1 -- Tract R- 1.
And so in order to have the wall, we need to have landscaping
there, so -- and I think that we can address that once we hear from the
public speakers. I think there's some representation here that we can
ask their input on, on the maintenance of landscaping. MR. SCOTT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Brian Farrar. He will be
followed by Charles Basinait.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's on the Parklands?
MR. FARRAR: I waive.
Page 80
September 9, 2003
MS. FILSON: 10(E).
MR. BASINAIT: For the record, Charles Basinait.
We actually just filled the cards in for this particular item in
case you had questions for us. We're here representing Parklands
today in the items that are to follow to this. But we wanted to be sure
that we just let you know we're here to answer your question, if you
need to. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Robert Mulhere. He'll be followed by Meggan
Davis.
MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere with RWA,
representing Parklands. Just a couple of brief comments.
The issue of long-term maintenance and the concern that has
been represented on the part of Long Shore Lakes, I would like to
just put on the record, at least from my perspective, that I think what
you have here is whether the road goes through or the road stops at
Parklands, you're going to have significant traffic running past Long
Shore Lakes.
The agreement that's in place right now would have G.L. Homes
install the landscaping and the wall, install irrigation and maintain
that for an initial growth period of 90 days, after which it would
become the obligation of Long Shore Lakes.
From my perspective, there is a benefit to the association in
terms of property values, in terms of noise reduction, in terms of
access, whether it's egress or ingress, to Logan Boulevard extension,
so that those residents of Long Shore can have a safe turning
movement to move north on Immokalee Road at the light. So there
are benefits associated with that. And I think it's a relatively small
request in exchange for those benefits for the maintenance and
irrigation of that landscaping.
Whether or not that's addressed in another way, I just wanted to
put those comments on the record and indicate that on the other side
of the road, we do have agreements in place in terms of Parklands'
Page 81
September 9, 2003
obligation, as well as Olde Cypress's willingness to landscape.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Meggan Davis. She will be followed by Joe
Leone.
MS. DAVIS: Good morning. For the record, I'm Meggan
Davis, and I am vice president of the board of directors, Long Shore
Lake Foundation.
As to why a wall -- I would just like to share some information
from (sic) you. The Logan Boulevard extension will have a
devastating impact on our community. We have 58 homes, as you
can see the roof tops, 58 homes that directly face this road, as well as
35 others that are on short cul-de-sacs. Some of these homes are just
81 feet away from the proposed road.
At first we were dedicated to trying to stop the construction of
the road in its entirety. But faced with expensive, complex litigation,
we tried to funnel our energies into a more pragmatic and positive
tact, and what we decided to do is try to mitigate -- work to negotiate
to mitigate the effects of the road for the residents of Long Shore
Lake.
As you're aware, G.L. Homes, the developer of Terafina, has
offered to build an eight-foot wall along our eastern boundary, install
landscaping and provide an egress onto Logan Boulevard extension.
And we're currently in negotiations with G.L. Homes for this, and we
are very -- we are pleased with the offer. But we think that the -- this
eight-foot wall will not completely mitigate the noise and the --
based on the planning commission -- at the planning commission,
some of the decibel numbers that were raised, it wouldn't completely
mitigate that.
So one of our other-- we did attend a meeting. We were
without counsel. And at that meeting everyone was trying to decide
what to do about the road and the maintenance. We all along have
said that maintenance would provide a hardship for our community.
Page 82
September 9, 2003
In the donation agreement between Stock Development and the
county, it says the owner acknowledges and agrees the acceptance of
the conveyance of Tract O by the county in no way should be
construed as a waiver, relief or modification of any of its
requirements as set forth in the owner's developmental orders or
approvals, including but not limited to landscape requirements.
The Tract O that is being deeded over to the county is a 10-foot
tract that runs along the whole eastern side of our community that
was supposed to be landscaped. It was meant to be landscaped. And
that responsibility was Olde Cypress's to landscape it. If Olde
Cypress was -- well, Stock Development, I'll say.
When Stock Development bought Olde Cypress from Paul
Hardy, he bought -- he bought with it not only all its assets, but all its
responsibilities and its obligations. So we feel that that 10-foot of
buffering that -- should have been in place all along, and it would
have been irrigated from Olde Cypress.
So we're looking to the county and for you to advocate on our
behalf. We just don't feel that we should be responsible for the
maintenance. We have an irrigation system in place currently that is
about 15 years old, and believe me, it's held together with like wires
and cotter pins. We also have a permit that -- from South Florida
Water Management that says that we cannot irrigate outside the
boundaries of our development.
So the need for an eight-foot wall -- as you can see, people have
poured their life savings into these homes. And there's 90 some
homes. We're not trying to protect golf courses, we're trying to
protect people's homes.
And we are very happy for the offer of the wall, but the '
landscape and the maintenance that's required on the other side, we're
looking to -- I guess a resolution to this. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Joe Leone. He will be --
MR. LEONE: Mr. Chairman, I waive my right to speak.
Page 83
September 9, 2003
MS. FILSON:
MR. TREESH:
MS. FILSON:
Wilsey.
Ted Treesh.
I waive my right.
Janet Vasey. She will be followed by Carol
MS. VASEY: For the record, Janet Vasey.
When we started with negotiations with G.L. Homes, we were
talking about doing the landscape maintenance. We were looking at
that as a possible quid pro quo for the wall.
I think our concerns for that agreement started after we hired
Attorney Tony Pires, and also when we got the document showing
the donation. And I'd like to just add one or two things onto what
Meggan said.
The original PUD for Olde Cypress called for Olde Cypress to
install the landscaping along this Tract O, and it called for them
obviously to maintain it. I mean, who's going to maintain it if they
install it?
By donating this to the county, they are in fact -- I'm not an
attorney, but they are in fact, it seems, giving away that
responsibility and expecting then us to pick it up.
I'm not real sure that that's the right thing to do. A PUD has
required them to do this. Why can't -- why isn't the PUD
enforceable? Even if they want to donate the land to the county, it
seems like, as it says in this, the owner acknowledges and agrees that
the acceptance of the conveyance of Tract O in no way can be
construed as a waiver, release or modification of any requirements,
dot, dot, dot, including landscape requirements. So if they say that it
can't -- that donating it doesn't take them off the hook for landscape
requirements, then why does it seem that that's what's happening?
And I do apologize to Commissioner Henning, we did -- we did
negotiate and were negotiating with G.L. Homes initially, thinking
that quid pro quo for the wall. But when we see a document like this
that makes it clear that that was not -- that that was someone else's'
Page 84
September 9, 2003
responsibility, then that's why we're raising this.
much.
MR. MUDD:
Lakes?
MS. VASEY:
MS. FILSON:
Thank you very
Miss Vasey, you were speaking for Long Shore
I'm speaking as a resident of Long Shore Lake.
The next speaker is Carol Wilsey. She'll be
followed by your final speaker --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could we have a -- I'm sure that
the legal department has gone through the documentation on this.
Could we have a finding from the legal department on this?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, I think there's going
to be some other issues raised. You have two communities here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think we really need to
address all that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. I'll stand -- go through
that and we'll address that later.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: And your final -- the next one is Carol Wilsey,
and the final speaker is Rich Yovanovich.
MS. WILSEY: For the record -- I've been waiting here so long,
I'm getting laryngitis. For the record, my name is Carol Wilsey. I am
also a director of the Long Shore -- I mean of the Olde Cypress
homeowners advisory council. And I perhaps may be able to clear up
some of the questions that you yourself asked, Commissioner Coyle.
First of all, our earlier speaker from our community, Mr.
Mayberry, was allowed and invited to be at that meeting where
quote, unquote, these deals and agreements were crafted. I was not,
unfortunately, because I received a notification from Commissioner
Henning at about 3:00 the afternoon before an 8:00 a.m. meeting
when I was in Miami notifying me of the meeting. So I quickly put
together a group of other people who could at least represent our
Page 85
September 9, 2003
group.
We did not agree to this donation agreement as it is currently
written. I want to make that clear on the record. We said
immediately that as soon as we did get a first draft from Hope Brack,
this is not what anybody -- this was not our understanding that this
was what is agreed to, and it subsequently was revised. And I
received a revision to this, which is what Jean was referring to, on
this past Friday evening at 5:30 after working hours. So essentially
lost the entire weekend to discuss anything. Only had yesterday to
work on it.
Mitigating factor, Brian Stock, our developer, was out of town.
We had agreed with our developer very clearly that the Tract O
donation agreement which, by the way, had been proposed -- excuse
me -- which by the way, the planning commission had recommended
very stridently as one of their stipulations in this original donation
plan, they had recommended that Tract O not be on the Long Shore
Lakes side, but it instead be moved over to the Olde Cypress side.
And I just want for the record everyone to understand that. We were
being good neighbors in saying to Long Shore, okay, as long as we
get a buffer and a wall, then you should have a buffer and a wall, too.
We're being blind-sided here today on this landscape issue, and I
want for the record to say that. We never agreed that we would
maintain this landscape buffer-- they're getting someone else to pay
for it to begin with.
And for the record, on March 11 th, 1997, when Paul Hardy
vacated the original 100-foot easement on the east side of Olde
Cypress for this right-of-way for the road that would have never
bothered anybody really, and moved it over to where it is now, it
became a 60-foot right-of-way easement. And at that time, in order
to mitigate the buffering damages, so to speak, to Long Shore Lakes,
Paul Hardy paid Long Shore $75,000, and it's on the record, March
1 lth, 1997. So they've already been paid a certain amount of money
Page 86
September 9, 2003
for landscape buffering to begin with.
Our developer acknowledged to me that there were a few things
that were extremely important to him for our benefit in terms of his
donating this right-of-way for the county for this eventual road.
One was that he retained a reverter clause in Tract O wording
which very clearly stated that if the Tract O was to be used for
anything other than what it's stipulated for, in his mind the landscape
wall, the buffering and an egress only for Long Shore Lakes, that the
control would then revert back to Olde Cypress, because we wanted
to protect -- he wanted to protect us, the Olde Cypress residents, in
case there was any other future intended use. We're not happy about
it, to begin with, but it was for our protection.
We also, as I said, were guaranteed that the donation agreement
would very clearly stipulate that it would be for an egress only.
Now, we aren't a party to any of the wording, as it sits right
now. I don't know if that clarifies it, but I want for the record
everyone to know that the original stipulation from the planning
commission was that that Tract O buffer be on our side, not on Long
Shore's, because, per Mark Strain and I think Mr. Schiffer, and I can't
recall everyone else, if you look at this diagram, their position on
having Tract O on our side of the development rather than Long
Shore's was because Long Shore already has a wall, already has a
road, already has landscaping. They are not-- they are already
buffered, so to speak, in the minds of the planning commission. And
if we're going to have an argument up here about donation
agreements, this donation agreement is not anything that any of the
residents from Long Shore agreed to and we very stridently object.
Does anybody have any questions for me?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions from the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Rich Yovanovich.
Page 87
September 9, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Rich, if you could stand up there for
a minute. I need to share with the Commissioners a little background
of this Tract R, Tract 1 and Tract O. Tract R and Tract 1 states in the
Olde Cypress PUD it's to become public right-of-way. So this is the
donation.
I came to -- went to Mr. Yovanovich's client, who owns Tract
O, the Olde Cypress Homeowners Association, and pointed out that
this Tract O does not benefit himself or his residents, it's on the other
side of the right-of-way, next to Long Shore. So I asked him if he
was willing to donate it for the county, because I went to the owners
of Terafina -- which we will hear later on maybe this year for an
amendment of the PUD -- and showed the benefit of the right-of-way
easement dedication and the road that Parklands is going to build to
their community, and asked them to assist me on the residents to the
south, being Long Shore and Olde Cypress.
There is a representative from Terafina here today, if the
Commissioners wish to have some things put on the record. Terafina
owner has agreed to put in a wall, an eight-foot wall, which is not
required by his development or his amendment, or any testing of
noise abatement. And in order to demonstrate that wall, he must put
in a landscaping according to the Land Development Code.
And I'm very much attuned to what the community looks like
without landscaping on walls. It's not something that I hope that we
continue in the future. And again, this is not something that the
owners of Terafina have to provide to the residents of Long Shore
Lakes.
He has also agreed to -- in kind to -- the Olde Cypress
Association -- to donate the money of a landscaping buffer on their
side. Does not have to do that. It's not a requirement of his
amendment of the PUD. They stepped up to the plate and said they
would do that.
Now, I understand that Long Shore and Terafina or G.L. Homes
Page 88
September 9, 2003
does not have an agreement, but I will ask the representative, after
Mr. Yovanovich, to state on the record of what he's going to do for
the residents south of his community.
By the way, he has -- there's some concerns about -- as Ms.
Davis has brought up, about irrigation of this landscaping next to the
wall. Because they're at the maximum use of their water use permit.
Terafina said they will install the irrigation and make sure that the
water to maintain that landscaping will be provided.
Olde Cypress Association, Tract O, they didn't have to give it to
the county. It's because I requested it for the residents of Long
Shore. There's a lot of compromises here by neighbors, and I
understand there is a concern from the residents of Long Shore about
maintenance of this landscaping. I'm not -- I don't see where the
county can accept maintenance of it.
There is a benefit of the residents over there at Long Shore. If
they don't accept the maintenance of it, I'm concerned about having
the -- these improvements put on Tract O, the county's property. I
don't see where it's Olde Cypress's responsibility, because they are
going to have a buffer along their PUD, as required -- around the
PUD, as required in the PUD.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
Yes, for the record, Rich Yovanovich, representing Stock
Development. And as has been alluded to, Stock Development took
the project over with everything in place. And we're not trying to
avoid any of the obligations under the PUD document, and I hope
nobody is trying to assert otherwise.
We were approached about conveying Tract O to the county to
provide a buffer to 'the residents of Long Shore Lakes. And we were
working cooperatively with everybody that Commissioner Henning
mentioned.
We intend to install a buffer on the east side of the road to
address our -- whatever concerns our residents may have. There will
Page 89
September 9, 2003
be a wall and landscaping at least where the existing residences are,
and there will be at least additional landscaping by the golf course
and, if necessary, a wall by the golf course. So there will be a buffer
for the residents of our community. There was never anticipated in
Tract O that there was going to be an eight-foot wall and all this
additional landscaping.
So when we said we'll cooperate and work with the county, we
rightfully assumed, and based upon the minutes of the various
meetings, that the maintenance obligations for that was going to be
Long Shore Lakes. And that's all we want to make sure, if we give
Tract O to the county, that we are not going to be responsible for
maintaining any of the landscaping and any of the walls.
Now, in response to the reverter language, the uses - the
limitation of uses are in the donation agreement. And we feel
comfortable that if the county does something that they're not
supposed to do based upon the donation agreement -- and we don't
think it's ever going to come to that, but if they do, we have a
contractual right to stop you from doing that.
So we feel that our residents and the developer are adequately
protected if the county tried to put the road right-of-way in Tract O,
which they've agreed not to. So we didn't feel that a reverter clause
was necessary to protect the residents and our clients.
And finally, we -- you know, we fought long and hard to make
sure that any access that Long Shore Lakes had to R1 and R-3, which
they currently don't have, was far enough away from our project
entrance to minimize impact to our residents when they're trying to
come and go from our community. And we've been assured by the
county that they're going to go through the necessary warrants and
put in the necessary traffic control devices to make sure that our
residents can come and go, you know, from our project in a safe and
efficient manner.
So we're committed to doing the right by our community, we've
Page 90
September 9, 2003
committed to helping out the Long Shore community, but we didn't
commit to taking on the financial obligation for maintaining that wall
and the landscaping. That was something in the negotiations that
was, we believe, committed to by the residents of Long Shore Lakes.
Because we're already going to do a berm for our people. We're
moving it from Tract O over to inside our project. And they would
never -- Long Shore Lakes would never have gotten a wall and
landscaping in Tract O, and I think that's important to remember, for
their buffer. They are getting, as Wilsey, pointed out, a nice buffer.
And that is a cooperative effort between the residents and developer
of Olde Cypress, along with the residents of Long Shore Lakes. So
we would -- we don't think it's fair for our residents to incur that cost
of maintaining Tract O.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Yovanovich, I would like to
remove the language of maintenance of Long Shore Lakes, because
they say that they're not privy to this agreement. If they don't
maintain it, I'm not sure if it's going to be installed.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're okay with that. I've talked to
Ms. Chadwell about appropriate language that says if it is installed,
that it's clearly not our obligation to maintain it. And we can revise
the agreement to that effect, and eliminate the contingency, if you
want to. But it needs to be real clear that if it is built and the wall is
installed, that it's not our obligation or our residents' obligation in the
future to maintain it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Any questions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question.
Who makes a determination as to whether or not the wall and
the landscaping will be built on the west side?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: G.L. Homes and Long Shore Lakes.
And they're going to work out an agreement.
And if there's somebody here from G.L. Homes who would like
Page 91
September 9, 2003
to speak to the issue of the conversations you're having with the
residents, I would appreciate it.
MR. RATTERY: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is
Kevin Rattery, I'm vice president with G.L. Homes.
For the record, let me run through the commitments that have
been made by G.L. Homes to the representatives of Long Shore
Lakes, as well as the representatives from Olde Cypress.
Commissioner Henning is absolutely correct, the development
order that is issued for the Terafina property has no obligation
whatsoever to provide landscaping adjacent to either Long Shore
Lakes or Olde Cypress. It does have an obligation to construct
Logan Boulevard from its present terminus north to the project entry.
As part of that construction, if G.L. Homes, as the developer of
that road, were to build the road, we would then be obligated by the
Land Development Code to provide certain amounts of landscaping
to provide for mitigation for that road. That type of landscaping is
pretty minimal in the context of what's required.
We were approached to offer some solutions to provide
mitigation for the construction of that road. We went out, assessed
the situation, given that there was only 10 feet of property to deal
with. The solution was to provide an eight-foot wall along the entire
length of the Long Shore Lakes community, which is approximately
a mile, to provide landscaping on the east side of the wall, which
would be construed as one canopy tree every 40 linear feet, and palm
or pine trees every 60 linear feet, with the right to cluster that
material, as well as a hedge along the east side of the wall.
On the west side of the wall we had agreed that we would either
remove the existing fence that was there or leave the fence that is
there at the request of Long Shore. And to the extent that there was
any damage to either the fence or the hedge that is existing on the
west side of where that wall would be, we would replace what was
damaged as part of the construction of the wall. We did not agree to
Page 92
September 9', 2003
provide for maintenance of that portion of the landscaping that is
installed adjacent to Long Shore.
Understand that the Terafina property is north of Olde Cypress
on the east side of this road. It has a mile of frontage along this road.
Our homeowners would be responsible for maintaining that portion
of Logan Boulevard and the landscaping installed in Logan
Boulevard as part of their obligation. We didn't feel it was
appropriate for our homeowners to be responsible for maintaining a
portion of this road adjacent to another community.
So we agreed to install the landscaping and to do maintenance
and irrigation of that for the first 90 days at our cost to make sure that
the material gets rooted in properly, and thereafter it then become the
responsibility of another party, whoever that party is.
As it relates to Olde Cypress, we agreed to take whatever our
code required landscaping was along our south property line, convert
that into a dollar figure and then pay -- give a check to Olde Cypress,
they could then use that money any way they deemed appropriate for
purposes of providing mitigation in the form of landscaping to their
community. In addition to that, we agreed to then install what would
be the code required landscaping buffer along our south property
line.
So that kind of outlines what we agreed to do. We did draft an
agreement with the Olde Cypress folks. That agreement has been
transmitted to them. We are waiting for the usual discussion going
back and forth.
But understand, we're not a party to the Parklands DRI. We're
not a party to the dedication of the right-of-way. We are simply
negotiating on our side associated with what we believe to be in the
best interest of G.L. Homes, associated with our development order
request that is going forward. Those communities and associations
can decide whether or not to support our application or not support,
based on its merits or lack thereof.
Page 93
September 9, 2003
We in turn will provide that landscaping and that wall, subject
to that development order being approved. Otherwise, we're sitting
out there outlaying hundreds of thousands of dollars to do
landscaping and improvements adjacent to somebody else's
community with no direct benefit to us.
Does that summarize it pretty good?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Rattery, we had a conversation
about irrigations.
MR. RATTERY: Yes, thank you.
For the record, there had been some discussion initially with
Long Shore Lakes about tapping into their irrigation system. We
would pay for that to extend into the east side of the right-of-way. I
understand that they do not have capacity as part of their permit to do
that. So what we would do is agree to get a well permit from Collier
County, install a well within the 10 feet. We would pay for the
irrigation lines to be extended along the east side of that wall and
provide irrigation for that. The maintenance long term of that system
beyond the 90 days would be a decision of another party and not
G.L. Homes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas had some questions of our legal staff.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Could you give us an
interpretation of where we stand on this issue? Who's responsible?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I will. And Ms. Chadwell will assist.
Part of the discussion, I think--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you pull up the mic?
MR. WEIGEL: I'll get it closer so we can all hear. Pardon me.
Part of the discussion, I think with Mr. Pires' statement to the
board, had to do with the provision in one of the agreements, the
agreement that's before you, which is a recital, a whereas clause,
which indicated-- appeared to indicate that Long Shore Lake would
have a maintenance responsibility upon the construction of the wall
Page 94
September 9, 2003
and buffering.
And because it's a recital, a whereas clause, its importance in the
context of that agreement is, as well as other recitals, is these are the
reasons why you enter into the agreement, that you expect those
things to have been agreed upon and to occur. And it's upon those
understandings that the rest of the operative part of the agreement
follows, the contract between the parties to the agreement.
It doesn't necessarily require that Long Shore Lakes be a party
to the agreement, but it's an assumption that that is something that's
in place -- and apparently is not yet in place, but it was anticipated
that it might be in place at the time that this came before you today.
You may have some additional questions. And Mr. Yovanovich
mentioned that on behalf of his client, his interest that he represents
here, that there can be easily enough changes made to the agreement,
either in the whereas clauses, which are the understandings upon
which the operative part of the agreement follows, or in the
agreement itself; operative contractual language between the parties
to provide clarification or distinction as to who has maintenance
responsibilities, including if the wall and other buffering should be
put in in the first place.
Ellen may wish to speak a little further on that, perhaps.
MS. CHADWELL: Yeah, I just want for everyone to be clear
that this donation agreement, as has been stated by a few parties, is
between the county and Olde Cypress and the Olde Cypress Property
Owners Association. It was not our intent to bind anyone else to this
agreement, and that's why it wasn't circulated for their comment and
input.
And in fact, we added recently a clause at the end of the
agreement to make it clear that we don't intend for there to be any
third-party beneficiaries to this agreement. The last thing the county
wants to do is accept this property and then have somebody wave it
under our nose, now you got to build me an access connection across
Page 95
September 9, 2003
Tract O. Obviously that's not -- we don't want to get in the --
obligated to build the wall and maintain the landscaping.
I've talked to Mr. Yovanovich, and as far as addressing a
homeowner's concerns, we can certainly delete that recital that Mr.
Weigel has discussed for you. And we suggested adding some
language in paragraph eight that would say, after the portion that
says to the extent that third parties may desire to install and maintain
landscaping and a noise abatement wall within Tract O, the county
agrees to allow the use of Tract O for such improvements, provided
all proposed improvements meet applicable county standards and the
appropriate permits and approvals are obtained.
I would suggest language to the effect that in this event, such
third parties or the county will assume maintenance responsibilities
of these improvements, not Olde Cypress.
If in fact -- before -- let me just say this: Before any
improvements can go on Tract O, if you accept the deed of Tract O
today, it has to go through its R process, which means they have to
submit a plan of what they intend to do, and a landscape maintenance
agreement or a maintenance agreement would be entered into by the
county with that entity, and there will be somebody at that time prior
to the installation of those improvements who will be on the hook for
the long-term maintenance of those improvements.
That's pretty standard with the county, because at that point,
remember, it will be county-owned property. So that would be what
-- the next part of the process. And hopefully as the parties have
discussed, everything will work out as they have agreed to, and G.L.
Homes will come and make application.
Who will be responsible for long-term maintenance at this point,
I don't know. It sounds like there's some disagreement with the Long
Shore Lakes residents.
But were there any specific questions about the agreement that I
could try to answer or--
Page 96
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then what you're telling me
basically is that we have to find out who's going to be the responsible
parties involved in this before we can go any further/
MS. CHADWELL: Well, before you can allow anyone to put
land -- this agreement doesn't provide for the installation of
landscaping. It just says that the county -- it identifies the intent of
this conveyance was to really give the county the land, allow them
the opportunity to have other individuals utilize it for landscaping
and buffering and a wall. That's really all it does.
If before that next step takes place, I'm saying that they will
have to come in and it will have to meet county approval, because we
will then own Tract O.
Now, if this board feels like it's -- it doesn't want to leave that
contingency hanging out there, then I suppose you could just reject
the acceptance of Tract O at this point in time. I'm not sure what the
Long Shore Lakes residents are suggesting. I thought they wanted
Tract O, but -- because it allows them to have an access connection.
But perhaps they don't. But that is an option of the board, I suppose,
to reject the acceptance.
But currently right now it would give you the opportunity to
take Tract O and then allow these parties to do what they will in that
area in the future.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me make sure I understand.
There is nothing in the acceptance of Tract O which obligates
anybody to install landscaping or to maintain landscaping. MS. CHADWELL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So although in the executive
summary and supporting documents there's a reference to Long
Shore Lakes assuming responsibility for maintaining it, it is not in
the agreement itself; that language is not in the agreement itself. And
I suspect that might be what is causing some of the confusion here.
Page 97
September 9, 2003
In my opinion, it appears that if the acceptance of this tract by
the county government does not place any obligations on Long Shore
Lakes or anyone else, that we should proceed with the transfer and
then we can work out the details of whether there will ever be any
landscaping or walls on that tract, and if so, who will be responsible
for installing it and maintaining it. Is that a correct statement of
where we are?
MS. CHADWELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- one thing that I think that we
could keep in mind is in our landscaping master plan throughout the
county, we said that a certain level of landscaping, the county would
maintain. Now, whether the -- this landscaping, if it does become at
the accepted minimum standards of our master plan, or even above,
there might be something that the county could do in the future. So
that's something to keep in mind.
But we'll wait to see the agreement, how it looks as -- if the
board accepts Tract O. I would hope the board would accept Tract O
at this time, along with the other tracts, which -- that we must have
for public right-of-way, which is stated in the Olde Cypress PUD. So
I will entertain a motion.
MS. CHADWELL: Before you entertain motions, could I just
ask that if it's the desire of the board to include that deletion in that
additional language that I referenced, that may appease the property
owners or waylay some of the confusion. And that was --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Taking the responsibility for --
MS. CHADWELL: The deletion of the second recital on Page 1
of the donation agreement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Could you read it for us?
MS. CHADWELL: I'm sorry?
Page 98
September 9, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Could you read it for us?
MS. CHADWELL: That recital says whereas --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When you say Page 1, what page
are you referring to?
MS. CHADWELL: The first page of the document, I'm sorry,
donation agreement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the problem is the first page
of my document is the executive summary. Okay, I've got it now.
MS. CHADWELL: Okay. Recite -- whereas, owner is willing
to convey and county is willing to accept, contingent on G.L. Homes
installing an eight-foot sound wall and landscaping in Tract O and
Long Shore Lakes, assuming all future maintenance responsibility as
to these improvements; and. That would be deleted.
And then the verbiage -- following verbiage added to paragraph
eight, second line from the bottom, after the word obtained, there is a
period. I would insert, in this event, such third parties or the county
will assume maintenance responsibilities of these improvements,
comma, not Olde Cypress.
And that provision is in the event -- as the preceding sentence
says, in the event someone other than, like, G.L. Homes or Long
Shore Lakes comes in and they want to make these improvements
and install them. Then in that event the county could take on
responsibility, or those third parties could assume that responsibility,
but not Olde Cypress.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a part of your motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to clarify again that
you're removing the second whereas, which obligates -- or which
states that Long Shore Lakes will assume all future maintenance.
MS. CHADWELL: That's correct. And it's not a term of the
agreement anyways, it's just a recital.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we take that out so there's no
confusion, and then we stipulate that if in the event somebody wishes
Page 99
September 9, 2003
to do this in the future, we can work out an agreement to do it, right?
MS. CHADWELL: Yes. In so many words, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is consistent with my motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas seconds the
motion.
MR. SCOTT: Just one thing for the record. The 1 O-foot or the
12-foot multi-use pathway, are we --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I would hope that we would go with
the 12-foot multi path.
Is that part of your motion?
I'm sorry.
MR. SCOTT:
CHAIRMAN
deviation from the
MR. SCOTT:
Or I mean the 1 O-foot multi path,
10-foot?
HENNING: Whatever the staff is recommending,
Land Development--
The pedestrian advisory committee wishes to
state on the record that they want a 12-foot and crosswalks at the
entrances. The entrances are fine, we've dealt with that through site
development plans.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The problem with the 12-foot
walkway, it doesn't give -- it lessens the ability for Olde Cypress to
put in plantings to buffer their community.
MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll go with 10 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ten foot.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other discussion? Mr. Pires,
please.
MR. PIRES: Just briefly, Anthony Pires for the record. I heard
the discussion, and the desire from the staff has indicated taking out
the second whereas in its entirety. But our only concern for Long
Shore Lakes was language that said, and Long Shore Lakes assuming
Page 100
September 9, 2003
all future maintenance responsibilities as to these improvements. Not
the first portion of that whereas, but just that portion of the whereas.
That's why I read that specifically, and Long Shore Lakes assuming
all future maintenance responsibilities as to these improvements. I
think the cutting knife is going too far, that's what we're suggesting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're taking the maintenance out.
And we'll deal with that later, along with the plantings or a wall,
whatever. We'll take it all out and deal with it when you get back to
G.L. Homes on the agreement. What I understand is you have the
document of the agreement -- MR. PIRES: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- in your hands. So that's between
the two parties. And if I could help you out with that, besides being
on the dais, I'd be happy to.
MR. PIRES: Since Long Shore Lakes has raised the issue about
the maintenance, all issues about installation are now coming out?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. PIRES: We're being punished for asserting that we have
no maintenance obligations.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. I think it's going to happen, Mr.
Pires, with your assistance and guidance with the residents. You've
got the agreement in your hand. How can you agree to maintain
something that you don't agree -- you haven't agreed to installing
yet?
MR. PIRES: The installation is by others, but that's -- once
again, we're still in still in discussions with G.L. Homes, a fine group
to work with. But the maintenance issue is a major issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Okay.
Seeing no other further discussion, all in favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Page 101
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
We still need to continue.
take five minutes? Five minutes?
proceed on to 8(A).
(A brief recess was held.)
Opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
Are you girls okay, or do we need to
Okay. Then we're going to
Item #8A and Item #8B
RESOLUTION 2003-302 DEVELOPMENT ORDER 2003-02
REGARDING PETITION DRI-02-AR-2358 AND ORDINANCE
2003-42 REGARDING PETITION PUDZ-02-AR-2357, ROBERT
MULHERE OF RWA INC., REPRESENTING PARKLANDS
DEVELOPMENT L.P., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE PARKLANDS DEVELOPMENTOF REGIONAL IMPACT
(Dm) AND REQUESTING A "PUD" TO "PUD" (PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT) REZONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
REVISING THE PARKLANDS PUD DOCUMENT AND MASTER
PLAN, TO ALLOW FOR A CONVERSION IN THE MIXTURE OF
MULTI-FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY USES WHILE
RETAINING THE CURRENTLY APPROVED RESIDENTIAL
USES; ADDING AN ADDITIONAL 9 HOLES OF GOLF FOR A
TOTAL OF 27 HOLES; ESTABLISHING A "ROAD
CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT" WITH COLLIER COUNTY
FOR THE EXTENSION OF LOGAN BOULEVARD; REVISIONG
THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS TO INCLUDE
WETLAND PRESERVATION AND FLOW-WAY
IMPROVEMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
Page 102
September 9, 2003
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE LOGAN BOULEVARD
EXTENSION AND THE FUTURE EAST/WEST LIVINGSTON
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND APPROXIMATELY TWO MILES
NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD(CR 846)- ADOPTED WITH
STIPI IIJATIONS (BOTH PFJTITIONS)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take their seats, please.
Next item is item-
MR. MUDD: 8(A).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 8(A). This requires the participants
to be -- everybody take their seats.
This item is -- the participants is (sic) to be sworn in, ex parte
disclosures by the Board of Commissioners.
This is petition DRI 2000-AR-2358, Bob Mulhere, represent --
of RWA, representing Parklands Development, requesting an
amendment of Parklands Development Regional Impact to allow the
conversion of multi-family to single-family use while retaining the
currently approved residential uses; adding an additional nine-hole
golf courses for a total of 27 golf holes; establishing a road
construction agreement with Collier County for the extension of
Logan Boulevard; revising environmental comments, including the
wetland provisions and flow-ways; providing -- improving -- for the
property located on the northeast comer of Logan extension and the
further (sic) east/west Livingston Road roadway and approximately
two miles north of Immokalee Road, in Section 9, Township 48,
Range 26, Collier County, Florida.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this has an accompanying item,
8(B), which requires the same swearing in. And it's the PUD that
accompanies the DRI with basically the same description. I just want
to make sure they know that. Because as you do the DRI, you'll ask
a lot of questions, no doubt, about the PUD.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we hear both of them at
Page 103
September 9, 2003
the same time, we can do separate motions. And the people who
want to speak on 8(A) and/or 8(B), please rise to be sworn in by the
court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Ex parte communication by the Board of Commissioners.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I've talked to the
representative from the petitioner a couple of times and have
received e-mails, and that's all available in my folder.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have spoken with Mr. Mulhere,
the representative of the petitioner. I have also received e-mail from
Mr. Mulhere and some -- and Janet Vasey and others concerning this
particular issue, and all this correspondence is in my file. And I
spoke very briefly with Ms. Vasey concerning some of those issues.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: I think I can state who I haven't
spoken to in this petition. I know I haven't speaken (sic) to the Board
of Commissioners. I do have a file of phone books, so maybe it's
most of the correspondence from the residents up in that area.
I've had meetings with the residents, I've had meetings with the
petitioners. I even spoke to my wife about it, so -- Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you. I've spoken to
Bob Mulhere, to Brian Farrar, to Mr. Basinait, to Janet Vasey, to
Meggan Davis. I've received very little correspondence, compared to
yours. And I think that completes it. I have everything in a file for
public viewing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I've spoken to a number of
homeowners that have been concerned in there by e-mail. I've also
talked with Mr. Mulhere, I talked with the petitioner, and I've had
Page 104
September 9, 2003
correspondence with Ms. Vasey. And I think that just about covers
the gamut. I also have everything on file here that is ready for public
view. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Would the petitioners please step forward.
MR. BASINAIT: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of
the board, my name is Charles Basinait, with the law firm of
Henderson-Franklin in Fort Myers.
Let me first say it's a pleasure to be here this afternoon. I
appreciate the privilege to appear before you and to explain our
project to you.
With me today -- or actually, I'm the representative of the
applicant in this case, Parklands Development, LLP. With me today
is Brian Farrar, the director of planning for Parklands Development,
LLP; Robert Mulhere of RWA is here; David Underhill of Banks
Engineering; Ted Treesh of Metro Transportation Group; Byron
Nelson, a noise expert with Southern Environmental Sciences. And
ordinarily our environmentalist Ian Butler would have been here
today, unfortunately he has been called out of town on a family
emergency and will not be here. But we have -- Timothy Hall has
been kind enough to step in. Timothy is an environmentalist from
Tyrell and Associates, Inc. While he did not prepare the actual
environmental report, Mr. Butler did, Mr. Hall is familiar with the
report, he is familiar with the property, he's been on the property, and
he's actually the environmental consultant for some of the adjacent
property owners in this area, so he is well versed in the property and
certainly is capable of answering any environmental questions that
may arise.
We are here today requesting an amendment to the Parklands
DRI PUD. And if I may just -- and I'll try to make this very brief.
The Parklands Collier project was originally approved back in 1985
for 2,410 residential units, of which 185 were slated to be
Page 105
September 9, 2003
single-family, 2,225 were slated to be multi-family. Along with that,
an 18-hole golf course was approved.
In 1993, the DRI in the PUD was amended to delete
approximately 324 acres of the site; in other words, about one-third
of the site. With that deletion of acreage, the unit count was reduced
by 807. Of those 807 units -- and just to reference this, Quail West, I
think, obtained that property. They built somewhere between 300
and 400 units of the 807 that they received rights to.
As a consequence, the current vested project known as the
Parklands Collier project has the authority or the ability to build
1,603 residential units, of which 123 are single-family, 1,480 are
multi-family.
With that, we have an 18-hole golf course that has been
approved as part of the construction, in addition to a park and a
school site.
With regard to the school site obligation, we've had ongoing
discussions with the school board in Collier County. They have
requested a slightly larger site than the 15 acres which is currently
being proposed under the DRI and the PUD. We have assented to
those requests to the extent that we have ongoing discussions, and we
will resolve that issue.
Suffice it to say that we are prepared to meet our obligations
with respect to both the park and the school site in regards to this
PUD/DRI.
We are asking to amend the DRI PUD in the following fashion:
And, again, I'm going to very briefly just delineate for you the
requested changes. Mr. Mulhere will go through them in more detail
with you.
We are asking to insert a -- what is called a conversion chart
into the DRI PUD documents, which would allow us to convert some
multi-family units to single-family units. For each single-family unit
that we obtain rights to build, over and above the 123 units currently
Page 106
September 9, 2003
approved, we would reduce the overall density of the site by 1.667
units.
Again, for each single-family unit that we obtain the authority to
build over 123, we would reduce the number of multi-family units
that we have the authority to build by 1.667. The reason for that is
simply a traffic issue. And we'll go into that in more detail at some
point here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to clarify something here.
There are substantial contradictions in the documents we've been
provided concerning that conversion-- MR. BASINAIT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- factor. In our executive
summary and elsewhere in the documents, it tells us that the total
number of multi-family units will be reduced by two units, not 1.667.
MR. BASINAIT: If I may, I'd be happy to clarify that for you.
Initially our traffic impact statement -- and it was very
preliminary in nature -- indicated that two units may be the
appropriate reduction for the conversion chart. When we actually
were able to complete TIS, the Traffic Impact Statement, and submit
it to the county, it became quite obvious to everyone, including the
county staff, that the proper conversion number was 1.667.
