BCC Minutes 09/23/2003 RSeptember 23, 2003
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, September 23, 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 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR
SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples,
Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
TOM HENNING
DONNA FIALA
FRANK HALAS
FRED COYLE
JIM COLETTA
ALSO PRESENT:
JIM MUDD, County Manager
LEO OCHS, Deputy County Manager
MICHAEL PETTIT, County Attorney
SUE FILSON, Executive Manager
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
September 23-24, 2003
9:00 a.m.
Tom Henning, Chairman, District 3
Donna Fiala, Vice-Chair, District 1
Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2
Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL
LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS".
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1
September 23-24, 2003
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
2e
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA AND MINUTES
Ae
Be
Ce
De
Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
September 2, 2003 - Special Meeting
September 4, 2003 - BCC Budget Hearing
September 4, 2003 - Pelican Bay Budget Hearing
SERVICE AWARDS
PROCLAMATIONS
Ae
Be
Proclamation to designate October 25, 2003 as NAACP Freedom Fund Day.
To be accepted by Laverne Franklin, President of the NAACP.
Proclamation to designate October 8, 2003 as Collier County Walk Our
Children to School Day. To be accepted by Theadore Litwin, Chairman of
the PAC.
Ce
Proclamation to recognize and celebrate the Parks and Recreation
Department and its staff for receiving the 2003 Agency Excellence Award in
2
September 23-24, 2003
Se
Category I. To be accepted by Maria Ramsey, Director of Collier County
Parks and Recreation Department.
PRESENTATIONS
e
Ae
Recommendation to recognize Amy Tozier, Case Manager, Human Services
Department as Employee of the Month for September 2003.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
e
Ae
Public petition request by Ms. Cindy Kemp to discuss petition documents
regarding Southern Golden Gate Estates Area.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
ge
Ae
This item was continued from the September 9, 2003 BCC Meeting
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 multistory 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 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. Connors Vanderbilt Beach Estates
Unit No. 1, located in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida.
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ae
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members Petition PUDZ-02-AR-
3242, Jerry Neal of Hole Montes and Associates, representing Frank W.
Cooper and F. C. Properties, requesting a rezone fi.om "A" Rural Agriculture
and "A-ST" Rural Agricultural with a special treatment overlay to "PUD"
Planned Unit Development to be known as the Mandalay PUD allowing for
84 residential dwelling units for property located on the north side of
Rattlesnake Hammock Road (C.R. 864) and approximately one-eighth mile
east of Polly Avenue in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
3
September 23-24, 2003
Be
0
Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDA-2002-AR-2475,
J. Gary Butler, PE, of Butler Engineering, Inc., representing Bayswater
Falling Waters LLC, requesting a rezone from "E", Estates, and PUD,
Falling Waters PUD, to increase acreage of the existing Falling Waters PUD
from 134.04 to 161.54, change density from 6 dwelling units per acre to 4.95
per acre, and show a change in property ownership, for property located
south of Davis Boulevard and west of the proposed alignment of Santa
Barbara Boulevard in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 161.54 +/- acres.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided b,v Commission members. PUDZ-2002-AR-3495,
Christopher D. Hagan, P.E., of Johnson Engineering, representing V.K.
Development Corp., requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned
Unit Development to be known as Wentworth Estates PUD. The current
PUD is known as Lely Lakes PUD and consists of residential and
commercial use. The proposed PUD will consist of mixed uses for a
maximum of 1,499 residential dwelling units, 85,000 square feet of
commercial uses, 18-hole golf course and associated amenities. The
property to be considered for this rezone is located on the southwest side of
Tamiami Trail East (U. S. 41) approximately 1-1/4 mile southeast of the
intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Rattlesnake Hammock Road (C.R.
864), in Sections 29, 30, 31 and 32, Township 50 South, Range 26 East and
Section 5, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 1558.49+/- acres.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex partc
disclosure be provided by Commission members Board of County
Commissioners heard this petition on June 24, 2003 and sent item back to
Collier County Planning Commission for further consideration. PUDZ-
2002-AR-3011, Dwight H. Nadeau of R. W.A., Inc., representing A.R.M.
Development Corporation of S.W. Florida, Inc., requesting a rezone from
"A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as
Tuscany Cove PUD for a residential development for a maximum of 375
residential dwelling units generally located on the east side of Collier
Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately ¼ mile south of lmmokalee Road
(C.R. 846) in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of
4
September 23-24, 2003
78.07 acres.
Ge
Ee
This item is being continued indefinitely. Board of County
Commissioners need to vote to continue this item indefinitely. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex part. disclosure be
provided by Commission members Petition PUDZ-03-AR-4008, C.
Laurence Kcescy, of Young, Van Assenderp, Varnadoc & Anderson, P.A.
representing Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay Trust and WCI Communities,
Inc, requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" (Plarmcd Unit Development)
for thc purpose of revising the PUD document to relocate 170,343 square
fcct of approved, but not yet constructed and uncommitted commercial use
from the north commercial area to the south commercial area, reduce the
approved maximum number residential dwellings by 800 units to a new
maximum of 7,800 residential dwelling units for property located at the
northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail (US-4 !) and
Seagate Drive in Sections 32 and 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
and Sections 4, 5, 8 and 9, Township 49 South, Range 25 East Collier
County, Florida. (Staff's request)
This item was continued from the July 29, 2003 BCC meeting. Thi,,;
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members PUDZ-2003-AR-3607, William L.
Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., representing
Barton and Wendy McIntyre and Joseph Magdalener, requesting changes to
the existing Nicaea Academy PUD zoning. The proposed changes to the
PUD document and Master Plan will eliminate the uses of private school and
assisted living facility and allow for a maximum of 580 residential dwelling
units. The property to be considered for this rezone is located on the east
side of Collier Boulevard just south of the Crystal Lake PUD (RV Park), in
Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
This property consists of 119+/- acres.
This item has been deleted.
He
This item was continued from the September 9, 2003 BCC Meeting and
is further continued to the October 28, 2003 BCC Meeting CU-2002-
AR-2354, William Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning and Development,
Inc., representing Pastor Roy Shuck of Faith Community Church, requesting
Conditional Use 3 & 4 of"E" Estates to add a child care and pre-school to
the existing Faith Community Church, located at 6455 22nd Avenue NW,
5
September 23-24, 2003
e
Je
further described as part of Tracts 15 and 16, Golden Gate Estates Unit 97.
This item to be heard at 5:00 p.m. 9/24/03 and is a companion to Item
10 K. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members Petition by the State of
Florida, by and through the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the Public's
interest in the platted road rights of way in the Southern Golden Gate
Estates, dedicated to the County by the plats of Golden Gate Estates, Units
98, 98A, 99, 99A, 100, 100A, 101 through 113, 113A, 114, 114A, 118, 119,
121,123, 123A, 124, 127, 130, 131,134, 135, 136, 137, 140 through 167,
171 and 172, (Located in Townships 50 and 51 south, Ranges 27 and 28
east) and to disclaim, renounce and vacate a 1.12 mile of road right-of-way
known as Miller Boulevard Extension located in Sections 25 and 36,
Township 51 south, Range 27 east, and to disclaim, renounce and vacate that
portion of a road right-of-way known as Janes Scenic Drive described in
Official Records Book 76, Page 394, lying northerly of the south line of the
north 150 feet of the south 660 of the southwest quarter of Section 12,
Township 52 south, Range 29 east.
For the Board of County Commissioners to consider the adoption of an
ordinance superceding and repealing Collier County Ordinance Numbers 99-
22 and 00-58, collectively known as the Collier County Ethics Ordinance.
(David Weigel, County Attorney)
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Ae
Be
Ce
De
Item being continued to October 14~ 2003 BCC Meeting Discussion
regarding FL Statute 193.703, Reduction in assessment for living quarters of
parents or grandparents. (Commissioner Henning)
This item to be heard after 10E. To appoint a Representative from Collier
County Government to the Southwest Florida Resource Conservation &
Development (SWFRC&D) Council.
Approve the Annual Performance Appraisal for the County Manager.
Review and approve the FY 2004 Annual Work Plan for the County
Manager.
6
September 23-24, 2003
10.
Ee
Discussion regarding Contracting and Change Order processes.