Unfortunately, for some reason in your executive summary, the
two-to-one conversion ratio was retained. That is simply an error. It
shouldn't be there. And I think that your staff will certainly confirm
what I'm telling you here. The actual and accurate conversion ratio is
1.667 to one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
sounds better.
I like the two figure. It just
MR. BASINAIT: I understand that. But the 1.667 is accurate.
The reason -- the reason that we got there, Commissioner, if I
may, is that our goal was to not increase traffic by virtue of this
conversion. If we were going to add single-family units, which we're
Page 107
September 9, 2003
proposing to do because of, quite frankly, what we see to be a need
for the market, then what we wanted to be able to do is to be able to
increase those single-family units but not increase the overall traffic
counts that were going in and out of the project.
The 1.667 reduction that we're talking about doing allows us to
remain even or less than the traffic that we currently would have if
we kept this current 1,480 multi-family and 123 single-family. So
that's where the number came from. Does that help?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand where it came
from.
MR. BASINAIT: Okay. Thank you.
The next thing that we're asking to do is to add nine holes of
golf for a total of 27 holes of golf on this project. We're asking to
provide for the inclusion of the eastern portion of the site into the
flow-way. There are four to five other projects in this area that are
participating in this flow-way concept. We believe that that is an
extremely important issue from an environmental standpoint for us to
participate in. We're proposing to do that, and we're proposing to --
in addition to that eastern quarter of the site, we're also buying
mitigation off-site, mitigation lands off-site, a half section of land.
We're asking to provide -- or actually we are providing a
construction schedule for Logan Boulevard which, based on
comments that we've received from both the public and other
members of your staff, we have accelerated that schedule somewhat
for construction of the road. The principal aim or goal of that
construction is to be able to build a road from the current terminus or
the entrance to the Olde Cypress development north, ultimately to
Bonita Beach Road to connect Immokalee Road and Bonita Beach
Road together.
The last thing that we're proposing to do, and this is something
that your staff has asked and we think it's perfectly appropriate under
the circumstances, is to update both the DRI and the PUD with
Page 108
September 9, 2003
respect to the current terminology contained in your land
development regulations and in the comprehensive plan.
There has been no real comprehensive updating of the language
in either the DRI or the PUD since its inception in 1985. Obviously
there has been significant changes to the code since that time, some
substantive, some not so substantive. But the fact of the matter is
we're proposing to upgrade that language, or update it so that it more
property reflects the current development regulations of Collier
County.
One of the issues that may be discussed here today relates to a
potential impact of the construction of Logan Boulevard. And that is
noise from the road. As a consequence, we've had two different
noise experts look at this issue to see if it's really a problem or
whether it's one of those things where it looks like it might be, but
when you start doing the testing it really doesn't prove itself up to be.
Again, Bob is going to go into this in more detail for you. But
suffice it to say that the only place that we found any negative
impacts from a sound generation standpoint -- and this is only
potential, it's not even necessarily crossing the line, if you will, but
it's close -- but that's in the area in the northwest comer of the Olde
Cypress development. It's right in this area right in here. There are
actually -- there's one home that's been constructed, one home that's
under construction, and one home -- or rather one vacant lot. Those
homes were built close enough to the right-of-way so that there may
be some potential, at least, for at least the folks living there to feel
like there's negative impacts. As a consequence, we have proposed
to build a sound barrier wall in that area to alleviate that concern.
What I would like to do, though, for your own edification is to
hand out copies of our noise studies. We have two studies here. The
first study that was done is this study here from Fagan Acoustical.
I've just set it inside the second study, which was done by Southern
Environmental Sciences.
Page 109
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Basinait, may I ask, while
you're talking about walls -- I'm sorry if I'm saying that --
MR. BASINAIT: No, no, that's correct. That's okay, don't
worry about that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're talking about the walls to
protect. I was wondering -- I think it's really appropriate to build the
wall along Long Shore Lakes before the construction traffic starts
going in there, and I was going to ask you if that's your plan.
MR. BASINAIT: Actually, that's not our plan. That is
something that G.L. had indicated to the Long Shore residents that
they would be willing to do. But that, I think, is up in the air a little
bit with respect to the maintenance obligations for both the wall and
the vegetation.
You will note from the report that I just gave you, if you looked
at the last page of the bound copy of that report -- it's a table -- you're
going to find that we don't trigger any negative noise impacts on the
Long Shore side at all. We don't trigger any negative impacts on the
Olde Cypress side, except for those three potential homes in the
northwest. Nor do we trigger any negative impacts in the Quail
Creek portion of this. And we've had that looked at by two separate
experts. They've prepared independent reports. They have come to
significantly or substantially similar results with their reports.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you using -- in these
projections, are you using construction equipment to come up with
this? Because that's of course what they'll be hearing for the next
couple of years.
MR. BASINAIT: Yes. Yes. Actually we've -- quite honestly,
we've taken the worst case scenario from the standpoint of Parklands
Development to generate the trips, to generate the construction
traffic. We have done our trip analysis based on no other
improvements to this area other than Logan Boulevard. So in other
words, we haven't included 951, we haven't included the six-laning
Page 110
September 9, 2003
of 1-75, nor have we included any particular improvements to
Immokalee Road.
What results is -- or rather what we have also done, though, is to
take into account ultimate build-out of all of these projects in the area
to their full maximum density. So if you will, we have got a situation
which I don't think will ever occur. First of all, these developments
sometimes build less than what their maximum density is. But
moreover, those improvements, at least some of them, will occur. So
I think if anything what you're going to find is the noise impacts will
be even less than what we've estimated.
At this time, unless there's other questions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but before we leave the
noise issue, the 65DB standard for highway noise, measured on the
LDN basis, are you taking into consideration any peak noise
measurements? Because averaging it over a 12- or 24-hour period
substantially reduces the impact of individual peak noise
occurrences.
MR. BASINAIT: As far as I know, we are. I mean, I
understand what you're saying. There are going to be some spikes, if
you will, in the noise generation. I mean, if you have a loud truck go
by, for instance, I mean, there's no way from a noise measurement
standpoint to stand there and say that you're never going to have
anything above 65. The point is, are you going to experience many
of those spikes? The answer is no, based on the trip generation
counts that we've done. We believe that this is a very accurate
representation of whatever noise levels they will ultimately be
experiencing, based on the construction of the road.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the 65 DBA or the 66
DBA, that's reduced significantly by virtue of that eight-foot wall
being in front of the homes in the northwest comer of Olde Cypress.
The further reduction is -- and I'm not suggesting to you that this
is necessarily something you should take into account -- but if they're
Page 111
September 9, 2003
inside their home, you can presume a 20-foot DB reduction interior
to the home, just in relation to anything that's occurring outside.
So there are -- it's a graduated system, and I think the answer to
your question is yes, there are going to be spikes, they're not going to
be frequent, certainly, and we don't think that that's representative of
the overall noise levels out there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In your model, did you actually
collect independent incidents of noise generation, or does your
equipment just take the noise over a period of time and average it?
MR. BASINAIT: It's a model that was used to prepare the
results that you see here today. Honestly, I don't believe that he went
out and tried to individually take noise counts for spikes, for things
of that nature. The equipment itself, the model itself is going to have
those things built into it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Mr. Basinait?
MR. BASINAIT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The planning commission made
some certain stipulations. Could we go through those now?
MR. BASINAIT: I'd be happy to do that, although Bob was
going to discuss those during the course of his presentation. But
whatever is the board's pleasure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine, I can wait.
MR. BASINAIT: Whatever you'd like to do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If Bob is only going to take five
minutes, I understand. That's fine.
MR. BASINAIT: If Bob takes five minutes I'll be amazed. Bob
can't say his name in five minutes, Mr. Chairman.
At this time, I would like to ask Mr. Mulhere to come up. Bob
is going to go through with you our request in somewhat more detail.
Certainly we have other experts here, as I said, to answer your
questions, but we're going to make every attempt to keep this as brief
Page 112
September 9, 2003
and concise as we can. We know that you have a long day today and
we'd like to give the opportunity to get through that. So thank you
very much for your time.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere
with RWA. I suppose the good news is that based on your questions
and Chuck's presentation, I can start by eliminating several pages of
my presentation.
I just want to reiterate briefly the requested changes. Again,
primarily the issues are the conversion table, the addition of nine
holes of golf, the establishment of the construction schedule for
Logan Boulevard.
And really, I don't want to under-emphasize the substantive
nature of all of the changes that have been requested in the PUD and
the DO as a result of the fact that that is a 20-year-old document. So
bringing all of that nomenclature up to current standards is the result
of requests from the staff. Actually, it resulted into a pretty
substantive work product.
I'd like to start out by discussing some of the environmental
issues, and want to let you know that we have met over -- this has
been really a three-year process, maybe just shy of three years.
During that time we've met with obviously all of our neighbors,
members of the public, and also with a number of environmental
groups. We met with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, we met
with Nancy Payton of the Florida Wildlife Federation, Brad Cornell
of Collier County Audubon. And on Brad's suggestion, we met with
Ed Carlson of Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary as it related to looking
for ways in which we could enhance our on-site preserve to increase
wading bird habitat for wood storks -- for wading birds in general but
primarily for wood storks. And I'd like to step over to an exhibit and
demonstrate some things for you.
MR. BASINAIT: If I may, Charles Basinait, for the record.
Just as a follow-up to Commissioner Coyle's question on the
Page 113
September 9, 2003
noise study, we took the -- if you will, the peak hour to do our
modeling. In other words, we took the one hour that was going to
have the most traffic, was going to be the loudest, and that's how we
modeled it. As opposed to taking a 24-average, we took a one-hour
average.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: At the 2025 plan?
MR. BASINAIT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: Having met with those representatives of the
various environmental groups, we took their suggestion.
Just to let you know, this preserve area here to the east of the
proposed Logan extension, approximately 141 acres, I do want to
mention that although we will be impacting some wetlands in this
area here, they are significantly disturbed with exotics and there was
a very hot fire that occurred. And when that does occur in this area,
the result oftentimes is an increase in the amount of exotics that grow
back. And that's exactly what occurred here. We will be cleaning,
obviously, all those exotics out, both in the development area and
within the preserve area.
In addition, as mitigation, we have purchased and will donate a
half section of land which is located within the Crew Trust mitigation
area. And this is very desirable land, it's very pristine in its nature,
but we will also remove the exotic growth that does occur out there,
as well, as part of that donation process.
What we found out after talking to Mr. Carlson was that if we
could in the permitting process create a number of shallow wetland
areas, that is the kind of habitat that wading birds, in particular wood
storks, can utilize to the greatest degree. Any large lake or open lake
that is, you know, fairly deep really doesn't provide the kind of
habitat, feeding habitat particularly, that the wood storks and other
wading birds need. I don't profess to be an expert, this is information
given to us by others.
Page 114
September 9, 2003
So this design here does incorporate a number of restoration
efforts for additional wading bird habitat area.
In summary, as far as the environmental issues go, we did go to
the environmental advisory council, we did receive a unanimous
approval from the advisory council, environmental advisory council.
In terms of water management, as I think Mr. Basinait indicated
to you, and I'll try to summarize here -- David Underhill, who is the
civil engineer for the project for Banks Engineering, he's here if you
have specific questions.
But we are participating in the flow-way. We do have our South
Florida Water Management District permit that has been issued. And
that does require us to participate in that flow-way. We are
providing significant recharge and buffer area to the flow-way, the
Mirosol (phonetic) flow-way.
We also have individuals present that can provide you with
some additional information on that flow-way, should you feel the
need. But certainly we won't do that -- we won't take the time unless
you feel the need for that.
I guess that brings us to the Logan Boulevard extension issue,
which you are very familiar with now, having sat through quite a bit
of discussion in your previous item.
I do have a couple of exhibits I'd like to share with you. Excuse
me, I don't know how well you can see this exhibit, but this is the
original master plan, Exhibit H, from the 1985 approved
development order. And this is labeled here Carol for Bonita Beach
Road; formerly Bonita Beach Road was referred to as Carol Road.
And as you can see, that does show a connection through the
project down to Immokalee Road.
So I did want to let you know by demonstration of this original
Exhibit H master plan, there always was an intention for a connection
as part of this project between Bonita Beach Road and Immokalee
Road. This portion is of course the portion that was removed from
Page 115
September 9, 2003
the project and sold off.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When was that again, proposed?
What year?
MR. MULHERE: 1985.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: Over the years, various county plans have
shown the Logan extension in different forms, in different
generations. This is the 2025 long-range plan, and it does show an
extension right here of Logan Boulevard. Not exactly in the exact
same format that we proposed it, but nevertheless, it does depict a
connection to Immokalee and ultimately to Bonita Beach Road.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bob, can you tell me, and maybe
staff can, in my document, the construction schedule, is that in DOA
or the amendment of a DRI?
MR. MULHERE: It's an amendment to the PUD.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: PUD amendment.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. And I have a copy of it I can show you.
I'll put it on the visualizer. I'm getting to that.
Just another example of another map that -- this is the 2025 plan
that also depicts a connection, an extension of Logan Boulevard
north.
And finally, this is a map that was used during the CR 951
project development environmental study extension, and this map
actually shows the alignment that -- in a similar fashion to what we're
proposing right now for connection.
As Mr. Basinait indicated, we did hire two independent noise
experts who did conduct a study. And I won't spend time going over
that. I think the results are in your packet, and I do have them able, if
you wish to have any further discussion on that.
We recognize that there would be some concerns relative to
Logan extension. Obviously we recognize that up front and certainly
we knew that through our discussions with folks. And that is why we
Page 116
September 9, 2003
have participated and been involved in numerous meetings in trying
to resolve those issues as best we can. Largely those issues were
dealt with in the item just before this one, but we felt very confident
that the agreement by -- the agreements put in place by G.L. Homes
relative to Long Shore Lakes and the agreements put in place by
Olde Cypress really significantly went the distance to mitigate
potential impacts from this roadway.
Also, I don't know that it was specifically discussed, but
Parklands, in addition to agreeing to construct the roadway in
accordance with the roadway construction schedule that's part of the
PUD, to the tune of $15 million plus, is not requesting any impact fee
credits. That dollar figure includes impact fees that would be paid,
plus roadway impact fees that would be paid, plus construction costs.
In addition, we will install a sound wall where homes are very
close to Olde Cypress. There is a portion along the northern part of
the Olde Cypress where the homes are very close to the proposed
roadway, it's about 775 feet. So again, we do agree to installing a
sound wall in that location.
The actual schedule itself-- the actual schedule has been
expedited from our original recommendation, as we work through
with staff, and it calls for three phases: The first phase commencing
in spring of 2004 and being completed in spring of 2005; the second
phase starting in fall of 2005, being completed in 200 -- spring of
2007; and the third phase starting in fall of 2007 and being completed
in 2008.
Of course it's in our best interest to try to expedite that as much
as possible, and we will do that. But this schedule, absent any
unforeseen circumstances, is certainly achievable.
The -- one thing I'd like to add as far as the construction
schedule goes and as far as other issues that have been raised, in
addition to the roadway itself, folks have raised issues relative to --
as I'm sure you're all aware, relative to construction traffic. And I
Page 117
September 9, 2003
will go over the planning commission's specific recommendations.
One issue relative to construction traffic will be a question of
how construction traffic will access the project. And we have agreed
to try to expedite and construct a construction access from Lee
County so that construction traffic from the north, from Lee County,
can access the site from Lee County, from Bonita Beach Road. And
of course we would assume that the construction traffic from the
south along Immokalee Road would be able to access the site from
Immokalee Road. We recognize that they will also be serving, for
example, Terafina or Olde Cypress, for those portions that are
undeveloped in Olde Cypress. So we have agreed to do that.
In addition, we have agreed to generating all the roadway
construction related fill for the first two miles of that roadway from
the site itself. Of course, to do that, we will need an early work
authorization to dig our lakes so that we can use the fill to build the
roadway.
Just a couple of issues. The first mile or so is already -- doesn't
require much fill. It's already fairly well compacted. It will require a
finished grade, or semi-finished grade, and then after construction a
final finished grade. We will of course maintain a dust-free surface
during that construction process will as
To the extent that any agreements
no reason why we can't install the wall
well.
are in place for the wall, I see
as we construct the roadway,
to the extent that those agreements end up being in place. We may
want to hold off on the landscaping until the roadway construction is
done, because would probably be detrimental to the landscaping.
I was talking about the fill. We will generate that fill from
on-site. We've done the preliminary calculations. We think that we
can -- we know that we can generate the fill necessary for the first
couple of miles of roadway from on-site, so they will not be coming
up from Immokalee Road, they would be coming down from our site
to construct a roadway.
Page 118
September 9, 2003
We also think that we will not need a great deal of additional fill
for actual pad and residential construction, but we can't be sure of
that. We may need some additional fill as we move through the
actual construction process.
We met -- when I say we, representatives of the developer met
with Lee County staff yesterday in an initial meeting regarding
construction of that construction access south from Bonita Beach
Road. The meeting went very well. There were no objections
represented. Of course, we have to go through the process, which in
Lee County they call development order process, and that will take
some time. We are in the process of moving through that process. So
we're serious about expediting that and constructing that construction
access.
I guess -- really I think that the other issue is the school, and I
just wanted to spend a minute. The development order requires us to
donate a 15-acre school site. And it also requires that we donate or
provide a cash payment in lieu of a 7.5-acre -- or 7.25-acre park site.
And we have been meeting with the school board for some time.
We're not asking to remove those requirements or those
conditions. They will remain in effect in the development order. But
in meeting with the school board, they indicated -- first of all, the
original location -- I should just let you know for one minute that
when this was originally approved, there were only 10 acres of
wetland on-site. Ten acres, by the jurisdictional determinations in
1985. Currently there are 291 acres of wetlands on-site. So things
have changed quite a bit.
The location of the schools where the school location (sic) is in
an area that is currently a pretty nice wetland. So obviously that
location had to be moved.
We met with the school. They indicated that they would like to
have more acreage than the 15 acres that the DRI requires that we
donate to them. And we have settled on somewhere between 20 and
Page 119
September 9, 2003
25 acres.
We actually have gotten correspondence from the school board.
In fact, this morning, and I have copies of that for you, one for the
clerk and one for the county manager.
Bottom line is that they obviously offer support and no
objection to the petition. We've made a commitment for a minimum
of 20 acres. They may decide they want some more. It's a fairly
short letter. I think you can -- and this will be an exhibit to the PUD,
it will Exhibit B attached to the PUD. Yes, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bob, what are you doing on-site to
build moderately priced dwelling units to house the teachers in that
school?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, the intent is to develop a mixed product.
And that is part of the reason why I think a conversion matrix will
work to assist us in doing so. Obviously, in order to be able to
develop a mixed product on the site, multi-family, single-family,
various pricing points, and we really haven't had the chance to test
the market. We didn't even have access to this site. We still don't.
It's been kind of separated since its original approval in 1985. But
the timing is now here.
I will tell you that it's our intent to provide a mixed use product
type. And there are other opportunities in the nearby vicinity for the
same type of mixed used housing product type, both in Collier
County and Lee County.
So I think that providing the conversion matrix allows us the
opportunity to develop perhaps some single-family that will also
generate the revenues that will be necessary to then go in and
develop some multi-family. And I think it will be a mixed use
project.
As far as the school board goes and the park site -- which
remember, there's a 7.25-acre park site requirement -- we're not
Page 120
September 9, 2003
reneging on that requirement. I did speak with John Dunnuck earlier.
That requirement will still be in the document. But we do appreciate
the efficiency of perhaps co-locating those types of services. And if
you're going to have a 20- or 25-acre school site, I think you're
probably aware that the county works very closely with the school
board for co-utilization of those recreational facilities. We have been
suggesting a meeting with the school board to come to the same
terms, and we will work with county staff so that the result is that
there will be an appropriate co-utilization of this.
One other thing I did want to point out, that 20-acre parcel is
roughly in this area here. This aerial photo was developed and this
aligner (phonetic) was depicted on it. Prior to us finalizing it or
making some final arrangements for the school board-- and Mr.
Mudd will remember that he suggested that we try to straighten this
out a little bit one meeting. And in fact we are going to do that, so
that it will be a safe opportunity for traffic, school buses, et cetera.
So that will be straightened out a little bit. That is not a true
representation of the angle of that particular turn in there. This was
made several, several months ago.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Such an odd bump in the road.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you pick it up a little bit,
Bob?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, I'm just about ready to conclude.
I think that does really cover all of the issues. I just wanted in
summary to get to the planning commission recommendations, which
I'm looking for right now.
In summary, the project will result in permanent protection of
477 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, when you include the off-site
mitigation location. It will provide restoration for wading bird
habitat enhancement, particularly for the wood stork. It's consistent
with all the goals and objectives of the policies of the comprehensive
plan, the LDC, and the planning commission also heard this petition
Page 121
September 9, 2003
and unanimously recommended approval.
Now, I have the planning commission recommendations here,
and they include a requirement for all construction access to access
the site from Lee County. You know, we felt that that was not
something that we could agree to. We felt that would certainly not
be fair to Lee County and the City of Bonita Springs to require traffic
that might be coming from Immokalee or south Immokalee Road to
go all the way out to 1-75 and drive all the way north, come across
Bonita Beach Road and then come into the project.
We certainly think that the traffic from the north should enter
the project from the north and hence, the negotiations to create a
construction access from Bonita Beach Road. But we feel the traffic
entering the project from Collier County should be able to enter it
just as the same traffic will go up to Terafina or Olde Cypress
through Logan Boulevard extension.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bob, before you continue on that
one, I don't think anybody has a problem with the carpenter driving a
pickup truck with a hammer in the back of his pickup truck coming
from Golden Gate Estates to use this Logan. The big heartburn is
heavy equipment. You know, the dump trucks, the cement trucks or
whatever those big vehicles, and whatever kind of mitigation that is
going to take place as far as a wall is not going to take care of those
impacts. I just want to put that out there.
Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, Bob, I'm making reference
to the letter from the Long Shore Lake board of directors -- I think
you might have a copy of it -- concerning the requirements they
would like to see included in approval. And I've heard you go over a
number of those. I would just like to summarize.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, that would be fine. I don't have a copy
with me but --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, let me just read them. And
Page 122
September 9, 2003
then I was just able to hear your presentation from the back room, so
I understand what you've gone over, mostly.
But number one was to build the access off Bonita Beach Road.
And hopefully, as the Chairman suggested, we'll get the heavy
equipment coming in through there.
The second one was to use the fill from the lakes for the
building of the road. You've agreed to do that.
You've agreed to provide adequate and effective landscape
buffering along Logan Boulevard extension between Long Shore
Lake and Olde Cypress. The maintenance is still an issue. MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And there are two, perhaps three
other items that are mentioned here I'd just like to get your opinion
of.
One is the limit -- limiting Logan Boulevard extension, the two
lanes between Long Shore Lake and Olde Cypress in perpetuity. I
think that's done, because I don't think we have any more
right-of-way.
Limit the speed limit to 25 miles per hour on the two-lane
portion of Logan Boulevard extension. I think that probably is not
feasible if it's going to be used for any kind of roadway at all.
But the other item is prohibit general use of the road to traffic
until the first lift of asphalt.
MR. MULHERE: As far as the two-lane, I agree with you that
to me, you know, there's really no opportunity to acquire additional
right-of-way where it's limited in the first mile. I guess folks could
have a concern the second mile. But it has been designed as a
two-lane roadway. If this board puts a condition-- because really it's
going to be up to the county, because we're going to donate the
right-of-way to the county.
Same thing with the speed. In terms of the speed, one good
thing is that there are relatively few access points along the roadway.
Page 123
September 9, 2003
Of course, we assumed that the speed limit would be in the general
vicinity of 3 5 miles per hour, but I'm not a traffic engineer and I
think that really ends up being up to the county as to what speed they
would post that.
As far as -- let's see, the last issue that you raised was the
general use of the road until the first lift of asphalt.
MR. BASINAIT: I just want to -- for the record, Charles
Basinait. Keeping in mind that we have -- actually have to be able to
construct the road, there's going to be a certain amount of traffic out
there for road construction.
If you're talking about project access, I mean, that's a different
thing. I mean, we haven't looked at it from that standpoint. Our
intentions were to create an environment where it would be a
dust-free environment on the road, certainly. And if that's what this
intention was, then we can -- if it's not this, certainly we can come up
with some, I'm sure, adequate means to create a dust-free
environment out there and still allow us to use that road for certain
purposes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But public use, would --
MR. BASINAIT: Public use? Public use is not a problem. I
mean, we're not -- that's not a problem at all. We never even
anticipated, quite frankly, public use of the road until at least the first
lift the asphalt.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you will take measures to
assure a dust-free environment--
MR. BASINAIT: Yes, of course --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- of that road during the
construction?
MR. BASINAIT: Of course. Again, we're looking for ways to
try and ameliorate any potential concerns out there, and that's one of
those things. And we'll do the same thing on the construction access
from Bonita Beach Road.
Page 124
September 9, 2003
If I could, when Bob is finished, there's a couple of comments
I'd like to make very briefly, but I would like to make a couple of
comments.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just -- Jim Mudd, for the record.
This is a two-lane boulevard, it's got a median in between,
somebody's going to make a right-hand mm, it's going to be a throat
distance, they'll be able to make a right-hand mm. If they need to
make a left-hand turn they'll have throat distance, and it will be cut
into the median so they can make the left-hand turn. So you've got a
through lane going north and you got a through lane coming south.
So I just want you to visualize that. Don't think of it as that country
lane, two-laned road. This is a two-lane road that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Boulevard.
MR. MUDD: Boulevard.
MR. MULHERE: Orange Blossom, I think, has a similar
design, if you would-- if that helps you understand.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, do you have
anything?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I did. I'd like to go back
to the northern entrance of Bonita Beach Road. Of course, I don't
think it would be practical to be able to tell the trucks that are filled
with fill that would be coming from Immokalee that they have to
drive all the way down Immokalee Road, get on a 75 exit, which is
already impacted, and then get off again at Bonita. That seems kind
of contrary to what we're trying to accomplish in this world.
But can we have some sort of assurance from you that the
majority of the traffic will be coming there that's carrying fill,
possibly from the pits to the north?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. You know, the only -- the difficulty in
that is -- I think there's a couple of things, generally. Number one,
you know, if we limit where we get the fill from, we've basically
limited the free market system and we've basically said, okay, you
Page 125
September 9, 2003
know, we're yours, tell us what you want and here's where we're
going. I mean, and it's a real serious concern.
The second thing is that in Lee County currently right now most
of the fill, my client tells me, is going to provide for the buffer -- the
berm that's being constructed along 1-75 -- I forget the name of the
project right now, but I'm sure you've seen it, it's layered and there's
trucks and trucks of fill going there. And we don't know where the
best value of the fill is going to come from, whether it comes from
Collier County or it comes from Lee County. But that's certainly
where we would go.
Because we'll go enter into a contract with a fill provider and
he'll, you know, find the location where he can provide it in the
closest proximity so it doesn't cost as much. And it's in his best
interest to do it that way, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand where you're
coming from, but there's other factors that enter into this that have
me concerned. One, Immokalee Road is going to be severely
impacted during construction. And all of a sudden if we have a
whole new element of construction taking place where they have to
draw fill from that area, it's going to mean even more of an impact.
Now let me finish.
What I'm getting at is the fact that there's got to be a better way.
I know that we have within our ordinance the ability that if the roads
become impacted in an unsafe way, we can put restrictions on the
trucks and the fill pits, if I'm not mistaken.
Would you comment on that, Mr. Weigel? Give me some
measure of comfort?
MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me, Mr. Coletta. Your question is in
regard to looking for a measure of comfort concerning the trucks that
are carrying excavated materials?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If an emergency situation
develops or the roads become so impacted that a very dangerous
Page 126
September 9, 2003
situation arises from the use of the road for the excess fill that will
have to be drawn from the Immokalee Road area to be transported,
do we not have the ability to be able to put certain restrictions on
travel to be able to assure the safety of the public?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, the answer is yes. And you can act or
react as conditions may dictate at any point in time through a formal
board meeting action to restrict and provide limitations, as necessary,
to regulate for health, safety, welfare reasons for the road. You can
do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. That
takes care of my question. Unless you had a further comment about
the entrance to the north.
MR. BASINAIT: Well, two comments, if I may. One is that as
we are going to do with the southern two miles of the road, we're
going to use our best efforts to take as much fill from the site itself
and utilize it both for the road and for the on-site infrastructure
development and home pads, as much as we can. We're going to be
requesting from the county the early work permits; we're going to be
requesting from the county some cooperation with respect to the size
of the lakes, for instance. If we can dig those slightly deeper, slightly
larger, we can get more fill on-site and decrease the off-site impacts
by doing that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Schmitt's going to have to
answer to us whether he can make that happen.
MR. BASINAIT: Yes. But it is in the PUD, I think, to allow us
to do those things.
Now, having said that, there may still be a time when we're
going to have to go off-site to get some fill. But again, we're going
to try and maximize -- it only makes sense for us to do this -- try to
maximize the amount of on-site fill that we can get.
As we indicated to you before, we are going to implement noise
-- or not noise but dust reduction efforts. We're going to indicate
Page 127
September 9, 2003
clearly to the contractors that any Lee County contractor should
come from the north.
And I will tell you that I was one of the folks that met with Lee
County folks yesterday and talked to them about this construction
access. And they were pleased to cooperate to the extent that we
were talking about Lee County traffic. If we start sending Collier
County traffic, or attempt to send Collier County traffic up there, I
can't tell you that they're necessarily going to be in a very
cooperative mood with respect to permitting this construction access
road.
I'm only telling you this because I don't want to get put in a
position six months down the road where Lee County tells me, I'm
sorry Chuck, but we can't do this, we can't allow all the construction
access from Collier County to come up through Lee County. It just
doesn't make sense to us. Moreover, I suspect the City of Bonita
Springs is not going to look very favorably upon that either.
So while I recognize the concern that you've raised here today, I
would suggest to you very respectfully that we are going to do our
best to minimize those impacts by splitting the traffic, by
implementing dust reduction features. We're going to, as we've
indicated -- and maybe I didn't make this clear before -- but we're
going to fund the construction to Olde Cypress of that wall in the
northwest comer. That doesn't include landscaping along that
corridor, just that wall in the northwest comer.
So we're doing quite a few things here to try and ameliorate
those concerns. We live in an urban society down here where there's
a lot of growth going on, and so everyone has this problem on a
fairly continual basis. And I can appreciate it, but there's only so
much we can do to try to ameliorate it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand it, there's certain
limits to what you can do and still make a profit.
There's one thing that you may have already covered, but I can't
Page 128
September 9, 2003
recall hearing it. The hours of operation, when you're operating along
the road where it's going to be by Long Shore and Big Cypress, what
are going to be the hours of operation, and will you be closed on.
holidays, so there'll be no misunderstanding? And there is no
intention to be doing work at night; is that correct?
MR. MULHERE: That's correct. We would operate consistent
with the county's provisions, construction provisions, to prohibit
those activities on holidays, Sundays. And I think the hours are 7:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. I could be wrong on the hours. But there is an
ordinance, we would comply with it.
Now, the only caveat I would say is I would assume that the
quicker we get done, the less inconvenience to folks that live along
there. I'm not asking to work on the holidays. I'm just saying
sometimes there are road construction activities that can take place
outside of those hours that are not as --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, but not between
Long Shore Lakes and Big Cypress.
MR. MULHERE: Understood, understood.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Mulhere, are you done with your
presentation?
MR. MULHERE: Well, there was a couple of planning
commission -- I didn't -- you know, just to get them on the record. I
only went over one or two. The recommendation was to look at the
possibility of relocating the road over the section line, and we've
already addressed that through the 1 O-foot, you know, donation. We
didn't really need to relocate the road, we just needed a 1 O-foot buffer
strip, which we end up getting by the county accepting that from
Olde Cypress.
Committing to use fill from on-site for all needs, we've agreed
to. Providing additional landscape buffers where residential houses
are present, that is an agreement that is really a three-party
agreement: It's G.L., Olde Cypress and Ronto.
Page 129
September 9, 2003
Limiting the road to two lanes, and we've discussed it, that
really becomes a county issue, that we have no objection to that and
that's what we anticipate.
And installing a concrete structural barrier in the area of the
homes located close to the northwest corner, which we do agree to.
So that really is the summary of the planning commission's
conditions and recommendations of approval.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Basinait, Mr. Mulhere, I think
you've heard the concerns of the Board of Commissioners as far as
the heavy truck traffic. So something you might want to consider is
the construction of the road -- you know, you're going to use that
material as much as you can from your site. Any other site, you
know, the screened lime rock or whatever, or the asphalt or cement
or whatever, maybe would be -- it's okay if it comes from Collier
County, that type of construction traffic. But the construction traffic
that is developing your site, you might want to consider that all
coming from Bonita Beach Road. Just something to consider. And
I'm sure that some of the residents will get up and give some
direction to the Board of Commissioners where we need to go. You
don't have to comment on it.
MR. BASINAIT: Okay, I won't.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we go to the public
speakers.
MR. MULHERE: Could I just add one thing, Mr. Chairman?
Just in speaking with my client, just as evidence of the commitment
to use the on-site fill first and exhaust that, we would agree to
demonstrate to the county staff, through the provisions of the
right-of-way ordinance and the lake excavation ordinance -- not the
right-of-way but the lake excavation ordinance, we would agree to
demonstrate that we in fact have exhausted those provisions, given
the design of the lakes, before we would attempt to use any off-site
fill.
Page 130
September 9, 2003
So we would go through a process of demonstrating that we
have exhausted -- it's very possible that we will need very little
off-site.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have four speakers. Tony
Pires. He will be followed by Meggan Davis.
MR. PIRES: Members of the commission, Anthony Pires,
Woodward, Pires and Lombardo for the Long Shore Lakes
Foundation.
And the board has quite extensively, and Bob and Chuck's
presentation, has quite extensively covered a number of the topics
that Long Shore Lakes has an interest in. And obviously it is the
roadway again, Long Shore -- Logan Boulevard extension.
And we heard the developer agree to certain conditions, and
trying to get some clarification on certain points. My understanding
is that the portion of Logan Boulevard extension, the first mile or so,
is not a divided roadway, that it is planned on being a two-lane
roadway but not divided. There might be a divided segment further
north than that.
So in order to act more like a local road, we believe a 25
mile-an-hour speed limit in that segment at least would be an
appropriate speed limit. We heard the discussion that that might be
too slow for that roadway, since it is now -- the rest of it functioning
as a collector coming from Bonita Beach Road down to Immokalee
Road. But at least between Olde Cypress and Long Shore Lake we
respectfully request a 25 mile-an-hour speed limit.
Because if it is a collector, unfortunately under your
transportation element of your comprehensive plan, if you call that
segment a collector it loses its ability to have any traffic calming.
That whole transportation management planning I think goes away
for arterials and collectors. So if you treat it like a local road, have
those kinds of traffic calming techniques, 25 miles-per-hour, we
Page 131
September 9, 2003
would greatly appreciate that.
The construction time frames for limitation of construction,
heavy construction equipment and vehicles, we think that would be
appropriate. We understand, like Bob said, it's 7:00 to 6:00, and
sometimes it's even earlier. And they can ask under certain
circumstances for earlier hours from the staff. But we believe an 8:00
to 5:00 time frame, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., would provide them the
opportunity to get their work done. Most of the people will be up
and about and doing their business and not be disturbed in their
homes.
The limitation on the extension of Logan Boulevard being two
lanes in perpetuity, once again, we've heard that extension
discussion, they don't wish to stipulate to that. We think the best
protection would be that type of stipulation, because someone may
decide to come up with an opportunity in the future to change that.
But that once again is the board's discretion.
The ability -- and the prohibiting general use of the road to
traffic until the first lift of asphalt I think was one of the other
requests, and I don't believe I heard Bob address that particular
request.
The requiring the developer, most importantly, to build an
access off of Bonita Beach Road to be used as exclusive access for
construction traffic, both vehicles and equipment, vehicular and
materials, exclusive of laborers, we believe is an important feature,
as the board has already expressed that. And that's something that's
very critical, we believe, to maintain the integrity.
I think your transportation element even -- your 2025 plan
would even be achieved in implementation because Objective 4.2
says, to minimize adverse noise impacts and other effects by new
roadway projects and new projects. And this helps make this project
compatible with existing residential communities.
You've addressed the adequate and effective landscaping.
Page 132
September 9, 2003
Obtain the fill required from the lakes, we believe that's very
important.
And one other aspect, with regards to the noise study, I guess I
heard Chuck mention that the noise study indicated that the
construction traffic was taken into account. I didn't see that in the
noise study. I believe the noise study indicated that the noise levels
were projected to the 2025 level. And I didn't see anything in there
for construction traffic.
We believe that these various steps to be taken, limiting the
utilization of the roadway for construction equipment, heavy
equipment, provide the buffer, obtain the fill internally, limiting the
hours of use, prohibit general use of the road to traffic until the first
lift of asphalt, would -- and limiting the speed limit to 25 miles per
hour would greatly help the situation concerning Long Shore Lakes.
We appreciate your good questioning of the applicant and good
extraction of concessions and items that make the other communities
maintain their good qualify for residential living.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to jump in here and just say
that's probably because Commissioner Henning has been working so
closely with them.
MR. PIRES: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we appreciate that. And we're
also -- we have also been very concerned with the needs and wants of
the surrounding neighborhoods, and we've tried to be very
sympathetic to that.
MR. PIRES: We appreciate that.
And if I missed anything, I'm sure I will be advised by my
client. But the board has once again asked the right questions and
tried to obtain the appropriate concessions, and we believe they are
critical and important for the quality of life.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Question, are you okay with the
construction schedule of this roadway?
Page 133
September 9, 2003
MR. PIRES: As far as time flame?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. PIRES: I don't believe that we have any difficulty. If we
do, I'm not aware of any difficulty. No, we have no difficulty.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Thanks.
MR. PIRES: Thank you very kindly.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Meggan Davis. She will be
followed by Nancy Payton.
MS. DAVIS: Good morning again. Meggan Davis, vice
president, Long Shore Lake board of directors.
I'm not going to take up much of your time, because our
attorney really hit on everything that was important to us to mitigate
the impact of the road for our community.
I just did want to say that those same issues that have been
brought up, we have 419 petitions that were signed by homeowners
at Long Shore asking for your support and your advocacy on this
issue.