(Commissioner Henning)
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Ae
Ce
De
ge
Approve the award and subsequent construction contract (subject to the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Agency's final approval as
necessitated by the State Revolving Fund Loan requirements) for the North
County Water Reclamation Facility expansion to 24.1-million gallons per
day maximum month average daily flow - solids stream, to Westra
Construction Corporation, Project 739502, Bid 03-3539, in the bid amount
of $8,692,500. (Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator)
Adopt a resolution authorizing condemnation of fee simple interests in
property required for the construction of stormwater retention and treatment
ponds required for the construction of six-lane improvements to Collier
Boulevard (CR-951) from Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road.
(Capital Improvement Element No. 37, Project No. 65061). Estimated fiscal
impact: $3,250,000. (Norman Feder, Transportation Services
Administrator)
Award contract to construct the Santa Barbara force main, Bid 03-3534,
Project 73132, 73150 and 73151 in the amount of $6,126,324. (Jim
DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator)
This item to be heard at 5:30 p.m. 9/23/03 Recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners review the Naples Park Community Plan
survey developed by Trullinger Associates, Inc. to authorize the
dissemination of the survey to Naples Park property owners for
consideration and execution, to authorize the tabulation of survey results by
Trullinger Associates, Inc. upon receipt of returned surveys and to authorize
Trullinger Associates, Inc. to develop a report for presentation to the Board
of County Commissioners. (Joseph Schmitt, Community Development
Administrator)
This item to be heard at 3:00 p.m.~ 9/23/03. This item was continued
from the September 9~ 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
7
September 23-24, 2003
Fe
SWFRC&D representative. (Joseph Schmitt, Community Development
Administrator)
This item has been deleted.
G. This item has been deleted.
11.
12.
Ho
Approve Tourist Development Category "A" Beach
Renourishment/Maintenance Grant applications for fiscal year 2003-2004 in
the amount of $1,140,300. (Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator)
Proposed amendment to Resolution 2003-117 which established a fee
schedule of development related review and processing fees as provided for
in Division 1.10 of the Collier County Land Development Code. (Joseph K.
Schmitt, Community Development Administrator)
Approval of Resolution authorizing the Issuance of Capital Improvement
and Refunding Half-Cent Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2003 in an not to
exceed amount of $51,000,000. (Mike Smykowski, Director, Office of
Management and Budget)
Ke
This item to be heard at 5:00 p.m. 9/24/03 and is a companion to
Item 8I. Approve agreement between the Board of Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund, South Florida Water Management District and
Collier County contingent on the Board's approval of Florida Department of
Environmental Protection's Petition to vacate certain rights of way within
the Southern Golden Gate Estates and adjacent state-owned lands.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13.
14.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
8
September 23-24, 2003
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
Ae
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Approve the transfer of $75,000 from the Current Planning section
FY03 budget to Comprehensive Planning Section FY03 budget to
restore funds previously transferred to fund the Vanderbilt Beach RT
Overlay Study.
2)
Approval of the Satisfaction of Liens for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2003-013 and 2002-018.
3)
4)
5)
Board of County Commissioners acting as the Community
Redevelopment Agency. To approve the continued and increased
funding of the Site Improvement Grant and Impact Fcc Assistance
Grant programs as recommended by the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Local Redevelopment Advisory Board; approve the attached budget
amendment request for the two grant programs; authorize the County
Attorney and staff to draft any necessary agreements, ordinance,
resolution language, or grant application changes.
Approval of new tourism initiatives with a finding that they are in the
public interest by promoting tourism in Collier County and to
authorize payment of all expenses related to those initiatives.
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway (public), drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of"Creekside
Boulevard West".
6)
7)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Veronawalk Phase
1A", and approval of the standard form construction and maintenance
agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"K.A. Wallace
Subdivision".
9
September 23-24, 2003
8)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Lenamae
Commerce Park".
9)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway (public), drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of"Creekside
Commerce Park West - Unit Two".
10)
11)
Approve an agreement between Collier County and the Economic
Development Council of Collier County (EDC) for continuation of the
Economic Diversification Program and provide a contribution to the
EDC of up to $400,000 for fiscal year 2004.
Approval of the amendment to extend the expiration date of the
Tourism Agreements with Kelly Swafford and Roy (KSR) and to find
that they are in the public interest by promoting tourism in Collier
County and to authorize payment of all expenses related to those
agreements.
13)
Notification to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the
submission of the 2004 Collier County Continuum of Care Homeless
Challenge Grant application to the Florida State Office on
Homelessness on September 9, 2003, and informing the Board that the
County Manager signed the application submission on behalf of the
Board due to the date of the grant deadline.
This item has been deleted.
14)
Authorize the Chairman to sign a $6,845 agreement (of which $3,200
will be reimbursable) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fund
wetland plantings and an educational sign in Lake Avalon.
Approve and ratify a Tourism Agreement with the City of Naples for
the monitoring of Doctor's Pass, Project 90537, in the amount of
$10,580.
Approve and ratify a Tourism Agreement with the City of Naples for
T-Groin Monitoring, Project 90539, in the amount of $69,176.
Board of Coun ,ty Commissioners acting as the Community
Redevelopment Agency. To approve the allocation of $25,000 from
10
September 23-24, 2003
Be
Fund 187 for the purchase and installation of street lights along Davis
Boulevard in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment District.
18)
Recommendation that the Board approve offsite removal of fill not to
exceed 10,000 cubic yards from the existing site known as the Marete
Excavation, bounded on the east and south sides by vacant land zoned
agricultural and on the north end west sides by occupied land zoned
agricultural on the condition that all the fill removed must go to the
Habitat for Humanity site known as Charlee Estates.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
2)
Approval of Bid #03-3558, Lely Golf Estates MSTU Roadway
Grounds Maintenance in the amount of $42,495.30 to Green Heron
Landscapes, Inc.
Board approval to terminate primary vendor, Hines Landscaping,
under Contract #03-3491 - "Retention Pond Mowing" and award
remainder term of the contract to secondary vendor, Southern
Services.
3)
4)
5)
6)
Board approval of Adopt-a-Road Program Agreements.
Accept a grant of a perpetual, non-exclusive drainage easement and
accept a grant of a perpetual, non-exclusive access easement to
provide for access and regular maintenance by County staff to one of
the canals in the Rock Creek basin. Located in Section 1, Township
50 south, Range 25 east.
The Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
authorizing the supplement for the Trip and Equipment Grant with the
Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD).
Approve developer agreement with Collier Land Development, Inc.
for proportionate fair share of costs associated with the future Lely
Canal Storm Water Improvements Project subject to developer
complying with all conditions of the agreement imposed by the
County.
11
September 23-24, 2003
7)
Approve a budget amendment to shift funding from Impact Fees to
Gas Tax for Goodlette Frank Road Project (60134).
8)
Request Board approval of Landscape, Irrigation, and Maintenance
Agreement among Collier County, Florida, William T. Higgs, and
White Lake Commons Association, Inc. for the beautification of
White Lake Corporate Park adjacent to White Lake Boulevard.
9)
Approve a Work Order for $966,820 for the construction engineering
and inspection services by KCCS for the Golden Gate Parkway Phase
II Project, Livingston Road to Santa Barbara Boulevard, Project No's.
60027A and 60027B, RFP No. 00-3184.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Approval of non-disturbance agreement with Florida Power and Light
Company for property located at the raw water booster station in the
Tamiami wellfield.
2)
Approval of a contract amendment with the South Florida Water
Management District to continue participating in surface water quality
monitoring of Big Cypress Basin in the amount of $300,000.
3)
Approve a budget amendment transferring funds from Mandatory
Trash Collection Fund (473) Reserves for payment to haulers for the
residential mandatory trash collection and disposal program. Total
funds needed from Reserves are $76,000.
4)
Award Bid//03-3519 and approve budget amendment for the purchase
of two skid steer loaders for the recycling centers to Nortrax
Equipment for the total amount of $50,504.
5)
Approve Work Order CDM-FT-03-02 for engineering services to add
one new public water supply well to the Tamiami wellfield in the
amount of $113,893, Project 70158.
6)
Award a contract to Southwest Utility Systems, Inc. for construction
of the Vanderbilt Beach Road reclaimed water main, Bid 03-3529,
Project 74034, in the amount of $845,415.