And secondly, I would like to say that during my meeting
yesterday with Commissioner Coletta, that we -- Long Shore Lake is
committed and will offer to the county any support to get 951 built.
951 -- expediting 951 will provide relief on that road. It will be -- it
makes it -- it's a more natural north-south corridor.
As this road is currently planned with the alpine turns, I mean, I
just don't think that given the choice of having 951 people will
choose to travel this road. So we're committed to letter-writing,
lobbying, whatever it takes to it done, because we think that 951, the
eastern part of North Naples needs relief. It will provide relief at the
1-75 corridor. And it's just a win-win situation.
And if there's any support that we can give as a community to
the county to help this happen, we make ourselves available.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you could convince the lady
behind you, we'd be all set.
Page 134
September 9, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Davis, are you okay with the
construction schedule?
MS. DAVIS: Yeah, we are. And just one minute. I would like
to say that we have worked very closely with Commissioner
Henning, and he has worked very hard for his constituents in our
community, responded to us when we've called. He and his staff, as
well as other county employees. And especially Don Scott and Pam
Lewis, very, very happy for the type of response that we've gotten to
(sic) them. Always gotten back to us within 24 hours, so we
appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Nancy Payton, and she will be
followed by your final speaker, Carol Wilsey. Oh, we have one
more.
MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton, representing
the Florida Wildlife Federation.
And as Mr. Mulhere mentioned, we have met numerous times,
I've lost track, with representatives from Parklands, and they've kept
us updated on the planning effort and answered our questions.
They've been very attentive to our request for additional information,
data and maps that help illustrate the regional significance of this
particular project.
I did perk up today, though, when Mr. Mulhere mentioned about
the design that would benefit the wading birds, and then Mr. Basinait
referenced the effort to have wider and deeper lakes, and I just hope
that there's not going to be a conflict there. Not in the preserves,
very good, then that's resolved. See how quick they are to address
issues?
Florida Wildlife is particularly interested in the mitigation plan
that complements the efforts of the Crew Trust, contributes to a
regional land buying effort, and enlarges the Mirasol Preserve. This
benefits not only wading birds but panthers, black bears and other
Page 135
September 9, 2003
wildlife.
I must note that Parklands is within the urban boundary, and this
is where new growth should be directed, because this is where there
will be, there is the infrastructure to support new residents.
I must clarify also that FWF does not generally come and
support rezones or development projects, but I felt compelled to
come and share our experience with you and how positive it was
working with the Parklands representatives to address our limited
concerns.
We agree with county staff and the Environmental Advisory
Council that the project is consistent with our Collier County
comprehensive plan, its conservation and natural resource protection
policies. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nancy, I was really impressed too
that the EAC passed this thing 7-0. I mean, that's impressive in itself,
given its location. So thank you for your --
MS. PAYTON: Yes, indeed. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Carol Wilsey. She will be
followed by your final speaker, Kevin Rattery.
MS. WILSEY: Thank you. For the record, Carol Wilsey.
Again, I'm one of the directors of the Olde Cypress Homeowners
Advisory Council.
I have fairly -- I tried to make this succinct, so I put it into a
power point presentation. And bear with me, this is brand new
equipment. For you guys too, so -- I did put it in a hard copy, so if
you'd like, you can take notes as we go along.
Before I begin, let me say for the record that we are not opposed
to the Parklands DRI or DO or any of the outlined wonderfully
planned things that they're going to be doing here. I mean, we know
that it's probably going to be a very pretty development. Our big
issue with it is the road. Our -- and that's going to be the gist of my
presentation.
Page 136
September 9, 2003
We've never been given copies of the sound studies by the way,
so I can't know at this particular point whether to take issue with any
of it or not. So I have to admit that.
We also have not been given the construction schedule, so we
can't answer any questions as to whether or not we agree or disagree
with that.
But let me first say Mr. Mulhere very eloquently outlined how
there's always been a connection in this Parklands DRI plan. And we
submit that yes, there has been. In 1985 the original DO says that
there's to be a connection from Carol Road to Immokalee Road. Fine.
The problem with that is that the road was always intended to be
on the east side of Olde Cypress, not on the west side of Olde
Cypress. And I can't answer or speak to the -- even in the lengthy,
lengthy, lengthy amount of research that I personally have done as to
why it was moved, other than it probably was a monetary issue, I
don't know. But in March 11 th, 1997, those easements for the
right-of-way for the connection going straight down rather than
taking the circuitous, alpine turn route, as Meggan Davis referred to
it, would have actually had less impact on Olde Cypress, no impact
on Long Shore Lake, and Terafina probably wouldn't have cared
which side they gained access from. But I do understand there were
water issues, so my supposition is that it probably had something to
do with money. That's all I wanted to start out with at the beginning.
We would like to submit to you that Logan Boulevard extension
should only be a local road. It -- we submit that the extension of
Logan Boulevard from Immokalee to the east-west Livingston Road,
the area at the south end of the Parklands, should be an extension to
that point and that point only. We'll submit documentation that even
today on the department of transportation's unfunded needs wish list,
the road has always been targeted to connect to the as yet unbuilt
east-west Livingston Road, which would be at the southwest comer
of the Parklands development. It was never originally planned to be
Page 137
September 9, 2003
the collector road referred to in the Parklands DO DRI.
Now, I heard earlier Mr. Mulhere, just as an aside saying there
were going to be some amendments to their DO and DRI that would
be more in line with LDC. And it may have some issue with some of
the things that I'm going to bring up today. I have never heard that
before today.
We believe and submit that the Parklands can still fulfill their
portion of their agreement by virtue of County Road 951, which is
still a planned road. And we submit that that makes an actually much
more logical road.
We submit that Logan Boulevard extension should be a local
road only. We will show that it will have no functionality as a
two-lane collector road, and there is a distinction between local
versus collector, since it will be in violation of current Land
Development Code guidelines, the DOT's own level of service
guidelines and the Florida Department of Transportation's level of
service guidelines as well.
When Paul Hardy vacated those easements on the eastern
portion of the Woodlands PUD, which is now Olde Cypress, he
moved the area dedicated for a public roadway to the western border
to what is now known as Tracts O, Tracts R-3 and a portion of Tract
1 that we just had the donation agreement on. That was in March,
1997, as I said earlier. Even then it was designated as a local road.
And I keep referring to it as local, because there is a distinction in
LDC.
The most current version of the Olde Cypress PUD, which is
Ordinance No. 2000-37, states that the north-south local road on the
western side of the project shall be platted as a public right-of-way
and shall be constrained to a two-lane, 60-foot right-of-way
configuration over the north half of the project. This portion
remained unchanged from the 1999 ordinance.
This road, because it is constrained to be only 60 feet from the
Page 138
September 9, 2003
entrance of Olde Cypress at Tree Line Drive to the rear border, can
only be a local road by the definitions that the DOT and the LDC
give for streets.
This is just a map which indicates that the southern portion of
Logan Boulevard is intended to be a major collector road.
It doesn't make any sense that you'd go north of Immokalee and
then have it become a local or even a minor collector road. And no
one's ever addressed this issue.
This shows the Logan Boulevard extension, even in the 2025
unfunded needs. Still appears in the department of transportation's
wish list as a new two-lane road from Livingston Road -- I mean
from Immokalee to Livingston Road east-west. It has not been
updated.
Definition of Land Development Code as a street local. I'm not
going to read the whole definitions, but bottom line it says that it is
supposed to be trips are length -- trip lengths are short, volumes are
low and speeds are low. Average daily trip generation rate ranges
from zero to 2000 vehicles per day.
A minor collector: Penetrate but should not have continuity
through residential areas. Operating speeds and volumes are low.
Average daily trip generation from two to 4,000 vehicles per day.
Major collector: Operating speed and volumes are in excess of
residential standards, 30 miles per hour. Average daily trip
generation rate exceeds 4,000 vehicle trips per day.
If you understand those definitions and you understand what
Don Scott has projected as the level of service for this road, I don't
care how buffered you get the wall or whatever, this is nothing more
than a violation of LDC code. A minor collector road needs to be 80
feet wide, two right-of-way widths, 11 to 12 feet in the right-of-way.
A local road, which is what we have next to Olde Cypress, and all
we can have is 60 feet wide with two right-of-ways 10 feet in width.
The county has developed and adopted policies to control the
Page 139
September 9, 2003
number, location and type of access points to the road network. This
is from your own county Growth Management Plan, the latest
amendment 11-19-02. And I've got quotes around them because I
took them right from the plan.
The transportation division shall maintain and update a list of all
roadway segments for which a level of service standard has been
adopted. They identify 12 roadways approved for level of service E
or better, and Logan Boulevard extension is not one of them.
Don Scott testified at the June 19th planning commission
hearing that he projected 17 to 22,000 vehicles per day on this road,
level of service E. By the definitions I just went through with local,
minor collector, major collector, this is far in excess of a local road.
Level of service D or better shall be maintained on all other
county and state arterial or collector roads. Right now they would be
in violation of their own Growth Management Plan if they approve --
if you approve this road going through as a collector road, level of
service E, with 17 to 22,000 vehicles projected on it.
In their own Growth Management Plan, they say their objectives
are the county shall provide for the safe and convenient movement of
pedestrians and motorized and non-motorized vehicles through the
implementation of the Collier County Comprehensive Pathway Plan.
Objective seven says that the county's going to adopt standards
for safe and efficient ingress and egress to adjoining properties, as
well as encourage safe and convenient on-site traffic circulation.
How, if you're going to have 850 homes built in Terafina behind
us and 2,000 homes or so in the Parklands, and there's going to be
ongoing construction traffic already on a constrained road that's
going to have 17 to 22,000 vehicles per day on it, we've only got one
entrance in and out of Olde Cypress, how on earth can you meet
those county Growth Management Plan objectives? How? We have
no light, we will not be able to get in and out and we'll be living with
heavy construction traffic, noise, excess traffic even worse when they
Page 140
September 9, 2003
put the school in. We're never going to get out of our community to
go to work.
FDOT has guidelines for levels of service. Seventeen to 22,000
vehicles per day far exceeds level of service E even by FDOT
guidelines. Their level of service guidelines for E represents
operating conditions at near or capacity or at or near the capacity
level. Speeds are reduced -- did I get five or ten minutes?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is your second five minutes.
MS. PAYTON: Level of service E represents operating
conditions at or near capacity level. Speeds are reduced to a low but
relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic
stream is extremely difficult, and comfort and convenience levels are
extremely poor.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have to ask you to wrap you,
please.
MS. WILSEY: Sure.
My point is, Don Scott testified this is going to be a failing road
if it's put in the way that it's designated to be put in now. Logan
Boulevard extension is a constrained road. It cannot be widened and
it can't take the traffic that's planned for it.
We went through the traffic stipulations. Our biggest complaint
is the construction traffic.
Here are my questions for the County Commissioners: Why
would Collier County Commissioners vote to approve a road that
may be a violation of the county ordinances or in direct contradiction
to an already approved and recorded PUD? Why risk lawsuits when
there may be other solutions? For example, the extension of
Livingston Road east-west, you could connect into that, or County
Road 951.
We submit that reason and prudent thought should prevail.
Delay the approval of the connection portion of Livingston Road to
Bonita Beach Road until further study can be done of alternate
Page 141
September 9, 2003
solutions, solutions that may provide plenty of width for a collector
road. Approve for right now only the portion from Immokalee Road
to the southwest comer of the Parklands PUD. Ask transportation to
study the east-west Livingston connection to Northbrook as an
alternate. I understand there's 50 feet of right-of-way--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hey.
MS. WILSEY: Well--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Fifteen minutes.
MS. WILSEY: Well, they get an hour.
Ask transportation to step up the approval process for County
Road 951, which we're in support of.
Follow the construction stipulations made by the planning
commission.
Traffic calming devices, multiple stop signs. Do what's right to
protect your constituents.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. WILSEY: All of them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: One question. In your research, the
Woodlands '97 DRI.
MS. WILSEY: March 1 l th.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Was it stated where that road is to
go?
MS. WILSEY: It was along the eastern section, as I understand
it. It was a straight line.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: When it shifted from east to west.
MS. WILSEY: Well, where which road was to go.9 Am I on.9
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The roadway alignment, when it
shifted from the east to west, did it state where it was supposed to
go.9 How far north?
MS. WILSEY: You mean did it state where this was to go.9
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MS. WILSEY: No. It said that it was to be -- public access was
Page 142
September 9, 2003
to be granted for a local road.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: In '97.
MS. WILSEY: '97.
I have a copy of the March 1 lth minutes, if you'd like me to
refer to them. I have them with me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine. I'll take your word for it.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: We have one more speaker.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if we could, I would like
to call Don Scott up to ask him to explain where we are with this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Widen the road and we solve this
problem.
MR. SCOTT: At the planning commission, the questions were
raised as to what the volume was going to be. And the noise study
that was done by the applicant had 17 to 22,000 vehicles per day,
depending on what section you were at. And the question was asked
what I thought the level of service would be, and I said about an E.
Based on the fact that it doesn't have a lot of restrictions, doesn't have
a lot of friction in it. But not knowing exactly where signals and
location was going to be.
We're restricted to two lanes, no matter what happens. Because
the previous board's action in the 60 feet, in the 80 feet of
right-of-way, we're restricted to two lanes. Should it be more than
that? You know, we can't -- there's not anything we can do about
that.
So based on that, we need a connection that goes all the way
through. If it was even a cul-de-sac, it would carry more than local
road traffic.
There are functional class, there's certain criteria of this
roadway that makes it a local road and there's certain criteria that
makes it a collector road. The volume is definitely a collector road
Page 143
September 9, 2003
facility status, but the 60-foot of right-of-way is a local road. You
don't have collector roads with that type of right-of-way.
You know, there are other stipulations in the Growth
Management Plan to have interconnection of roadways so, I mean,
you can argue both sides of that.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got some serious questions
here.
What do you anticipate the traffic volume to be upon full
build-out? And then also, the concern I have is with the school
board, building a school there and dealing with school buses on a
daily basis.
MR. SCOTT: The traffic volumes that we're -- the 17,000 and
the 22 is based on full build-out of all the uses within that corridor.
Having County Road 951 built and in place would revise that
somewhat. Is it going to lower it to two to 4,000? No, but it would
still be a lower volume than that.
As for the school, having a school at that location, we have
concerns in some other areas. Having some of the things like we're
talking about with the 1 O-foot pathway, some access for pedestrian
and bicyclists addresses some of that concern. I don't know
specifically what else we can do beyond that. I mean, there's a
school site that's called for in that location.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I really think that we need to look
at the overall road plan here and figure out how we're going to
relieve the pressure that's going to be placed on this road in the
future.
MR. SCOTT: I mean, there's no doubt that -- and I like to hear
people supporting 951, because so far at our public meetings, which
we have one next week, we've had all the people that are against 951.
And we're working with Lee County to try to get this project moving
forward, but up to this point there's been more opposition than people
Page 144
September 9, 2003
in favor of it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Scott, the east-west Livingston,
is that still viable? And how far east will it go?
MR. SCOTT: It's on the long-range plan, so it's still an option
on the roadway system. It goes over to this Logan Boulevard
extension, and it would go all the way over to, essentially if we get
the last piece in there, right-of-way, over to 41.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Can we monitor the trips on this
Logan, north of Immokalee, another five years and have the board
make a decision on what our options are, if it exceeds the expected
level of traffic, or if it fails?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Put a moratorium on that site.
MR. SCOTT: You know, an interesting point about the level of
service standards, Logan Boulevard isn't in the Growth Management
Plan, and the standard hasn't been set because it hasn't been built yet.
It hasn't been taken off our list because we're not building it, they're
building it.
But because it is constrained to a two-lane facility, a lot of our
constrained facilities have been called out as level of service E as the
standard. So it remains to be seen if it's going to be below standard
in the future. Depending on what happens with the other networks,
too.
But we could, I mean -- yeah, you can stipulate any -- you
know, that we look at it and determine what other type of
improvements we could make or whatever.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: He changed his mind.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I have some other questions
I'd like to ask the petitioner.
With the addition of the golf courses, the eight, nine holes of
golf course being put in there, what are you doing or what have you
Page 145
September 9, 2003
decided to do as far as the sensitivity of the environment in that
particular area? And I guess where I'm going with this is the runoff
of fertilizers and weed inhibitors that will get into the watershed and
encroaching of the watershed and the preserve. Has there been
anything done in that as far as mitigating that?
MR. MULHERE: Commissioner Halas, that will in part be
regulated by our South Florida Water Management District permit,
which as part of their review they do look at runoff, pollution, ground
water contamination. But I will also tell you that the county staff is
currently working with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to
develop a set of standards that, while not necessarily being the same
as Audubon gold standards, would be very similar to Audubon gold.
And we have not asked for any exception from whatever standards
the county adopts relative to golf courses, so we would have to
adhere to those.
And that came about as part of the rural fringe amendment
process. And those amendments will be coming forward to you in
the December or January time frame. So I don't know exactly what
will shake out in that process in terms of those standards, but you
will be seeing at least the first draft of those standards in a December
or January time frame. And ultimately if those apply throughout the
urban area as well, we have no objection. We haven't asked for any
exception to that process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My big concern is we constantly
have to go out and clean canals out with hydrilla, and that chokes the
water flow, and also the contaminants that get into the estuary
system. Because that's part of the whole watershed program that
feeds all the way into the estuary system out to the Gulf. So I'm
looking at the whole picture here and I'm trying to get an idea of
what provisions we're putting in line here to address that. It's very
important.
MR. MULHERE: And I do agree with you 100 percent.
Page 146
September 9, 2003
I will tell you, though, that -- not to state the obvious, but there
are a lot of golf courses in Collier County that were built prior to the
current standards. The current standards are pretty restrictive in
terms of those very issues that you've addressed that the South
Florida Water Management District requires.
However, beyond that, the county is in the very near future
looking at those very same standards in terms of environmental
impact and water quality impact. And they will be coming forward
to you. And as I said, we're not asking for any exemption, okay, we
will adhere to those standards.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Basinait, the concerns about the
truck traffic, construction traffic? MR. BASINAIT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Have you come to a solution on
that?
MR. BASINAIT: Well, unfortunately I'm not sure that I have
necessarily, but -- there were a couple of comments made, and I'll get
to that in just a moment. The school site concern that was raised.
I just wanted to let you know that the school site issue has been
something that was obligated by the Parklands DRI in 1985 when it
first was approved. So that particular obligation, if you will, has
been there for the last 18, 19 years.
What we are trying to do to ameliorate concerns about that is
we're going to set up an access point that will be consistent with
access into the project itself. We're only going to have two access
points between here and here on Logan Boulevard. One of those
access points will be set up so that it's across from the school site, if
you will, and if there is a light that meets warrants, in other words, if
we meet warrants and a light can be put there, then certainly one will
be established there by the school board.
Page 147
September 9, 2003
I think it's important to understand too that with respect to the
right-of-way itself or the Logan Boulevard, that we have retained the
east-west right-of-way reservation in our DRI. That's still there so
that if Livingston Road does get built, we still do have those
reservations that are present.
We can also, and as you can see from the Logan Boulevard
black line, up here in the northeast comer, this has been designed
purposely that if 951 is constructed and it comes through somewhere
in this alignment, we can T Logan Boulevard into that road, if it's
appropriate and necessary to do that.
With respect to the ultimate trip counts on that road, I think it's
important to understand something that I mentioned to you before.
The trip counts were established based on maximum absolute
build-out of all those projects in the area. It was also based on only
one road improvement being done, that being Logan Boulevard
construction.
It doesn't anticipate, or can't anticipate because of the model that
we have to use, the construction of 951, the six-laning ofi-75, any
other roads that get built, any other intersection improvements that
are done, any improvements to Immokalee Road.
My point is that ultimately your trip counts on Logan are going
to be much less than what they are today -- or much less than what
we've said in our report. But because of the models that we have to
use, those are the numbers we come up with.
With respect to the construction traffic, if the answer that I've
given to you previously isn't sufficient, then we need to have a few
moments to talk about that. Because honestly, we're in a position
here of saying to you that we're going to take as much fill, for
instance, off-site as we can do for the construction of the road, for
construction of on-site infrastructure and housing pads.
We're going to work with your county staff to try and make sure
that the -- that we can get as much on-site as we possibly can through
Page 148
September 9, 2003
early work permits and enhancing or increasing the size of the lakes
and the depth of the lakes. We're going to use dust abatement
procedures. We're going to comply with the county code certainly
with respect to times of construction.
It makes it very difficult from our standpoint and
administratively from the county standpoint to say to these
contractors, you can only enter this project from Bonita Beach Road.
What do you say to the Terafina folks, what do you say to the Olde
Cypress folks about construction that's going to occur within their
projects? What do you say to Long Shore Lakes, if there's any
vacant lots left there? I mean, how do they access their projects?
I guess what I'm getting down to here is an equity factor. We
are, as the Parklands developer, proposing to spend upwards of $10
plus million to construct the road, another five plus million in road
impact fees, plus varied and a sundry other road improvements that
we're planning on doing, along with other impact fees that the
county's going to get. Our proportionate share analysis indicates that
our proportionate share for our DRI is something slightly in excess of
$1 million. We're proposing to spend at least 15 times that amount on
this project.
Now, I understand that the road that we're talking about building
provides access to our site. I don't mean to minimize that benefit to
the project.
But I think from an equity standpoint we're trying to suggest to
you that while I understand the construction traffic concern, we're
doing the very best we can to try and minimize those concerns. If
that isn't adequate for you, I would like to have a few minutes to talk
about it further. I don't--
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
comments on your observation.
MR. BASINAIT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Mr. Basinait, let me just make some
The Board of Commissioners doesn't
Page 149
September 9, 2003
have a choice. Olde Cypress only has one entrance to their
community. Terafina only has one entrance to their community.
You have the ability to have two entrances to your community,
Bonita Beach Road and Immokalee.
And I'm sure that you're going to -- your client is one to
advocate the address of Naples. For some reason that type of address
brings higher values of property. So I think it's a benefit to see how
we can work this out. And I'll let you converse with your client, and
let's take a five-minute break -- or let's make it three minutes so that
the Board of Commissioners stay in the room and we can try to get
some business done.
MR. BASINAIT: Very good. Thank you, Commissioner.
(A brief recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take their seats, please.
Mr. Basinait?
MR. BASINAIT: Mr. Chairman, Charles Basinait, for the
record. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this with my clients
for a moment.
Couple things. One, I'd like to just remind you that one of the
promises we've made, and obviously we'll keep, is that we will
enhance -- or rather that we will exhaust any on-site fill we have
before any off-site fill comes on. So -- and we're willing to go
through whatever process we need to to guarantee to the county that
we've in fact have done that.
Number two, I just wanted to remind you, we did discuss this
with Lee County transportation officials and others the other day. I
have to be careful how we do this, because I know they're not going
to be very happy if I start directing too much traffic through Lee
County, as opposed to Collier County. Having said that, what we
would offer to you as we think a reasonable compromise would be is
that any off-site fill that we end up utilizing for the site we will bring
in from Lee County. We will not bring it in from Collier, it will be
Page 150
September 9, 2003
brought in from Lee. So any trucks that carry fill on the project,
once we've exhausted the on-site component, will come in from Lee
County. So that's the proposal that we have for you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. BASINAIT: Now, if there's any other questions or
concerns, certainly I'm happy to try and respond.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that mean you'll buy that fill
from Lee County so you're not pushing our trucks on their roads?
MR. BASINAIT: Commissioner, I mean, you're asking us
questions where --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just asking what you really
meant.
MR. BASINAIT: Yeah, you know, we hadn't -- honestly we
hadn't talked about where we were going to purchase it from. I
mean, we're in the development business and to the extent that we
can make money on these things, we'd like to once in a while, just for
something different.
Having said that, it -- we really need to be able to go out and
look at where the fill is coming from, what the costs are, and
economically how we go about doing that in a fashion that works
with the type of development that we're doing. If we can purchase
from Lee County and have it make sense for us economically, then
certainly we're going to do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Basinait, the concern about dust
from the roadway --
MR. BASINAIT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- can you obligate to have a water
truck on-site or available?
MR. BASINAIT: That's not a problem.
One other thing. There was a point that was raised by Tony
Pires about the first cut of asphalt on the southern portion of Logan.
In point of fact, we wouldn't want to open that to public
Page 151
September 9, 2003
transportation until such time as the road is completed and has been
turned over to the county and accepted by the county. So it's not
only going to be the first cut of asphalt, it will be a completed road
before public access.
Now, that obviously is not things associated with the building of
the project, but public access itself won't occur until the road has
been turned over to the county and accepted by the county.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, any further
questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I'll entertain to close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Move to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Fiala to close the public hearing. All in
favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries.
Commissioners, if you would bear with me just for a minute, I
think that we got enough public input to formulate a motion, with
staff's help. But I also think that we need to make a commitment as a
board to give staff direction on certain things. And we're talking
about monitoring the traffic on this roadway. We're talking about
speed, which Parklands have nothing to do.
So with that, entertain a motion. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I'm inclined to
Page 152
September 9, 2003
support this petition, with a number of stipulations, but. In view of
the excellent job you've done in bringing all the parties together and
resolving a lot of these problems, I would defer to you to make that
motion and identify some of those stipulations that you would like to
see in this process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, first of all, I would like
to address our staff.
Speed limit on this roadway, and monitoring of the traffic on the
road at certain time frames so that it does not fail.
And the second thing -- the last thing is can -- what kind of--
since Olde Cypress, this is their only access at this time, entrance and
exit, can we do a three-way stop? Can we commit to a traffic study
at certain points?
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, Transportation Operations Director.
Yes, Commissioners, we can monitor that traffic from the day
we accept that. As far as the installation of any traffic control
devices, as you're aware, those are controlled typically by warrants
set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, so I
think it would be premature at this point to specify any particular
type of traffic control at any particular location.
But I can reassure you that based on whatever we find from the
actual traffic that is developed out there -- and part of that will be
determined by the design as well. There may be, as we -- as the -- I
should say we as the developer goes through the design phase, we're
going to have to look over their shoulder, knowing it's going to be
county road and make sure that it's something that we can accept. So
we'll have some input at that stage, too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Kant, don't go away.
The other thing is can we -- can we give you direction, is it
feasible to do the compromise and the speed limit to 30
miles-an-hour on this roadway?
MR. KANT: Commissioners, you can direct us to post that at
Page 153
September 9, 2003
whatever you think is appropriate. But I would like to caution you
against putting up an artificial speed limit. Traffic tends to find its
own way.
Earlier during this discussion, Orange Blossom Drive was
mentioned. That is posted currently at 30 miles-an-hour. About 18
months ago we did a speed study through there, which I believe is
about to be updated, and we were looking at recommending bringing
that up to 40 miles-an-hour from 30.
At this point again, I think part of that's dependent on how is the
road going to be designed. If it is your pleasure to specify some
particular speed limit, I don't -- again, 30 miles-an-hour is not -- it's a
statutory limit, if it's not posted, it's in a residential area. Typically
you don't have to specify that, but obviously that's your pleasure.
Thirty-five miles-an-hour is not excessive in that type of roadway.
As Mr. Scott pointed out, there's very little side friction. I think there
are maybe two or three driveways or intersecting streets, if you will,
and that's going to have an awful lot to do with how that road
operates.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
Well, I'll make a motion -- actually, Commissioners, we need
two motions, one in the PUD/DRI and the other one on the DOA. I'll
make a motion on the PUD/DRI that--
MR. MUDD: First one's a DRI, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right, approve the amendments with
planning commission's recommendations, as agreed to by the
petitioner. Also, the petitioner will use the dirt from on-site for the
road construction, and whatever he cannot get, he will utilize the
Bonita Beach Road access.
I'm trying to see what I have missed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Hours of operation, is that
something you --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hours of operation, I'm not sure if
Page 154
September 9, 2003
we can specify that as far as the construction of the roadway.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Kant?
MR. KANT: The hours of operation for any construction
project are limited -- well, I shouldn't say limited, but are already
subject to county ordinance. Typically those hours are 7:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m., except on the weekends. I believe there's no work allowed
on Sundays.
We also, in issuing right-of-way permits, typically limit lane
closures and any effect on the arterial and collector roadways so that
there's nothing happening until after 9:00 and after 3:30. So we have
some constraints that we can put into, but -- the right-of-way permit.
I would imagine that if anything's going to be delivered to that
site, that would have to be constrained by that 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
work hour. But again, there's nothing to prevent you from
constraining it further, if you think it's appropriate. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
May I ask, Mr. Basinait, residents would like to have the
construction traffic tied to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
MR. BASINAIT: That's very difficult from a construction
standpoint. I mean, as you know, much of the traffic --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I worked a half a day at construction.
I don't know anything about construction.
MR. BASINAIT: I'm sorry. As you may not know, it's very
difficult from a construction standpoint to limit it to 8:00 to 5:00. I
mean, you have got a county ordinance that I think is based on the
health, safety and welfare of the citizens that says 7:00 to 7:00. We
would respectfully and politely ask you to allow us to utilize that
same window of opportunity, if you will. I mean, I understand
there's people that live within proximity of what we're going to be
doing, but quite honestly, with all of the safeguards that we've
instituted today with respect to the road construction, I would suggest
Page 155
September 9, 2003
to you that 7:00 to 7:00 is a reasonable time frame to be working in.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we split the baby and do from
7:00 to 6:00? I mean, there's a certain amount of-- MR. BASINAIT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The construction schedule of the
roadway, can we also say either the construction schedule time frame
or when Parklands or Ronto receives the necessary permits to
construct the road, and the construction time frame be in the drop
dead date?
MR. BASINAIT: I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understood that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, if you obtain the permits
earlier than the construction schedule, you will start construction at
that time?
MR. BASINAIT: Yeah, we have -- our construction schedule
calls for us to start in 2004 -- in the spring, I think, of 2004 anyway.
We're still working on certain of the permits. So I suspect that right
about the time we get the permits it's going to be 2004, regardless. If
we can start a month or so earlier, certainly we'll --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: As part of the motion.
MR. BASINAIT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I made some notes here.
Any other additions to the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could just quickly summarize
the ones I was interested in. I think you've touched most of them.
The access off Bonita Beach Road and the restriction of most of
the construction traffic through that area? MR. BASINAIT: Of the fill traffic?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, the fill traffic, and the use
of fill for the lakes for the road construction and anything else you
use it for.
Prohibit the use -- the public use of the road till at least the first
lift of asphalt and then provide a dust-free environment from that --
Page 156
September 9, 2003
earlier than that.
Provide adequate and effective landscape buffering along Logan
Boulevard extension between Long Shore Lake and Olde Cypress.
MR. BASINAIT: May I make a comment there, if I could?
What we have promised to do is to fund the construction of a noise
barrier from the northwest comer of the Olde Cypress development
south to a point about 775 feet. With respect to landscaping, as we
understand it, Olde Cypress and G.L. have talked about that and they
are going to provide any additional landscaping that's necessary.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on. It was my understanding
that you was (sic) going to do the noise abatement for Olde Cypress
and then landscape that wall.
MR. BASINAIT: The discussions that we've had with Olde
Cypress, and I think they would confirm that, is that what we have
agreed to. do is to pay for the construction of the sound barrier. G.L.
Homes has said to Olde Cypress that they will take the cost of
placing landscaping along their southern perimeter, they will give
that to Olde Cypress for landscaping on what is the east side of
Logan Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Basinait, our Land Development
Code says you can't put any noise -- or wall in without landscaping.
You wouldn't want to deviate from the Land Development Code,
would you?
MR. BASINAIT: I'm not disagreeing with that. Don't
misunderstand my position here. All I'm saying is, is that while the
parties understand that landscaping should go there at the point
where the barrier is going to be constructed, Olde Cypress has
indicated they are going to put landscaping there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Great.
MR. BASINAIT: I mean, unless I misunderstood the
discussions we've had, that's the impression I've gotten here.
Page 157
September 9, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Then as far as the first lift of
concrete -- or the road, asphalt, no public should be using it, because
it's not a public right-of-way until it's dedicated to --
MR. BASINAIT: Again, we don't have a problem with that.
We -- quite frankly, from a liability standpoint, we don't want the
public using it until after it's been turned over.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's only the Olde Cypress until it's
dedicated over to the--
MR. BASINAIT: Right. And that's already existing, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a second on the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MR. BASINAIT: Folks, we thank you very much for your time
and your patience.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's just DRI, now we have to do
the PUD.
MR. MUDD: Wait a minute. We've got the DRI done, now
you need to go to 8(B), which is the PUD change. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
And is there any planning commission -- we got it.
I make a motion we approve the DOA.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would say to you that the
Page 158
September 9, 2003
stipulations that you just made in the DRI, that those stipulations
carry to the PUD, because it's really a PUD stipulation instead of a
DRI stipulation. But just gay them again, or at least say the same as
the DRI as far as your stips that you just put on --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Included in my motion.
MS. STUDENT: Just a clarification. You had said, I believe, in
the motion, the DOA, but this is the PUD. So I just wanted that for
clarification. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that motion that
you had there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Any opposed?
Motion carries.
The Board of Commissioners is going to take their lunch break,
reconvene at 3:30. Thank you, folks.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #13A
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT TO ASSIST THE STATE
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WITH WHITE-COLLAR CRIME CASES
AUTHORIZING CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT TO HIRE
ADDITIONAL STAFF MEMBER (COST BETWEEN $40-$50,000)
TO BE PAID W/AD VALOREM TAXES, TO ASSIST STATE
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE W/WHITE-COLLAR CRIME CASES IN
Page 159
September 9, 2003
COTJJER COl JNTY TJNTTTJ JIJT,Y 1~ 2004 - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take your seats, please.
The Board of Commissioners is back in session.
Commissioners, I was asked to ask you how long you want to
go tonight. The County Manager feels that we can wrap it up at 8:00,
give or take a few hours or so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ever the optimist, eh?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know we definitely want to get
through the public's comments sections and I know that some of the
Commissioners have schedules for tomorrow. You want to just keep
on going until we get it done or--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- or you want to break at a certain
time and come back tomorrow?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Myself, I would like to see us take
care of everything on public comment; anything left over, I think we
should come back tomorrow morning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with that. I got two
days budgeted for this.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Okay. We're split, so we'll wait until
Commissioner Fiala gets back and we'll ask her.
Next item -- Commissioner Fiala, I don't know if you heard,
we're trying to decide whether to end this at like 6:00 or continue.
The County Manager thinks we're going to end at like 8:00.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fine with me to stay late and finish
it all up.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want to finish it up?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would guess that after 8:00 it's
going to be a little bit late. If we're done by 8:00, that would be
good. What do you think?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I would like to finish it up myself,
Page 160
September 9, 2003
whether it's midnight or whatever.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just here anyway. You know
what I would suggest, though, if it's going pretty long like that, we all
get a little punchy; we probably need another like half an hour or so
to get away from it if we're going to go all the way to the end of the
day.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We started out punchy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're always punchy. Excuse me.
A little levity amongst the Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is constitutional officers.
MR. MUDD: 13(A).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Dwight Brock wants to ask us to do
something very smart for the public.
MR. BROCK: Commissioners, I'm going to take up as little
time as I possibly can and I'm going to let you determine how much
we take up.
As you know, my name is Dwight Brock. I'm the Clerk of the
Circuit Court. And Steve Russell, the State Attorney in the 20th
Judicial Circuit, came to me recently and requested that if we could
find a way he would like to use the accounting services of the clerk's
office to perform accounting functions with regard to white collar
investigations that are taking place in the state attorney's office. The
clerk's office is not going to be a prosecutor, we're not going to be
investigators. We're going to be experts.
Now, any way you look at it, until July 1st, 2004, the Board of
County Commissioners under Chapter 27 of the Florida Statutes is
lawfully obligated to pay the cost of those. The way I look at it, and
the way I suggested to Mr. Russell that if the Board of County
Commissioners is so inclined, I do not have a problem with them
paying for those services through using the staff of the clerk's office.
I have certified fraud examiners and I have certified public
accountants and -- believe it or not about 11 years -- yeah, about 11
Page 161
September 9, 2003
years ago, I, in my former life, prosecuted white collar crime. And I
thought it would be a perfect match if y'all decided to do that.
In order for you to be able to do that, you're going to have to
pay the cost of one additional employee to take up the slack; that
gives the skill set that we have available in the clerk's office for the
state attorney's office for you.
One additional thing that I point out to you, all of the costs that
we expend in providing these expert services, if you are so inclined,
can be added to the costs of defendants who are convicted for the
offenses for which they are charged in the final judgment.
And I told Mr. Russell that I would leave it to your discretion as
to whether or not we would be involved in it since you would have to
pay the cost. The clerk's office is willing to do it if that is your desire.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How does this fit into the budget
increase that you propose this year? Will there be money involved in
the budget increase that you asked for in the fiscal year '04 to handle
this?
MR. BROCK: No, Commissioner, there will not be. This is
something separate and apart from what we have previously
budgeted.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you're asking the Board of
County Commissioners to come forth with the money to take care of
this additional head count person that you're going to have to hire; is
that correct?
MR. BROCK: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what do you anticipate is
going to be the amount of money that the County Commission has to
come forward?
MR. BROCK: Probably between 40 and $50,000. Beginning
January -- July 1st of 2004, the funding scheme for these services
changes as a consequence of Florida Statute --
Page 162
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Article 5?
MR. BROCK: Florida Bill 113, which is the creation out of the
Amendment 7 to Article 5. So beginning July 1st of 2004, you're no
longer responsible to pay those costs associated with expert
witnesses. So if, in fact, we take it beyond that level, the State is
going to have to pony up to deal with those issues as opposed to the
Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Brock, I think everybody knows
the make-up of the community here in Collier County is there are a
lot of people that have money and that attracts people that want to try
to take that money away through scamming or whatever.
I see this as a good public service of different government
agencies working together. My only concern is can we measure it to
find out what the success rate is over the next 2 years, whether it's,
you know, it's coming out of property taxes or the State of Florida.
Can we measure the success?
MR. BROCK: Well, you know, in order for us to be able to
impose or have the courts impose the cost of the services that we
provide against the criminal defendants who are convicted, we will
have to track our costs; that means that we will have to keep track of
the time that we spend on it.
So that will be one mechanism to attract -- and I think if you
will look at the conviction rate coming out of the crimes that have
been charged by the state attorney's office, you will be able to clearly
see the impact that that has had.
But let's back up. Today is around the first of September of
2003. The 1st of July of 2004, the funding scheme for the experts
that the state attorney will be using in its criminal case no longer
rests in the hands of this Board of County Commissioners, whereas
between now and then, it will.
So what I'm telling you is you will not be responsible for
covering this cost beyond July 1 of 2004 unless that funding scheme
Page 163
September 9, 2003
is changed by the Florida legislature.
As it is now, that responsibility, beginning July 1st, 2004, will
be shifted to the State of Florida. So if the working relationship that
you have created, if that is your choice today, between the Clerk of
the Circuit Court and the State Attorney's office is to continue, you
will either, one, have to decide that it is in the best interest of this
community for you to spend ad valorem tax dollars for that, or, two,
the State Attorney's office -- or the State of Florida to pony up and
pay those costs.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, I think it's in the
best of our public's interest to reduce white collar crime and I'm
delighted to hear that Steve has even approached you on that, that's
just great, and I think he's approached the right person.
Did I understand you to say that there is a fine imposed on each
of these white collar crimes that's prosecuted and, one, does that fine
then go to help pay for this one -- one additional person?
MR. BROCK: No, not the fine. Okay. What will happen is
that the costs that we expend, as it would be tracked in the time that
we -- or resources that we use, would be costs associated with the
prosecution of that case, the investigation and prosecution of that
case. Those costs would be added to the judgment over and above
the fine, at the court's discretion.
And it's my anticipation, and I suspect it would be Mr. Russell's
direction, that if defendants are convicted, those costs would be
asked for to be imposed by the courts in those cases. And those then,
would come back to the party who had expended those monies,
which, A, would be this Board of County Commissioners, back into
the coffers of the county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just think it's a good idea that we
move forward with that. But I don't want to make a motion until
Page 164
September 9, 2003
Commissioner Coyle has had a chance.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Sure. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't mind spending a little extra
money to put criminals in jail; I think it's a good idea. But I don't
quite understand how the process works and I just need to be
enlightened.
First, I presume that we're paying for experts now. And I
presume that with your expertise it will be less expensive to have you
do the same amount of work than it is to pay for outside experts, and
I would hope that the pay scales are different.
The question then is if we allocate money, are we in some way
saving on some of the other expert fees that are having to be
contracted? And secondly, are your services going to be beneficial
only to Collier County or will your services be beneficial to all of the
areas of the county serviced by the state's attorney and, if so, are the
other counties being asked to share in the cost of doing this?
MR. BROCK: It is my understanding from the conversations
that I've had with Mr. Russell -- but I'll let him speak for himself--
that my services would only be used in those cases involved in
Collier County. And in answer to your first question -- which was...
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which was, will we be saving any
money from the current cost of experts?
MR. BROCK: Well, I will answer that in the following way: A
few years ago, the Clerk of the Circuit Court filed a civil action
against the majority of the security firms in the United States for
what was called yield burning.
And the Clerk of the Circuit Court actually did the expert
accounting services associated with prosecuting that civil action.
And at the conclusion of that particular civil action, we went before
the U.S. District Court judge in Fort Myers and recovered for this
county costs associated with providing those services, which was in
the neighborhood of $125,000 at fair market value.
Page 165
September 9, 2003
We're certainly not going to be charging the fair market value.
We're going to be charging those costs associated with actual out of
pocket expenses.
So in answer to your question, in summary, the answer is we
certainly better be saving money or we ought not to be doing this and
I won't be doing it if we aren't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I'd like to make a motion that
we move forward and authorize the Clerk of Courts to hire another
person to be paid through ad valorem taxes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
MR. BROCK: And in the future I will bring forth all of the
necessary adjustments to the budget amendments and things of that
nature and approval process to the Board of County Commissioners
for approval to make that happen.
So this is just some direction from us -- from you to us at this
point in time. And sometime in the future, we will follow up with
the budget amendments necessary to make that happen.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we're only doing this for an
interim period until the first of the year?
MR. BROCK: That is correct. That is correct. And July the 1 st.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala made a motion
to approve. Commissioner Halas seconded the motion. Any
discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Page 166
September 9, 2003
MR. BROCK: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Item #8E
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.814-1
"GOLDEN GATE QUARRY", LOCATED IN SECTION 21,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST; BOUNDED ON THE
NORTH BY THE EXISTING QUARRY OPERATION, AND ON
THE WEST, SOUTH AND EAST BY LAND ZONED
AGRICIJIJTIIRAIJ-A (ST/WS4)- APPROVED W/STIPIJI,ATIONS
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next we have --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us probably to 8(E)
which was to be heard after 2:00. And that's a recommendation to
approve a commercial excavation Permit 59.814-1, Golden Gate
Quarry, located in Section 21, Township 49 south, Range 27 east,
bounded on the north by the existing quarry operation on the west,
south, and east by land zoned Agricultural-A [ST/WS4].
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This item, do we have to have any
ex-parte communication or anyone sworn in by the participants?
MS. FILSON: No.
MR. WEIGEL: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The Petitioner is? The Petitioner's
representative is raising his hand asking for permission to talk to the
Board. We're not swearing anybody in. If you want to come up here
and inform us what we're doing, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Anderson, are you representing the petitioner?
MR. ANDERSON: On which item, sir?
MR. MUDD: This has to do with 8(E), which is the Golden
Gate Quarry.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're waiting to hear from you.
Page 167
September 9, 2003
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. I represent the
applicant, APAC Southwest, on the pending excavation permit
application.
Under your growth management plan, this property is
designated as receiving land within the North Belle Meade Overlay.
And that overlay provides that for the northwest quarter section of
this Section 21, which is the subject of this 166-acre excavation
permit application, that earth mining is a permitted use and does not
require a separate zoning approval. It only requires an excavation
permit.
We met with surrounding property owners approximately two
weeks ago to try to address their concerns and I will touch on that at
the end of my presentation as to specific steps that we've taken in
response to those concerns.
APAC is leasing this property from another client of mine, Mr.
Jim Brown of East Naples Land Company. Mr. Brown and East
Naples Land Company stood shoulder to shoulder with Collier
County in defending the Rural Assessment Study and the Rural
Fringe Amendments during two different challenges to the Collier
County Comprehensive Plan, first by the -- the first challenge was by
the Florida Wildlife Federation and Collier County Audubon Society
and the second challenge that they helped the county defend,
successfully I might add, was by other property owners in North
Belle Meade.
Under the Rural Fringe North Belle Meade Overlay, earth
mining is a permitted use in the western half of Section 21.
The mining operations and hauling of those excavated materials
may not generate truck traffic beyond average historic levels, which
is 156 round trips per day or 312 one way trips, if you want to count
it that way.
The overlay allows earth mining as a permitted use only in the
Page 168
September 9, 2003
western half of Section 21 unless by June 2004, an alignment for a
Wilson Boulevard extension to connect County Road 951 has been
selected, funding determined, and an accelerated construction
schedule has been established.
Now, that date was tied to when the Comprehensive Plan was
adopted, which was June 19, 2002. As we all know, the
effectiveness of that Comprehensive Plan was delayed by a year
because of the ongoing administrative challenge. So that June 2004
date would need to be moved back by a year.
If the Wilson Boulevard extension and the plans and the funding
have not come together by that June 2005 date, then the mine
operator then, in order to mine any additional lands beyond the
subject that's before you today, requires either a conditional use
approval for any earth mining outside the western half of Section 21
or a private haul road must be built at the earth mining operator's sole
expense.
As I stated, the Rural Fringe Amendments were held up for
some time, and as we all know, the North Belle Meade Overlay was
the subject -- the principal subject of these challenges. And the
administrative law judge and the Department of Community Affairs
both upheld the North Belle Meade Overlay against those challenges.
Staff report reflects that the application meets all of the County's
excavation permit requirements.
And as I stated, my client has met with surrounding property
owners and has reviewed the petition that they submitted to the
County and they have agreed to the following conditions, which are
under APAC's control.
Number one, blasting would be limited to between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., no more than once per week.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just a minute. Do we have that in
Page 169
September 9, 2003
our packets so we can follow you?
MR. ANDERSON: If you'll turn to page three of your staff
report, some of the items I am mentioning are staff stipulations,
others are stipulations that my client volunteered.
5th Street Southwest would be repaved within 90 days of
County Commission approval of this excavation permit.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who's going to pay for that?
MR. ANDERSON: APAC.
And the sidewalk would be repaired at the same time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you go back one more for
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks.
MR. ANDERSON: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The first one?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where you were talking about
blasting.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you just repeat what you
said? I wanted to compare it with what we have written here, please.
MR. ANDERSON: Blasting will be limited to between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. and it will not occur any more
often than once per week.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may. Would that be during
the Monday through Friday; that does not include Saturday or
Sunday.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And of course, holidays would
be a time that you wouldn't be looking to do it -- Christmas, New
Year's, Thanksgiving.
MR. ANDERSON: Fourth of July, we might.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe it might be appropriate
Page 170
September 9, 2003
then.
Can we go back. You mentioned sidewalks.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you elaborate on that?
One of the problems with the sidewalks there that APAC put in years
ago is the fact that some of them are at a grade that causes them to
flood at time of heavy rain. Would they be doing something to
elevate that, since they have so much fill to work with?
MR. ANDERSON: What APAC has volunteered to do is that
they will repair the sidewalk, number one, at the same time that they
do the repaving of 5th Street. And they are also willing to -- in those
areas of the sidewalk that are problem areas, they will raise the grade
of the sidewalk.
But they're not going to be able to solve the inherent drainage
problem that has existed out there. But they will raise the grade of the
sidewalk in the areas where they have been experiencing problems.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the drainage we're talking
about, we're not talking about the swales that are along the road that
APAC is going to remodel; we're talking about drainage issues in
addition to the normal swales that are put in?
MR. ANDERSON: No, I don't believe APAC will be doing
anything to those swales, no, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The other swales there along
the edge of the road? And I guess another question for staff would
be, are those -- is that a county road that's been deeded over to us or
is that considered a private road? Too many questions at once, right?
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, Transportation Services Director.
You're talking about 5th Street, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir.
MR. KANT: 5th Street is part of the Golden Gate Estates plat.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So that is actually a
county road that we're going to get serviced by APAC; is that
Page 171
September 9, 2003
correct?
MR. KANT: Yes, sir. That goes back to the original plan
Warren Brothers PUD from 30 years ago.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there adequate drainage
along the edge of that road with the swales in place?
MR. KANT: I'd have to rely on my memory, so I prefer not to
give you a positive answer. I just don't know, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I wouldn't make APAC
be responsible for something that would be hundreds of yards away
from the road, but I would assume that road drainage would be one
of the aspects that you could expect with it.
MR. KANT: There are swales -- my understanding is there are
swales on either side of that road, and unfortunately, it's been several
months since I've been down it so I just can't answer you more
positively than that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's a concern since we
don't really seem to know exactly what we're talking about when we
say anything that's been inherited would not be responsible as far as
drainage goes. I would assume that the drainage along the edge of a
road, you know, reasonable swales would be in place. At this point
in time I can't seem to get a satisfactory answer. Does anyone have
that answer?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think one of your constituents can
answer some of those, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I couldn't tell what the answer
was.
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, there are ditches and swales in place
along the sidewalk. Were not -- APAC, when they raise the level of
the sidewalks, are not going to do anything to those swales,
negatively or positively.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I just wanted to make
sure that the swales are there and that they function like they're
Page 172
September 9, 2003
supposed to, like we would do if it was the County -- if we were
maintaining it ourselves on a regular basis; that's the only thing I was
trying to do. I'm not asking you to drain the whole northeast section
of Golden Gate Estates, although that might be an idea.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't want to give you any ideas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. Go ahead, sir. I didn't
mean to interrupt you.
MR. ANDERSON: That's all right, sir. I'm happy to answer
your questions.
Also when the repaving occurs, APAC will paint no passing
double lines on 5th Street and they will also paint the speed limit on
the asphalt, as well.
Just a clarification on your staff report, stipulation number 2,
that limitation on 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday is
applicable to the hauling and not to actual mining operations. In
other words, they can dig on Saturday; they just can't haul anything
out on Saturday. And the hours of mining operation would be 7:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that a normal feature of these
pits to be able to operate on Saturdays? Is this what APAC has
historically been doing? Can you answer that, Stan?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Stan
Chrzanowski with Development Services. Yes, sir, the hauling hours
are different than the digging hours.
The digging hours are under the Land Development Code which
gives you -- and I think the noise ordinance and the building
construction administrative code -- and they allow you to work, like
they said in the previous project, six days a week, you can't work on
Sunday. But we're limiting the hauling on this project to five days a
week because the residents are home on the sixth day and I guess we
don't want them conflicting with the traffic.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So if I understand this
Page 173
September 9, 2003
correctly -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Not a problem digging six days a
week.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: On Saturday and Sunday there
won't be trucks down there, going down there just to park and load
up and come back on Monday and take off There won't be any
truck traffic related to what takes place on Saturday; is that correct?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's the digging operations,
what are the times allocated for digging operations?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I believe it's -- I think it's like 7:00 to
7:00, six days a week, but I'd have to check the Land Development
Code to be sure. I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is it 7:00 to 5:00?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is it 7:00 to 7:00 or 7:00 to 5:002
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. I think it's more than 7:00 to 5:00.
It might be 7:00 to 6:00 or 6:30. But they have to get permission
from the County Manager to violate those standards. And that's the
standards for any construction operation in Collier County.
And like I said, it's spelled out in the Land Development Code
and the Building Construction Administration Code. I just can't
remember the stop time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got one more question for Mr.
Anderson. Didn't this same subject basically come up about a couple
of years ago prior to me being on the Board of Commissioners in
regards to you people were going to do a study in regard to a road, a
service road, to help alleviate the traffic from this mining operation
that was going to some way or another enter onto 951; maybe you
could elaborate about that a little bit.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Yes.
Page 174
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And where's that study today?
MR. ANDERSON: That study, a scope of work for that study
has been submitted to your transportation department. Work on that
study was delayed because of the Comprehensive Plan challenge
which concerned the North Belle Meade amendments. And as luck
would have it, a meeting is scheduled with the transportation staff
tomorrow morning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I see. So what would happen if
we kind of put this on hold until such time as you brought forth the
exact plan?
MR. ANDERSON: Sir, that would be a violation of your
Comprehensive Plan. The other road is for mining outside of the
western half of Section 21.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wouldn't it be above and beyond the
Comprehensive Plan?
Commissioner Coletta, do you have any questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do. I'm glad you got to
that. I was going to find out some more information about the
interchange and like that.
But let's go right to subject that Commissioner Halas has
brought up. And if I may, I'm going to bring David Weigel into this
discussion. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've been trying to wade my
way through the wording of the agreement as far as what we're
getting for a haul road or when we're getting it. And I'll be honest
with you, it's not all that easy to understand.
Can you tell me what kind of assurances we are going to have
that we are going to be able to come up with a road for people to be
able to use, plus the trucks to get out to 951, to alleviate through
future impact on the people on 5th and along Golden Gate
Boulevard?
Page 175
September 9, 2003
MR. WEIGEL: No, I can't tell you the assurances. It's -- I don't
know if I have Patrick White here for transportation that can be
specific to respond, to answer to that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Patrick's here.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The whole reason-- if I
remember correctly, when we agreed to move this forward, we did it
with the idea that we were going to try to protect as best we could the
interests of the residents that live in that area.
In other words, if we're going to have a more intense use, which
we are going to get to in the very near future, that they will be
protected. Plus there would be a public benefit for what's taking
place in the way there'd be another road that would be put in for a
good part with the expense of the developer.
But reading through there, the language is such that I can't really
tell what we have. Mr. White, can you clarify this for a
non-attorney?
MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White.
Commissioner, I apologize. I was having an off-line discussion. If
you could just give me a brief summary of the question again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. White, briefly, the
agreement that we have to allow APAC to be able to go forward or to
be able to agree for them to go forward has to do with a road being
put in that would be from Wilson Boulevard to 951. And the intent
of that road was to alleviate the excess traffic that would be
happening to try to give some relief to the people on 5th and Golden
Gate Boulevard.
However, reading the language of the agreement, I wonder if we
really do have anything, in fact, that's going to give us that, afford us
that type of protection.
MR. WHITE: I believe that you have some Comprehensive
Plan provisions that are, I believe, in for amendment presently -- I'm
Page 176
September 9, 2003
not sure of the status of those -- but I think that would provide the
base, our justification for requesting that; whether it forms part of an
existing agreement or not, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, Mr. White, I don't
think I really got an answer.
MR. WHITE: What I'm saying is there's authority for it but
there may not be an existing agreement. I do not know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are we lacking an agreement,
Mr. Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't go too far, Mr. White.
MR. ANDERSON: Let me read you what the Comprehensive
Plan states, which is where the agreement is found.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Within one year of June 19, 2002, which is
the date that the Rural Fringe Amendments were adopted -- and that
date needs to be changed to reflect the year-long delay when they
were not in effect.
You wouldn't have wanted us or your county staff to be
expending time and resources if the Department of Community
Affairs or the Administrative Law Judge threw the Rural Fringe
Amendments out, which would have included in language. It says,
"Within one year of June 19, 2002, the alternative alignments for
east-west roadway connecting County Road 951 to an extension of
Wilson Boulevard shall be evaluated and assessed for the Board's
consideration."
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And that's the whole
term of the agreement, and Mr. White, you feel --
MR. ANDERSON: No, there are other -- if you'd like, I'll
continue to read from--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Until I get that comfort level
that we have an agreement that, in fact, will work, I would like you
Page 177
September 9, 2003
to continue to read and Mr. White will chime in when he thinks
necessary.
MR. ANDERSON: "Because an earth mining operation and
asphalt plant uses have existed for many years in the area and the
surrounding lands in Section 21, 28 and the western half of section
22 and 27 are reported to contain Florida Department of
Transportation grade rock for road construction, these uses are
encouraged to remain and expand.
"However, until June 19, 2004, mining operations and an
asphalt plant may be expanded only to the western half of Section 21
and shall not generate truck traffic beyond average historic levels.
"If by June 19, 2004, an alignment has been selected, funding
has been determined, and an accelerated construction schedule
established by the Board and the mining operator for an east-west
connection from County Road 951 to the extension of Wilson
Boulevard, mining operations and an asphalt plant may expand on
Sections 21 and 28 and the western quarters of 22 and 27 as a
permitted use.
"If no such designation has been made by June 19, 2004, any
mining operations or asphalt plant in these areas, other than the
continued operations on the western half of Section 21 at historic
levels shall be permitted only as a conditional use unless the mine
operator, upon failure to attain Board selection of an alignment,
commits by June 19, 2004 to construct a private haul road by June
19, 2006, without the allocation of any public funds."
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. White, now comes the
interpretation.
MR. WHITE: I think it may be time to chime in. The
agreement I think you're looking for is something that could
otherwise be provided as a condition of issuance or approval of this
excavation permit.
In fact, what the staff, I think at some point would have
Page 178
September 9, 2003
suggested to you, was a couple of permit conditions that we'd worked
on earlier today and that have been slightly modified based upon the
time extension that you've just heard about in the Comprehensive
Plan provisions that dealt with the June 19, 2002 date, the
requirement to do something within a year after.
Assuming for the sake of argument we go another year after
that, what the conditions are, and I'll read only the first of two of
them and let others deal with the second, is that the "permittee will
provide a precisely defined timeline, acceptable to Collier County
Transportation Services Division, to the Wilson Boulevard extension,
County Road 951 connection study activities by October 31st, 2004"
-- it was originally proposed to be 2003 -- "which must include a
scope of work and provide for completion of the study's activities by"
-- may have -- I'm sorry -- I gave you the dates incorrectly.
The original date of October 31st, 2003 for them to prepare the
timeline is still accurate. But completion of the study's activities
under that timeline with a scope of work included would be due by
October 31st, 2004.
Now, that to me, would constitute a reasonable quote agreement
as a condition under this excavation permit to achieve what it is that I
believe the Transportation Services Division believes is necessary.
And it may or may not be agreeable to by the permittee; we'll have to
inquire of them. But I believe that that would be a suitable substitute
for or synonym for an agreement that implements the comp plan
provision that Mr. Anderson read into the record.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If we approve this today, then
the Petitioner has the right to come up with his own timeline after the
fact; is that correct?
MR. WHITE: The timeline would have to be completed by --
what the proposed timeline would be, would be due to us by the 31 st
of this, October 31 st. And the activities under that timeline and the
scope of work under that timeline would be due by October 31st of
Page 179
September 9, 2003
next year.
The actual construction activities and other related downstream
events are something that I think the second condition pertains to and
it does not have a timing provision in it. I think you have to look to
what the study results are before you can actually have some
determination of when the actual construction activities would have
to be completed by.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But could the petitioner by his
own accord take and say the timeline indicates that we will start this
road in the year 2022?
MR. WHITE: Well, I think your Transportation Services
Division will tell you that they prefer to have the study that is
contemplated by this condition and can be inferred from the
Comprehensive Plan actually be done and not rely just solely on
what the petitioner's ideas may be.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine, but what do we
have to hold the petitioner to coming up with something that's
agreeable for the County and its residents?
MR. WHITE: By imposing this as a condition of their permit, I
believe you achieve that; that is their agreement with us; otherwise
their permit would be revoked.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. If I may, I would like to
I'm sorry. Go ahead. I appreciate it very much,
call Mr. Feder up.
Mr. White.
MR. WHITE:
crystalline yet.
I hope that clears it up. It may not be entirely
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It has, but it hasn't still given
me that assurance that it's going to happen the way we envisioned
when we were working on it.
MR. WHITE: I think you need to have a little more on the
record about what the actual construction.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe Mr. Feder can help us
Page 180
September 9, 2003
with that.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder. Commissioner, I
think your question, if I understand it correctly, is what was the
agreement previously.
They were to have two years from then. Within that period,
they were to have done a study, identified all viable alternative
alignments for a haul road, giving us a good idea what the options are
to evaluate what respective costs might be to proceed on that so that
we could come to the Board and make some decisions either to move
forward.
Otherwise, if after two years we couldn't decide on something,
they can move forward on their own haul road.
Your question, I believe, and I'll defer to the petitioner on this,
but I believe they can't start their operations in the other area until
they've gone through that process. So I believe that's the impetus for
them to move on something.
But I was hoping obviously out of this process that we would
have had a plan already under way. We haven't had that. We're
already one year in.
They've noted that was because we had the one year delay in
implementation. If that's the case, they're now asking that basically
that two year period, both their process to move to the study and how
long the study will go for and when they have that option, moved out
a year. My only concern on that, I think is what your question is, and
that is that moves out at least a year some solution, whether it be
some route that they decide or one that the community decides is a
better haul road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's what Commissioner
Halas was alluding to just a short while ago.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe so.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, I didn't
mean to tie you up forever.
Page 181
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's exactly it. Because this has
been carried on. And we want a concrete plan before we're going to
go ahead with the approval of this thing.
So I think where Commissioner Coletta is coming from, he
wants assurances that this is going to be put in place and it's going to
be enacted, and if it's not, we have the opportunity to shut this down
or to ask that this be put in place.
MR. FEDER: I will defer to others on the specifics of
opportunity there, but I will tell you that we do want to see this study
proceed and whether that be in a modified schedule or in some
provision for an accelerated schedule to get it going before the two
years is up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would like to see it as soon as
possible.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We do have some hopeful speakers.
Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Commissioner Halas, I don't believe you
were on the commission at the time --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
MR. ANDERSON: -- that this was all approved, but I really
need to make this very, very clear. The Wilson Boulevard extension
has absolutely nothing to do with this particular excavation permit
application for the 166-acre excavation.
As Mr. Feder explained, the impetus to the property owner is
that he cannot do any earth mining outside of this quarter section and
the one immediately below it until the Wilson Boulevard extension
question or a private haul road is decided.
But it would be improper and unlawful to deny this excavation
permit on anything related to the Wilson Boulevard extension
question. Your Comprehensive Plan is quite clear on that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bruce, you just said 166-acre; that's
the second time you said it. In our book here it says 148. Can you
Page 182
September 9, 2003
tell me is it 148 acres or 166? MR. ANDERSON: It's 166.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other questions before
we go to public speakers? We have five public speakers. We do
have somebody representing the residents. Please call up the --
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Nancy Payton. She will be
followed by Charles Goodacre.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Excuse me, Commissioners. Since
staff hasn't had a chance to really talk -- I guess some staff did.
Stan Chrzanowski with Development Services.
I'd just like to get in one comment before the public starts. We
looked up the reference on hours of operation and at Section 1.5.5 of
the Land Development Code, "Any construction activities and site
preparation activities, including but not limited to land clearing and
grading, excavation and vegetation removal, authorized or permitted
pursuant to the provisions of this code, which is the excavation, 3.5,
shall occur only during the following hours, 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Monday through Saturday.
"No construction activity or site preparation activity is permitted
on Sundays or on the following holidays" and then it lists them. So
it's 6:30 to 7:00 six days a week.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: I just wanted to note that we voluntarily
subjected ourselves to stricter time limits, to only 7:00 to 5:00, and I
want some credit for that, please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where's the magic dust.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Payton.
MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton representing
the Florida Wildlife Federation. As I'm sure you recall, the North
Belle Meade Overlay was part of addressing the 1999 final order and
in settling a variety of lawsuits surrounding the 1998 challenge by
the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Florida Wildlife
Page 183
September 9, 2003
Federation and Collier County Audubon Society.
At your urging the three of us were encouraged to resolve our
issues and settle the lawsuit. And the implication was that you would
support the effort of how that resolution came about.
And as a result of months of working together in a very positive
manner we came up with the North Belle Meade Overlay. You
adopted that plan. And it's now in effect.
You adopted it with some amendments. Our original overlay
plan called for Wilson Boulevard to go all the way down to Landfill
Road and out to 951; that's what we recommended in our overlay
plan.
But during the hearings, the County requested that there be a
study of other routes because there were concerns about dumping
traffic onto 951 in that particular area. So the study was brought
about by the County. It was not part of our original plan.
The section that's today, or the quarter section that's under
discussion was always -- as I understood it and has been said before
-- was it was an understanding that that mining operation could
proceed, but any additional mining operation was contingent upon
when the study ended.
Florida Wildlife Federation, Collier Audubon and the East
Naples Land Company joined you, the County, in defending this
plan. We prevailed.
And now it comes time to implement the plan, which sometimes
can be the hardest part of adopting these plans, as we know, because
that's what brought about this, because the 1989 plan wasn't properly
implemented.
So it really comes time to walk the talk. It's time now for you to
bring about your share or your part in this resolution of the final
order in the legal settlement.
The Golden Gate quarry is the key to the North Belle Meade
Overlay plan. In exchange for the quarry there are 1,500 acres that
Page 184
September 9, 2003
will be protected in the Natural Resource Protection Area and serve
as sort of a catalyst, we hope, for additional lands to be added to that
through Conservation Collier or mitigation or some other type of
land acquisition effort. But it is the key to holding together the North
Belle Meade Overlay and the commitment that was made legally
binding through our Growth Management Plan.
So we urge you to approve what's before you today and we
pledge to work with the County and the land owner and all others in
resolving how the final alignment of Wilson Boulevard will be. But
we do need to move forward. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Ms. Payton, I
tell you, I admire some of the work you've done out there, you've
done a tremendous job, and you have done a lot of work in putting
this whole thing together.
However, with that said, I think we are committed for the rural
fringe to make this all work. But the devil's in the details and we are
down to the last few details and we are not going to concede and roll
over and play dead until we can iron out the last parts.
I know it's painful for some people what we're doing, but we're
trying to represent the interest of everyone that's out there. I don't
think we have anyone here that is totally opposed to this happening.
It's the details that have got us concerned.
Some of these details maybe should have been worked out a
little better beforehand, but you remember all the things we went
through when we were trying to reach the final conclusion and
everybody stayed up all night when I brought up about the road to go
from Wilson to 951 and it was a marathon session to try to fit it into
the plan at the last minute.
I don't think we gave it a lot of thought. There's some things that
are missing in there. There's some level of comfort that's lacking at
this point of time. I'm sure before the day's out we're going to be
Page 185
September 9, 2003
heading in the right direction, but we still have to get to that point.
And for us to just agree to everything just as it is would not be a
responsible thing for us commissioners to do.
MS. PAYTON: Commissioner, I see two different issues that
are getting confused. One is the quarry, and the other issue is this
year-long study which will be addressed separate from today.
And we have plenty of opportunities to deal with the specifics
of that study. But that is entirely separate from this little -- this
mining operation that's before you today. It does have implications
for expanding that mining operation, but not for this quarter section.
I think that's very important --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand. But it's still
referenced in the documents we're dealing with. So since it's
referenced in there, we can work with reference material we have. In
the end -- I mean, we haven't gotten to the end. We'd never refuse it
for something that's illegal I can assure you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay?
MS. PAYTON: Very good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Charles Goodacre. He will
be followed by Ken MacNichol.
MR. GOODACRE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Charles Richard Goodacre. I reside at 191 5th
Street Southwest. I've been there approximately 15 years.
I come before you this afternoon -- being kind of nervous if
you'll forgive me. I -- whether it'll do any good or not, I kind of
oppose and most of us oppose the pit permit being reissued.
Having said so, if it has to be done, then there's several options
that we'd like to see that are followed through. And if you don't
mind, I'll -- some of them you've heard before, but I'll not necessarily
want to reiterate them, but I just happen to have them written down
so I'll have to reread them again.
Page 186
September 9, 2003
And there are several questions that we at 5th Street would like
to ask and an answer given today if not, before a permit is issued. In
other words, I'll ask a question mostly to the gentlemen from APAC
and I'd like to -- the reason I want an answer or commitment today is
so that we can put it on the records so that we will have something
and you folks will have something to back up, instead of saying but
we just said we'd look into it. So I want a firm commitment on some
of these items.
One of them is will APAC build and raise the sidewalks so as
not to flood out the houses on the east side of the street, on 5th Street
Southwest, so kids can best walk to the bus stop.
If they just repair the sidewalks, right now, I don't have a transit,
I didn't have a transit or theodolite or laser to even measure, but
there's about 12 or 16 inches difference between the road elevation
and the sidewalk.
Any time it rains the water just floods the sidewalks and the kids
can't walk on the sidewalk unless they catch pneumonia or whatever.
So they have to detour and walk on the street, which is very
dangerous, especially the high school kids early in the morning when
it's dark.
Will APAC rework the right turn lane on Golden Gate
Boulevard. Here--
MR. HENNING: You have to use the mike, sir, right behind
yOU.
MR. GOODACRE: Oh, I heard somebody else using it, blew
my ears out. This is Golden Gate Boulevard. Is there a control --
MR. MUDD: Yeah, it should be on.
MR. GOODACRE: Golden Gate Boulevard. I don't need it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the court reporter needs to hear
you, sir.
MR. MUDD: Testing one, two.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We've got to change the batteries,
Page 187
September 9, 2003
hang on a minute. Hold the time.
MR. GOODACRE: All right. Right here is Golden Gate
Boulevard. This is going west. 95 ! is up here. Wilson Boulevard is
right back in here behind me. This is 5th Street, this is Southwest,
this is Northwest.
If you come out here in the morning to go to work or wherever
you're going to go and you happen to be stopped at this traffic light
right here, and a semi comes down here, tractor and trailer -- or what
do they call it, ones with the bathtub on them, there's trailers that
look strange, they're real long and such, dump trucks -- he either has
to take the nose of his truck and pull out back on the ongoing traffic
lane on the Boulevard in order to make that turn or these people
come coming out of, egressing from 5th Street onto the Boulevard,
they have to back up.
This is a very dangerous intersection. And when they put this
traffic light up here, the traffic light is only about 12 feet from the
curb. If you ladies and gentlemen of the Commission and staff here
would drive down there, you'll see all the tire marks all over the
curbs where their trailers and the semis and whatever have been over
the curb. There's two little -- these little flexible posts.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I wrote down your request, sir, so
we'll get that answered. Do you have some more?
MR. GOODACRE: Yeah, there's two reflectable posts there. I
guess when the drivers turn, they watch it to make sure they don't hit
those posts. But that's a very dangerous intersection.
And if it's a truck -- two or three trucks in here and a car up
there, you got a situation about to happen. It may not, but there's a
lot of possibilities for it. So I'd like to see that part corrected if I
could. I'm not the only one. The other residents, also.
Will APAC or the County install lights where children can walk
-- where children can walk safely to catch their school bus in the
morning?
Page 188
September 9, 2003
5th Street is very dark. If the kids are not on the sidewalk, if the
sidewalk is not done, repaired or whatever or raised up and repaired,
made serviceable, kids walk in the street.
The truck driver's got nothing to do but ride and follow their
gleam of their lights -- of their headlights in the morning early. If
one of them happens to be drinking a cup of coffee or spills it and
turns down for an instant and has that big old rig and he turns the
wheel on it just a hair, you can wipe out a child. And I hate to
compare the cost of a child's life to the cost of a street light, that's not
very fair, and I think the child's life would outweigh the street light.
Will the County Sheriffs Office maintain and control the speed
of trucks up and down 5th Street? I understand that the County
Manager and the Commissioners have no say at all with the Sheriffs
Department. The sheriff has his own identity, he does what he wants
to do. He can dispatch or not dispatch.
I've been told before when I've called the substation in Golden
Gate that they can use my driveway to put a squad car in there and
catch a few of these guys, because it doesn't take long and all of a
sudden it's on the CB and everybody creeps down the road.
Okay. I wish there was some way, and I don't know how to do
it, maybe some brighter minds than mine can figure out how to get
and make the County and the Sheriffs Office put a car out there one
hour early in the morning and then three hours later come back for
another 20 minutes or so, and do that for, you know, maybe three
times a week or maybe five times a month, just something to let these
people know, these truck drivers, that they can't be doing
80-something miles an hour up and down 5th Street Southwest.
Believe me, they do it; I've followed them. And I was in the wrong
doing it, but I had to do it for myself to know what these guys were
doing.
APAC said that they would resurface and maintain 5th Street
Southwest and paint double solid lines going down. Who would see
Page 189
September 9, 2003
that this is done and when? I mean, all we have is their word. Can
we get a commitment from APAC?
MR. WHITE: 90 days. Within 90 days.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Goodacre, is there any more?
MR. GOODACRE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Why don't we get through
those and we'll address them.
MR. GOODACRE: The deed to my property says that I don't
have mineral rights. If I was to dig a hole in my back yard and I find
oil, it goes to the Collier Company or Collier Corporation or
whatever it is. How is it that APAC has the mineral rights and can
get all the resources out of the earth when I can't do it? Okay.
Now, another question is they will be pulling out approximately
three quarters of a million cubic yards a year of material out of the
earth at a sale of one to two dollars approximately a cubic yard.
Fifteen year time they will be pulling 10 million cubic yards of
material out of the earth. I think, myself, that APAC should foot a
lot of the bills for all of this money they'll be making instead of
putting the county at that big burden, financial burden. They'll start
mining 160 acres, which I've got here -- can you, does this thing
work some way? Oh, it's on. Okay. They're going to start mining
right in here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, can you-- Mr. Mudd, can you
use the pointer? You have to use the mike so that the court reporter
can get your comments on the record.
MR. GOODACRE: They're going to start mining right in this
160 acres -- or 66 is it what it is now, I guess. They are still using
5th Street as an exit -- or entrance and egress.
And I went down the other day to Wilson Boulevard.
Everybody is talking about putting a street down Wilson -- is that it
here, I think. And there's 38 homes on Wilson Boulevard. There's
approximately 60 homes on 5th Street Southwest.
Page 190
September 9, 2003
I don't want to push anything onto the residents of Wilson
Boulevard, but what I'm thinking and hoping is that APAC would
build another road going out directly to 951 either down by the -- I
hate to use the word dump -- but down by the dump or the water
plant down there. Thank you.
APAC will make 312 trips a day, plus Krehling cement trucks,
plus asphalt trucks. With all this truck traffic, how are our kids
supposed to be able to play, ride bikes, skateboards and roller skate
in the street? They do it all over the world, all over this county, put it
that way.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: My kid doesn't play in the street.
MR. GOODACRE: Your kid doesn't play in the street? Then
you ought to give him a gold star. My kids don't either because
they're 30 years old. But the younger kids, they do play in the street,
and there's not a heck of a lot you can do to prevent it. I mean, if you
tell them, don't go in the street, well, Tommy's in the street so Billy
goes in the street. All right.
Why was the light installed at 5th Street and Golden Gate
Boulevard one year ago and who paid for it? Why would you put a
traffic light up on a no street -- I appreciate you honoring me for
living there by putting a traffic light so I can get in and out, but I'm
not important enough to have it. So there must have been a better
reason for this traffic light that costs $40,000 to $60,000 to put up.
Who paid for it and why was it done?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have to ask you to wrap it up, Mr.
Goodacre.
MR. GOODACRE: Pardon?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have to wrap it up; you're past
your ! 0 minutes.
MR. GOODACRE: These guys here, high priced lawyers, they
get an hour? Come on. Give me a break. Was this a done deal
before we came here, if so today? Elections are coming up soon. All
Page 191
September 9, 2003
right. Quickly.
Dirt and dust falling off the trucks. Trucks take, in traffic, 31
trips per hour, including the dump trucks -- I mean, the cement trucks
from Krehling and the asphalt trucks. That's a lot of traffic on one
little street.
Lower the speed limit from 30 miles-an-hour to 25
miles-an-hour. And others have talked about putting speed bumps in
there.
One more item. During the term of Anne Goodnight we were
told when the permit expires it would be renewed -- it would not be
renewed. Why is it now going to be renewed? And what faith have
we got in our County Commissioners, in their word. And I thank
you. And I appreciate it if I could get some answers rather than y'all
just sitting up there like a bubblehead on a car or something.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You will get your answers, sir.
MR. GOODACRE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. You had more than your
time.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Ken MacNichol and he will be
followed by Brad Comell.
MR. MACNICHOL: My name is Ken MacNichol and I've been
a 22 year resident on 5th Street. I've put up with the truck traffic for
years thinking eventually it would be over, and I was told around
2000, but now it's going to continue. So if so, then concessions of
the intersection need to be addressed.
There is a drainage problem that was not there before Golden
Gate Boulevard was widened. Now it don't seem to drain. We have
standing water which the health department advises against.
The debris that's generated from the condition of the trucks
needs to be addressed. A lot of times it was just let lay. And there's
broken windshields and other type of damage.
The condition of the road previously was let go too far before it
Page 192
September 9, 2003
was repaired. Even though it was done by APAC, it was just let go
too long. The empty dump trucks hit these imperfections in the road
and you can hear it in your house when your house is 300 foot off the
road.