12
September 23-24, 2003
7)
8)
Approve Work Order CDM-FT-01-02 for utility engineering services
related to resolving claims on the Golden Gate Wellfield Reliability
Construction Contract in the amount of $36,000, Project 70066.
Approve Work Order #VL-02-10 with Victor J. Latavish Architect,
PA, in the amount of $89,500 for professional services associated with
renovations for the Public Utilities Operations Center, Project
numbers 70059 and 73072.
9)
Approve amendment 1 to Work Order HM-FT-02-02-A for
engineering services during construction of the Western Wastewater
Interconnect, Phase II, Project 73076, in the amount of $65,480.
Board approval of budget amendments recognizing positive carry
forward of a $60,414 variance in the Pollution Clean-up and
Restoration Fund (108) and transferring $60,414 to Water Pollution
Control Fund (114).
Approve a purchase order in the amount of $131,000 and the required
budget amendment for Angie Brewer and Associates (ABA), Grant
Advisor, for professional services involving the procurement and
administration of the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan procurement
and associated tasks.
Recommendation to award Bid No. 03-3532, Reinforcement of
Driveways contract to Neubert Construction Services, Inc. and NR
Contractors, Inc. estimated value of $900,000 from the Mandatory
Trash Collection funds.
13)
14)
Approval of Contract No. GC623 Amendment No. 1 with the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for contract
administration and remediation services for the clean-up of petroleum
contaminated sites throughout Collier County.
Approve a budget amendment in the amount of $100,000 to fund
unanticipated expenses in the North County Regional Water
Treatment Plant Cost Center.
Authorize the Chairman to accept the FY 03/04 Waste Tire Grant
offer in the amount of $31,195 and authorize the Solid Waste Director
13
September 23-24, 2003
16)
19)
20)
22)
23)
to sign the agreement.
Approve staff recommendation to reject Bid No. 03-3524 for pump
station 107 improvements, Project 73945.
Approve annual Rate Resolution to set landfill tipping fees, recycling
center fees, residential annual assessments and commercial waste
collection fees for FY 2003/2004. Total fees budgeted to be collected
from rates approved with this resolution are included in the FY
2003/2004 budgets for Solid Waste Disposal (Fund 470) and
Mandatory Trash Collection (Fund 473).
Approve a budget amendment to reallocate funds between object
codes for the Goodland Water Pumping Station upgrades, project, in
the amount of $70,000.
Request for the Board of County Commissioners to waive the
County's purchasing policy retainage release/reduction criteria by
reducing retainage from 10% to 0% for a component of the South
County Regional Water Treatment Plant, Project 70054.
Adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift or purchase of
temporary construction easements for the Santa Barbara sewer force
main interconnect between the North and South Wastewater service
areas, Project 73132, at a cost not to exceed $55,000.
Approval of a repair/maintenance agreement with Peacock Court
(Subdivision) for a wastewater force main in the County right-of-way.
Board of County Commissioners approval for the purchase and
installation of two replacement hoods in the Inorganic Laboratory in
the amount of $22,304.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners transfer
Capital Project appropriations from an operating account in the
Mandatory Trash Collection Fund (473) and approve the creation of a
Capital Projects Fund for Solid Waste Capital Projects. Transfer
appropriations and expenses of $200,000 in the FY 2002-03 budget
and an appropriation of $200,000 in the FY 2003/04 budget.
14
September 23-24, 2003
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Renewal of an agreement for joint use of facilities with St. John
Neumann High School.
Board approval of a successor agreement to Bid #99-3024
"Prescription Drugs for Social Services".
Award of Bid #03-3565 to Florida Coast Equipment for purchase of
an articulated wheel loader in the amount of $45,947.73.
Approve an amendment to a limited use license agreement between
the Board of County Commissioners and the Naples Junior Chamber
of Commerce, Inc., allowing for a New Year's Eve event and
fireworks display to replace this year's cancelled Fourth of July event.
Acceptance of Library Long Range Plan, including the current year
action plan and technology plan, and approval of Library State Aid
application. (FY04 Grant Revenue of $350,000.)
Approval of agreement for fiscal year 2003-2004 funding contribution
to the David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. at a cost of
$952,000.
ge
7)
Approve a budget amendment in the Emergency Medical Services
Fund 490 transferring budgeted funds totaling $182,000.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
Award Contract RFP 03-3476 for "Eminent Domain Legal Services"
for Fixel, McGuire & Willis; Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A.; and
Broad and Cassel.
2)
3)
Approval to purchase property, casualty and workers' compensation
insurance and related services for FY 2004.
Authorize staff to utilize state contract and GSA schedule 70 pricing
for Communications and Information Technology hardware and
software:
15
September 23-24, 2003
4)
Report and ratify staff-approved administrative changes to work
orders.
5)
Request to approve Selection Committee ranking of firms for contract
negotiations for RFP 03-3548, "Consultant Services for Developing a
Land and Land Rights GIS Database."
6)
Approve a budget amendment to appropriate building maintenance
special service revenues totaling $60,900 for reimbursement of
operating expenses in fiscal year 2003.
7)
Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving the 2004 Fiscal
Year Pay and Classification Plan and providing for a general wage
adjustment and merit increase.
8)
Approve Amendment #2 Contract #00-3173, in the amount of
$757,110 for the design of a parking deck (P2) to Spillis Candela
DMJM. The parking deck will be (5) stories containing 1,130 parking
spaces.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Recognize and appropriate Isles of Capri Fire Control District
Protective Inspection Fee Revenue in the amount of $19,000 by
approving the necessary budget amendment.
2)
Approval of an agreement between Collier County, Florida and Dr.
Marta U. Cobum, M.D., Florida District Twenty Medical Examiner
DBA District Twenty Medical Examiner, Inc. to provide Medical
Examiner Services for fiscal year 2004 at a cost of $780,700.
3)
Approve an agreement and adopt a resolution authorizing Collier
County to accept $105,806 from the Florida Department of
Community Affairs for Emergency Management Program
enhancement.
4)
Approval of a Budget Amendment Report - BA #03-565 in the
amount of $17,600 for improvements at the Immokalee Airport; and
BA #03-570 in the amount of $18,000 to cover personal services for
16
September 23-24, 2003
the remainder of FY-03.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
He
Je
1)
Approve a budget amendment to reallocate amounts among
appropriation categories in the Airport Authority Fund (495).
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1)
Commissioner Fiala request for approval for payment to attend
Leadership Collier Kick Off in Honor of the Class of 2004.
2)
Commissioner Halas' request for approval for payment to attend
NAACP Freedom Fund Banquet, serving a valid public purpose.
the amount of $55.00 to be held on October 25, 2003.
In
3)
Commissioner Henning request for approval for payment to attend the
United Way of Collier County Campaign 2003 Kick-Off.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
To obtain approval for the early retirement of principal related to the
Collier County Agricultural Fair and Exposition, Inc. Florida Local
Government Pooled Commercial Paper Loan and the budget
amendment required for payment.
2)
Approve a budget amendment to recognize Wireless 911 revenues in
the amount of $97,000.
3)
Accept a Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officer Grant-in-Aid of
$9,710 from the Office of the State Court Administrator and authorize
Chairman to sign the amendment.
4)
Approve a budget amendment transferring funds in the amount of
$100,000 from General Fund Reserves to the paid in lieu of transfer
17
September 23-24, 2003
account in the General Fund.
Ke
5)
Request to authorize the extension of the Tax Roll before completion
of the Value Adjustment Board hearings pursuant to Section 197.323,
FLA. STAT., and Tax Collector's request.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
2)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the acquisition of
Parcel 127 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Elhanon Combs, et
al, Golden Gate Parkway Project No. 60027.
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the fee simple
acquisition of Parcel 181 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Big
Corkscrew Island Fire District, et al., Immokalee Road Project
#60018.
3)
4)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the fee simple
acquisition of Parcel 183 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Lazaro Herrera, et al., Immokalee Road Project #60018.
This item has been deleted.
6)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgments relative to the fee taking of
Parcel Nos. 195, 197, 198, 201,202, 208, 21 lA, 214 and 218 for the
Immokalee Road Project (Project No. 60018).
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the fee simple
interest acquisition of Parcel 185 in the lawsuit entitled Collier County
v. Manuel Alvarez, et al., (Immokalee Phase 1 Project, Project No.