The double-laning -- or the double striping of the road for no
passing would be an excellent idea because it prevents passing. The
reason that they're passing going in, is the first one into the quarry
gets loaded first.
You could change the speed sign to lower the limit but with no
enforcement it won't make any difference. As addressed earlier here,
the speed is going to find its limit. There's been truck accidents and
single vehicle truck accidents where trucks have overturned in the
middle of the road just in 5th Street between the quarry and the
Boulevard.
I don't know what time they picked their historic levels for the
traffic count, but at any time the number of residents on the street
was a lot lower. I moved in, was the 4th resident on the street. I
knew the quarry was there, I had no complaint; actually, they've been
good neighbors. But it's the drivers that the quarry attracts that create
the problem.
I don't see an alternative but probably to come back at an
additional time to address speed bumps because there is nothing
going to slow them down.
I retired from the sheriff's office and I wrote a ticket on this
street at 82 mile-an-hour for a dump truck going in. So it's not just
five mile over the speed limit or 10 miles over the speed limit, it's 50
miles over the speed limit with these type of vehicles.
It's been a problem with their employees going in and out, the
same thing, speed. Granted there are problems with the residents on
the street speeding, also.
Another thing that needs to be looked at is at the comer, as
narrow as it is, the residents create a further problem with parking
Page 193
September 9, 2003
there when the school buses are loading and unloading and then
doing a U-turn with the trucks coming in. And you can't make a
clean sweep U-turn; it's got to be a three or four-point turn,
depending on where they're at.
They're actually using the traffic lanes and cutting where there's
three lanes there down to one lane. So there a lot of safety issues that
need to be addressed.
Raising the elevation of the sidewalk really can't be done
without affecting the ditch there, the drainage swale on the east side
of the road. There is somewhat of one, and the County has looked at
it several times and it still don't function properly. On the west side
of the road the drainage that never held water before, the drainage
swale now holds water.
I'm trying to think what else. I mean, I've been there all these
years. As far as the quarry itself, the blasting and everything, I think
their hours and the concessions that they made are excellent. They
did stipulate that -- they said hours of time was from 10:00 to 2:00
that they would blast, they said there won't be numerous blasts
during that time; they said that there would only be one, If that's the
way I understood it correctly.
But I can't see where the additional part of the mining is going
to be that impact, it's going to be the addition of the trucks back in
there which we haven't had for quite some time now.
I thank you for any consideration you'll give to this and I
appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Brad Cornell. He will be
followed by your final speaker, Nelson Munoz.
MR. CORNELL: Hi, Commissioners, I'm Brad Cornell and I'm
here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society.
And I'm not going to repeat what Nancy Payton and Bruce
Anderson said in terms of the history of all of our involvement with
Page 194
September 9, 2003
this area, the North Belle Meade Overlay.
But I do want to reiterate our support for the plan as you have
adopted it and as we all have worked on it through the rural fringe
process. We all supported the terms of that agreement that we all
had. And it's important to note that through that agreement we've
protected two-thirds of North Belle Meade -- their natural resources
and two-thirds of North Belle Meade. And part of that protection
involves the allowance of the expansion of this mining operation at
least to the 166 acres that are in today's permit. So this is part of that
plan and I don't see how we can read that any other way.
We certainly support an expeditious completion of the Wilson
Boulevard alignment study. It's important, that was part of the
agreement that we had when we discussed this in front of you all for
the transmittal and adoption, as was the red-cocaded woodpecker
study, which we haven't discussed. But that was another part of the
agreement which hopefully we'll hear more about soon.
So I do urge you to recognize this permit in front of you as part
of that plan for the North Belle Meade Overlay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Nelson Munoz -- I'll let
him tell you.
MR. MUNOZ: My name is Nelson Munoz and I'm a resident of
5th Street.
The reason I'm here is I have concerns in the traffic flow. 5th
Street might have been a good, viable road for APAC while there
was a small amount of residents in the street. But the road has
become not viable because the resident population has grown, not
only by adults, but by children.
And I don't have a problem with them mining and doing
business. The problem I have is that the trucks are dangerous for the
kids and we have many kids in the street that go to school, even
when they play on the sidewalk -- not playing in the street or
Page 195
September 9, 2003
anything like that, being disrespectful.
Those trucks are pretty wide. When two trucks are going by
and if they're not paying attention, they're on their cell phone or
anything like that, sometimes they have a tendency to go to the side
and that's a danger.
I think that a different road, something that's wider -- that road
is not as wide as Wilson Boulevard -- or probably a new road would
have to be built to accommodate.
But my problem is that I think that the traffic pattern for those
trucks and the number of residents that live there are not compatible.
I'd like to have them rethink a different route to have those trucks go
in and out.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. If I may. Mr.
Anderson?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Anderson, do you represent your
client?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Mr. Donofrio from APAC Southwest
would like the opportunity to address some of the non-legal type
questions that were raised and then I would like to speak after him.
MR. HENNING: Do you have any questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just have some very strong
concerns here for the residents out in this neck of the woods. If
they're putting up with speeds of these dump trucks doing 80
miles-an-hour, some way or another we have to come up with an
education process, and I'm hoping that APAC will some way or
another start to educate some of these drivers.
Maybe we can get some type of enforcement out there or that
these people are caught speeding and using that as raceway to find
out who can get to the mine the quickest so they can get loaded up,
there could be some penalties imposed in this. This is not a raceway.
Page 196
September 9, 2003
MR. ANDERSON: To that end, sir, and I neglected to mention
this as one of the conditions, as I sat down too soon. APAC is going
to distribute warnings to the truck drivers. And they will enforce
this, that if any of the drivers receive two or more speeding tickets on
5th Street, that they will not be allowed back in to haul from the
mine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, then we've got to get
enforcement out there on 5th Street.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Anderson, your client will have
to -- after he's done, he'll have to sign in a speaker's slip. Let's roll.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to ask a question. I'm
sorry. I had a bunch of questions but I'll just ask this one in regard to
what he said.
How often will you be distributing those warnings? I mean,
once they're distributed, it seems that in a couple of weeks, they're
forgotten. Could this be on a regular distribution basis?
MR. DONOFRIO: Our proposal is to make up several thousand
of these pamphlets and to distribute them. With every ticket that the
mine gives out, the pamphlet will go out to the truck driver. And we
intend to do it indefinitely.
My name David Donofrio. I'm the Division President of APAC
Southeast, Incorporated. It's not Southwest, it's Southeast. It was
formerly APAC Florida, Incorporated.
I've been a division president of the Sarasota division for 10
years. I've been involved with this mine for 13 years. I'm also a
registered professional engineer.
I would like to point out a couple of clarifications. The 42 acres
in the center of the mine is zoned an industrial tract and is permitted
for an asphalt plant and ready mix plant and mining. And the asphalt
plant and the ready mix plant are zoned there to be there indefinitely.
So this permit issue is not a question of no trucks or trucks,
because it will always be zoned industrial there. This permit
Page 197
September 9, 2003
application is to dig 166 acres of land in the northwest quarter
section. And I do not own that section of land, it's south of the
property. But I have an agreement to mine just that quarter section.
And that quarter section is allowed to be mined under the comp plan,
independent of any of these traffic studies which are another client of
Bruce Anderson is the land owner of this section.
But to address some of the issues that Mr. Goodacre brought up,
we had the residents' meeting and we went over the pamphlets on the
speeding. Sheriffs department representative was there and assured
the residents that increased enforcement would start immediately.
And we will do everything we can to work with the sheriffs
department to cut down on the speeding.
One of the residents suggested a double yellow line down the
center line. I thought it was an excellent idea and I suggested
painting additional speed limit signs on the road to emphasize it
beyond the speed limit signs which are posted at the side of the road
on signs.
The subject of speed bumps was discussed at the meeting and
one resident suggested it and several residents were against the idea,
both for fire or police action and for their own vehicles being
harmed.
In my opinion, there's an additional problem in that empty dump
trucks going over speed bumps create a lot of noise with the tail gates
and the chains. And I think the noise creation would be unacceptable
to the residents.
Now, I have independently decided that-- there is a bridge
across the canal at the southern termination of 5th Street and that
bridge needs to be protected. I've decided to put a speed bump at the
bridge to, number one, help slow the traffic down on the bridge to
protect the bridge and, number two, to help eliminate the straight
shot from Golden Gate Boulevard all the way in.
I would not recommend speed bumps in the middle of the road
Page 198
September 9, 2003
because I don't think the residents would be happy with that.
Now, as far as the drainage. I've been going in and out of that
mine a number of times for the last 13 years and during the heavy
rainy seasons several areas of Golden Gate Estates have minor
flooding problems and 5th Street is no exception.
I've seen over several years, including before the Golden Gate
Boulevard improvements were done, I've seen the front yards of the
houses on the east side of the street flooded, as well as the swale and
the bike path. There's long-standing drainage problems that I don't
think you can correct because that's the way Golden Gate Estates was
built 30 years ago.
There is a drainage swale down the east side with culverts under
the driveways and I will agree to raise the elevation of the bike path
where it goes underwater, which may be 25 to 30 percent of its
length.
I would not advise raising it to the elevation of the street, only to
the elevation that's needed. And we could measure that during these
rainy spells which we're having plenty of them to get it above the
water level.
To put it at the elevation of the street I feel like would create a
little more safety hazard by getting it up even with the street. And
it's not feasible because of the drainage swale that's behind the
sidewalk. The more you raise it, the more you have to worry about
the back slope. You're probably going to have to put a little fill on
the back slope and sod it and at the same time not change the
drainage that's in the swale there now.
As far as the intersection that Mr. Goodacre talked about, I've
reviewed this drawing of the intersection with the county
transportation people earlier today. They feel assuredly that the road
is not designed improperly and that trucks should be able to make the
turn if they make the turn slowly enough.
And we feel like some striping improvements to move the stop
Page 199
September 9, 2003
bar and maybe realign some lanes may help that problem. But they
told me that they did not feel that the actual curb and gutter radius
was improper or should need be changed.
I do agree to work with the county transportation department to
try to solve that problem and make minor improvements.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, sir.
MR. DONOFRIO: I think that answers -- do you have any other
of Mr. Goodacre's concerns written down?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have them all written down but I
want to get to the County Commissioners concerns. Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Sir, could you tell
me -- can you explain to me exactly what you understand about our
deal with the road supposed to go from Wilson to 951; in your own
terms what do you think it says?
MR. DONOFRIO: To me, the agreement says that mining is
allowed in the eastern half of Section 21 without any conditional use
required, just an excavation permit, as long as mining haul out of 5th
Street does not exceed average annual haul over the past 10 years.
It goes on to say that any further permitting of any more of
those lands south of us will require -- or any increase of truck traffic
beyond the average annual haul roads will then require this traffic
study to be done and an additional haul route to be identified and
constructed.
But in my opinion of what it says, those are all conditions to
either go outside that half section or to exceed the average annual
traffic counts.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To be honest with you, what
you just came up with is what I understood, too. And I keep --
MR. DONOFRIO: Well, I've been reading it over several years
and I'm probably more knowledgeable than the staff member you
asked that wasn't familiar with it.
Page 200
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why would we want to have --
we have to come up with a decision to build it. I'm a little bit
confused now because we seem to be rushing to the fact we want to
get this road planned and the plan in. But if there's no plans to build
it until you reach critical mass, that could be 20 years from now,
couldn't it?
MR. DONOFRIO: Well, I'm not sure what you mean by critical
mass.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, reach that point
where you would have to put more trucks on the road than you
currently do.
MR. DONOFRIO: If we wanted to put more trucks on that the
historic numbers of trucks or if we wanted to mine additional areas
we would have to have the haul route identified and constructed;
that's what the Comprehensive Plan says and it does not tie that into
the excavation permit in this quarter section.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let's go back to the
Boulevard again, too, the fact that that right hand turn lane into 5th
has been such a problem that the trucks have to turn wide to get in
there. Has there been any discussion with you and transportation as
how that could be resolved; that seems to be one of the main issues.
MR. DONOFRIO: Only in the hall in the last hour before this
public hearing started. I did not know there was any problem until
we had a neighborhood meeting two weeks ago, that was news to me.
When it was two lane Golden Gate Boulevard and two lane 5th
Street, it was not a problem. I heard that two weeks ago. And we
reviewed with the transportation staff that drawing right there. And I
don't understand the full nature of the problem of the trucks turning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But one of the things though, I
know many times we've had new pits come on the line and we
required them to put turn lanes in. I wonder why this wouldn't be
different, you know, in other words to accommodate the needs of
Page 201
September 9, 2003
this. Obviously, if they're trying to make a right hand turn off there
and the truck is of the dimensions that it is and in order to make it, it
has to go into the next lane over, there's got to be a sufficient safety
problem.
I'm not a traffic engineer, maybe Mr. Kant or Mr. Feder might
want to comment on it, but I do think that this has to be some sort of
condition that we get resolved before we go on, what's going be done
on this.
This is not something that I'm willing to approve, put my vote
on this and say that I'm approving this if issues like this can't be
resolved.
I do appreciate your efforts to come forward on the sidewalk
and several other issues that have been a concern with the neighbors.
It was very gracious of you to meet with them when you weren't
required to. But we need to keeping looking at this before we can -- I
can reach a decision on this today.
MR. DONOFRIO: I can't say that this intersection is a gigantic
improvement over the intersection that was there prior to the
Boulevard improvements. Those Boulevard improvements were
completed, I believe, in 2002. We did the work for Collier County
there. But I don't understand why this greatly improved intersection
has created a problem that wasn't there before.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's because your clients, the people
with the trucks, continue to want to speed to get in there to fill. And
they're making that wide turn. You said it, yourself.
And that is not the residents that are causing that problem; it's
the conditions of the fill permit or the fill area. So I think what we're
going to see here if we get through this fairly fast is, let's put
conditions on the permit and move forward.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Guys?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's one of the conditions I'd
Page 202
September 9, 2003
like to see on it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we can go through it, but is
there any questions we have to get through?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have two.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've answered my sidewalk
question. I just have two questions.
What do you do about mosquito control over that huge area of
water? I know it hasn't been mentioned before, but are there any
mosquito problems out there, you know, with all of that exposed
water.
MR. DONOFRIO: Did you say mosquito?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'm sorry.
MR. DONOFRIO: I don't know whether there's a mosquito
problem there or not, but I would assume throughout Golden Gate
Estates there's a mosquito problem, especially this year with the
standing water.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And the second thing I had
to ask was the condition of the road you say will be maintained. Will
they be maintained and monitored so that, you know, as these trucks
tear it up you keep maintaining that road?
MR. DONOFRIO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Regularly?
MR. DONOFRIO: We've had a requirement to maintain that
road for many years and we've repaved it several times and will
continue to maintain it until there's an alternate haul route available.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I've got to clear up some
legal issues.
Mr. White, I've heard it said that there is no linkage between this
excavation permit and the road or traffic control responsibilities or
building sidewalks or anything else; is that true?
Page 203
September 9, 2003
MR. WHITE: In part, the Comprehensive Plan provisions that
pertain to receiving areas in the North Belle Meade Overlay that are
applicable in some places are mandatory and in other places are
discretionary.
The discussion we had earlier about what the authority was and
whether there was an agreement or not based upon what the comp
plan says, were answered accurately. But to put them in the context
of what Mr. Anderson has told you, he is correct in stating that the
permit could be issued without any condition pertaining to a haul
road -- an alternate haul road -- because the Comprehensive Plan
provisions speak in terms of may or should. The only mandatory
provisions are the ones that impose a requirement that they obtain an
excavation permit. Because one of the things that this set of
provisions does is effectively say that these are the rules for this area
and that as to any of the other rules we have for conservation and
coastal and public facilities element, the future land use element,
those rules generally do not apply. It's only these specific ones here.
And as a result, they're required to obtain an excavation permit.
That permit must be consistent with these regulations the regulations
themselves, however, are not in mandatory terms.
There is some authority, of course, as there is in general law, to
impose conditions that are reasonable. And I think it was your staff's
desire to present that condition that we initially talked about with
respect to the study as a reasonable condition. It does not have to be
imposed in order for the approval of that ex -- of this excavation
permit to be considered consistent with the comp plan.
Now, that may not address all of your questions, so I'll be happy
to answer any further questions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I've got sort of the same
confusion that Commissioner Coletta has. MR. WHITE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It seems to me that we must have
Page 204
September 9, 2003
negotiated an agreement in order to reach a settlement for the North
Belle Meade area. Now, if we negotiated an agreement, what does
that agreement say?
MR. WHITE: The agreement is the set of provisions that I've
been referring to for the North Belle Meade. Part of it talks about
transportation for future development beyond where this area is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's deal only with the 166 acres
right now. Let's presume they never, ever, ever mine anything
beyond that and that they never have a single truck more going in
and out of there than they've had over the average of the last 10
years.
MR. WHITE: Then Mr. Anderson is correct that there's no need
for a further condition. These regulations speak only to exceeding
that historical level or expanding beyond that area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So there's -- let me try to
restate this and see if I understand this correctly. There is an
agreement which says that they can go mine 166 acres without any
conditions whatsoever, without building a road, without building a
sidewalk, without doing anything as long as they don't have more
than the average number of trucks going in and out of there that
they've had the last 10 years.
MR. WHITE: That statement is mostly true. The only part I
think that's not is to the extent that there may otherwise exist the
necessity for reasonable conditions unrelated to that one that was
read earlier about the study.
What you have here is a lessee asking for an excavation permit.
The owner, who I believe is Mr. Brown, is -- I think, Mr. Anderson
is prepared to put a commitment on the record on behalf of that client
with respect to the study that we're talking about that I think the
transportation services folks are interested in.
But that is something that is beyond, legally in terms of
consistency of the comp plan, the issues we're talking about with
Page 205
September 9, 2003
regards to a haul road. They can -- as long as they stay under the
threshold of the trips and do not go beyond the area which they're not
asking to do under this permit -- then that additional condition need
not be imposed.
But there are other reasonable ones that should be and those are
have been committed to. So like I said, your statement is mostly
true.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So wanting to protect the citizens,
where is the best place to attach these conditions, to the development
of the road whenever they exceed the capacities they're at now or
should we try to attach those conditions to the issuance of the
excavation permit now?
MR. WHITE: In my opinion, you'd be better served to await
any expansion and attach it as a condition to that request for a
development approval and utilize code enforcement for the purposes
of determining whether there may be any violation of the historic
number of trips.
We'd have to probably put down counters -- I don't know, but
there would be at least some mechanism to enforce the code
enforcement. They would be non-compliant with the comp plan if
they went beyond those historic levels.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to enforcement, it
seems that that is our problem, not the company's problem. MR. WHITE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Education is the company's
problem, of course. But when it comes to enforcing speed limits, we
can't hold the company responsible for doing that I don't believe.
We've got to somehow get the sheriff's department involved in not
only issuing tickets for people who speed, but also to report that, if
that's legal, report that to the company so they can take action against
the drivers.
MR. WHITE: I believe those are public records.
Page 206
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So that possibly could
work then, right?
MR. WHITE: I believe it could.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you're saying to me, I
think, that the most logical approach would be to have -- go through
the road study and develop the appropriate kinds of restrictions that
would apply if they exceed their current capacities.
MR. WHITE: I believe Mr. Feder wants to make a remark.
MR. FEDER: My apologies, Commissioners. I do need to put
one thing in perspective. Patrick's given you very good advice. But I
think one thing that I need to bring to your attention, while the issue
of an alternate alignment, possible new haul road is an item that's
outside of the 166 as a specific provision, it's in the documents as an
item that can be addressed and needs to be addressed in the fact that
on a two-year study, we're already one year into that with no work.
The key issue that the reason you can't wait to address that until
they decide to either increase the haul volume on existing acreage or
go to new acreage is because then that study, once it gets past two
years, they can go whatever haul route they want if the County hasn't
worked with them on a consideration of an alternate alignment. So I
think that's the part of the language we need to change.
To the other' issue of the sidewalk, their effort to try to
encourage speed to be reduced by making it a penalty on any haulers
and to our issue at the intersection, where, really, your problem is the
large trucks, not your normal dump trucks, but the very large ones
that are very, very problematic. And if there's an ability to restrict
that and if there's some modifications to the intersection, I think
you'd be better served there.
Those issues can come as part of 166 as operational issues that
have already been experienced as they asked to continue operation in
that area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So is it your
Page 207
September 9, 2003
recommendation that we approve the excavation permit with the
stipulations that the company do all the things that have been
discussed?
MR. FEDER: In addition, I would say to limit it down to the
not really large -- and there's a definition on those, I can get
somebody to assist me on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you also are suggesting that
we eliminate this two-year drop dead date?
MR. FEDER: No. I'm suggesting that we get something
specific as to when the study will start, when it will be completed,
and probably extend out the date for one year before they can take
whatever route they want, which is, unfortunately, written in there if
we do not together collectively agree on a route. They have not done
the study to give the County the information that the County needs to
be able to evaluate different alignments.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So why don't we reach a mutual
agreement with the company that we change that language so that we
have a specified period of time after they have submitted their study
for us to approve or disapprove it before they can take independent
action.
MR. FEDER: Correct. I think you maybe want a date, but
definitely, that is something I believe they're ready to work with and
we would recommend that we do today, as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we get an indication of
acceptance of that. Say yes.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, first of all, we understood that this
study was to be conducted jointly with the County; so it's not solely
under our control. We need to consult and work closely with your
transportation staff.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But, if I understand the issue
correctly, Bruce, what we don't want to do is get to the end of this
study and find out then that we haven't been able to reach any
Page 208
September 9, 2003
agreement because we haven't had time to take a look at it and then
you can take independent action, without our approval, anyway. I
think that's the thing that's holding us up.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. The North Belle Meade Overlay
contains time frames that were negotiated at the time. We are off on
those time frames, every one of them in there, and that's the same --
same holds true for other provisions in the Rural Fringe
Amendments. We are off by a year.
So at a minimum, they need be adjusted a year as part of your
evaluation and appraisal report update to the Comprehensive Plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's through no fault of your
own.
MR. ANDERSON: Right, right, right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No fault of ours.
MR. ANDERSON: Or yours, no.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So we adjust the date a
year, right?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: And let me say on behalf of my other client
who owns the property, that he wants to work very expeditiously to
get this completed.
Let me read to you a couple of-- to help refresh at least four of
you's recollection I'd like to read from the June 19, 2002, transcript
from the adoption hearing for the Rural Fringe Amendments where
this very specific issue was discussed.
First I'll read what I said. And I reiterate this commitment on
behalf of my client. I can tell you that my client said to me tonight to
let you know that we are anxious and willing and ready to go to work
with you to get this other road constructed and the sooner the better.
I repeat that again today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
Page 209
September 9, 2003
MR. ANDERSON: Now, I have something additional I want to
read but I want to make sure Commissioner Coletta hears it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas has the
first.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is directed toward county
staff, transportation. Do we periodically go out there and monitor or
take a count of how many vehicles are passing over there
periodically so we understand what we're talking about when they
say the average count over a 10 year period?
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, Transportation Operations Director.
They're required to provide an annual report. We have not
historically put tubes on that street, however that's something that we
can do.
I have been using the figures that Stan Chrzanowski has been
giving me based on that annual report where we came up with an
average -- it was in the range of under 200 trips a day from that
operation.
The other thing that's difficult is there are several operations on
that site and if we just counted trucks, it would be difficult to
separate out which is which.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But isn't -- I was under the
impression that the combined total of traffic was the concrete
operation and the mining operation and whatever else is going there;
am I incorrect in my assumption here?
MR. KANT: My understanding is, as has been explained to me
by the applicant, is that the 100-plus whatever trips per day is only
for the haul, the fill hauling operation, does not include the concrete
operation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then what are we talking
about total traffic on this road; do we have any indication?
MR. KANT: As I said, Commissioner, we have not historically
taken any counts on that street.
Page 210
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Gees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that's 312 just for the fill
operation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Please painfully continue
what you want to get on the record.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm
reading from page 32 and 33 from the June 19, 2002 adoption
hearing transcript for the Rural Fringe Amendment. It begins with
the statement from your attorney, Ms. Marti Chumbler: "There was
some discussion last night about in connection with the North Belle
Meade area there being some provision for an east-west connection
from Wilson Boulevard to someplace over to County Road 951. I
think there was some discussion about whether that should be at
Landfill Road or where that should be.
"And so this language is an attempt to solve that problem. We
have been in discussions all day and this reflects input from Norm
Feder. It includes input from Mr. Anderson and his client. It
includes input from Brad Cornell and Nancy Payton.
"So I think we have kind of hit the range of people that are at
least most concerned with this issue.
"The Golden Gate Civic Association would work together to try
to determine an appropriate alignment or several alternative
alignments for such a connection. There would be an attempt to do
that within a one-year period.
"In the meantime, the mining operation at North Belle Meade
could proceed on a more restricted level. In other words, he would
not be able to expand into all the sections that are listed here; he
would only be able to expand into a portion of Section 21.
"At the end of two years, if the Board and the mining operator
agree on an appropriate alignment and funding for that and the Board
agrees to an expedited construction schedule" -- and by the way, it
was Mr. Feder's idea that we add in the expedited construction
Page 211
September 9, 2003
schedule -- "then the mining operator would be able to proceed with
expanding his mining operations beyond Section 21 and into the
other sections that are mentioned here."
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Anderson, the Rural Fringe
Amendments were adopted by the Board of Commissioners. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And they are under challenge right
now.
MR. ANDERSON: They are in effect as law and have been
upheld by the Administrative Law Judge and the Department of
Community Affairs. They are effective law and binding upon all the
parties.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. And we just ask that you honor
the North Belle Meade agreement and implement it with approval of
this application.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But, again, I think that
hopefully we can get through this. I think there can be conditions on
the permit. And the charge to the Board is the health, safety and
welfare of the residents of Collier County. MR. ANDERSON: Indeed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So, let's see if we can get through it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we can get through that real
quickly. Thank you for just recognizing me, Mr. Chairman. Is that
-- we want to work with you on the Belle Meade. We've made that
promise and we're not saying that. We just have some things to
consider here.
And we have to protect these people. They haven't even
complained about it. They haven't said -- they've said APAC has
been a good neighbor.
What they're saying is please consider some of our concerns.
And that's what we're doing is we're fighting for our citizens right
Page 212
September 9, 2003
now as well as we wanted you to work with our staff with the study.
That's what we're -- we're not trying to take this away in any
way. We want to follow -- we want to go along with what we've
already told you we would with the North Belle Meade.
We just have to have some provisions here for these people. I
mean, I'd hate it if 312 dump trucks a day were going down my street
and I was having blasting and so forth, that would be kind of tough.
And these people aren't even complaining. They're just saying give
us some provisions here to safeguard our children and our sidewalks
and so forth. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We got the 312 dump trucks but
we don't have all the combination of the cement trucks and all this
other -- the total traffic. I'll really be interested to know what the
total traffic count is out there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we just give direction to
staff to go out there tomorrow and take a traffic count.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Done deal, Mr. Mudd.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's unbelievable.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I see no way that we can turn down
the permit, but we can put conditions on it. So I'm going make a
motion to approve with conditions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: First thing, the staffs conditions and
the conditions that the petitioner has agreed to. But again, we need
to think about the health, safety and welfare of the residents in the
area.
The petitioner has agreed to raising the sidewalks above the
flood level. Reworking the intersection for the turn lane, I think that
our staff needs to take a look at and it has to be part of the condition
because it's a safety item of those huge trucks with piggy-backs or
whatever they are, it's a safety concern with the other people. So that
Page 213
September 9, 2003
has to be reworked and that's part of my motion.
By the petitioner, accepted by transportation, the hours of
operation, since it is going to exceed an increase with the hauling, I
think it's appropriate to install a light at the end of 5th Avenue and
Golden Gate Parkway as far as the kids go. You know, that's where
they wait for the bus.
The Boulevard, the issue about two or more tickets, the
applicant said that he won't allow the truck drivers to do any more
business at APAC. Well, I'm not sure if that's really acceptable to the
other board members. I would say, you know, if you're in that much
of a hurry, if you are going to do it once, you're going to do it more
than once. So I would like for us to discuss that a little bit more,
whether that's acceptable to tell that truck driver to go somewhere
else and do business.
I'm not -- I know Mr. Goodacre had some other questions that
had nothing to do with any conditions or what we can do; it's more
historical information. And I don't like to be called a bubble head, so
I'm not going to ask the questions. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I agree with you. I
think that one ticket should be grounds for at least removal from that
pit for a year; two tickets, forever; that's what I would suggest.
But I have some other things I'd like to mention. You already --
they covered the sidewalks, and that would be understandable. What
they're talking about the right mm lane is something that's an
absolute must. I don't think this should be permitted to go forward if
that isn't addressed to traffic's satisfaction.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I mentioned that, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You did. I'm just going down
my list, too, to make sure I don't miss something.
The lights. I think we need more than a light at the end of the
street. We need a light over the street several different places to
allow for these children to be able to use that road because of the
Page 214
September 9, 2003
heavy traffic conditions that are there, to give that measure of safety.
I would recommend that to be part of it, something we'd leave up to
transportation to come up with, something that's realistic.
And that, of course, would be contingent upon the residents
actually wanting it. It may come to the time when you get ready to
do it, you find out there's going to be a number of people that don't
want lights; That's happened before.
Speed controls and enhanced enforcement. Of course, now
that's the Sheriff's Department, but I'll tell you, the sheriff's been very
cooperative on 13th Street and I know that he'd be cooperative here
once we get everything going.
We have a sign that says this is an enhanced enforcement area,
special enforcement area, and so it goes up and it does give a little bit
of warning. I'd recommend that we have such signs for that.
I think the double lines in the middle of the street will help to
slow traffic down because you're confining them a little bit.
I'd also recommend that traffic talk to them about possibly a line
along the edge of the street, too, to further confine traffic. And that
has a tendency to take away the dimensions of the street and confine
them to a smaller lane and it helps to slow it down.
Also the -- let's see, Mr. MacNichol had some different things
here, the drainage problems; I don't know what can be addressed
there. I think that probably for the most part with the sidewalk and
everything, it's probably at maximum, but I'd like the option for
traffic to go down there and assess if there is a problem that maybe
escaped their attention before. So that can be addressed.
There's another issue and I'm not too sure -- I'll leave it to my
fellow commissioners to be able to tell me or possibly somebody
from traffic. There was something mentioned that gave me great
concern and that was the residents that park at the end of the street
waiting for school buses to show up.
And with the amount of traffic on that road, and of course, that
Page 215
September 9, 2003
traffic hasn't been there for a couple of years now, but when it picks
back up again, there's going to be a tremendous amount of traffic,
and if the lane's partly blocked by the parents there to pick up their
school children, that could raise a safety hazard. I'd like to see
something at least discussed about it to see if something can be done.
And I'm disappointed about the wording that we have in place
and what we can do with the extension of Wilson Boulevard to 951.
And I'm sure our staff will be on top of that to make sure that we
move something forward as time goes along and will monitor the
situation very carefully.
Also I'm very interested to know what kind of provisions are in
there. Is it an automatic thing, the day they go one truck over that
they have to go and do it? Is there something in there that's going to
give them some leeway? I mean, I want to hold them right to the
line.
I don't know who's going to be doing the monitoring on this. Is
there records that will be at the APAC pit that we'll be able to request
every so many days, months or weeks to be able to monitor and see
what the actual traffic level is? I'm sure that every time somebody
goes out with a fill load they must have to register one way or
another.
But those are the items I'd like to add and some other items for
consideration.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That's part of the motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's part of the motion. But I
mean, part of it was the discussion items that I really didn't know
quite how to go into.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion items?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. At the end of the street
there, what about the problem with the parents that park there for
their school children that will be coming on the bus and they -- I
guess I was told that they're blocking part of the road. That hasn't
Page 216
September 9, 2003
been a problem for the last couple of years but it may be now with
this pit opening up.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Commissioner, I guess I got to
ask you, if the parents are parking on the right-of-way, whose fault is
that; that's an enforcement issue, just like speeding, if they're
blocking and impeding traffic.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But at every street in the
Estates it's standard procedure; because the streets are one mile long,
the parents, especially of the young children, go down to the end of
the street and pick up their children when the school bus arrives.
I'm not too sure how to approach it, but I would like some input
on that. If they're far enough off the right-of-way, obviously with the
sidewalk, there must be a problem with the right-of-way. Can
somebody inform me on that? Possibly Ed Kant here might be able
to give me some insight.
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, Transportation Operations Director.
What you're citing, Commissioner, is something that happens at just
about every intersection in the Estates, along Everglades, Golden
Gate Boulevard, all of them.
The problem, and especially in this particular area because we
have the side swales and the ditches, you can't go very far off the
roadway. So typically when you find the cars parked, they're usually
half on, half off, or the smaller cars can sometimes make it to the
edge.
We've talked to the school board transportation people on a
number of occasions. They are very reluctant to let the buses go off
the main roads because there are no turn-arounds typically or they
don't want the liability of having to back into yards.
All I can offer at this point is we have a good dialogue with the
school transportation people. We'll go back to them and see if there's
something that we can do to help enhance their ability to pick the
kids up. But that's just -- that's a problem that we're going have deal
Page 217
September 9, 2003
with more on an area-wide basis than on just a one intersection, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate that. Mr. Kant.
Would you keep me the loop on that, please. MR. KANT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that pretty much covers it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala has something.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Did we answer -- did we
include the study in this motion so that the APAC and transportation
-- is that part of this as well?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And step it up one year? Right.
That's part of the motion-- my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: There's already a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then I'll third it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And also we are going to have
transportation go out there and actually make a physical count; is that
correct?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We gave that direction, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-0 (sic).
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Henning, who made that motion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I made the motion and
Page 218
September 9, 2003
Commissioner Coletta seconded it.
We're going to take a 10 minute break.
Mr. Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: Can I ask clarification question? Some of
the stuff you talked about related more to the County than to the
private property owner and I was trying to listen intently.
Like the street lighting; that's something the County typically
does. My client will put one at the end of the street where the kids
gather for the school bus at their expense.
And my client just had an excellent suggestion for perhaps a
way to help with the school bus problem is to allow the school bus to
go all the way down 5th and turn around at the entrance to APAC
and that way the parents wouldn't have to wait down there at the
corner and illegally park on the turn lanes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The conditions was the part of the
permit. So that's the applicant's responsibility, not the County's
responsibility.
But the suggestion about the school bus, Mr. Anderson, I think
that's going to be more problematic than anything. And we can't tell
the school board to go all the way down to the end and pick up the
children at each one of the houses. We don't have that ability. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate, Mr. Anderson, I'm
sure we are going to look into all the possibilities.
MR. MUDD: Bruce, I would tell you, Start asked me, I said
tomorrow morning I'll have a videotape of this piece with all those
things so he can sit down and get all that information hard copy and
then get back with you ASAP to make sure that we've got everything,
and if there's any questions, that we can get those things resolved,
because there were a lot of things discussed, I agree with you, and I
can only write so fast. So I'm going to have that videotape first thing
in the morning, to Stan first thing in the morning so he can start work
on that.
Page 219
September 9, 2003
MR. ANDERSON: Are we in agreement on the street light?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The street lights are your
responsibility if they're needed and that's a meeting you got to have
with traffic; that was part of the motion. If they're needed. But
traffic and you -- traffic has to make that determination. Maybe the
neighbors won't even want them. But we want to leave it open.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was determined at the end of--
and Commissioner Coletta says, well, I think that we ought to go
further, but with more traffic -- or more lighting out there for the
sidewalk, but let's let transportation determine that, whether it's
needed as far as --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How far apart they would be
and also the residents be polled on it to make sure this is something
they really want.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That wasn't a part of the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It wasn't?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, whatever.
MR. ANDERSON: I just need to be clear that all that my client
has authorized me to agree to at their expense is the one street light at
the comer of Golden Gate Boulevard and 5th Street where the school
children gather to get on the bus.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what he authorized but
that wasn't what we went ahead with.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to take a 10 minute
break.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #7B
RESOLUTION 2003-303 REGARDING PETITION CU-2002-AR-
3485, TERRY KF. PPLE, OF KEPPLE ENGINEERING,
Page 220
September 9, 2003
REPRESENTING PATRICIA J. RYAN, REQUESTING
CONDITIONAL USE "11" TO ALLOW A KIOSK ADJACENT TO
THE PARKING LOT IN THE C-5 ZONING DISTRICT FOR A
FOOD VENDOR. THE PROPERTY TO BE CONSIDERED FOR
THE CONDITIONAL USE IS LOCATED AT THE ESTEY-AIR
PLAZA, 1253 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH, LOCATED AT THE
CORNER OF AIRPORT ROAD AND ESTEY AVENUE -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take their seats, please.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to see if we could go to
7(B). Mr. Schmitt says that's a 10-minute item, and then we can go
right to the economic incentives.
(B), the item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure to be provided by the Commission members. This is
CU-2002-AR-3485.
Terry Kepple, of Kepple Engineering, representing Patricia J.
Ryan, requesting conditional use "11" to allow a kiosk adjacent to the
parking lot in the C-5 zoning district for a food vendor. The property
to be considered for the conditional use is located at Estey-Air Plaza,
1252 Airport Road south, located at the comer of Airport Road and
Estey Avenue, in Section 1, Township 50 south, Range 25 east,
Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 0.97+ acres.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All wishing to participate in the
discussion today please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The witnesses were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any ex parte communication from
Commissioner Halas on item 7(B)?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No disclosure. I had no contact at
all.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, actually. About a year ago, I
Page 221
September 9, 2003
guess that's still -- I still must mention it. About a year ago I spoke to
Mr. Ryan and I believe his daughter was in the office, as well. He
had somebody with him, I don't remember who now.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have spoken to staff on this item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE; I have received a letter from Mr.
Ryan and I have spoken with Mr. Ryan.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Actually, I do have one
communication, and that's in my agenda packet right here -- or some
communications. Okay. Mr. Kepple?
MR. KEPPLE: Good afternoon. For the record, Terrance
Kepple representing the Petitioner this afternoon -- evening, I guess
now. Following my short remarks the owner would like to make a
couple comments as to how and why we got here and why he's
making this request today.
The request before you is to allow a conditional use in the C-5
Zoning District. The Petitioner does own the existing Estey-Air
Plaza where this is proposed and is proposing to place his kiosk at the
comer of Airport Road and Estey Avenue.