60018).
7)
8)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the fee simple
acquisition of Parcel 186 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Manual Alvarez, et al., Immokalee Road Project 360018.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
Resolution approving the 2004 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification
Plan, a general wage adjustment (COLA) and merit increase, and the
Policies and Procedures Manual for the Office of the County
18
September 23-24, 2003
Attorney.
9)
Continued from the September 9, 2003 BCC Agenda and i~
further continued per staff's request to the October 14, 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.
17.
SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE
QUASIJUDICAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN
IN.
Ae
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members, PUDZ-2001-AR-955,
William L. Hoover, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., requesting a
rezone from "A" Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be
known as Wolf Creek PUD for a residential project for a maximum of 591
dwelling units on property located along Wolf Road, approximately ½ mile
west of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and 3/8 mile north of Vandcrbilt Beach
Road (C.R. 862) in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 147.69 +/- acres.
19
September 23-24, 2003
Ce
De
Ee
Ge
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. SNR-2003-AR-4052,
Peter Goodin, representing Oakcs Estates Advisory, Inc., requesting a street
name change from 16th Avenue Northwest to Standing Oaks Lane, which
street is located in Unit 97 of thc Golden Gate Estates Subdivision, located
in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. SNR-2003-AR-4053,
Peter Goodin, representing Oakes Estates Advisory, Inc., requesting a street
name change from 22nd Avenue Northwest to Hidden Oaks Lane, which
street is located in Unit 97 of the Golden Gate Estates Subdivision in Section
29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members.. SNR-2003-AR-4054,
Peter Goodin, representing Oakes Estates Advisory, Inc., requesting a street
name change from 20th Avenue Northwest to Spanish Oaks Lane, which
street is located in Unit 97 of the Golden Gates Estates Subdivision, located
in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members SNR-2003-AR-4055,
Peter Goodin, representing Oakes Estates Advisory, Inc., requesting a street
name change from 12th Avenue Northwest to Bur Oaks Lane, which street is
located in Unit 96, of the Golden Gate Estates Subdivision, located in
Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members SNR-2003-AR-4056,
Peter Goodin, representing Oakes Estates Advisory, Inc., requesting a street
name change from 14th Avenue Northwest to Shady Oaks Lane, which street
is located in Unit 96, of the Golden Gate Estates Subdivision, located in
Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. SNR-2003-AR-4057,
Peter Goodin, representing Oakes Estates Advisory, Inc., requesting a street
name change from 18 th Avenue Northwest to Golden Oaks Lane, which
street is located in Unit 97, of the Golden Gate Estates Subdivision, located
20
September 23-24, 2003
He
in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members SNR-2003-AR-4065,
Peter Goodin, representing Oakes Estates Advisory, Inc., requesting a street
name change from 24th Avenue Northwest to Autumn Oaks Lane, which
street is located in Unit 97 of the Golden Gate Estates Subdivision, Section
29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members Petition PUDZ-03-AR-
3860, Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson and Wayne
Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, representing Gateway Shoppes,
LLC, requesting a rezone from "RFS-3" residential single family and the
Henderson Creek "PUD" Planned Unit Development to a new "PUD" to be
known as the Artesa Pointe PUD allowing 280 residential dwelling units of
which 100 percent of the units will be for affordable housing; incorporating
A 37-acre site that is intended to permit commercial uses totaling 325,000
square feet of gross leasable floor area for property located on the south side
of the Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41) and the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR-
951) in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida.
Je
Ke
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members PUDZ-2002-AR-2944,
D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., and
Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, representing
Royal Palm International Academy, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural
Agricultural and "A-ST" Rural Agricultural/Special Treatment to "PUD"
Planned Unit Development to be known as Royal Palm International
Academy PUD for an Educational Campus and Residential Community
consisting of up to 650 dwelling units for property located at 6000
Livingston Road, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 162.7+/- acres.
This item was continued from the September 9, 2003 BCC meeting:
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. 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
21
September 23-24, 2003
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 comer of U.S. 41 East and Shadowlawn Drive in Section 11,
Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of
1.9+/- acres.
te
Me
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2002-AR-3537,
Nick Stewart of Stewart Mining Industries, requesting Conditional Use "1"
for earthmining in the "A-MHO" Rural Agricultural - Mobile Home
Overlay zoning district pursuant to Section 2.2.2.3 of the Collier County
Land Development Code for property located in Sections 18 and 19,
Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDA-2001-AR-956
Thomas E. Killen, representing Naples Elks Lodge 2010, requesting a
rezone from PUD to PUD for thc Radio Square PUD, adding medical office
as a permitted usc, amending the landscape requirements, and providing for
shared parking, for property located on the southwest comer of Radio Road
(CR 856) and Donna Street, in Section 1, Township 50 South, Range 25
East, collier County, Florida, consisting of approximately 9.4 acres.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
22
September 23-24, 2003
September 23, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take their seats.
Welcome to the Board of Commissioners of Collier County,
regular meeting. Today's invocation will be led by Jim Mudd.
Following that, the Pledge of Allegiance will be given by these young
leaders of tomorrow from International Walk to School.
Would you all rise for the invocation and the pledge?
MR. MUDD: Heavenly Father, we come to you today as a
community thanking you for the blessings that you have so generously
provided. Today we are especially thankful for the dedicated elected
officials, staff and members of the public who are here to help lead
this county as it makes the important decisions that will shape our
community's future.
We pray that you will guide and direct the decisions made here
today so that your will for our county will always be done. These things we pray in your holy name, amen.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead and go up to the mike, please.
Thank you.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
County manager or Mike Pettit, is there any changes or corrections
to today's agenda?
MR. MUDD: Mike, you get to go first.
MR. PETTIT: The only change I would note, and I think the
county manager was going to mention this, too, is we've moved 17L to
8L. That's actually an item where you will sit as the Board of Zoning
Appeals. I think he's going to move that to seven.
Page 2
September 23, 2003
The only other point I would make is there are a number of items
that are being continued and you will be voting to approve those
continuances.
Finally, as noted, there will be two items where you will be sitting
as Community Redevelopment Agency and those are consent agenda
items.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Student?
MS. STUDENT: Yes. I have one change.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name for the record?
MS. STUDENT: Oh, my name is Marjorie Student, Assistant
County Attorney.
This involves Item 17M on the Summary Agenda, the Radio
Square PUD, and I have some language to read into the record that the
petitioner and staff have agreed with concerning handicap parking
issues.
And that language is as follows: The Elks Club may utilize
existing regularly delineated parking areas for handicap parking areas
over and above those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act
without the need to provide corresponding additional parking spaces.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other changes from the County
Attorney's Office?
MR. PETTIT: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County manager, Jim Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. The following
changes will be made to the September 23rd, 2003 board of county
commissioner's meeting.
Withdraw Item 6A. It's a public petition request by Miss Cindy
Kemp to discuss petition documents regarding the South Golden Gate
Estates area.
The petitioner requests to speak when Item 1 OK is discussed at
5:00 p.m., Wednesday, September 24th, 2003.
Page 3
September 23, 2003
The next item. Continue Item 7A to October 14th, 2003 BCC
meeting.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members. This item was
continued from the September 9th, 2003 BCC meeting.
This petition is CCSL 2001-5-AR 1922, Brett Moore of
Hummingston and Moore Engineering representing the Vanderbilt
Beach Motel requesting a variance from the coastal construction
setback line CCSL to allow construction of a multistory residential
building, a parking structure, two swimming pools with extensive
favor decking and a wooden boardwalk connecting to a handicap
beach access ramp, all of which are located on property known as
Vanderbilt Beach Motel with a street address of 9225 Gulf Shore
Drive North in an area generally known as Vanderbilt Beach and more
particularly described as Lot 4, Block A, comer of Vanderbilt Beach
Estates Unit Number 1 located in Section 32, Township 48 South,
Range 25E, Collier County, Florida and that's at petitioner's request.
The next item is to add Item 10L. And that's a recommendation to
waive formal competition process and approve a contract with 3001,
the Spatial Data Company, as a single source vendor for ground
survey and LIDAR analysis survey work in the amount of $49,425 to
satisfy a FEMA requirement for certification of existing LIDAR
topography of Collier County.
And that's at staff's request.
The next item is to move Item 16A(1) to 1 ON. And that's to
approve the transfer of $75,000 from the current planning section FY
'03 budget to comprehensive planning section FY '03 budget to restore
funds previously transferred to fund the Vanderbilt Beach RT overlay
study.
And that's at Commissioner Halas' request.
The next item is withdraw Item 16C(6). And that's award a
contract to Southwest Utility Systems, Inc. for construction of the
Page 4
September 23, 2003
Vanderbilt Beach
Road reclaim water main, Bid 03-3529, Project 74034, in the amount
of $845,415.
And that's at staff's request.
That's basically a bid protest and that's why it's been removed.
The next item is to move Item 16E(4) to 1 OM. And that's to report
and ratify staff approved administrative changes to work orders.
And that's at Commissioner Hennings' request.
The item is to continue Item 16E indefinitely. This item requires
that all participants be sworn and ex parte disclosure be provided to
the commission members.
That's SNR 2003 AR 4055. Peter Gooden representing Oaks
Estates Advisory, Inc. requesting a street name change from 12th
Avenue Northwest to Burr Oaks Lane, which street is located in Unit
96 of the Golden Gate Estates subdivision located in Section 32,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. And that's at the petitioner's request.
Next item is move Item 17J to 8K. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and an ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members. It's PUDZ-2002-AR-2944, D. Wayne Arnold,
AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard
Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson representing Royal
Palm International Academy, requesting a rezone from A, rural
agricultural, and A-ST, rural agricultural slash special treatment to
PUD, planned unit development, to be known as the Royal Palm
International Academy PUD for an educational campus and residential
community consisting of up to 650 dwelling units for property located
at 6000 Livingston Road in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 162.7 plus or minus acres.
And that's at staff's request.
The next item is to move Item 17L to 7B. Not 8L, 7B. There's a
change to the -- to the errata sheet. Move 17L to 7B and Mr. Pettit
Page 5
September 23, 2003
mentioned that in his remarks.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
This is conditional use 2002-AR-3537. Nick Stewart of Stewart
Mining Industries requesting conditional use one for earth mining in
the A slash MHO rural agricultural mobile home overlay zoning
district pursuant to Section 2.2.2.3 of the Collier County Land
Development Code for property located in Section 18 and 19,
Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida.
And that's at Commissioners Coyle, Fiala and Halas request.
The next item. This is a note item. This was an advertised item
but didn't have materials that were presented.
Note, this item was legally advertised to be heard at the September
23rd, 2003 BCC meeting. The petitioner is requesting that the board
continue this item indefinitely and that's 80A 2003-AR-4351, Anthony
P. Pires, Jr. of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo, P.A. representing
Keith and Sue Orschell requesting appeal to interpretation of AR 4119
by virtue of Division 1.6 in Sections 2.7.3.5.2.2 and 5.3.2.1 and
5.3.2.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code for
replacement of a mobile home in the A agricultural zoning district for
property located at 6167 Atkins Avenue in Section 12, Township 49
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. And that's at petitioner's request.
Note Item 10A, Page 2 of this item was submitted in error. A
corrected Page 2 has been provided to the -- to the board of county
commissioners.
And that's at staff's request.
Note for the record, Item 16A(3) and 16A(17) require that the
board of county commissioners act as the Community Redevelopment
Agency.
Note for record. Item 16E(5), fiscal impact on the executive
summary should read: Funds for these professional services are
Page 6
September 23, 2003
included in the 2003 budget adopted by the board of county
commissioners as part of the GIS capital project. $225,000 has been
budgeted for this project.
And that's at Commissioner Coyle's request.
And time certain items. Item 1 OD to be heard at 5:30 p.m. this
evening, 9/23/03. And that has to do with the Naples Park survey.
Item 10E and 9B to be heard at 3:00 p.m. today. And that has to do
with the -- with the Conservation Council. And that will be provided
-- or the presentation will be provided by Mr. Wayne Daltry at three
o'clock.
Item 10J to be heard after Items 10E and 9B today, 9/23/03, and
that item is the bond issue for $51 million. We'll have bond counsel
here from Tampa in in order to present with Mr. Mike Smykowski.
And, finally, Item 1 OK and 8I to be heard at 5:00 p.m. tomorrow
evening, 9/24/03, and that has to do with the vacation of the South
Golden Gate Estates roads for the Everglades restoration project.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Halas, do you have any changes to today's agenda
or ex parte communication on the summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have any changes to today's
agenda. I -- but I do have many ex parte items starting with 7A.
I have meetings and, basically, that's what it was was basically
meetings.
With 8A, I also have correspondence and e-mail in that regard. All
this is here for public display.
8B, I had the meetings, correspondence and e-mail.
8C, had meetings, correspondence and e-mail.
And 8D, meetings and e-mails in that regard.
8E, I had also had meetings, correspondence and e-mail.
And, let's see where else we go from there.
Then we went to 17, a summary agenda. 17A, I had meetings.
Page 7
September 23, 2003
And, let's see what else we had. We've got a large agenda here
today, so I'm taking --- make sure we got --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want to just state the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 17J and 17K, 17L, all of that, and I
had either e-mails, phone calls or meetings with the -- the appropriate
people.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Commissioner Halas, along with
the other commissioners, always has ex parte communication
available to anybody that would like --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to review that in the board of
commissioners' office.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you.
On 17A, I've had meetings and I have -- and I have that recorded in
my file for public record.
I have nothing on 17B, nor C, nor D, nor F, nor G, nor H nor I, but
on 17J, Henderson Creek PUD, I have met with the petitioner and his
representatives. And I have that in my file.
I have on 17K the same thing is true, as well as 17L, I have met
with the petitioners with the -- with the Bayshore Triangle CRA
representatives individually. I've called many people on that just to
determine what their feelings are before I vote.
And -- and, as I say, I've met with the petitioner and his
representatives a number of times.
And then coming down to 17L, this was one I hadn't spoken to
anybody on until I read it, and I made the calls to Clarence Tiers and
to Ed Carlson because I wanted their input on that. And I have no disclosures on 17M.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have any further changes to
today's agenda, Commissioner--
Page 8
September 23, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, sir --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- I do not.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you.
On 17A, I talked to Mr. Yovanovich and the petitioner and the
county manager.
On 17B, I talked to the county manager, 17C with the county
manager. And any e-mails that I may have received and anything is
all available -- in this particular packet available to whoever would
like to see it.
On D, F and G, it was with the county manager. H and I also the
county manager, all similar subjects all the way down through, was
the name changes on the streets.
On K, I received correspondence and had met with Rich
Yovanovich and Mr. Arnold and the petitioner and also talked to the
county manager on it.
And Item -- let's see what else is left. On Item N -- M, I had no
disclosures on that particular item.
And I want to thank my fellow commissioners for pulling the 17L.
I was planning to do it if you didn't and looking forward to the
discussion on that. Other than that, I have no other changes, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you Mr. -- Commissioner
Coletta.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have no further
changes to the agenda with respect to the disclosures.
For the summary agenda on 17A, I have met with representatives
of the petitioner.
On 171, I have met with the representatives of the petitioner and I
Page 9
September 23, 2003
also have in my file many e-mails dating back to March of 2002 from
this -- when this item was first heard.
And Item 17K, I have met with representatives of the petitioner.
And all that is part of the file.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: My ex parte communication on the
summary agenda is in my folder and anybody wishing to review that
may do so by contacting the board of commissioners' office.
I need a clarification on a concept item. That's Item Number
16C(19), request for the board of commissioners to waive the county's
purchasing policy retainage release reduction criteria from reducing
the retainage from ten percent to zero for the proponent of the South
Collier County Regional Water Plan. And that's Project Number
70054.
And the clarification that I need, do we have retainage moneys for
this item in case the contractor fails to complete the contract as
written?
MR. DELONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
Administrator.
Yes, sir, we do. We have just over $2 million in retention
remaining in that contract after release of these funds.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you feel that that's substantial?
MR. DELONY: Yes, sir, I do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I do not want to pull this off of
the consent agenda. I'll go ahead and vote in favor of it with those
comments.
Thank you.
MR. DELONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to accept today's
regular consent and summary agenda as noted by staff and the board
of commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
Page 10
September 23, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Motion carries five zero.