I put the latest site plan on the wall, and you've got it on the
overhead projector there, also. The kiosk is located in existing open
space that was originally planned as a septic system area for the
shopping center that was never built as a sewer came through, and
that space was available. It is a decent green space and we hope to
make it a nicer green space by providing additional landscaping and
some walkways, as well as the kiosk.
Staff review of the petition, we did address the transportation
department's pedestrian and vehicular access issues with the site. We
rotated the kiosk around so all pedestrians are standing in the large
open area instead of next to the driveway.
We put additional sidewalk in linking the kiosk to Estey, as well
as Airport Road, and have agreed to put landscaping in in accordance
Page 222
September 9, 2003
with the LDP, as well as what's shown on the site plan.
Making those changes to the site plan we, of course, resubmitted
to the staff. Staff reviewed it. At that point they had no issues.
However, unfortunately during preparation of the staff report, there
were other staff members that had issues with the proposal, and it
was recommended for denial by staff.
At the Planning Commission, the largest objection seemed to be
the type of food that we were planning to serve: Popcorn and soft
drinks, hot dogs, those types of things. Although they did come back
and say that they had issues with the traffic and pedestrian safety,
which I believe we've answered on the site plan and provided
appropriate safety issues for that.
The kiosk is proposed to look like -- if I can use the overhead
for a second here -- like what I've just put on the overhead. It's
approximately 6 feet by 12 feet, something like that; 8 feet by 12,
less than 100 square feet. It would have to be permitted as a
permanent structure. It would probably be moved off-site during
hurricanes or things of that nature, but it would have to be tied down
and meet the code for a building. But that is what we're proposing
for the kiosk.
One of the staff stipulations if the Board so chooses to approve
it, was that that not be made part of the approval. However, I think
that's the main focus of this proposal is that kiosk; that is what we are
proposing. We don't want a permanent building structure, something
like that. We want something that would look like that proposal in
front of you.
The only other note along that line is the architectural standards.
I'm sure that kiosk does not meet the architectural standards and we
would not want to try to make it meet the architectural standards in
the Land Development Code because of what it is and what we
propose it to be.
The only other comment I would make is that our operating
Page 223
September 9, 2003
hours are intended to be from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. in the evening
at maximum hours.
That's the end of my comments. The owner would like to make
a few comments about how we got here today and why we're making
this proposal, if that's okay with the Board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. Any public speakers? You're
representing the Petitioner, so after he's done if you would please
sign in?
MR. KEPPLE: Okay, sure will.
MR. RYAN: Yes, Tom Ryan for the record. As Terry said, this
land has stayed vacant because it was supposed to be the septic tank
and drainfield for the center and did nothing but generate taxes for
the last 13 years. So I got the idea listening to Mr. Coletta here about
family values.
When I was a kid -- I'm sure you all remember going down to
the popcorn wagon or the hot dog stand with your parents. It's kind of
the highlight of your summer up in the northern climes. I thought it
would be a very good development for the neighborhood.
It will provide a little employment. For example, I did talk to
Chef Johnson right next door to us in the vocational school, and by
using some of his culinary people to work in the stand, they get off at
2:00 in the afternoon.
We really don't have a traffic problem in there. I know one of
the things that came up was there was a blind corner on the north of
the building where you have to come around the building, but that's
the entrance off Estey. That is not the main entrance. The main
entrance to this property is off Airport Road, and that's where the
most of the traffic is, off Airport Road.
Everybody that's commented -- we have only had two people
comment -- but the East Naples Civic Association, I reviewed it with
them before I did anything and they wrote a letter of
recommendation for it. We had the public hearing and the only
Page 224
September 9, 2003
person that showed up was the Salvation Army across the street and
he wrote me a letter of recommendation. So all the comments have
been positive.
Questions? I'd be happy to answer them for you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? Commissioner Fiala
and Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just a couple of questions.
What about garbage and litter that would be generated by this?
MR. RYAN: We have all that provided for already in the
shopping center in big dumpsters and cardboard containers -- or
cardboard in the back of it, so it would be immediately --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just meant people that buy
popcorn and then --
MR. RYAN: Oh, we would have some trash bins for them. We
also have some in the center at the present time. We'd add a couple
more out by the wagon.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd better make myself clearer.
When you close this place, are your people going to go up and pick
up all the trash?
MR. RYAN: We have a person that cleans up around the center
every morning, so he's there now. So he'd just add that to his duties.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And at night when you close -- you
say you're going to close at 8:00 p.m. MR. RYAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We would hate to have you close
and leave an unsightly area there.
MR. RYAN: Well, they come by 6:00 in the morning. Maybe
overnight it would be unsightly for, you know -- we could make
arrangements to have them come back earlier in the evening, I
suppose.
Hopefully, the people will be observant like they are at the
county fair and put it in the trash containers that we provide for them.
Page 225
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They don't do that.
MR. RYAN: I know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I listened to staff and I have the
same concerns. I think the thing is darling, really. It's very nice and
I know you have the school traffic right there and there are a lot of
other people that are walking in the area that would probably stop by
and purchase things, and so I realize it's a good business venture for
you.
I am concerned about the traffic, people who would want to
slow down -- this is a darling little thing -- they're just going to want
to take a look and then they're going to want to get in there, so
they're going to whip -- want to whip around or just see what it is.
You say that you have an entrance to the center before this, but
they can't see it before then. So what I'm thinking of is drive-by
traffic that might want to go in there.
MR. RYAN: Well, I hope it's repeat traffic and they know it's
there, so they'll know to turn in on Airport Road. If they don't and
they're coming south, they would have to make a U-turn anyway to
come back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not to go south. I'm talking north,
you know. We're really concerned about traffic, especially on
Airport Road because it's such heavy traffic.
MR. RYAN: Sure, I understand. And anybody that's been in
business for themselves know you're dependent on traffic, you want
traffic, you can't live without traffic.
I hope -- I don't think we'll have so much traffic that it will be a
real problem because there's only -- in my section of the shopping
center, there is only one business that generates any traffic at all and
that's the restaurant, and that's only a couple hours, for like from
11:00 to 1:00. Otherwise, the rest of the businesses in there really --
Scott Paint has one or two cars, the emergency animal hospital has
one or two. That's pretty much it.
Page 226
September 9, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have the same concerns as
Commissioner Fiala, and that is the transportation. I know that in the
morning as I drive down here to the government complex there's
children crossing the street at that point in time. And then going
home in the evening at 5:00 it's pretty congested.
I'm concerned about -- have you thought about if there was
going to be any traffic issues or if the transportation department has
thought there was going to be any traffic issues whereby people
would just pull in -- either make a right-hand turn and park at the
street to run to the kiosk or people making -- coming southbound and
making a left-hand turn and then parking to get out of the car to go
get something like a snack or something and try to jump back in the
car and leave the car set there instead of going in here and parking in
the parking lot, because there is really no entrance to the parking lot
at that point.
That's my concern.
MR. RYAN: We've never had a traffic problem and we've
never had an accident or a mishap in there. I guess you could almost
say that for any type of business. You could stop on the street and
run in and get a McDonald's hamburger or a Wendy's, too, but most
people are courteous enough to pull into the parking lot.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, they got a parking lot but
here, it's more difficult. I don't see a real opening that's advantageous
right now to the people if they want to do that, and I'm concerned
that they'll just pull off on Estey Avenue and jump out of the car and
say, I'm only going to be gone for 30 minute -- or 30 seconds or a
minute, and then realize that they are blocking traffic. That's what
I'm concerned about.
MR. RYAN: Well, if they do that, of course, they're going to
get the horn real quick because there is enough traffic going both
lanes on Estey and on Airport that I just don't think they would do it.
Page 227
September 9, 2003
And we do have parking both in front of the building and
another parking lot behind the building which is never used.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's my biggest concern is the
traffic and knowing that there is an awful lot of school children that
are probably going to be in this area. I think it's a great idea. I just
don't know if this is the particular area that it should be located in.
That's what I'm trying to wrestle with at this point in time and I'm
trying to get as much information on this prior to making some kind
of subjective evaluation of how we should go on this.
MR. RYAN: As far your morning schoolchildren, we wouldn't
be open, of course.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, you're talking 8:00 in the
morning --
MR. RYAN: Well, it's not going to be. It's going to be like
11:00 in the morning until probably 8:00 in the evening. We would
not be open at 8:00.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I wasn't sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I go to Commissioner Coyle,
Commissioner Coletta, do you have any ex parte communication on
this item?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do. I believe it was
about a year and a half ago, two years ago, we had a brief
conversation in some parking lot on this very subject. I'm surprised I
recall that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, if this were a
lemonade stand on the side of the street nobody would be arguing
against it and you wouldn't be concerned about traffic. We would
approve it in a heartbeat.
I have driven down there and I don't see the traffic problem.
What happens if you're northbound on Airport Road and you see this
and you make a right turn on Estey, you immediately see the
Page 228
September 9, 2003
alleyway and entranceway, you can see how to get in there very
easily.
So I don't see people stopping on Estey or on Airport Road no
more than I see people stopping on Route 41 to go into McDonald's
and grab a hamburger.
They know how to get in here and as Mr. Ryan points out, most
of it's going to be repeat business, people who know what this thing
is, know what it does and what they can get there.
As far as the traffic circulation inside the shopping center is
concerned, that entranceway is not a blind comer. If you were
driving 45 miles an hour down that alleyway, yes, it creates a
problem. But you're not driving 45 miles an hour in that alleyway to
get into the -- go into the parking lot. You can see around that comer
well enough to avoid any pedestrians.
And with the arrangement of the sidewalk east -- or I'm sorry,
west of the kiosk itself, I think it solves all of the problems that the
staff was concerned about.
There's a further consideration. Mr. Ryan owns this entire
shopping center. He has control over what goes on there. And if
things are not going right he has the authority to do something about
it. It's not like this is just a tenant on a piece of property where there
might be some other kinds of problems.
I think this is a great idea. I think it would be great for the
school kids coming home from school, it would be great for the
people who go to the shopping center. I think it's a great idea and I
just can't see the harm of approving it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What do you plan to do with it in
the evening?
MR. RYAN: With the what?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: With the kiosk in the evening?
MR. RYAN: Just lock it up.
Page 229
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, is it going to be -- do you
think the children or somebody will get out there and start pushing
this thing around down the street or is it going to be tied down? I
hope this is going to be tied down.
MR. KEPPLE: It will have to be tied down so it can't be easily
moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I could just picture teenaged kids,
because I remember what I was like when I was a child, okay. This is
a challenge let me tell you.
MR. KEPPLE: IfI can make one other comment. Your
concerns about traffic stopping along Airport or Estey is well taken
and we would propose that we would work with the transportation
department, put No Parking or No Standing signs up there as
appropriate, and directory signs to direct them to the proper entrance
to prevent that happening.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Can we hear from our staff?.
Commissioner Coletta, do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to make a comment.
I know this has been a dream of yours for a long time and I'll tell
you, with the time and energy you've put into this, it's going to take
awhile to break even, but I admire you for it. I think its an excellent
idea.
MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, Planning Services. I just want to
clarify one of the statements. The junk food issue was a hot topic at
the Planning Commission, but their main reason for the
recommendation was the internal circulation and pedestrian safety,
not necessarily food -- and staff's position, as well.
Any questions about kiosks -- and "kiosk" is not defined in the
code. Basically the interpretation has said that because C-5 requires
a 700 square-foot building, anything less than that basically would
have to be a conditional use for a kiosk, and that is what's bringing
this forward.
Page 230
September 9, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any questions for staff?.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If it were a lemonade stand how
would we deal with it?
MR. REISCHL: Same way.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I recommend approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Public hearing is closed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can go along with that as long as
we say that it's cleaned up every night and litter isn't allowed to
remain there until the next morning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And how are we going to
enforce that? Let's see -- they lose their conditional permit or-- if it's
not cleaned up --
MR. REISCHL: That would be difficult to enforce.
Also consider the conditions about 2.8, about the architectural
design guidelines. Did you want to keep those in effect or keep it --
this was basically a factory-built model. As Mr. Kepple said, it
possibly does not meet division 2.8 architectural guidelines.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we'd have to get a variance
on that.
MR. REISCHL: Well, it wouldn't have to be a variance. That's
something that we put in the condition. So if you say it does not
have to meet division 2.8, that's what I'm asking.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that part of your motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As long as it's tied down to meet
hurricane standards.
MR. REISCHL: That's also one of the conditions, right.
MR. MUDD: And I can have code enforcement go by it every
once in awhile on a weekly basis -- we've got that night shift now --
Page 231
September 9, 2003
they can go by and make sure it's pretty policed up around 8:00.
And if not, we can always give them a notice of violation. You
get a couple of those, it will cost him more than it will to have the
gentleman come by and police it up.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right.
MR. REISCHL: And did you want the pavement markings still
to remain in there, the crosswalks and--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to see the proposal as it's
displayed here on this overhead.
MR. REISCHL: And what about the hours of operation? There
was also a change from our-- we had 7:00 until 7:00.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, you told us 9:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m.
MR. REISCHL: That's what the Petitioner said, yes. Staff had
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then he changed it. I thought he
discussed it when we talked about the children. He did say
something to the fact that it would be probably 11:00 or -- 10:00 or
11:00.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If the motion maker wanted to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 10:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else? Hearing none, any
further questions on the motion? All in favor of the motion signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Page 232
September 9, 2003
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Item # 10C
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH G.L.
HOMES OF NAPLES ASSOCIATES, LTD. AS DEVELOPER FOR
ROAD IMPACT CREDITS ($344,250) IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
LAND DEDICATION TO THE COUNTY'S TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK. ALL RIGHTS TO DEVELOPER UNDER THE
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT ARE SUBJECT
TO DEVELOPER COMPLYING WITH ALL CONDITIONS OF
THF. AGREF~MFNT IMPOSF~D BY THF, COIJNTY- APPROVF~D
One other thing, County Manager. We've got somebody here
that traveled from the East coast for one item here. And it's a real
simple one, 10(C). If you will indulge me.
Developer Contribution Agreement with G.L. Homes of Naples
Association, Ltd. as developer for road impact fee credits in
exchange for land dedication to the transportation network. All rights
to the developer under the Developer Contribution Agreement are
subject to the developer's complying with the conditions of the
Agreement imposed by the county.
I'll make a motion that we approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions on the motion?
Commissioner Coyle has seconded it. All in favor of the motion
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 233
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Next item?
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
Thank you.
Item #8H, Item #8I, Item #8J, Item #8K, Item #8L
(8H) ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2001-13, BY
ESTABLISHING A DEFERRAL PROGRAM FOR THE
IMMOKALEE AREA TO REDUCE THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS
OF INCREASED IMPACT FEE RATES; (81) ORDINANCE TO BE
KNOWN AS THE FEE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE ORDINANCE;
APPROVE AN ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR
$1,500,000; ESTABLISH A FEE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM AVAILABLE TO ELIGIBLE BUSINESSES TO
MITIGATE THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF INCREASED
IMPACT FEE RATES; (8J) ORDINANCE TO BE KNOWN AS
THE ADVANCED BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT ORDINANCE, ESTABLISHING AN ADVANCED
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AVAILABLE TO ELIGIBLE BUSINESSES TO ENCOURAGE
PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT IN ADVANCED
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE; (8K) ORDINANCE TO BE
KNOWN AS THE JOB CREATION INVESTMENT ORDINANCE;
APPROVE AN ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR
$500,000; ESTABLISH THE JOB CREATION INVESTMENT
PROGRAM AVAILABLE TO ELIGIBLE BUSINESSES TO
MITIGATE THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF INCREASED
DEVELOPMENT FEES AND RELOCATION OR EXPANSION
COSTS; (8L) ORDINANCE TO BE KNOWN AS THE PROPERTY
TAX STIMULUS ORDINANCE; ESTABLISH A PROPERTY TAX
Page 234
September 9, 2003
STIMULUS PROGRAM AVAILABLE TO ELIGIBLE
BUSINESSES TO MITIGATE THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF
INCREASED RELOCATION AND EXPANSION COST- ALL
ITEMS APPROVED IN CONCEPT: WILL BE AMENDED, RE-
ADVERTISED, AND TO BE BROUGHT BACK AT A FUTURE
MF, ET1NG
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would recommend that we go to
the economic incentives that was supposed to be heard after 3 p.m.
And we're doing really good after 3 p.m. I've asked Mr. Schmitt to
do the presentation and his staff is to present all five incentives
without taking a vote on any of them.
And one of the reasons that I asked him to do that is so that you
would know the whole spectrum of them.
The other thing is, Ms. Filson has twelve speaker slips and they
all say they want to talk about 8(H) through 8(L). And if you take
them one by one, then there are going to be twelve at a time.
But if you take it as a whole spectrum, then we can hear public
comment and then we can go back for discussion and then vote on
them individually. I think it would be prudent to go that way.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Good evening. For the record, Joe
Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development and
Environmental Services Division.
Before you today is a proposal to adopt an ordinance amending
the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance 2001-13-2,
and that is to establish a deferral program for the Immokalee area to
reduce the economic effects of increased impact fee rates.
Just for background, at the July 29th regular meeting, staff
initially presented this proposal based on the original concepts
outlined in the June 11, 2003 BCC workshop held to discuss the
report prepared by the Immokalee Community Development
Page 235
September 9, 2003
Corporation and by Robert Charles Lesser and Company. Based on
staff's recommendation -- and Leo, can we put up the slide
presentation, if you can hit the right button there and that way we can
-- because I'm going to flip through some slides. That's a computer yes, sir. There you go.
Based on staff's recommendations, this Board directed staff to
return today to have the proposal considered along with the four
other economic incentives. And as Jim Mudd recommended, that we
go through all five, that you weigh the merits of each and then vote
on each at the end.
I'll present the first proposal, and that has to do with the
economic impact fee deferral program. And I'll be followed by
Helene Caseltine, my Economic Development Coordinator for
Collier County and joining her, Tammie Nemecek, Executive
Director, Economic Development Council of Collier County.
You may recall that at the July 29th meeting staff recommended
disapproval of the proposed ordinance because it was determined that
the program as written would significantly impact the county's ability
to provide adequate funding for capital projects and essential public
services necessitated by growth. The program as written provided no
means for refunding or repaying the impact fee trust fund programs
until the sale, transfer or refinancing of the home.
In addition, as written the program was deemed basically to
begin to undermine -- or would begin to undermine the legal
underpinnings of the county's consolidated impact fee ordinance.
Before you today, as directed, is the same ordinance.
In sum, that proposal basically was drafted to establish an
impact fee deferral program for residential property in the Immokalee
area to reduce the economic effects of the increased impact fee rates
and, of course, to encourage residential development in the
Immokalee area.
The eligibility criteria as recommended by the Lesser Group are
Page 236
September 9, 2003
as follows and shown on the slide. The dwelling must be within the
geographic location and boundaries of the Immokalee Enterprise
Zone, and shown there are the -- in blue, is the CRA zone, and in red,
on the red dash line, is the Enterprise Zone, and there is a difference.
So this proposal was for dwelling units that must be in the
Immokalee Enterprise Zone, which is also in a Rural Federal
Enterprise Community.
The dwelling must be owner-occupied and must be homesteaded
by the owner. And the maximum sale price of the proposed
qualifying dwelling unit was directed not to exceed $175,000. And I
would note that this price is greater than the maximum home sales
price in Collier County for -- as established by the Florida Housing
Finance Corporation programs.
In addition a -- and I would point out there was a mention here
of a nonrefundable application fee in the amount of $300 that would
be required for this application.
As was done on the 29th, I again recommend disapproval of the
current ordinance as written, however staff has worked with the
representatives of the Immokalee area and we are asking that you
evaluate the following proposed changes in the draft ordinance that
was attached with your executive summary.
Basically that would create a method to repay the impact fees
and the Impact Fee Trust Fund without having to depend on the
homeowner to initiate such an event, either through the sale, transfer
or refinancing of the home.
The recommendations in sum: Staff recommends that the Board
consider adopting an ordinance for the Immokalee Impact Fee
Deferral Program funded by a portion of the Tax Incremental Fund,
or the TIF fund, allocated to the Immokalee Community
Redevelopment Area.
So what would happen is basically the home would be assessed.
Immokalee, of course, being a CRA community, receives 100
Page 237
September 9, 2003
percent of that Tax Incremental Fund. And what we are proposing is
that Immokalee pay back to the county a certain portion of that Tax
Incremental Fund to basically pay back and pay into the Impact Fee
Trust Fund. In sum, pay back within a seven and a half year period.
By providing an allocated and budgeted funding source for the
deferral program, the legality of the CIFO would not be
compromised and the county's ability to provide improvements
and/or additions to public facilities certainly would not be
jeopardized.
The program would be -- as shown on the slide -- would be
geographically limited to the Immokalee Community Redevelopment
Area because again, we're -- now we're talking about the CRA area,
not the Enterprise Area, because they don't necessarily overlap. And
what we're looking for is a repayment from the CRA.
I do remind you that the intent of the CRA is to provide, or at
least to promote economic development, local investment and
employment in distressed communities, and as such, the CRA
definition provides the basis for which the county may offer the
Impact Fee Deferral Program that is unique to the Immokalee area.
So we identified it for the Immokalee Enterprise Zone and we
can further restrict it to the CRA because that's where we would get
the money back. Now we can talk about that and we'll look for your
guidance.
Any portion of the TIF -- that will have to be approved and it
was based on the established funding in 1977, which was the existing
tax base -- would have to be paid by the county. And what I point out
here is that approval would have to go through from the CRA
Advisory Board back to the Collier County CRA Board, which of
course is yourself, and then back to the Board of County
Commissioners.
This process -- you would direct us tonight to go through the
procedural proceedings, at least from the standpoint of finalizing the
Page 238
September 9, 2003
ordinance as we're proposing. We could do that based on your vote
tonight, and the implementation guidance would be then going back,
working with the CRA Advisory Board, have the CRA Advisory
Board advise the CRA, and thus bring it back.
The ordinance as written and proposed is, we're proposing a 25
percent repayment and that would be over a seven and a half year
period. Shown on this graph -- or at least on the spreadsheet and the
following graph -- or the following chart, are representatives or at
least to display what it would be for the payback period.
And as shown here, we are basically estimating that in 2004
there would be 150 homes built, 250 in '05, and '06, 350. And the
figures that are shown there at the bottom, the estimated impact fees
for a home, and then the total deferral.
So you can see that basically this is written over a three-year--
for a three-year ordinance. It would automatically sunset in three
years unless, of course, this Board asked to extend that ordinance. It
would be a little over $8 million deferred, but we would get the 25
percent incremental back every year.
And these two charts, this chart and the following chart, shows
the payback period. This is for a home less than 1,500 square foot,
which is what we expect will be marketed for the Immokalee area.
As you can see, the payback period shown for the three years,
2004 in the blue -- and then the other colors, of course, I guess purple
and brown -- showing, and then the cumulative, and that shows the
payback period.
So in essence, what this is is nothing more than a program
where we are recommending or at least forwarding for your
consideration, an ordinance that will defer the impact fees for about
seven and a half years, but the transfer from the tax incremental
funds will make the program whole.
And this would be very similar to how the SHIP program
operates today. Ma'am?
Page 239
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast question. So the people
that would be eligible for these homes each year would then -- their
impact fees would be deferred, TIF would pay for those impact fees
so that our county taxpayers wouldn't be out any dollars; right?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But after the three year program,
this deferral program won't be in effect anymore.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct, as written.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That means anybody buying your
home after that doesn't have the privilege of buying into that
program. How do those people in the first three years pay their--
MR. SCHMITT: They would pay back the impact fees that are
owed upon the sale, transfer or refinancing of their home. So that
would then pay back the impact fees.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, now that's on every house that
gets a deferral, that goes against their property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. I understand that.
MR. SCHMITT: So the county is being made whole in two
ways. We eventually would get the impact fees back but we also are
requiring the incremental TIF, 25 percent of the Tax Incremental
Fund comes back to the county, as well. So, yes, the county would
be made whole, but of course, it's a deferral program, it's not
immediate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When we talk about payment of
the impact fee upon the transfer or refinancing or sale, are we talking
about paying the impact fee that exists at the time of one of those
occurrences?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. The calculations that we put
together, Commissioner Coyle, indicate -- we estimated on an annual
increment increase -- and I can't recall -- it was around six or eight
percent going through the increases. And each year we -- and the
Page 240
September 9, 2003
detailed analysis, I can provide that. It's also in your packet. There
was very specific detailed analysis in the spreadsheet that showed the
increment. And I can go back to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Should either of two other events
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Should either of two other events
trigger a repayment? For example, we're requiring that these homes
be owner-occupied and homesteaded. MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Suppose there is a status change in
either of those categories, it is no longer owner-occupied or is no
longer homesteaded. Should we not also collect the impact fees
under those circumstances?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Well, that's -- you're correct. I mean,
that's the way it should be and it's going to be very difficult, of
course, to enforce that unless we somehow have to depend on the
Housing Development Corporation or some other entity to actually
verify that, that we would ensure that it's owner-occupied.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I guess what I would be concerned
about is someone purchasing a home under this so-called subsidized
program and then turning it into a rental property without having an
obligation concerning the payment of the impact fee. So I think there
probably are ways that that can be worked out.
MR. MUDD: Let me have Cormac explain because we have the
same problem with SHIP.
MR. GIBLIN: Cormac Giblin, your Housing Development
Manager, for the record. The program is modeled to work similarly
to the way our SHIP program works. And in that program we do
have staff that checks the status of homeowners' homestead every
year once a year.
And in a case when someone does allow their homestead
Page 241
September 9, 2003
exemption to expire, we would hold a lien, a second lien on that
home, and we could initiate foreclosure proceedings if they are in
violation of that agreement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: As long as you have some
controls, that's all I'm concerned about.
MR. SCHMITT: And that's the way the ordinance is written.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The final question has to do with
the fact that this particular program as it is currently written does not
have a maximum salary requirement. For example, some very
wealthy person could go in and buy a home in the Immokalee area
and have the county underwrite the impact fee.
I don't think that's what it's designed to do. It's designed to help
people avoid the unfavorable economic impact of our high impact
fees, is that not right?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Coyle, that is correct. And if
you -- I'll refresh your memory.
When we discussed this at the last Board meeting, even the way
the other ordinance was written we recommended there be some type
of income cap on the program. What we didn't want to do is have
this be the same as the SHIP program.
Initially we were looking at that there should be some kind of an
income qualifier to preclude exactly what you stated. But in the
workshop and based on your guidance, we were directed not to
consider that. So you can consider that tonight, of course.
But we're just coming back to you with what you asked us to put
together, but when we brought up the last proposal we were saying
100 percent of the median income, and for a family of four the 2003
median income in Collier County would be $61,000 household
income -- $61,400. So 100 percent -- under SHIP, it's 80 percent.
We want to encourage people to move maybe from Lehigh
Acres or from Lee County or wherever. Those who work in
Immokalee to move to Immokalee, and we want to encourage it.
Page 242
September 9, 2003
So we did not include the prohibition against first time
homeowners. And those are some of the things we discussed when
we last presented it, and I think this Board may be wise to at least
consider some of that criteria, because there frankly is no criteria
now as written that prohibits anybody from coming down and
basically buying that home and having the county underwrite the
purchase of that home.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm less concerned about the
figure you select as far as the maximum salary than I am about the
fact that some kind of maximum does exist, some kind of qualifier
does exist. And I think we should establish it, wherever it makes
sense to establish it to encourage not only first time homeowners, but
second or third time purchasers to come to Immokalee and purchase
homes.
So I think we should set it wherever it makes sense to set it, but
I think we should have something. And I hope I was not so foolish
as to try to dissuade you from that last time. But if I am, I'm changing
my mind now, okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And that would be -- what we would
recommend then on that would be 100 percent of the total household
median income. So that would be the $61,400. And of course, it's
graduated based on number of people in the family. But as an
example would be for a family of four would be $61,400.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Coletta, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know if there are any
restrictions that you can put on this -- maybe this isn't the proper time
to ask this first question; I have two.
For instance, the homeowner, owner-occupied home is
homesteaded there, but then he rents out the different rooms to other
people and it becomes troublesome.
I realize that's a code enforcement problem, but are there any
Page 243
September 9, 2003
restrictions we have to make sure that we are not paying somebody's
impact fees then allow them to rent this thing out and pay off their
house? You know how many problems we have because of that.
MR. SCHMITT: Again, I -- that certainly could be written into
the ordinance, at least some way. We would -- as you know, that's a
requirement for code enforcement, but it's a very difficult code to
enforce.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: I could only -- I know this involves at least
one community in the Immokalee area, certainly we could try and
require the homeowners' association or the property owners'
association for the one product there to help us police that, and at
least make it so we could --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just to protect those
neighborhoods.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we go any further with this,
Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Halas, excuse me.
This is what happens when government tries to incentivise with
tax dollars. We get stupid -- I'm not saying any of my
Commissioners are stupid -- what I'm saying is we try to
over-regulate it. Let's keep in mind what the goal is, the Immokalee
citizens. It is trying to incentivise middle income.
Now the second home buyer -- first home buyer, second home
buyer, third home buyer, doesn't meet that goal. If we try to
over-regulate it, then we're not going to meet their goal and that's
what we want to do here. And I wholeheartedly support the
alternative. Thanks for--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask my second question
then. Reporting requirements; do we have any reporting requirements
in place?
MR. SCHMITT: We would implement the similar reporting
requirements that we do for the SHIP program. And in fact, this is
Page 244
September 9, 2003
something -- and we're going to talk about it on this agenda, the
HDC, where we would look for the HDC, the Housing Development
Corporation, to help and assist the county in qualifying people and
doing the other things that the HDC would do.
And we would look to the HDC to help us in this regard, as
well, because that's really what the Housing Development
Corporation would do. So, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. A couple of
things. One, I can't thank you enough, Commissioner Henning, for
summarizing it the way you did. We are looking to try to direct
some of this growth towards Immokalee and we'd like to try to
encourage our school teachers, sheriff's deputies, to take advantage
of the fact they can get a better deal in Immokalee and I see this as a
tremendous engine, capping it where it is. I think it will cover a
whole lot of eventualities.
Of course, they're going to take policing to make sure that
someone doesn't advantage of it, and humans being what they are,
I'm sure we will find along the way that we have people that violate
the trust.
I also want to recognize the fact that we've had a number of
people in Immokalee, including Fred Thomas, working with Mr.
Schmitt and Mr. Giblin on putting together this economic incentive --
the alternative that was agreeable to staff-- and I believe we're pretty
much in agreement in the way we want to go with this.
But you want to wait until we finish everything before we move
on it, right?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: I just want to remind, of course, when we
were at the Immokalee economic incentive we were really talking
about commercial incentives, as well. But one of the weaknesses we
identified was lack of middle class or developing communities in
Page 245
September 9, 2003
Immokalee, and I think staff-- that's why staff said this is one
program that may incentivise it. With that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
MR. SCHMITT: With that -- Commissioner Halas. I was ready
to move on. I'm worried about Tammie and all. We're getting close
here, it's a full moon tonight.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's only 6:30; take your time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like some clarification. I
understand the impact fees will be paid up in a lump sum if there is
refinancing or selling.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. Refinancing if they take
money out of the home, but if there's -- they validate, like in SHIP, if
this is refinancing that lowers the payment because of a lower
interest rate, then that negates the requirement. It's continuing. So
there are -- there are procedures to allow refinancing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then how does the county get
back their impact fees if the person stays in the house 20 years?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Halas and Joe, let me help you
here. There's a couple things. That's why the TIF money is seven
and a half years and the CRA is getting us a percentage so that we're
reimbursing the general fund with the TIF dollars.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Now, if the impact fee -- and I want to make a
correction to something that Joe said; he was doing really good -- he
said one thing to Commissioner Coyle, and it must be the beard that
got him.
The impact fee that's being deferred is the impact fee at the rate
of the time of the building permit.
MR. SCHMITT: That's right.
MR. MUDD: It is not the impact fee at the rate at the time of
payment. And this deferral is interest free, okay, as part of that
incentive. So I want to make sure, because I went back and read it
Page 246
September 9, 2003
and I checked with the lawyer and I talked to Ms. Caseltine on the
way back.
I just wanted to make sure, because he misspoke as far as what
the actual value of the impact fee is. It's the impact fee at the time
the permit -- the construction permit is pulled, and that impact fee is
a lien against the property interest free until they meet the
requirements, either they sell it at some later date.
Now, we will do some staff things to keep track of that impact
fee and we'll keep track of the general fund dollars from the TIF, so
we're making sure we're balancing the books and we've got
everything covered in that process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good.
MR. SCHMITT: I appreciate that, because when I heard the
question I just immediately assumed it was when the building permit
is drawn. We accounted for the increase in impact fees in our
calculations, as well.
If there are no other questions, we'll proceed to the fee payment
assistance and Tammie and Helene.
MS. CASELTINE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Helene Caseltine with your Planning Services Department.
As Joe said, we're going to move right along and go into what we had
initially proposed as county-wide programs. You might see some
changes here as we go on today. But what we're going to talk about
right now is the fee payment assistance program that's item 8(1) on
the agenda.
The Fee Payment Assistance Ordinance allows a qualified
company to apply for funds that would help to offset the cost of
impact fees. As I mentioned, it's currently proposed as a
county-wide program, however we have added some incentives --
enhancements, excuse me. That was based on your conversations
you had during the budget hearings last Thursday evening.
I do want to make sure that everyone understands, however, that
Page 247
September 9, 2003
this fee payment assistance program cannot be used in conjunction
with another program that you will see in a couple of minutes,
entitled the Property Tax Stimulus Program. They are mutually
exclusive.
So I'll let Tammie go ahead and get into more details on what
some of these changes -- what we are suggesting as how companies
might qualify for these programs.
MS. NEMECEK: Good evening. Tammie Nemecek, Executive
Director for the Economic Development Council of Collier County.
Thank you very much for taking the time to listen.
We are proposing tonight some enhancements to the existing
ordinance that's before you. What we are talking about is keeping
intact the program for a certain boundary line which is located one
mile east of one mile west of Collier County Boulevard, so you're
taking in the Collier Boulevard corridor and east, which would retain
the existing program at 1 15 percent wage criteria within the targeted
industry.
For the Enterprise Community of Immokalee, that criteria would
remain the same. A caveat to the program is adding in a designation
for high impact, which allows the County Commissioners the
flexibility on a case by case basis to approve a company that we
might be competing for to locate outside this eastern boundary.
This is to allow the County Commission at that point in time, if
there is a corporate headquarters or something in the future that we
cannot foresee today, to allow you the flexibility to approve on a case
by case basis those companies that may want to locate in Collier
County but are prohibited by the high cost of doing business.
For example, we had Source Interlink as an example that located
up in Lee County. If we are in competition again for a company like
that, which received incentives from Lee County and is the reason
why they located there, that you guys have the flexibility to
individually look at those companies.
Page 248
September 9, 2003
I'll go through the Fee Payment Assistance Program and adding
this criteria into the ability to approve companies, if you look at the
Fee Payment Assistance Program, what it does, again, is it offsets a
portion of the impact fees which are up front costs that the company
realize when they look to move into Collier County.
The Eastern Collier County Eligibility Criteria again would
allow for a company to apply for an eligible amount of their capital
investment times the current county millage rate at that point in time,
times 10. And the times 10 is to ensure that we have a 1 O-year
payback period by that company through their property tax
enhancement that they are providing to the county.
As an example, if a company comes in and provides a $3
million capital investment, that's their building and their land, the
current millage rate 3.8772 times 10 would equate to $116,000 that
that company would qualify for. It's not going to offset the entire
impact fee amount, it's just going to be a portion of the impact fee
amount.
The job creation requirement would be 10, the average wage
requirement would be 115 percent of Collier County's private sector
wage, which is currently -- private sector wage is currently 30,401
which means the qualifying wage would have to average out to
35,000.
And again, this is the eastern boundary line that we're talking
about. And just make a note that average wage criteria is adjusted
each November. So every November that average wage is going to
go up, the criteria is going to go up based on whatever the current
average wage is for Collier County.
The industry requirement is that the companies must be within
the targeted industry list, which is currently: Aviation, biomedical,
manufacturing, research and development, wholesale trade,
information technology, and corporate headquarters.
The viable business requirement is that the company must retain
Page 249
September 9, 2003
their investment as a viable business and maintain their stated
employment base for the 10 years that the payback period is in place.
Again, we're talking about the Enterprise Communities with the Fee
Payment Assistance Program.
The difference between these two is that the company would be
allowed to add an additional five years to their payment amount, as
well as the repay period, and that's based on the workshop that we
had with the Immokalee community.
The new job creation requirement is reduced to 5, based on it
being an Enterprise Community. The average wage criteria is also
reduced to 50 percent based on it being an Enterprise Community.
The targeted industry requirement -- while we're targeting and the
priority will be given to our targeted industries on a case by case
basis -- you may be able to waive that industry depending on the type
of company that we are trying to recruit into the community.
Again, the Viable Business Requirement is that the company
must retain their investment and their employment base for 15 years
in order to continue to participate in the program.
The Payment Assistance Ordinance for the High Impact
Eligibility Requirement -- Criteria. Again, this is on a case by case
basis. So this is not a blanket program. It's a program that the
company will come before you on a case by case basis, and
depending on what the wage criteria that we set for the company, as
well as the number of jobs that they are required to create, that you
will be able to authorize on that case by case basis the companies to
participate in the incentive program and recruit them to Collier
County.
We have chosen to add an additional 10 jobs to that requirement
to make them -- the new creation requirement, 20 as a minimum.
The private sector wage we have increased to 125 percent. But when
we're talking about these type of companies, we're talking about
technology based companies and we could probably go up a little bit
Page 250
September 9, 2003
more if the County Commission so desires in order to make it a little
bit more selective in the types of companies that we'll work with.
They have to be within the targeted industry list. There is no
waiver on the targeted industry, and again, the company needs to be
in business for 10 years.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions for Ms. Nemecek?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How do we propose that we get --
you were talking about a 1 O-year payback. What happens if the
company decides to leave this area or if something should happen
and they have a total financial collapse?
MS. NEMECEK: Right. How the program works is that the
company must pay their property taxes, and once their property taxes
are paid, then the company is paid back based on the amount of
property taxes that they paid.