Second.
Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
Aye.
Page 11
AGENDA CHANGER
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
September 23, 2003
Withdraw Item 6A: Public petition request by Ms. Cindy Kemp to discuss petition
documents regarding Southern Golden Gate Estates Area. (Petitioner requests to
speak when Item 10K is discussed at 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, September 24, 2003.)
Continue Item 7A to the October 14, 2003 BCC Meetin.q: This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commissioi-
members. This item was continued from the September 9, 2003 BCC Meetinq
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 multistory 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 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. Connors Vanderbilt
Beach Estates Unit No. 1, located in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner's request.)
Add Item 10L: Recommendation to waive formal competitive process and
approve a contract with 3001 (The Spatial Data Company) as a single source
vendor for ground survey and LIDAR analysis survey work in the amount of
$49,425 to satisfy a FEMA requirement for certification of existing LIDAR
topography of Collier County. (Staff request.)
Move Item 16A1 to 10N: Approve the transfer of $75,000 from the Current
Planning section FY03 budget to Comprehensive Planning Section FY03 budget to
restore funds previously transferred to fund the Vanderbilt Beach RT Overlay
Study. (Commissioner Halas' request.)
Withdraw Item 16C6: Award a contract to Southwest Utility Systems, Inc., for
construction of the Vanderbilt Beach Road reclaimed water main, Bid 03-3529,
ProJect 74034, in the amount of $845,415. (Staff request.)
Move Item 16E4 to 10M: Report and ratify staff-approved administrative changes
to work orders. (Commissioner Henning's request.)
Continue Item 17E Indefinitely: This item requires that all participants be sworn if,
and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. SNR-2003-AR-
4055, Peter Goodin, representing Oakes Estates Advisory, Inc., requesting a street
name change from 12th Avenue Northwest to Bur Oaks Lane, which street is
located in Unit 96, of the Golden Gate Estates Subdivision, located in Section 32,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner's request.)
Move Item 17J to 8K: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and e::
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members PUDZ-2002-AR-2944, D.
Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., and Richard
Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, representing Royal Palm
International Academy, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural and "A-
ST" Rural Agricultural/special Treatment to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to
be known as Royal Palm International Academy PUD for an educational campus
and residential community consisting of up to 650 dwelling units for property
located at 6000 Livingston Road, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 162.7+/. acres. (Staff request.)
Move Item 17L to 8L: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2002-AR-3537, Nick
Stewart of Stewart Mining Industries, requesting Conditional Use "1" for
earthmining in the "A-MHO" Rural Agricultural - Mobile Home Overlay zoning
district pursuant to Section 2.2.2.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code
for property located in Sections 18 and 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East,
Collier County, Florida. (Commissioners Coyle, Fiala and Halas' request.)
NOTE: This Item was legally advertised to be heard at the September 23, 2003
BCC meetinq. The petitioner is requestin.q that the Board continue this iten
indefinitely: ADA-2003-AR-4351, Anthony P. Pires Jr., of Woodward, Pires and
Lombardo, PA, representing Keith and Sue Orschell, requesting an appeal to
Interpretation AR-4119 by virtue of Division 1.6 and Sections 2.7.3.5.2.2., 5.3.2.1.
and 5.3.2.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), for replacement
of a mobile home in the "A" Agricultural zoning district for property located at
6167 Adkins Avenue in Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida. (Petitioner request.)
NOTE: Item 10A: Page 2 of this item was submitted in error. A corrected page 2
has been provided. (Staff request.)
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Items 16 (A) 3 and 16 (A) 17 require that the Board of
County Commissioners act as the Community Redevelopment Agency.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Item 16 (E) 5 Fiscal Impact on the Executive Summary
should read: Funds for these professional services are included in the 2003
budget adopted by the Board of County Commissioners as part of the GIS Capital
ProJect. $225,000 has been budgeted for this proJect. (Commissioner Coyle
request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 10D to be heard at 5:30 p.m., 9~23~03
Item 10E and 9B to be heard at 3:00 p.m., 9123103
Item 10J to be heard after Items 10E and 9B, 9~23/03
Item 10K, 81 to be heard at 5:00 p.m., 9/24~03
Item #2B, Item #2C, Item #2D
September 23, 2003
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 SPECIAL MEETING,
SEPTEMBER 4, 2003 BCC BUDGET HEARING, AND
SEPTEMBER 4, 2003 PELICAN BAY BUDGET HEARING-
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Entertaining a motion to accept the September 2nd, '03 special
meeting, September 4th, '03 BCC budget hearing, September 4th, '03
Pelican Bay budget hearing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second
by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Any opposed?
Motion carries five zero.
Item ~4A
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE OCTOBER 25, 2003 AS
NAACP FREEDOM FUND DAY ACCEPTED BY LAVERNE
FRANKI,IN, PRESIDENT OF THE NAACP- ADOPTED
Go on to proclamation. This proclamation will be read by
Commissioner Coletta. This proclamation is to designate October
25th, '03 as NAACP Freedom Fun Day.
Page 12
September 23, 2003
Nobody from the NAACP is here to accept this award or this
proclamation.
Commissioner Coletta, would you read the proclamation?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would be honored.
WHEREAS -- WHEREAS the National Association of the
Advancement of Colored People Freedom Fun Branch, NAACP, will
hold its 21st Freedom Fun Banquet and Award Ceremony on
Saturday, October 25th, 2003 at the Elks Lodge; and,
WHEREAS proceeds of this event will be used to assure that the
economical, political, education and social equality remain strong
within our community; and,
WHEREAS the public is invited to attend and share in this
celebration of freedom for all.
Now, THEREFORE be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida that October 25th,
2003 be designated as NAACP Freedom Fun Day in Collier County
and urge all citizens to join me in this worthwhile celebration.
Done and ordered this 23rd day of September, 2003, Tom Henning,
Chairman.
And, sir, I'd like to make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: A motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Fiala to approve the proclamation.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
Thank you, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Page 13
Item #4B
September 23, 2003
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE OCTOBER 8, 2003 AS COLLIER
COUNTY WALK OUR CHILDREN TO SCHOOL DAY ACCEPTED BY
THEADORE [,ITW1N. CHAIRMAN OF THE PAC - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next proclamation will be read by
Commissioner Fiala.
This proclamation is to designate October 8th, 2003 as Collier
County walk to school -- excuse me -- Collier County Walk Our
Children to School Day.
Here to accept this award is Theodore Litwin. He is the chairman
of the Pathways Advisory Committee.
Now, we're going to come right up in front of the dais here and
Commissioner Fiala is going to read it and we want to get your picture
after that, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning.
First of all, let me say it is indeed my pleasure to be reading this
particular proclamation because I've had a warm place in my heart and
attended a number of meetings with the Pathways Advisory
Committee.
And also I'd like to note just for the record that little guy in the
middle there, that's Tom Tomerlin's son. Tom Tomerlin is one of our
own. So, I just wanted that on the record. Smile big, young man.
WHEREAS Florida has been shown to be the state that could most
benefit from improvements to the walking environment with children
identified as the biggest benefactors of improved safety conditions
and,
WHEREAS the board of county commissioners is committed to the
safe travel of children to and from school and,
WHEREAS Collier County Department of Traffic Operations and
Page 14
September 23, 2003
Alternative Transportation Modes has been active in efforts to
increase opportunities for walking as an activity and mode of travel
through it's alliance with the Pathways Advisory Committee and,
WHEREAS walking to school promotes child development,
teaches independence and improves local traffic and air quality and,
WHEREAS escorting a child to school hand in hand is a pursuit in
keeping with quality time and family values.
Now, THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the day of October 8th,
2003 be designated as Collier County Walk Our Children to School
Day.
Done and ordered this 23rd day of September, 2003, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning,
Chairman.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second
by Commissioner Coyle.
Favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. LITWIN: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Litwin.
MR. LITWIN: On the -- as chairman of the Pathways Advisory
Committee, I'd like to just comment and accept this proclamation for
the Pathways Advisory Committee as well as the citizens of this
county.
Page 15
September 23, 2003
I want to explain what the purpose of the event is for the children
and parents to spend time together and at the same time enjoy the
benefits of walking.
We've heard much about the obesity in America and it holds true
with the children as well. So, walking could assist or help in that
development.
It will give a sense of independence to the children. It will allow
the parents to identify areas in the need of sidewalks, repairs or bike
paths, not to mention child bonding.
I'd like to point out that the important purpose of this event is both
to highlight and put eyes of our pedestrian network which will allow
parents to give us feedback on places and need of improvements.
There are seven schools involved in this program this year and last
year there was over 2,300 children involved, not to mention all the
volunteers.
The date, and I remind all of us, is October 8th and I invite you, as
commisSion members, perhaps, to come and join us because I hope to
be there, too. And by acknowledging these young people and inviting
them here today, I ask all of you to say thank you to them.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Sir, what's that brand new bike doing right there?
Can we--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They can't walk with that bike, can
they, or maybe they walk it to school?
MR. LITWIN: Well, they'll have to push it that day.
Samantha, would you come and join me and we'll accept this
proclamation. Will you hold that for her?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There you go. Thank you very much.
Let me shake your hand, Samantha.
Thank you, Ted. Thank you for all your hard work.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioners, Diane Flagg for the record.
To answer the question, there will be a new bike provided to each
Page 16
September 23, 2003
of the schools. Their names will be drawn. So, the children will
receive not only snacks as part of the event following their walking,
but one child at each school will receive a brand new bike. All of
these have been donated by members of our community.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Miss Flagg.
MS. FLAGG: Thank you.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE AND CELEBRATE THE
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND ITS STAFF
FOR RECEIVING THE 2003 AGENCY EXCELLENCE AWARD
IN CATEGORY I ACCEPTED BY MARLA RAMSEY,
DIRECTOR OF COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
DFJPARTMF. NT- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next proclamation will be read by
Commissioner Coyle. The proclamation is to recognize and celebrate
the Parks and Rec Department and its staff for receiving the 2003
Agency Excellence Award in Category 1.
To accept this is Marla Ramsey, Director of Parks and Rec and her
staff.
Miss Ramsey?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: WHEREAS the Florida Recreation
and Parks Association bestows the Agency Excellence Award to
recognize and honor the state's most outstanding community parks,
recreation and leisure services agencies for excellence in Parks,
Recreation and Leisure Services Management. And,
WHEREAS Collier County Parks and Recreation Department is
the recipient of the 2003 Agency Excellence Award in Category 1 for
cities or counties serving populations over 150,000. And,
WHEREAS receipt of the award indicates that Collier County
Page 17
September 23, 2003
Parks and Recreations Department has demonstrated excellence in
park development and acquisition, recreation planning programming
which meets the Americans with Disabilities Act, aquatic
programming, athletic programming, administration and management,
leisure and cultural arts, cultural diversity, fitness and wellness
activities, promotion of programs and the benefits to the community,
long and short-range planning and partnerships with community
organizations.
Now, THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that recognition and
celebration is extended to the Parks and Recreation Department and its
staff for this achievement.
Done and ordered this 23rd day of September, 2003, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning,
Chairman.
And I believe that Ms. Barbara Manzo will present an award to our
Parks Department.
MS. MANZO: That's correct. Good morning, commissioners.
For the record, I'm Barbara Manzo, and as the past president of the
Florida Recreation and Parks Association, I have the honor of sitting
on the Awards Selection Committee every year and it's with great
pressure I'm be able -- I'm able to be here today to present the
beautiful plaque that was presented to Marla and the staff at the
Florida Recreation and Parks Association Annual Conference last
month up at Innisbrook.
As you mentioned, this is the most prestigious award for an agency
that Florida has and we are very, very proud that Collier County has
received it this year under the direction ofMarla Ramsey. Your
department has shown tremendous leadership.
They are also in the process of self-assessment for the national
accreditation process. And we're very proud in Florida because out of
the 41 agencies nationally that are accredited, Florida currently has
Page 18
September 23, 2003
nine of those agencies and, hopefully, soon to be ten.
So, I'm here to present this beautiful plaque to you and thank you
very much for your support to the department and their wonderful
achievements.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman-- Mr. Chairman,
could I make a motion that we approve this proclamation?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
Motion carries five zero.
We want to get your picture, sir. Turn around.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
AMY TOZIER, CASE MANAGER, HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR
SEPTF, MlqER 2003-RF, COGNIZF, D
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, every month is an
honor for the chairman to recognize an outstanding employee. Today
is no exception. Today we have Amy Tozier from Human Resources
to accept the employee of the month.
Amy, would you please join us up here?
Amy started her employment with Collier County Government in
the year 2000 and has demonstrated a significant innovative in
Page 19
September 23, 2003
working with both her colleagues and within Collier County and
within the community.
In February 2003, she worked with the Health Department and the
David Lawrence Center to establish a Get Help clinic for those area
homelessness.
This planning provides such needed medical and social services for
these individuals who live within our area but are unable to afford
housing.
Amy has been working closely with social -- or service for senior
staff to initiate and complete the process of manning the entire
assessment process for the services for senior clients.
In order to accomplish this, Amy invested the successful
computerized program in other counties that extrapolated these from
other counties their information for the use of-- in our program.
Amy has worked with her own time and after hours to fine tune the
computerized-- of the requirement of forms and data gathering
instruments. She's worked with Collier County's Information
Technology Department that's successful of automating this by
researching a data base.
Amy's work has been instrumental in allowing the case manager to
be less involved with paperwork and more involved with the attention
of the needs of Collier County systems population.
She has demonstrated an exemplary customer service throughout
her short tenure in Collier County Government.
Amy has intervened in some of the extreme challenges, situations
that required her to work above and beyond her expectation
respons ib iliti es.
Customer satisfaction surveys have been constantly -- indicated
that -- from her clients find her not only to be kind and a caring person
but also a communication professional.
Amy, I want to, first of all, give you a small token of our
appreciation by the board of commissioners. We also want to
Page 20
September 23, 2003
recognize you with this plaque as a citizen or an employee of the
month and a small note from myself. Thank you.
We want to get a picture, too.
(Applause.)
Item #7B
RESOLUTION 2003-332 FOR PETITION CU-2002-AR-3537,
NICK STEWART OF STEWART MINING INDUSTRIES,
REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "1" FOR EARTHMINING IN
THE "A-MHO" RURAL AGRICULTURAL - MOBILE HOME
OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION
2.2.2.3 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTIONS 18 AND 19,
TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FI.ORIDA - ADOPTF. D W/STIPIIIJATIONS
CHAIRMAN HENNING: For the people with us here today, if
you have any cell phones or beepers, I would appreciate it if you
would turn those off or put them in vibrate -- in a vibrator mode.
The first item is -- or the next item, I should say, is 8A.
MR. MUDD: No. It's 7B, which used to be 17L --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- and that is -- this item requires that all participants
be sworn and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members. This is conditional use 2002-Ar-3537, Nick Stewart of
Stewart Mining Industries requesting Conditional Use 1 for earth
mining in the A-MHO Rural Agricultural dash Mobile Home Overlay
Zoning District pursuant to Section 2.2.2.3 of the Collier County Land
Development Code for the property located in Section 18 and 19,
Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida.
And this item was -- was moved to the regular agenda by
Page 21
September 23, 2003
Commissioners Coyle, Fiala, Halas.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anybody wishing to participate in the
discussion of this item, would you please rise, raise your right hand so
the court reporter can swear you in.
THE COURT REPORTER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm that
the testimony you are about to give in this cause will be the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth?
(The witnesses responded in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sue, do we have any public speakers on
the item?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Would the petitioner please
come forward?
MS. FILSON: Oh, I'm sorry. We do have two.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And those have to be sworn in, so
anybody who signed up for this item needs to rise now and be sworn
in if you haven't been sworn in.
MS. FILSON: That was --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: -- 8M. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thanks for being here with us
today.
Mr. Davidson, are you it?
MR. DAVIDSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Come on up.
MR. DAVIDSON: I'm Jeff Davidson with Davidson Engineering.
And we have a little over 200-acre excavation project, which is
northwest of-- of the community of Immokalee and it's about -- about
two miles north of Immokalee, if you go about a mile west on State
Road 82 and then about a mile south on an existing haul road to an
existing citrus grove.
And I know one of the issues on this project has been the depth and
Page 22
September 23, 2003
we've done an extensive study. We've had experts here for the EAC
and we've also had experts here for the planning commission.