So if the company -- each year the company has to prove that
their jobs are still in place and they are still a viable business,
otherwise that payment of the property taxes -- or if property taxes
do not get paid, then they cannot reap the benefit of money back to
the company.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I want to ask her a question. The --
MS. CASELTINE: If I could continue. There is a drawback
clause in that ordinance that states all that, that there are certain
criteria they must meet. If they don't meet them, again there is a lien
put against that company.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. The Board
recommended east of 951, so I guess since this has changed, I got to
ask who owns the property one mile west of 951 that you want to
capture?
MS. NEMECEK: There is not any particular person that owns a
property one mile west, but we wanted to make sure that we included
both sides of the 951 corridor--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Page 251
September 9, 2003
MS. NEMECEK: -- going all the way into East Naples.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now the bait and switch program
you're referring on the -- the Board of Commissioners can decide
whatever company wherever in Collier County, that was proposed,
anyways. So all this is we're doing the same thing that was proposed
originally.
MS. NEMECEK: I think what we've added to the program has
made it more restrictive. Some of the concerns on the County
Commission side were that the affordable housing was an issue on
the wage that we were having as the criteria for 35,000, as well as the
transportation issues.
And what we're talking about is having the flexibility that we
can, if there is a corporate headquarters, a technology based company
such as an Allen Systems Group that wants to come into Collier
County and we're competing with other areas within the state or
outside the nation, that it allows you the flexibility to entice that
company to come here.
If it's outside of the 951 eastern corridor, and that's the only
alternative, then we have no competitive edge in order to attract that
type of company.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So it really doesn't address the
transportation concerns.
MS. NEMECEK: Because the conversation at the county -- at
the budget hearings was with regards to a lot of the people at $35,000
wages would be living east of 951, and by increasing the average
wage they have the better ability to afford the housing within the
coastal community. So most of those employees would be coming
within the coastal area.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And then I guess my concern was,
we are using taxpayers' money to enhance them to locate in there.
And I can tell you that, again, we received a lot of e-mails very much
opposed to it. So that was another item.
Page 252
September 9, 2003
But we'll see what the Board is going to do. Please continue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to ask a question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry. Commissioner Halas --
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We get mixed up easily.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Talking about taxpayer dollars, the
thing -- I have a very big concern. About two slides back you
showed that we were going to pay taxpayer dollars to attract a
business here and pay them fee payment assistance -- no, the one
before, you just had it, right -- to create five new jobs at 50 percent of
the wage. That's $15,000.
So would the taxpayer dollars -- we are creating a job at the
poverty level, which means then we're going to have to subsidize
them out of other taxpayer dollars, and I don't think that makes sense
at all.
MS. NEMECEK: That's in the-- that's exclusively in the
Enterprise Community, the Enterprise Zone of Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why should you -- why should you
penalize them? They deserve to have 115 percent, too.
MS. NEMECEK: The per capita income currently in
Immokalee is about $8,500.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what's the unemployment?
MS. NEMECEK: And the unemployment rate is about 15
percent. So you're talking about taking individuals and providing
jobs that pay $7, $8, $9 an hour to that community, which currently
are very low wages.
So you're trying to up -- you're trying to create jobs that are in
the unskilled-skilled work force first, and then you can start
upgrading them to higher wage employment. But we need a base
level to be able to start out somewhere.
With some of the manufacturing industries that will go into that
Page 253
September 9, 2003
community, the skill level of the employment base in Immokalee is
not at the level that can garner wages at $35,000 a year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Plus I think, just to reiterate a little
bit, I think also that some of these companies that come in here, there
is a good possibility that even at the wage of $15,000 there might be
some medical benefits attached to these, and that will assist us in
trying to keep those people out of the hospitals that don't pay at the
present time.
So my question is, in one of your slides you were talking about
a high tech job would be about $38,000. I'd like to see that bumped
up to -- that the people that we're trying to attract there, that the
starting wage would be about $42,000.
MS. NEMECEK: About 150 percent of the average wages
would be $45,000.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would seriously limit the
program, I can tell you that. When you're talking about Immokalee, I
guarantee you there's going to be some major changes there in the
very near future, but --
MS. NEMECEK: If we -- we're talking about a three-tier
system, actually. You're talking about Immokalee, which would be
at 50 percent, the eastern Collier County program, which would be at
115 percent, and then the special case, high impact company, would
be at 150 percent. So you would have three different ways to
approving companies to participate in the program.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's just the observation I was
going to make. One of our biggest concerns with respect to
affordable housing is right here. We're always running into
affordable housing problems, and the point is that the cost of living
here is just too high for us to deal with it. The only way we can deal
with it is to increase wages, and if we can get higher wages in this
Page 254
September 9, 2003
part of the county and provide incentives for businesses to provide
those higher wages here, then we solve a lot of problems.
We clearly have to have different criteria for Immokalee and
other portions east in the county, and I think you're right on target,
Tammie.
MS. NEMECEK: Thank you.
MS. CASELTINE: To finish up with this program very
quickly, we are requesting $1.5 million. A million of that would be
allocated to those firms, those companies, projects outside of the
Immokalee Enterprise Community. Another $500,000 would be
allocated to those companies that locate within the Enterprise
Community.
MR. MUDD: But a point of clarification, real quick. There is
nothing in the ordinance that says anything about the dollars that are
allocated to this program. It's a decision the Board needs to make on
the 18th of September.
So let's not talk -- let's not fight this money issue at this
particular moment. Let's try to pass ordinances that you want on
programs, and if you decide to fund it at an appropriate level, then so
be it on the 18th based on the conversation that they have at that
time.
I just want to let you know that there is no dollar amount like
that in the ordinance.
MS. CASELTINE: Thank you.
Moving on. The next program, item 8(J) is what we call the
Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program. Before I
move on, I do want to mention Commissioner Fiala had a question
about reporting requirements for the other program. We do have
reporting requirements as they pertain to these programs, as well.
County staff will be checking, verifying job creation and reports
will be sent to the Board of County Commissioners on how these
monies are spent.
Page 255
September 9, 2003
The Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program
would provide a payment to companies that install advanced
broadband technology into either a new or existing non-residential
building. The company would have paid their annual ad valorem
property taxes in full to the county prior to any request for payment.
Upon verification of invoices that these expenses have indeed
been incurred, the County Manager's office will authorize a payment
to this business.
This is a case by case -- these would be approved on a case by
case basis. Each application to the program would be approved by
the Board of County Commission.
MS. NEMECEK: The cost of the system-- the eligible amount
is not to exceed the cost of the system, and the maximum amount
they could qualify for would be $25,000, which is actually a minimal
amount when you're talking about putting fiber into a building, but it
may be enough to get some of these smaller businesses in the
community to upgrade their systems.
One of the impediments that we run into is the lack of available
telecommunications services here in Collier County, especially when
you're trying to attract corporate headquarters, information
technology based companies, or even manufacturing companies that
have multiple offices around the United States or around the world.
So having reliable advanced telecommunications services is -- in
Collier County is an expensive proposition.
The infrastructure is based on copper and will not be upgraded
until the demand has been shown to the local telephone provider that
they need to put in the fiber to sustain that. So what we are trying to
do is give a jump start to improving our telecommunications
infrastructure through this program and utilizing the private sector to
do that.
In addition to that, we have had conversations with the local
telephone provider in order to provide their own supplemental
Page 256
September 9, 2003
enhancement to this program and reducing some of their costs for the
last mile, so that it's not just the public sector providing an incentive,
but also private sector providing incentive that will help enhance this
program.
The company is reimbursed over a three-year time period not to
exceed $8,400 per year.
MS. CASELTINE: I would estimate that about eight to ten
companies per year would apply for this program, bringing the cost,
if you will, up to about $84,000 per year.
MR. MUDD: But again Commissioners, I want to reemphasize
the prior that this rebate, so to speak, doesn't happen until after they
have paid their taxes. So that they have to pay for the product before
they could come in with their rebate certificate.
MS. CASELTINE: Any questions before we move on?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? Seeing none, is that
the end of the presentation?
MS. CASELTINE: For this particular program. We have two
more.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Go ahead.
MS. CASELTINE: All right. Moving right along, Job Creation
Investment Program. This program is funded by the general fund. It
would provide an authorization for payment to eligible firms based
on new jobs created. Again, we had originally proposed this as a
county-wide program, however, based on those discussions from
Thursday evening, we have provided some suggested enhancements
to this proposal, and I'll let Tammie again go into those.
MS. NEMECEK: The same criteria is going to apply for the
three tiers of businesses that we talked about before. If they are
located in the eastern Collier County boundary, they are eligible for
$2,000 per new job created, $1,000 if they are going to participate in
the state's Qualified Target Industry Program -- that's the state
program that provides tax credits for companies based on the number
Page 257
September 9, 2003
of jobs that they create.
The number of new jobs again is 10, private sector wage of
$115,000 to qualify, and again, the companies must be in the targeted
industry to be eligible for the incentive program.
In the Enterprise Community, the eligible amount is increased
by $1,000 to provide some additional enhancements for that
Enterprise Community. But again, if they participate in the state's
program it's reduced to $1,000 because the state doubles their
incentive program for Enterprise Zones so we would just need to
supplement that by $1,000.
The job requirement would be 5, and again, the wage would be
at 50 percent and the companies must be on the targeted industry list
but can be waived on a case by case basis.
Then the special high impact eligibility requirement would
allow for $2,000 per job, again reduced for the QTI program. They
would need to create an additional 20 new jobs.
The average wage criteria is at the 125 or 150 percent, as we
talked about with the previous program, and the companies must be
within the targeted industry list.
MS. CASELTINE: And since we're not really talking about
money tonight, I'm just going to breeze right through that slide.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let me just ask one more
question then.
MS. CASELTINE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If we are trying to create jobs for
Immokalee and trying to draw people there, why do we give 10 and
20 job offers outside of Immokalee, such a great wage restriction,
and yet we only create 5 in Immokalee rather than the 10 or the 20
where we are trying to attract the people?
we're saying you only have to have 5, and then at such a low
wage, and we don't really care what you pay for them. I mean, it
sounds like you're looking down your nose at Immokalee, and that
Page 258
September 9, 2003
offends me. I'm sorry.
MS. NEMECEK: It's not -- It's not that at all. What we -- this
is an area of critical concern. There is high unemployment, there is
low per capita income. This community does need a lot of
enhancements in regards to recruiting companies out there. Why we
lower the criteria is because it gives the program the most flexibility.
You're not limiting -- if there is an entrepreneur who wants to
move out to the community and they are going to start out with 5
employees, you're allowing that entrepreneur the incentive to locate
out in Immokalee. That entrepreneur wouldn't have that same benefit
if they locate within the other two areas. And so -- some of those
entrepreneurs are going to be where most of your jobs are going to be
created -- what they call gazelle -- fast growing types of companies.
what you're going to do is induce companies that may want to
have 100 jobs in Immokalee, but you're also not precluding that
entrepreneur or that small business owner from locating out in the
Immokalee community. Ninety-five percent of our companies in
Collier County have 10 or fewer employees. So you're giving an
opportunity for those existing companies to move out to Immokalee
that have maybe 5 employees, they are going to add an additional 5
onto their employment base and give them a jump start by going out
to Immokalee.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what you basically said is if there
is a business out in the Immokalee area, and let's say in some other
place it said that you had to have 10 employees to qualify for the
program. If you only hired 9, you couldn't qualify.
So what we did is we lowered the number of employees in the
Immokalee area so that they could qualify easier for the program, so
they could benefit from the program at a smaller number of
employees. So we didn't try to penalize them; we tried to make it
easier for them to be part of this program by lowering that number.
They could come in with 20, 25 that would be fine.
Page 259
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: At that wage, where are they going
to live?
MS. NEMECEK: That's the average wage of the company.
There's going to be a whole spectrum. So you are going to have
people that are still going to be renters in Immokalee, but you're also
going to have people that are going to be offered the opportunity for
year-round employment by recruiting that manufacturing company
into the community. They are no longer going to be a seasonal
employee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please continue.
MS. CASELTINE: And the last program that we want to talk
about is the Property Tax Stimulus Program. This is the one program
that cannot be used with the first one that we had talked about, the
Fee Payment Assistance Program. Those are mutually exclusive
programs.
It would authorize payment to qualified companies that would
be equal to the amount of their ad valorem property taxes they have
already paid into the county. Again we had originally proposed this
as a county-wide program. The enhancements that we've talked
about with the other programs would certainly apply to this one, as
well.
But just keeping in mind that they are already paying their
property taxes up front and we are verifying the jobs that are created,
we're verifying everything they stated is going to happen has
happened, then we'll move along with the program.
MS. NEMECEK: The difference between the impact fee
program and the property tax program is that the company in the
impact fee program receives the funding up front and then is
reimbursed through the property taxes that they -- the increased
property taxes that the company provides to the county and how the
county is paid back.
This property tax program does not require up front funding.
Page 260
September 9, 2003
What it does is, it reimburses the company for property tax dollars
that they pay in each year knowing that the company has stayed in
business, still has the jobs in place, and then they can continue to
qualify for that for a certain time period.
The eligibility requirements remain consistent throughout with
regards to eastern Collier County, the Enterprise Community, and the
High Impact. Again, the differences being in the number of jobs that
they have to create and average wage criteria.
And again, the Viable Business Requirement is that the
company needs to prove each year that they are still a viable
business, that they still have the jobs in place and then they can
benefit from the program.
MR. MUDD: So let me ask another question, because I'm not
too sure. In this particular case they pay their impact fee up front,
okay, and then they get a break on their property taxes for a number
of years by not having to pay those to the county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
back, is that it?
MS. NEMECEK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
entire tax?
MS. NEMECEK: Correct.
They get their entire property tax
And whatever that --
Not a break on it, but they get the
And whatever that property tax rate
is for that particular year, so it's adjusted annually.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there a cap on that at all; a cap
on the limit?
MS. NEMECEK: No. It's a 10-year time limit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 1 O-year time limit?
MS. NEMECEK: 10-year time limit. So the cap is not on an
annual basis but over a time period.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. And a typical size project
that creates 40 new jobs -- in what time frame do they have to create
40 new jobs?
Page 261
September 9, 2003
MS. NEMECEK: They cannot start applying for the Property
Tax Program until all of those 30 jobs or 40 jobs are in place. So at
that point in time when they have proven that those jobs are in place,
is the point in time when they can start claiming the 10 years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who is the Program Administrator?
MS. CASELTINE:
COMMISSIONER
MS. CASELTINE:
COMMISSIONER
Administrator?
MS. CASELTINE:
Probably me.
FIALA: So -- and then how are you paid?
Sorry?
FIALA: How are you paid as the Program
Out of the general fund.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that worked into this program,
are you paid as a county employee.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. One of the things that you had on
the unfinanced requirement was a fee of about $96,000 to pay for the
administrator of the incentive program.
It was one of those things that we funded at the workshop, and
that was her salary that was on that line.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And so that --
MS. CASELTINE: That's not entirely my salary.
MR. SCHMITT: That's not entirely her salary -- she wishes.
That's a fully burdened rate. But Helene is on my staff and it's part
of the general fund. It was fund 111 that funded that position --
MS. CASELTINE: 001. And keep in mind, Commissioners--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then these -- the request for
payment -- for the return payment may be submitted annually for up
to 10 years?
MS. CASELTINE: That's correct. As long as that stated job
creation obligation is met every year, then they can apply for that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And as the Program Administrator
you're going to make sure that it isn't just on paper that they still have
30 jobs. That you actually do a head count or something to know
Page 262
September 9, 2003
that --
MS. CASELTINE: We can check through different agencies,
through state records, and that can be verified. But that's correct.
And keeping in mind, too, this program, when that company makes
application to the program, that application will go to the Board of
County Commission for your approval.
MS. NEMECEK: I think that's an important point is that every
single one of these companies that want to participate in the
programs will come before the Board of County Commission for
individual approval.
MS. CASELTINE: That concludes our presentation on the four
economic incentive programs, and if there's any further questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions before we go
to the public speakers?
Ms. Filson, please call up our first public speaker.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have 14 speakers. The first
one is Stephen Price, he will be followed by Bill Confoy.
MR. PRICE: Good evening. For the record, my name is Steve
Price. I'm from Immokalee. I'm here representing the Immokalee
Community Development Corporation and I want to encourage you
to positively consider all of the recommendations that have been
made tonight.
As you know, Immokalee is an economically depressed
community. We've got schools that are having difficulty with test
scores. I believe we have two F schools in Immokalee, and things
are different over there and it's time for some changes.
I sent you a letter back in August that I hope all of you received
that outlined some of the advantages to doing these things,
particularly the impact fee waivers. We talk about waivers or
deferments as if it's money that the county is giving away. But we
showed you through the Jubilation project with actual numbers --
factual information -- that they built 89 homes. 82 of those families
Page 263
September 9, 2003
already lived in Immokalee in substandard housing. None of those
82 people paid property taxes.
We now have $112,000 a year in property taxes that are being
paid. All of those people received the county services, they used the
roads, they used the schools, they require sheriffs service, all of
these things, yet they paid no taxes to Collier County because they
lived in housing that was substandard and didn't meet the level to be
paying property taxes.
Now we have 89 families that are in decent housing that we've
improved the community and improved it in a way that, without an
impact fee -- and of course, these all paid impact fees -- but without
an impact fee, we would have positively impacted Collier County by
$112,000 a year.
Keep those things in mind when you consider this. We're not
talking about anti-growth, we're talking about a transfer of people
from substandard conditions into good housing and into good jobs.
Commissioner Halas had a good point when he drew attention to
the fact if we're talking about somebody with an average wage of
$8,500 a year and we're bumping them to $15,000, well, in a Naples
setting you're saying why don't we set a higher standard. Well,
$15,000 with health insurance, with vacation pay, with year-round
pay, with the benefits that a lot of us take for granted, compared to
$8,500 a year and that's it, that's quite an improvement.
We need these things in Immokalee and it won't have a negative
impact on Collier County. When we're talking about taking people
simply across the road and putting them in decent housing, there's a
social impact.
I also encourage you not to get caught up in the details. I think
Chairman Henning had a great point in saying that we're trying to
prove a concept here, but let's don't detail it to death when we look at
such things as a salary cap on these things.
There are not very many people going to move out of Port
Page 264
September 9, 2003
Royal and go buy a $175,000 home in Immokalee, okay. You
know, I know when we think about it we say, oh, well, now we want
to limit this, but do we really want to limit it?
If we had somebody that was a two wage earner family making
$125,000 a year that decided to relocate from Lehigh Acres to
Immokalee, and they're already working in the school system or the
sheriffs department or whatever, but now we've got a Little League
coach, now we've got a mentor in that school, we've got a volunteer
for the PTA in that school that's failing. And we now have
somebody that's coaching Little League and Pop Warner football and
volunteering in all of the community things, the Chamber of
Commerce, or whatever. Have we really harmed Collier County?
We've created a taxpayer who was getting benefits anyway. We
have improved a community that desperately is in need of middle
and upper middle class residents to be volunteers in that community.
So, as Commissioner Henning said, let's don't detail this thing to
death. Let's get a good program in place and let's let the staff
administer it and let's do some things that are going to improve the
life of people that are already in Collier County.
I hope you had a chance to look at those numbers that I gave
you because I thought they were quite impressive, and that's factual
information, that's not somebody's opinion. You'll get a lot of opinion
on a lot of things, but it's difficult to get factual information. This
really happened and that's what we're talking aboUt in Immokalee.
Give us a chance to improve the livelihood of these people.
I can tell you as an employer and our bank -- in addition to the
Community Development Corporation, my real job is as Chairman
and CEO of Florida Community Bank. We're half a billion-plus
bank headquartered in Immokalee. Less than 5 percent of our assets
are in Immokalee. We've got offices in the coast and that's where our
assets are.
We are constantly --
Page 265
September 9, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Time's up.
MR. PRICE: Okay. Just to make the point that we're constantly
fighting a battle looking for qualified employees and we need your
help to bring them to Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, just quickly. When you
made a mention of Port Royal, that's not really our biggest concern.
Our biggest concern was that the houses were going to go to the
people that really needed them, and so that's why we were talking
about making sure we had the right vehicles in place so that we had a
control that retirees don't make a run and buy these homes.
These are basically -- these homes are set aside for the
policemen, for the firemen, for the people that are going to move into
Immokalee, and I think that's what we were getting at there.
MR. PRICE: And we appreciate that. If I could respond to it. I
think if you've been to Immokalee I think you will understand that
the retirees are probably not -- in the first three years, at least -- are
not going to make a run on these homes. It's going to take more than
three years to improve the conditions and the living standards to a
point that a retiree might want to come.
So that's not as big an issue as you would think it would be
because of aesthetics of the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. PRICE: Thank you for your time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bill Confoy. He will be
followed by Dex Groose.
MR. CONFOY: Dex Groose gave up the ghost. He left me his
comments, if you want me to read them.
MS. FILSON: He will be followed by Fred Thomas.
MR. CONFOY: I'm Bill Confoy, Commissioners. Thank you
for allowing me to speak. I moved down here in 1982 and opened a
pilot plant in the aerospace business. I've been here obviously since
Page 266
September 9, 2003
then for 20 years. We did not request nor did we receive any interest
incentives to move here. Naples was the kind of community we were
looking for.
Years later we relocated the entire company. We built a brand
new facility out past 951 and we currently employ 250 people at $50
million in sales, and we are probably the largest manufacturer located
here in Collier County. And we moved a second time, the whole
company, without any incentives.
In 1997, my son moved down from up north after going to
school for six years, and he moved down with another person and
created a new startup entrepreneurial business in the medical
manufacturing community, and he moved here and started that plant
without any incentives.
In the year 2000 his company was named in the Entrepreneurial
Magazine as one of the 100 fastest growing businesses in the United
States. And again, that was done without any incentives.
In 2003 the Naples Business Magazine named this company and
others in the biotech industry as an area where they wanted to
expand, and all these companies cited in here moved here without
any incentives.
Having said this, however, I do believe that the plan that I heard
Thursday night authored by Mr. Henning wherein we reduced the $2
million that was being requested by the EDC by cutting it in half or
something like that, and using all the incentives to put new
businesses and create new businesses east of 951, is a good idea.
That is where we moved to and it allows people to live out there
and commute out there and it reduces the traffic coming into the city,
and at the same time allows them a shorter commute to work.
Also, if you're looking for qualified people, which is one of the
reasons we moved here and tested the area first, I believe that the
new university systems that will be here, either in Lee County or the
new Ave Maria, will be excellent incentives for companies looking to
Page 267
September 9, 2003
move here and will find qualified personnel that might improve that
area, as well.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Fred Thomas. He will be
followed by Richard Pegnetter.
MR. THOMAS: Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you so
much for giving us this opportunity. I'm going to wear two hats
today: My name is Fred Thomas, as a citizen, retired, living in
Immokalee, not able to take advantage of the program because I'm
already there. But also, as your Chairman of your Community
Redevelopment Advisory Council, I'd say something about some
action we took just recently.
Not to be redundant, we all know, we've shared with you before,
that several years ago a study was done talking about the drain on ad
valorem taxes. Every dollar you collected in residential they want a
dollar and a quarter back in services. Industrial, 75 cents back.
Agricultural, 37 cents back.
So in order to make the whole burden on this whole county less,
the more industrial development we can get, the better place we're
going to be.
Right now we have a problem in Immokalee where we're losing
money. First time homebuyers are buying in Lehigh Acres. It's
cheaper, no impact fees, et cetera, et cetera.
If we can encourage those folks to live in Immokalee, encourage
our school teachers that work in Immokalee to live in Immokalee,
our deputies that work in Immokalee to live in Immokalee, our retail
management that works in Immokalee, medical professionals, they
live in Immokalee, then we can attract more commercial, increase all
the tax base, increase the ad valorem tax base, just as Mr. Price said
to you a few minutes ago, and make it a viable community.
We can also begin to attract more industry to help the overall
Page 268
September 9, 2003
tax burden in Collier County. I mean, we got these lands sitting out
there, not making much money for the county. But if we were to do
these kind of things and these kinds of incentives to attract these
jobs, it won't impact the traffic on the coast because we're 47 miles
away. It won't create any problems for you on the coast, it just
brings more money into the overall coffers to help make this county a
whole county.
Communities across this county want the money to circulate in
their towns three, four times. Right now, a lot of our money is just
circulating once from the employer in Collier County to the worker,
who takes it to Lee County. We need to turn that around by
providing some incentives for industries to come here, businesses to
come here, middle class folks to live in our community, so that they
begin to have retail and can buy in our community.
To support the recent recommendations of the staff, the
Community Redevelopment Advisory Council at the last meeting
passed a motion to recommend to you the CRA Board, at your next
meeting, that we will be willing to fund the repayment of the
residential impact fee to make this program work, if that's what it
takes to make it work.
But as I pointed out to you before, we have a unique distinction
of being one of a handful of communities in the country that are
identified as a Federal Empowerment Community. And in those
communities, anything that helps to empower that community,
whether it's recreation, highway, parks, job development, any monies
that are available around the country, we get targeted to get the
money first. So that in that zone that we need your local help and we
can make some things happen.
You know, that foreign trade port could be a major boon to this
area that we are trying to get done here in this community. So we are
just asking you to, you know, further plant a few more seeds, put a
little fertilizer on this program, so we can help be a major part of
Page 269
September 9, 2003
your ad valorem tax base. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Richard Pegnetter, followed
by Andrew Mager.
MR. PEGNETTER: For the record, my name is Richard
Pegnetter. I'm here on behalf of the Economic Development Council
of Collier County. I'd like to just make a few comments that would
generally apply to what I think is really the heart of all of the
incentives that are being talked about and requested for your
consideration, and that is the impact on diversifying the economy.
Just several points.
The first is that with an economy that is fiat in terms of the
kinds of range of economic activity that goes on, it's like a portfolio
of investments -- and I know all of you either thought about or are in
the middle of planning for that in terms of different goals, including
retirement.
The more diverse it is the more it's able to withstand certain
variations and certain fluctuations in the economy. And that's the
same thing that happens when you diversify the economic
demography of the economy. It's more able to withstand some of
those shifts and changes and keep its strength. It's sort of like adding
muscle; not necessarily dimension, but adding muscle to the
economy.
The second is the opportunity that that presents for citizens.
Because you've heard that the incentives are generally targeted in
many important ways to bring in companies that add technology jobs
that are often referred to as knowledge-based jobs in the industry,
and those tend to pay more money.
And what that does in terms of that diversity is then offer--
open up doors for a wider range of economic opportunity for the
citizens who live here and are going to be pursuing jobs in that
Page 270
September 9, 2003
economy, rather than the limit that might be there in a flatter
demography for the economy.
The last is just to urge you to recognize how competitive the
economic development environment is. Every time a company is
considering expanding here they are also looking at other places were
they might move to make that expansion. Or if a company isn't here
yet, then we're trying to attract them here.
It's a very competitive market and the more things that can be
contained in a tool kit that the Economic Development staff have to
work with, the greater opportunity it is to expand that opportunity for
a broader range ofjobs and to strengthen the economy by adding to
its diversity.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Andrew Mager. He will be
followed by Larry Hodges.
MR. MAGER: Good evening. Thank you. I'm here in a dual
role. One as a private citizen, and I'm going to make it very short
because I can see most of us are about ready for a nap. Pardon?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name for the record?
MR. MAGER: Andrew Mager. As a private citizen I think it's
essential for the health of the community to have more than what we
have in Collier County. We have great tourist business, good
agriculture, construction and services. I think we need to enhance
that in being able to support industrial expansion as indicated in the
EDC program.
As I stated, I want to talk about the fact that I was involved in
one of the programs that you Commissioners supported, which is the
support of the North Naples Research and Technology Park, and
we're successful in having the pending contract, once we get through
with all of the situations with the Corps of Engineers and Water
Management, in bringing 45 down from a plant in Michigan. We are
Page 271
September 9, 2003
going to move their headquarters and move the plant down here.
When we were in negotiations with the contract we were
competing very heavily with Lee County and I think it's an indication
of what we do experience in this area in that we didn't have the
incentive programs and I think this EDC program will go a long way
in providing us the opportunity to bring other people in.
We have been competing with Lee County and specifically
Brynwood -- which I'm sure you all know is in Lee County, southern
Lee County -- and at that time we were negoti.ating against expenses
with the 45 jobs and Lee County at that time was offering a $2,000
grant job incentive per job, which meant $90,000.
We had nothing else to offer and the only offer we could make
is that we had the developer reduce his price substantially to more
than offset that.
In many cases -- and I heard one of the gentlemen talk about the
fact that everybody moved without incentives, without incentives.
When corporations and outfits look at where they are going to move,
they may have a preference but economics always comes into play.
And I fully support the EDC incentive and I think you should
also. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Larry Hodges. He will be
followed by Steve Tirey.
MR. HODGES: Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for
the time that you've given us. My name i.s Larry Hodges. I'm a
small business owner in Southwest Florida and a homeowner, and I'll
speak for both.
One, as a homeowner. I got my tax bill -- not my tax bill but
my proposed assessment on my home -- which is residential --
residence in North Naples. The value of my home according to the
county is now $20,000 higher than it was last year, the assessment
value. That concerns me. And as things change in this county and if
Page 272
September 9, 2003
we don't continue to make changes in this county, that value is going
to go higher and higher, because there's not going to be any homes to
build and the only thing that's going to support this county is going to
be property taxes on private homes, because we don't have enough
infrastructure for the businesses and light industry and those things
that will promote and give more dollars to the county coffers with
less expense.
So I'm very, very strongly in favor of the EDC initiative and the
diversification.
Also as a small business owner-- we run a little business, a
technology based business, sort of, in a way. We provide office
technology to companies all over Southwest Florida. Our ability to
hire trained technical people is very limited in this area because
there's not enough of those types of job availabilities here.
We have hired -- I think I told you Commissioners last week --
10 technicians in the Southwest Florida area in the last year and a
half, and one of them was a Collier County resident. The rest of
them were from somewhere else. I don't like that, I don't think that's
right, I think we should have a bigger base of people with these talent
and skills and this level of ability in this area.
And I think with the initiative and the diversification that we're
trying to attempt to with the EDC and their initiative, we're going to
get there as long as you guys approve. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Steve Tirey. He will be
followed by Bill Klohn.
MR. TIREY: Good evening, Commissioners, Mr.
Administrator. Steve Tirey from the Chamber of Southwest Florida
representing employers from throughout Lee, Collier Charlotte,
Henry and Glades counties.
I had the opportunity to communicate with you at your prior
meeting on this topic and with most of you in writing and e-mail. I
Page 273
September 9, 2003
just want to reinforce the fact that we've heard some comments about
losing opportunities to Lee County.
As you know, Lee County for the past four years has had in
excess of $2 million a year in economic incentives. But I think the
interesting thing to note is, as you bring your incentives on line I
believe that you'll become -- you'll have the opportunity to readjust
your sights. You'll begin to understand that the competition is not
Lee County, it's other regions across Florida and across the
southeastern United States.
As you begin to provide these opportunities to build and shape
your economy, I believe that you'll begin to be a stronger regional
player in developing not only the economy of your county but of our
region.
The folks that I work for really don't care where their folks live
as long as they show up to work, they are well trained, and they have
the right attitude, and they're properly educated.
I have found in our experience in the Chamber that economics
do not know geopolitical boundaries. So your opportunity here to
become a stronger regional player I think should be recognized and
you should be applauded for moving forward with due diligence to
strengthen your economy.
I hope to come back a year from now as you're taking a look at
the metrics of your success and as you talk about the furore, because
I think what you're going to find as you go through your due
diligence process and as you implement these new incentives, you're
going to have an impact in shaping not only Collier's economy but
the economy of the region.
The Chamber of Southwest Florida Board applauds you in
taking this important first step in providing these incentives for
Collier County and for Southwest Florida, and we encourage you to
move forward. We'll be here with you through the process.
Thank you.
Page 274
September 9, 2003
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bill Klohn. He will be
followed by Jeff Fridkin.
MR. KLOHN: Good evening. For the record, my name is Bill
Klohn. I am President of MDG Capital Corporation. I'm also a
Board member of the Immokalee Community Development
Corporation.
It was this Board that has provided the leadership that brings us
here this evening. In the last year we've all worked very hard
together regarding the incentives in Irmnokalee to include the impact
fee deferrals.
I echo the comments from some of my associates, Steve Price
and Fred Thomas, so I won't be redundant. One of the very
important things that they missed in the year process. We had a lot of
resistance and by golly, we've made it.
I want to thank staff for taking the time to listen and, rather than
say no, to think a little bit out of the box, to be creative, so that we
could move forward with some of these programs and have staff
support.
So thank you very much to the staff.
With regard to the programs in general, I support all of the
programs being proposed by the EDC. Please support them.
With respect to the Impact Fee Deferral Program, this is a very
important step for Immokalee. It's depressed and I think that this will
provide the economic incentives that are necessary to recoup those
people that are driving to Lee County.
One of the Commissioners was speaking about the wage cap and
I would urge you to rethink this. We tried to keep this program
simple. It was the region of the Empowerment Zone, it was the
$175,000 cap on the home, and lastly it was an owner-occupied, and
we have the mechanism to do those checks.
The reason that you need to think clearly about keeping this
program simple. As an example a teacher makes $32,000, a highway
Page 275
September 9, 2003
patrol officer makes $38,000. That combined income is already over
100 percent of the median income. So please, let's keep it simple and
I would ask that you eliminate the means test in your thought process
with regard to income.
The program will help work force housing. Yes, it will, it really
will. But the real backbone behind this incentive program for
Immokalee is to create economic stability in Immokalee.
So let's forget about the work force to some extent and think
about promoting economic stability in Immokalee, which, without
the means test, it will help build houses. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Jeff left, so the next speaker will be Fred
Pezeshkan. He will be followed by Dick Botthof. Dick Botthof?
Threasa Miller. She will be followed by your final speaker, Bob
Krasowski.
MS. MILLER: Good evening. Thank you for listening to our
concerns. My name's Threasa Miller. I'm the Executive Director of
Pace Center for Girls in Immokalee, and I'm sorry to say that I'm one
of those people that don't live in Immokalee and I do work there, and
that's because when we opened Pace six years ago there was no
housing for me to live in or to buy, so I commute.
I'm really excited about the project that has been proposed and I
urge your support of that project. My concern is setting a salary
limit. As Mr. Klohn said, teachers start at $32,000 a year. We
employ teachers and social workers. We want our staff to live in
Immokalee so they are available at night to volunteer and to be that
great civic person Mr. Price talked about. And they can't do that with
that salary limit. If you bring in two teachers at $32,000 each they
have already exceeded that.
So I'm going to ask you not to put that salary cap on there or to
at least raise it above the 100 percent. I think we have great things in
store. I urge everyone to come to Immokalee. I love working there,
Page 276
September 9, 2003
the community is wonderful and these are just -- these incentives are
going to make it that much better. So thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello, my name is Bob Krasowski. I'm
just speaking as an average citizen here, and I'm not involved in the
Chamber and other organizations that are advocating this activity.
But I'm looking at this as an average person of modest income, a
small family resident of 25 years of Collier County.
Whenever these type of problems come up it always raises the
question with me is, who, with my tax dollars, will we be
subsidizing. And oftentimes I'm subsidizing an activity with people
that make a lot more money than I do.
I know a past situation was when exemptions of impact fees
were given to certain medical industries that were locating in Collier
County, and these people make a very good living and a lot of
money, and I didn't see why there was any need to subsidize their
impact fees.
As you know, we need money -- we need to collect money from
impact fees to pay for roads and other infrastructure, and every time
you waive an impact fee you're putting that burden on someone else,
and that happens a lot in Collier County.
The residents here, the people that are established here, often are
carrying the burden for growth -- for increased growth.
I certainly empathize with the situation in Immokalee. Much of
what I heard I think is very interesting and probably if I understood
more about it, I might support some of it. But I do believe, as one of
the gentlemen prior to me had said, that a lot of businesses come here
on their own initiative. And he seems to do very well, his son is
doing business in Collier County and has made out very well without
incentives.
Collier County is a very nice place to live. Maybe if we took
some more money and invested in beautifying Immokalee,
Page 277
September 9, 2003
landscaping, just generally keeping the place more attractive by
advancing programs that already exist, we could just continue to
attract people here. They have a pretty fast rate of growth now and I
think that we might encourage the place to grow even wilder and
crazier as time goes on.
We need a moderate, effective development in Collier County
and I think it behooves us to be maybe a little slower or maintain our
present growth.
Also, these jobs that were identified, their average is $34,000
and you spoke around the issue. That means some people make less.
If you have a couple of high wage earners you might get a bunch of
people making less and then we have to subsidize them because they
are beneath the ability to purchase houses. So the cycle just keeps
going on and on.
These people -- are we guaranteed that they'll be American
companies that we're going to be spending money on, bringing down
here? Are we going to have the requirement that the jobs -- that
these people actually hire Collier County residents.9 Certainly some
of the more technical skills we have to bring in from the outside but
the things that -- should Collier County residents get the first shot at
the jobs or are we just accelerating the growth here?
Some areas that we might want to consider. Are we bringing in
industries that are competing with existing businesses in Collier
County?
Is there going to be attention given to these jobs providing work
for our high school graduates and local college kids that want to live
in the area?
Another thing that we could give attention to is Commissioner
Coyle referenced the increase in the salaries of the people that
already live here, like teachers and police personnel or anybody in
general that lives here. Maybe we should give more attention to just
letting the marketplace operate on its own and make people pay for
Page 278
September 9, 2003
the services that they do get.
Once again, I'm just a regular person out there in the community
that has an interest in this and a lot of these people have a lot of
knowledge based on this. But that's what I see when these type of
issues are discussed.
And I appreciate your attention to my comments.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Okay. Is there any
further questions from our staff?. Wishes of the Board?
Commissioner Coyle, would you like me to state what was discussed
at the budget workshop?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Please don't.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sure you read it in the meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's all you need.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Please. Are we ready for
discussion here?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, as we said, we would discuss all five.
and given the changes that have been discussed tonight and based on
some of the guidance after the budget hearing, it appears that we'll
probably have to bring all five back after the ordinances are adopted
-- or at least our changes.
Now we can have them on the summary agenda but it looks like
we're going to probably have 'to readvertise. I'll turn to the County
Attorney so he can make sure that's on the record as we stated.
But the Immokalee area Impact Fee Deferral Program, we can
certainly take your guidance. But as I prefaced when I made my
presentation we still need CRA approval.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's take the Immokalee piece
first. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I was going to say I, for
one, would like to see that move forward. Of course, where we take
Page 279
September 9, 2003
it from the TIF fund and the county gets reimbursed on it, I think
that's an excellent way to work it.
I talked to my friend Fred Thomas -- it's getting a little late, I
guess -- not too long ago about it and he fully endorses it. I'll tell
you it's a way to do it without having a major impact on the county
budget.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you like to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion that we
approve it.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, can I ask for guidance in some
of the stipulations that were discussed or do you want --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, this would be with the
condition that we take it from --
MR. SCHMITT: The 25 percent as proposed in the draft
ordinance?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As proposed in the draft.
MR. MUDD: And Commissioner, what you're telling us to do
is you're taking a vote not on the ordinance in the packet because the
ordinances in the packet don't have all these specifications and they
weren't advertised per the specifications that were changed. So we
are going to have to readvertise.
If you agree in unison that this is the way you want it, here are
the specifications, we will bring it back, advertise it correctly and
we'll put it on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. We got that, I think. And
we're only dealing with the Immokalee piece right now in this
motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me -- is there a second to the
motion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm going to second the motion.
Page 280
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm concerned about the
specifications. What specifications do you have with respect to this
program?
MR. SCHMITT: What was discussed, we talked about
establishing a program that would use the Tax Incremental Fund to
pay back a certain portion back to the county. Staff's
recommendation is 25 percent.
You heard from Mr. Thomas that the Advisory Board has
already approved that. One of the discussions yet that I'm waiting for
guidance from the Board is whether or not they want to establish
other qualification criteria.
We discussed the -- in the presentation we discussed the current
criteria of owner-occupied, $175,000 home, and -- I can't remember
the third one. The dwelling must be within the geographical
boundaries of the Immokalee Enterprise Zone.
What I'm looking for from the Board, because it would be the
CRA, but staff would prefer that it remain the Immokalee Enterprise
Zone as the boundary because of the federal designation that it has as
a Rural Federal Enterprise Community.
However, understanding the CRA -- we'll be asking the CRA to
reimburse the TIF money back for some areas that may not be in the
CRA because the two boundaries don't overlap. That's why we were
-- when I originally spoke I said we proposed that the CRA be the
boundary, but Fred has now informed me that his Board has already
concurred and so we would support that, because it does lend itself
extra protection because of the designation of the Enterprise Zone.
So it would be restricted to the Enterprise Zone, the dwelling
must be owner-occupied, the maximum sale price of $175,000, and I
look to this Board for guidance if they want to establish a total
income criteria.
One of the points that Mr. Thomas brought out was the fact that
if you have a schoolteacher and a fireman, they are going to exceed
Page 281
September 9, 2003
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's not part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. Nobody has talked
about a salary cap amount.
MR. SCHMITT: That's why -- that's what I'm bringing up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nobody said anything about what
the amount is.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What, it's $500,000 a year or
$200,000 a year? Nobody's mentioned that; nobody's said a word
about it.
MR. SCHMITT: I'm waiting for guidance on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm very disappointed that there
seems to be a lack of appreciation concerning public perception of
these programs. And I think that it's critical that if we implement one
of these programs we do it in a way that we can demonstrate that we
are wisely spending the taxpayers' money.
Mr. Krasowski I think has fairly well echoed the general
sentiment of many people in this community who believe that these
incentive programs are a giveaway to people who simply don't need
it.
And the idea that we should just throw money out there like
manure and hope something is going to grow, is typical of the
runaway, socialist, bureaucratic government behavior.
We need these programs and I'm trying to lay the groundwork
for getting them. But if we don't establish the guidelines to make
sure they achieve the desired goal, we will be doing just exactly what
many people are suggesting, that current taxpayers are frontloading a
giveaway program for people who don't need it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's your recommendation?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I've already made my
recommendations and I don't think anybody agrees with them.
Page 282
September 9, 2003
One is that when these homes no longer are owner-occupied,
they are no longer homesteaded, then that impact fee is due to us.
MR. SCHMITT: And that's in the recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's in the recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, it wasn't the last time
I asked. The other issue was a salary cap. I don't believe that
somebody making $225,000 in Immokalee should be able to go in
and buy a home and have us subsidize -- front end load the payment
of the impact fee. I don't think that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't mean to interrupt but just to
kind of hurry this along. What is your recommendation on the salary
cap? Because I'm hearing --
MR. SCHMITT: We discussed 100 percent. Staff, when we
discussed this originally earlier this evening, we said 100 percent of
the median income, which is $61,400 for a family of four. The SHIP
is 80 percent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It should be higher than that. It
should be higher than SHIP.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. That's why we're saying 100 percent. So
you can go up to a 100 percent of the median income, which is
$61,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm not tying it to median
income. Pick a figure that makes sense, but make sure it is a salary
level where people -- people could not afford it otherwise. In other
words, what I'm saying is why should someone who makes $250,000
a year have -- be able to participate in this program in Immokalee?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I agree and I'm not arguing.
I'm trying to look for a figure. We could make it 150 percent of the
median income.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All I'm saying is pick a salary
level that makes sense for Immokalee that will encourage the kind of
people to be able to purchase something out there. Just keep in mind
Page 283
September 9, 2003
that it shouldn't be a level so high that these people don't need
financial assistance, that's all I'm saying.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Let me throw something out:
150 percent of the median income, and I think that's pretty much
where you want to be, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think, it should be higher than
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do, too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it should be higher than
that. I don't see anything wrong with a $75,00 or $80,000 salary cap,
okay.
MR. SCHMITT: That would -- 150 percent would be about
$90,000 total income.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 150 percent?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's have an auction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute, wait a minute. I
thought you were telling me that 150 percent was $45,000.
MR. SCHMITT: No. The 100 percent of the -- the median
income right now for a family of four, qualification 100 percent
would be $61,400.
For SHIP we take 80 percent of that. So you certainly would be
-- 80 percent of that you would qualify. What we are recommending
for this you could go up to 100 percent, up to the 61,000 and still
qualify.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would go even higher than that,
quite frankly.
MR. SCHMITT: So what we're saying is we'll go back to what
Commissioner Henning said, 150 percent, we'll come back with a 150
percent of the median income.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But just establish some reasonable
guidelines.
Page 284
September 9, 2003
MR. SCHMITT:
annually.
MR. THOMAS:
going to tell you why.
That would be reasonable because we do that
If he ties it to median income is a problem. I'm
The median income in Collier County
dropped between 2001 and 2002 significantly. If you have, you said
$100,000 family income for a family of four, we can work it that
way, you understand.
But if the median income drops because investment income
drops in Collier County, which is what drives it up in the first place,
that could affect the program significantly in the future.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have a problem with the
family income of that level just as long as we have a guideline.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That fine. I changed my
motion to read $100,000.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I'll amend my second.
Are there any other concerns on the Immokalee incentives? Any
other comment on the motion; questions on the motion?
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is just the first one, right?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's correct.
All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. SCHMITT: All right. Just to make sure, we'll bring that
back then for CRA approval.
The Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program, the Fee
Page 285
September 9, 2003
Payment Assistance Program, the Tax Stimulus and the Job Creation,
each of those, since they have been modified since they've been
advertised, will have to come back. We'll take your guidance on any
one of those, as well, and it appears that we would be able to put
those on the summary agenda, but we would have to make sure they
go through the legal review and go back through the Clerk's office.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Advanced Broadband.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me tell you on the whole thing
again. Businesses -- existing businesses cannot receive these benefits
and I don't mind if the guy that has a second home in Port Royal that
wants to relocate his business on U.S. 41. I would rather see him go
to 951 and some of his employees use the other side of the road that
is not used in the morning.
That was my whole point, is the tax dollars that we're being
asked to use are the public's tax dollars. And if we are going to
incentivise people again with more traffic flowing the same way that
they do, they are going to be irate.
So I'm going to stick to my original thought.
MR. SCHMITT: Original proposal of one mile -- everything
east of 951 ?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: East of 951, and I'm only one vote.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, wait. Don't be so sure on
that. I was trying to figure out exactly what the benefit was of being
one mile west of 951. I've been through that in my mind going
through that whole corridor, and I'm trying to figure out where they
could benefit from it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Something's coming up that we don't
know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, in that case there, I'd
play it safe and say east of 951, too. Is there something we should
know that we don't know?
Page 286
September 9, 2003
MS. NEMECEK: We're just trying to capture both sides of 951.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But there is nothing on the
other side of 951. It's all residential, for the most part. Golden Gate
City has got some area, but, I mean, it's very limited there. MS. NEMECEK: East Naples.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Does that make a difference,
Golden Gate City? Is there something there that we are missing?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: East Naples: You got Lely, you got
Rookery Bay. There's something cooking, but I'm not sure.
Commissioner Fiala had a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My question was on the broadband
thing. How many companies here sell broadband or are we using
taxpayer dollars just to put dollars into the broadband company?
Somehow I'm having a problem giving them our taxpayer
dollars to entice some other company to improve their technology. If
they want to improve it, let them improve it, but why do we have to
give the company all that money -- the broadband company?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Tammie, can you answer that?
MS. NEMECEK: May I comment? Thank you. In regards to
the telecommunications infrastructure, the telecommunications
companies are putting in infrastructure based on the demand of the
companies that require that infrastructure. And over the years it's
been cost prohibitive for these companies to put in the fiber optic and
the wireless, especially when you are talking about small companies.
So this incentive is going to allow these companies to put in
advanced broadband infrastructure. It's going to cost way more than
the $25,000 that the county is providing, but that can be an
inducement to upgrade to the fiber systems.
By upgrading to the fiber systems, then that automatically
requires the telecommunications providers to upgrade from copper to
fiber in the ground, which they won't do on their own until the
demand is there.
Page 287
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But tell me, that's not bringing in a
company. What you're saying is an existing company can upgrade
their system. So we're going to pay $25,000 to this broadband
company out of taxpayer dollars so that they can upgrade. I don't
know how that's doing anything at all to stimulate business in
Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think maybe I could help out.
Say for instance, a company put -- asked for this request of $25,000
to upgrade their infrastructure for broadband. What this does is
causes the telecommunication company to install this into that
building. That then provides an avenue for other companies to tap
into that, because now it's established there.
MS. NEMECEK: Exactly. Once the fiber is there --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Once the fiber is there then what
you do -- it has the ability for other companies that are presently here
now to tap into that fiberoptics.
MS. NEMECEK: As well as the residents of the community.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the residents of that
community. So what it does is it increases the flow of information.
So what we're doing is, if you can picture a company that's out
here in the distance someplace and they don't -- there is no way that
they can come up with the funding on their own to come up with the
fiberoptics. But if we help them with the fiberoptics, then other
companies that establish along that route then have that opportunity
to get involved in that and it's no cost to the company itself and it's
no additional cost to the county, because it's already put in place.
And then what we do is we increase everybody's ability to get
on board the super highway.
MS. NEMECEK: It reduces the overall cost of the system, as
well, to the entire community because you have additional fiber that's
in the line and it becomes more cost effective for other people,
residents as well as companies, to tap into the system. So what you
Page 288
September 9, 2003
are doing is reducing the overall cost of the system.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further questions?
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a comment that governs all
of these remaining items. You want me to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. That's where we're at.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- bring that up at this point right
now?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to make a motion and
actually, that's going to be a direction for staff to bring it back as an
advertised item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then this statement
probably will be my last on this whole set of items. But I'll do my
best.
Everybody knows we don't need to have incentives to get
people to come to Collier County. They are flocking here, but they
are going into construction, tourism or service industries. Now, that's
what the market is producing. The market is causing that, and we've
got more of those than we need and I quite frankly don't want
anymore.
That's the one reason I'm willing to support a program that puts
some government money into changing the market conditions,
because we have an economy that is dangerously lopsided.
Now, if we can get these incentive programs to target the right
kind of industries so that we diversify our job base and increase our
salary levels, then we will do a lot of really, really good things for
Collier County.
The problem we have, though, is that the cost of living is going
up very rapidly but salaries are going up only gradually. So that
every time you create a job at $35,000, you're killing us because we
are not even getting close to the cost of living in this area, and people
can't afford to live here at that level. They live in substandard
Page 289
September 9, 2003
housing or they have to rent or they have to live with multiple people
in the family.
The only way we solve that problem is to have a quantum
change in the salary levels. And it's for that reason that I would like
to encourage that we dramatically boost the salary levels we are
expecting companies to bring here.
$35,000 a year jobs to Immokalee is significant, even $15,000,
as you pointed out, is significant. To most other areas in Collier
County it's not significant at all. It's harmful.
And what I would like to see us do is to move that minimum
average wage requirement up dramatically so we can have a sort of a
step function in that salary curve. We can get that salary curve going
up a lot faster, and hopefully, we'll come closer to the cost of living
and the economy will work better that way.
One way of doing that is to take part of the money that we're
going to allocate to this program and put it in a pool that we, as
Commissioners, can use to custom design incentive programs for
highly desirable types of businesses to come to Collier County --
businesses that will really create significant salaries for their
employees and help our community.
And in that way, we can sit down with those organizations, find
out what we need, tailor an incentive package for them that benefits
them, but gets appropriate return for our taxpayers. And in that way
we're not constrained by the rigidity of the programs that are
currently being proposed.
Now, I'm not suggesting that we do away with the programs
you've proposed. I'm suggesting we keep those. But I'm saying we
take a portion of the money and we put it into a pool that we can use
for tailormaking packages for highly desirable organizations. Now, what's your take on that?
MS. NEMECEK: The flexibility of the program-- and that's
why we talked about the high impact -- adding that component to it is
Page 290
September 9, 2003
still retaining that flexibility for the Board of County Commission to
attract those companies that are highly desirable in this community,
that would pay those higher wages, technology based, add to the
employment base here in what Dr. Pegnetter referred to as the
knowledge-based industry. And I think that that's a viable solution to
allow us to compete for these desired employers in Collier County.
There's a -- the Governor has requested allocation of those
dollars on the state level because they understand that when it comes
down to it, that we are competing not only within the state for
companies, but other states are looking at our companies as well to
try to recruit them out of the state.
And to have that flexibility is needed in order that you can
customize those programs in order to meet the needs of the
companies, because you can't foresee exactly what those needs are
going to be and put them into a box.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly right. And what I
would like to do is to have you consider changing these private sector
wage targets to -- we were talking about 150 percent at one time and
it was around $45,000, if I remember correctly. Now, Commissioner
Halas was interested in the same thing, for those areas of the county
where that is appropriate, okay.
And then we still retain some money in this program that we can
do to attract those people that provide even greater salary benefits to
our residents.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Clarification. We're still going to
see all these. We still need to approve these individually, the Board
of Commissioners; right? So I think it's pretty much covered,
Commissioner. You're still going to have the mix there that you're
going to cover. And it doesn't have to be a high wage job. It's going
to be in the mix anyways.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm not sure I agree. If
under this program Tammie and EDC were to go out and start
Page 291
September 9, 2003
looking for companies that provide $38,000 a year salaries, they are
going to bring those in here and we're going to sit here and talk with
them, and then we're going to say, well, that's not really high enough,
$38,000 is not going to cut it, even for the incentives that we have
got identified here.
Doesn't cut it for Immokalee or some places in the eastern part
of the county, but we also need jobs in other places. There are places
right here in East Naples where people need higher paying jobs
because they cannot afford reasonable housing.
So what I'm trying to do is find a way to get those salary levels
up. If we keep creating $35,000 and $38,000 a year jobs, we really
are backing up, we're not going forward.
MS. NEMECEK: I think allocating a certain portion of the
dollars and designating those towards high impact companies that
can be brought back on a case by case basis, and having the wage
criteria equal to 150 percent, and putting the job requirement at 20, I
think would satisfy that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we just throw a figure, set
aside $100,000 out of the program fund?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about a million?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry. Come again now, where
are we?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly what were you asking
for for this program?
MS. NEMECEK: The up front on the fee payment assistance
was a million allocated outside the Enterprise Community and
500,000 specifically dedicated to Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I can't figure out exactly
where we're going with this that's wrong. We still have the right at
any point in time to reject anything that's coming down. There's
been a lot of time spent on this and now at the eleventh hour we're
Page 292
September 9, 2003
going to try to rebuild this whole thing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's our privilege.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're right, that is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not the first time you've
heard it. I've brought this up in every meeting we've had since we
started. That creating a $35,000 a year job in most places in Collier
County does not increase the economic stability.
MS. NEMECEK: What you could do is allocate that million
dollars to be used for both the eastern Collier County companies as
well as that special case scenario where you're requiring the higher
wage as 150 percent, and the job creation at 20 new jobs. So you
would have that dedicated million dollars for that program.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so why don't you just bring
back the recommendation based on what you think will work and
then we'll have a chance to consider it later, but okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Am I wrong or do you consider
this would work, what we have before us?
MS. NEMECEK: Adding in that high impact company criteria?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What I'm saying is we're trying
to give You recommendations and the recommendation I heard was
bring back what you think will work.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Somebody throw out a motion so we
can start building that and move forward.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion to approve it
and then we can go ahead and get it up for discussion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And give us some -- approve it and
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Approve as is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: As is. Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, for guidance, as is, then we're
back to the percentage where it's 125 percent that was listed and
Commissioner Coyle talked about 150 percent.
Page 293
September 9, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. But I'm just starting the
motion off and at that point in time we'll go ahead and amend it as
we need to to make this Commission reach some happy level that's
going to work for everything out there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I can't support the motion
because of traffic impacts to areas. I think east of 951 is where we
should be.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, just a thought, that if you have a concern
about both sides of 951 but you don't want to go a mile west of 951,
you could say immediately adjacent to and east of 951, and if you
want to get the alignment of roads that are, the roads -- excuse me,
the property that's exactly contiguous and touching 951 on the west
side. Just a thought.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you know, Commissioner
Coletta and I have the same similar concern is who are we trying to
capture to benefit here, that's all.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All I want to do is get this
motion up front and go ahead and amend it. Actually, I change my
motion to be east of 951. The center line, by the way, so somebody
doesn't get smart on the edge of the road.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does the second agree to that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I second that, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I need to make sure we have a
point of clarification and we understand the funding sources, as well.
Right now you're currently budgeted for one and a half million
dollars, and of course, that's what's in the budget.
But we also identified this proposal that those companies
locating in the CRA district so that would be Bayshore Gateway
CRA or Immokalee we would look for a 10 percent fee transfer per
year and make sure you understand that we would of to pursue that,
Page 294
September 9, 2003
as well through the respective CRAs and then come back to the
Board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine. We'll have to deal with
the CRA issue when it comes back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm trying to understand what you
mean by 10 percent fee issue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what we are talking about
it's the same picture with the impact fee deferrals for the housing. If
-- it's your call, if you just want to promote industry everywhere, but
what we are saying is if industry comes into the county that the Tax
Incremental Fund and the effect of that industry coming into a CRA
district, all that money goes into the CRA and the county sees none
of the taxes for those programs that for instance, the fee payment
assistance you're using general fund money to promote businesses to
come into Collier County, and the only way you get that back, in
theory, is through future taxes. But the CRA is exempt from that.
Although taxes are going into the respective CRAs. So in order to
compensate for that, shall I say the county --
MR. SCHMITT: Without having a percentage come out of the
CRA, Commissioner, basically everybody outside the CRA, every
taxpayer outside the CRA, is totally subsidizing that improvement.
What we're basically saying is if this is going to be an incentive
program you want to get those tax dollars back out again so that they
increase your tax base.
And unless the CRA, the benefit that they will get from it is
there will be increased assessments as far as property value is
concerned to that, and they'll get that delta but they won't get the
whole chunk of dollars right off the bat from a new one coming in.
CRAs were set in 1989 as the baseline.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 10 percent of what?
MR. SCHMITT: 10 percent of the Tax Incremental Fund. If
you have a store there now that's paying, pick a number, $25,000 a
Page 295
September 9, 2003
year in taxes, and somebody goes in there and opens a business that
now they are getting $75,000 a year in taxes that $50,000 delta goes
into the TIF and the CRA gets that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you're going to do it on a
property by property, business by business basis?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. If a business relocates into the CRA
district, we would look for some method to pay back at least a
portion of that TIF back to the county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to know how you
were going to identify --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The easiest way to do it is we are
creating an economic zone east of 951. If there are any CRAs inside
that zone they need to participate. Anybody outside they are not to
participate until the Board changes that on a case by case basis.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's excellent. I'd like to
make that part of the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor, of the motion signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1. Thank you.
Anything else?
MR. SCHMITT: We covered the job creation and the tax'
stimulus, any guidance on those two? Job creation program was
basically payments, again, is there any other guidance with regards to
the various criteria?
Page 296
September 9, 2003
way
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
MR. SCHMITT: You want us to kind of carry that theme all the
through and bring them back?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
Yes.
Do you have a formal position?
You covered it all, it was just a
clarification.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was having a problem with that
one so I can't vote in favor of it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Which one?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of the job creation, just because of
creating low wage jobs and using taxpayer dollars to do it. I know
you've explained it, I just don't like that and I cannot vote in favor of
that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We'll deal with that when it
comes back.
Anything else, Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: That's it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have some comp plan
amendments that take a super majority and I'm kind of fizzling out. I
don't know how the other Commissioners feel.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was going to suggest that we
break for the evening.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The thing is the advertising.
MR. MUDD: You have four people right now that Sue had that
want to talk on items.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: You have one on item 9(L), one on item 10
Alpha.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call them as you see it.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners--
Page 297
September 9, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's take a seven minute break.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2003-43 PETITION NO. CPSS-2003-1, A SMALL
SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
(FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT) TO EXPAND THE
FIOIJNDARIF. S OF ACTIVITY CENTER #16- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: We have 8(C) --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't you call 8(C) up?
MR. MUDD: 8(C) is continued from the July 29, 2003 BCC
meeting. Approvals of Items 17(A) and 17(B) are contingent upon
much approval of this item. You will note today that Commissioner
Fiala asked 17(A) be continued, so 17(B) is contingent upon this item
and 17(A) will be heard at a different time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. MUDD: Petition CPSS-2003-1, Small Scale Growth
Management Plan Amendment, Future Land Use Element, to expand
the boundaries of Activity Center Number 16.
Activity Center Number 16 should be on your visualizer.
MS. FILSON: We have one speaker, Rich Yovanovich.
MR. MUDD: He will be presenting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to tell you that I have met
with the CRA Advisory Board and they all are in agreement that this
is a good thing coming our way.
So I would make a motion to approve it unless you would like to
give a little speech.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it if you're almost
done.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm done if there's a second.
Page 298
September 9, 2003
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Sharon King and she waives.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And her concern was old Florida
architectural standards.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we're bringing that back.
MR. MUDD: Part of the CDC.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #9L
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE
COUNTY'S VEHICLE FOR HIRE ORDINANCE REGULATING
TAXICABS- CONSENSUS OF BOARD TO BE BROUGHT
BACK WITH ADVICE ON HOUW TO PROCEED FROM THE
PIJBI~IC VF, HICI,F, ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PVAC)
MR. MUDD: The next item that we have a speaker for, Mr.
Chairman, is Item 9(L).
9(L) is an item that you wanted to talk about, which is a
discussion of a proposed amendment to the county's Vehicle For Hire
Ordinance regulating taxicabs.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There is no backup and I don't have
my cheat sheet, but I'm going to go by memory, if you don't mind.
this is an item that I asked to be put on the agenda. It was
brought to my attention that there was a pedophile that got a permit
for driving a taxicab, and we regulate taxicabs and companies.
Page 299
September 9, 2003
Part of the things that we can say no for a taxicab driver is, if
you have a DUI or if you have reckless driving, or some other
felonies, like the RICO Act and that.
And I'm very concerned with some parents that cannot pick up
their children from school because they're sick or they need to go to
Aunt Annie's house or something like that, and being picked up by a
sexual predator.
And I don't think, I think that we can regulate that with the help
of the County Attorney, take the fox out of the hen house and protect
women and children of Collier County.
MS. FILSON: Speaker is Joanne Vishaway.
MS. VISHAWAY: Good evening. I come to you as a private
citizen and as an owner of a taxi company here in Naples called
"JoJo's." It has come to my attention the government is allowing sex
offenders to drive cabs in Collier County, and as a single mother of
one and a survivor of sexual abuse as a child, I find this appalling.
There is such a thing as a moral turpitude clause in that is
instilled in the government of Collier County that will disallow
sexual predators to drive cabs in this county. I think it should come
before the Board. This is something you should consider as an out.
Having spoken with the County Attorney's office at one time,
they don't have an out. They don't agree with it, they don't want it,
there is nothing they can do about it.
This is something I think that -- there have been times when I
have actually had my daughter picked up by a cab. Having worked in
this industry for almost 10 years you have to be selective about the
kind of people that you have to do something like that. And when
you don't know what's out there, you can't be selective.
I just think given the state of America today that we should
really put more efforts in protecting our children. Again, it seems
kind of amazing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Mr. Weigel?
Page 300
September 9, 2003
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir. We became aware of the question
concerning the Collier County ordinance regulating taxicabs with the
newscast about a week and a half ago and we have quickly reviewed
our ordinance, compared it to Lee County ordinance which is a 2001
ordinance, newer than ours but identical to ours, just to make sure the
record is clear.
Our ordinance does provide for a regulation and a prohibition of
the certification of operators for many crimes; includes manslaughter,
arson, moral turpitude, prostitution and several others, if I wish to
read further. It does not specifically provide for sexual predators.
Sexual predator is a statutory term that came into being in 1996.
The case law that we've researched does provide some limitations of
the application of a sexual predator limitation even to an ordinance
such as our taxicab regulatory ordinance, in the sense that it appears
that the case law shows that there are some limitations to
retroactivity.
Now anecdotally, I have been learned or been informed that
there may be a person driving a taxicab in Collier County which
under the crimes area of our ordinance, again identical to Lee County
ordinance, is not covered but for a couple reasons. One is because
the alleged crime or conviction occurred in 1992. Our ordinance,
just like the Lee County ordinance, provides for a person that's been
convicted within the last three years.
My suggestion would be that our office will, if the Board so
directs, bring back an ordinance amendment which goes to the full
extent of the law both in regard to sexual predator but also for those
other sexual offenses which are not definitionally covered by sexual
predator, other sexual offenses, and therefore it will be even more
encompassing than merely using the term "sexual predator."
Additionally, the Board will have have a choice and it truly is a
choice, as to whether you would direct the County Attorney to bring
an ordinance amendment directly back to you through an advertising
Page 301
September 9, 2003
process or to bring it through the PVAC committee prior to bringing
it to you at the Board.
We can do it either way. You have the flexibility if you so care.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you say the PVAC?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. The PVAC is the advisory committee that
regulates -- I should say that reviews and assists in the regulation of
the private person carrier industry, the taxicab and limousine
industry, as it's here in Collier County. They are a committee or
Board that meets periodically, no less than quarterly, and they serve
as so many of the committees of the Board of County Commissioners
do, as an advisory committee to the Board of County Commissioners.
They are the ones who are on the line who have as their
committee members persons active as owners or clearly related to the
public service and personal transport industry businesses here in
Collier County.
So again it's not required that an ordinance be reviewed by them
first before it would come to the Board of County Commissioners,
but it wouldn't unnecessarily be unlike the Planning Commission
reviewing land use matters before you made a decision on land use
matter.
If you wish for that committee to see the ordinance first, and
provide whatever comment they may have. That's your proviso if
you need to utilize them, as well, in this process. We can go forward
very quickly, though.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I would think we can bring it back to
the Board of Commissioners hopefully next month and at that time
get the advice of the Advisory Board. That would be the direction
that I have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like it to be as tight as we can be
so it's not just somebody that's convicted, but maybe somebody that's
been jailed and maybe got off on the charges after he was found
doing these things.
Page 302
September 9, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
fullest extent possible. Is that okay?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Fine.
MR. WEIGEL: I can take general direction.
formal vote, obviously.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Thank you. God bless.
Mr. Weigel will tighten it up to the
I don't require a
Thank you. Next item.
Item #10A
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO
ANALYZE THE FOUR (4) FUNDING OPTIONS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO THE BCC THE AMOUNT OF
FUNDING THAT SHOULD BE ALLOCATED FROM FUND 186
(IMMOKALEE REDEVELOPMENT) AND FUND 187
(BAYSHORE/GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT) TOWARDS THE
FUNDING OF ONE AND THREE QUARTERS (1 &3/4) FULL-
TIME EMPLOYEES (FTES) FOR FY03/04 NECESSARY FOR
FACILITATING THE REDEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES
PROGRAM- TO CONTINUE WORKING W/CRA AND
REIMBURSE THE COUNTY FOR EXPENSES INCURRED-
APPROVED
MR. SCHMITT: Next item, Commissioner, is Item 10 Alpha,
and that is Board of County Commissioners acting as the Community
Redevelopment Agency.
Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency,
CRA, carefully analyze the four funding options and recommend to
the Board of County Commissioners the amount of funding that
should be allocated from Fund 186, the Immokalee Redevelopment,
and Fund 187, the Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment, towards the
funding of one and three quarters full-time employees for FY 03/04
Page 303
September 9, 2003
necessary for facilitating the Redevelopment Incentives Program.
I talked to Mr. Fred Thomas a little while ago and he said they
have already had a vote in their CRA committee about what they
want to do for the Immokalee CRA, and that is to employ a county
employee that can do everything for their particular CRA.
There is a desire in the Bayshore CRA to hire their own
director. The staff doesn't discourage that. We would do what they
want with it. Once they have that director, that director will be solely
funded by that CRA.
What we're concerned about is what about the interim period of
time between when the Bayshore CRA hires their director and the
staff time that's being allocated to the CRA today.
And I think that's the question in front of the Board right now,
and it's not to go through four options. I think we've pretty much got
the Immokalee CRA laid down. They want staff to support them and
they're willing to pay that out of their particular fund.
We have one the other CRA, Bayshore, that wants their own
director, willing to pay for that director out of their own fund.
What staff's asking the Board to do, as the CRA Board, is to tell
us how you want to fund the interim time for the Bayshore CRA.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we bill the CRA?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, that's what we're asking. Do you want
to take it out of ad valorem or do you want to bill back CRA for this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Nobody wants -- I should let
our CRA Board member speak first, but I do know that they need a
little bit of time right now because this is a new thing that had just
been presented. They have not even had time to discuss it amongst
themselves.
They don't want to lose the county in any way. They want to be
connected to the county even once they hire an executive director,
because the county has been their backbone.
It's just that they feel that they don't want to hire a full-time
Page 304
September 9, 2003
person and pay a full-time person in the county, but still they want to
pay their fair share in CRA dollars.
Nobody has a problem with that. But rather than have me tell
you, let's get our Board member, Sharon King, to tell you.
MS. FILSON: We have one speaker, Sharon King, and I
believe on this particular issue, Commissioner Coyle is the
Chairman.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to adjourn.
(Laughter)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have to tell you I wasn't
speaking as chairman. I just sit in on the meeting.
MS. FILSON: I know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. KING: Sharon King. I'm a member of the CRA Advisory
Board for the Bayshore/Gateway CRA Advisory Board.
I just want to say that we didn't agree with the four options that
were presented to the CRA Board and we are willing to pay -- what
little discussion we've had, we would pay for staff to continue
helping and assisting us as the Advisory Board.
But our main objective, and I believe we spoke with you in the
June meeting, that we wanted to hire an executive director. We
wanted continuity to some of our causes and we felt that that would
be the best thing to do.
I know at that meeting Randy had suggested that we didn't need
a full-time employee. I think we convinced him that we did, and at
that point we'll be paying our director ourselves.
We did want to clear up some confusion about whether the
director would report to the County Commissioners, the Planning
Commission, to the CRA, or to the Advisory Board. And we're
hoping that he would report to the CRA and the Advisory Board
rather than the Planning Commission.
So we hope to give also this person the benefits of a county
Page 305
September 9, 2003
employee and we've got a lot of things to work out. But until that
time I think the CRA Advisory Board would direct the CRA that
we'd be willing to pay for staff until we could make that decision and
do that hiring.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Any questions of members of the
Board?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
by the way, I have a question.
Motion to approve, is there a
Second.
Is there some discussion? Which
How do you want to pay for that? Do you want to task the staff
to do certain things for you or do you want the staffjust to work on
things and send you a periodic bill?
MS. KING: I'll tell you, we just had a meeting last Tuesday and
this was given to us at that meeting, and we weren't very prepared. I
may not have the answers but I could get back with you with those
answers after discussing with our chairman and other Board members
what would be the best approach.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you would. I know there's been
some concern about control of the expenditures -- MS. KING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and it seems to me that you
have better control if you define the tasks and the assistance you
require in the interim, and then ask the county for the assistance, and
then they would bill you for that specific assistance. It might give
you better control that way. MS. KING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The other thing you mentioned
with the CRA Advisory Board and the CRA, that the last time we
met we were going to get a report sometime I think in September --
Page 306
September 9, 2003
MS. KING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- about whether or not we really
needed both and whether the Board of County Commission should sit
as both the CRA and the Board of County Commission.
MS. KING: We did present that question to the legal
department and we were hoping that they would come back with an
explanation of how we could do this.
I know there was a question about having two CRAs and two
boards that would report to the Board of County Commissioners, and
we were hoping that that could occur.
The attorney tells us that it wasn't possible. So we're getting
back with him and saying it may not be possible, but how can we do
it anyway, what steps do we need to take to make this happen. And
we're waiting for direction from him.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the way to ask a question of
a lawyer. Not whether or not it can be done --
MS. KING: Right. He didn't want that answer. How do we
make this happen?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- I hope you asked the question,
how do we get that done. Okay, we've got a question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have one more question. I
wanted to clarify the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is the motion to continue working
with the CRA Advisory Board from the county until they decide how
they want to move forward, and the CRA Board will then pay the
county?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's my understanding of the
motion, is that correct?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. They'll reimburse the county
for the expenses of the employees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I thought, just wanted
Page 307
September 9, 2003
to make sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Any other discussion?
All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Carries unanimously. Now a
motion to adjourn.
MR. MUDD: Chairman Coyle, we are no longer in that Board
meeting and Chairman Henning is now back.
We have one public comment, one speaker.
MS. FILSON: Oh, you know, actually I had two, but Bill
Regan left. They were stuck together.
MR. MUDD: We have lots of agenda items and the attorney is
going to tell us how we are going to continue this tomorrow night.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Public comment, please.
Item #11
PI JBI,IC COMMENTS ON GENERAIJ TOPICS
MS. FILSON: Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners. My name
is Bob Krasowski. I'm with Zero Waste Collier County Group.
Another long day, huh?
I've been watching a little TV lately -- and I'll keep it to five
minutes, so pardon me -- watching a little TV lately, and I've heard a
couple of interesting things. And apparently, the American public is
Page 308
September 9, 2003
not feeling confident in their government. The surveys and polls
have gone out and people look to news agencies for information in
the event of a disaster or catastrophe.
Well, in my experience in Collier County when there's been
threatening disasters and catastrophes, I've felt very comfortable with
our local news agencies providing coverage on of the Commissioners
and the staff relating to the threat of a hurricane, or whatever, so I
don't feel that way in Collier County. I feel pretty confident that
things would be taken care of.
But also apparently, the people learned recently that reports
after 9/11 at the ground zero site were manipulated and doctored to
misrepresent the actual condition of the air and the environment
where the heroes of America, the police and the firemen, were there
working to save everyone or anybody. So that's a pretty big deal.
So I'm just here tonight and stuck around just to appeal to our
local government to make sure that we maintain the highest standard
of respect and regard for the citizenry and as far as communicating to
them information that might be available on any topic of interest that
passes through your offices or through our lives via the county.
I wanted to touch on a couple of things. One is that recently
we've had a couple items come through on the consent agenda and a
few months ago the five tasks that were assigned to Malcolm Pirney
was on the consent agenda.
And we've been working for years on this issue and had to make
an effort to get to come in front of the Board so we could come and
meet you in session and raise some points of objection or concern
that we had.
And I don't think it should be difficult for us to do that. The
stuff should be out in the open and up front. It's a big deal, the tens
of millions of dollars that will be spent on Southwest Florida Water
Management solution when we finally arrive there.
Even more recently, the item on the consent agenda when we
Page 309
September 9, 2003
switched from IWT negotiations to Bright Star. It might have been a
small event to you, but it's important to us who have been working on
this, in that it's not for us and trying to provide you with information
that we see and we rely on you to receive our comments.
Like I had a real hard time providing the information about the
Energy Development Limited and the parent company of Bright Star
and sharing that with you as far as their withdrawal from the Bright
Star event.
That whole episode generated two paper articles, one from
Brent Batten -- you might have seen them -- and then another one
from Larry Annan, who is not here right now.
But I noticed those articles quoted Mr. Mudd and Mr. Henning,
and Mr. Mudd said-- supposedly said-- this is the Naples Daily
News -- but he said that: You push to get everything done as quickly
as possible and you risk running roughshod over people who want to
speak on issues. If you bend over backwards to let everyone have
their say, you run the risk of having people take advantage of the
situation and lengthen the meeting because of their personal agenda.
That doesn't sit very well. I don't know if I quoted directly. But
you know, it's not a personal agenda any more than anybody else's
agenda when we come up here to address this issue. And in
particular you're all working all sort of concerns, interests and stuff.
And then Mr. Henning was said to say I don't let any one get up and
go off on their political agenda, you know.
So I hope you don't feel that way about me. I mean, sure
everything is done is a bit mystical, but I'm trying to engage this
issue, trying to deal directly with you.
I'll close with this but of concern, a concern I've mentioned
before, is that five task item, the $62,000 that's supposed to go to
Malcolm Pimey for this public information borderline propaganda
campaign that we've assigned to him. And that 62,000 task is also
included in the proposal or a similar work is included in the RSP for
Page 310
September 9, 2003
the gas station, if anybody was to want a gas station --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Time's up.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I'll finish up in a couple sentences -- they
would have the job as part of RSP to do this promoting of a gas
station.
So it's like we're double dipping on this and I'm looking forward
to the time when we do get zero ways type analysis.
That's all. But I appreciate your attention to my comments.
Have a nice evening and you're back here tomorrow; right?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The Board is adjourned until 9:00
a.m. tomorrow.
Page 311
September 9, 2003
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:30 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
TOM--II'G, Chm'i~an
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E..BROCK, CLERK
%
Attest':,as to
$tgnat~e ~15, ',
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented ~ or as co~ected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM,
DANA ULRICH AND KAYE GRAY
Page 312