If you have any questions, we'd like to answer those.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Question by the board members?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commission Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
I have many questions. Yes, depth is truly a concern.
The reason I pulled it is I -- I'm very concerned with our future
water supply.
In here you have a letter from the University of Florida that says, as
long as the depth of excavation does not penetrate the lower confining
layer of the surficial aquifer, the depth of excavation should have a
minimal impact on groundwater quality. And it says, as long as it
does not penetrate.
What assurances do we have that it is not going to?
MR. DAVIDSON: We did extensive test borings in that area and
we've had experts examine those test borings and, in fact, Stan
Chrzanowski has looked at those -- those test borings.
In fact, he's here now, and thank God Stan's here.
(Laughter.)
And what we've determined, the confining layer is about a hundred
feet down from the -- the surface, the ground surface, and that we're
not penetrating and not causing any adverse impact to the groundwater
in that area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Stan, how -- what assurances do we
have -- oh, you have to be sworn in?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning. Stan Chrzanowski,
Development and Review.
THE COURT REPORTER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm that
the testimony you are about to give in this cause is the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth?
Page 23
September 23, 2003
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am, I do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, from what I understand, because
of this hundred feet down, this ground cover, that you cannot penetrate
the surficial aquifer. Is that what you're saying?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's right. If-- if-- one second.
They told me to bring everything on disk, but that drawing was a
little too large by the time they printed it out or by the time they
printed it to put it on a disk.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, you'll have to get on the mike so
everybody can hear you.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. Sorry.
If-- if you look up here, this is a -- a topography of Collier County.
Not the LIDAR topography. This is done from the USGS data base.
And this right here, I don't know whether they can blow this up on
the -- on the visualizer, on the screen.
This is the City of Immokalee. The elevations start at sea level
here and go up slowly as you go across the county.
This is Route 29 and that's Route 92. And your excavation that
you're looking at is right in here right at the high point of the county.
It seems to be not exactly an anomaly but a very deep sand layer.
We have excavations here with the bottom elevation as deep as that
bottom elevation there, the -- what they call an aqui-clue to an
aqui-tard. It sits between the aquifers. It stops the -- one aquifer from
mixing with another aquifer. Apparently in this area is about a
hundred feet down.
We had -- the Environmental Advisory Council had some
questions about this. They sent it back for a month. We came back --
not we. The petitioner came back.
Well, actually, we had contacted Game and Freshwater Fish, the
Bureau of Mines. They sent us an expert down. The petitioner came
up with a couple of his experts from a couple different colleges. And
everybody that looked at this thing said there was no problem.
Page 24
September 23, 2003
Our staff, National Resources, has looked at the soil borings and
they said there's no problem. I believe there's no problem.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. The reason I ask this question,
I -- I did make some phone calls after reading this in the summary
agenda and -- and in it, it noted that Ed Carlson had opposed it
originally and then he -- he felt that it was approved and so I wanted to
ask him why.
I -- I'm just mainly -- and then I -- I talked with Clarence Tears as
well from the Big Cypress Basin. I just want to make sure that we
protect our future water sources, and if you assure me that this -- this
layer of rock or whatever it is is going to protect any intrusion into our
freshwater sources, then I want to know how you're going monitor that
to -- to make sure that it never does.
MR. STEWART: Good morning, commissioners. My name is
Nick Stewart. I'm the president of Stewart Mining.
Basically, this is a very specialized sand deposit that is running
from about 15 feet in the ground all the way down to a hundred where
we encountered the limestone.
It's a very coarse silica sand deposit. It's an ancient deposit that
was formed by the Peace River. That's why there's no confining
layers in it.
The material we're producing for this will be used for concrete for
golf courses, trap sand, et cetera, and we cannot have any calcareous
or any limestone type material within the sand.
That's why the -- the confining layer over the lime rock top is at a
hundred feet and we're going to limit our mining to 80 feet. It's very
important that we don't intermix the two.
We're going to be using also sand suction-type dredges that
wouldn't be capable of penetrating into a limestone strata down below.
We would be just pulling the sand strata.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions, Commissioner
Fiala?
Page 25
September 23, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas and then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. You said you did test boring
down to a hundred feet. Was there any test borings beyond that?
What I'm concerned about, if there's any voids after a hundred feet
whereby we could -- with the weight of the water and everything else,
that it would cause a fracture in that confining layer.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Actually the water has less weight than
the sand filled or the water filled sand that would be above it. Sand
weighs about 120, 130 pounds a cubic foot. And you -- 30 percent
voids, you throw 62.4 pounds a cube foot of water in there, it throws it
up maybe to 150. And the water, when this is over, will weigh 62.4
pounds a cubic foot, which is less weight than was on there to begin
with.
So, there won't be any pressure from the added water.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you -- was there any detection of
any voids below a hundred feet?
MR. STEWART: We weren't interested in the limestone down
below, only where the sand stopped at and we did not penetrate into
the limestone. We went down to the surface. That ranged anywhere
from a hundred to a hundred five.
The type of drilling we were doing would not penetrate into the --
into the limestone layer, nor were we interested in doing it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got one other question.
Then you do have some affidavits from any geologists that indicate
that we shouldn't have a problem if we continue this mining operation.
MR. STEWART: Yes, we do, and those should be in a packet that
was provided to the county that was brought up at the EAC meeting.
We had geologists that were onboard as consultants that also wrote
-- wrote a paper on it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
Page 26
September 23, 2003
MR. STEWART: Thankyou.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, then
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You made a statement you would be
mining to 80 feet. Our executive summary says 85. And my -- my
problem is the margin of error.
If the confining layer is at a hundred feet and we're mining to 85,
15 feet isn't really great but I appreciate the fact that the mining
method is not one which should break through the limestone.
But are we going to do this at 80 feet or 85 feet or can we get it to
75 feet?
MR. STEWART: The -- one of the reasons for the depth was that
we encountered this material and we're -- again, we're looking for very
coarse deposit. This material will be also sent then through a
processing plant where it's segregated through specific gravity to
create these DOT type materials that are involved in it.
Through this processing, all materials mn across the screen deck
and through a processing plant that's being monitored.
Any time if we were to hit something that was calcareous, it would
immediately show up on our screen decks and this confining layer
would have to be -- again, we did not drill through it. I don't know --
where an interest in the limestone down below and whether it was
faulty, you know, or not, my -- my -- from past experience, I wouldn't
think that it would have voids in it down at that depth, but I'm
certainly not sure of that.
We would be mining the sand, sand piles that we're developing by
putting any type of calcareous material in it.
The -- again the dredges that can go to that depth are not going to
be cutter heads on them. There will be just sand suction and they'll be
using jets to basically have the material cave in to the suction of the
dredge.
And there's -- there's really -- it would plug up the dredge by
Page 27
September 23, 2003
having any calcareous or limestone type problems.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we use the 80 -- 80 feet that
you -- you specified as the depth rather than the 85 that's in our -- our
MR. STEWART: Well, what I was going to say was that the
material starts at 15 and one of the reasons for the depth was, is that
the deeper we go, the greater the portion of the material was.
And-- and in order to -- before it became feasible for us for this
type of operation, these -- this material was sampled and then
analyzed. In order to make DOT products we were having to -- to get
that depth.
Now, if we excavate down to 80, 85 feet, typically it may settle
out, you know, to an 80 or even 75-foot layer of depth that's in there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The final question is what
remedy do we have if we find that there is pollution or disturbance of
our aquifer as a result of the mining operation?
MR. STEWART: Well, we are controlled by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and the Bureau of Mines
reclamation. We're going to seek a -- a -- and hopefully upon
approval of-- of this permit, we will be obtaining an environmental
resource permit.
The state also takes into account anything that we're doing to
damage water from surface waters to groundwaters. We're required
with them, if they feel that we're going to do something that could
cause harm, they'll add that into the program of this ERP, that is a
continual monitoring on an annual basis of our -- our mining
excavation.
This is not -- in these type of deposits, this is not something that is
not being done in the State of Florida. The mines in Lake Wales,
perhaps all of you all have seen along 60 that have the real pretty
green water in them.
We did a sample and -- and provided some analysis on those lakes
Page 28
September 23, 2003
as a comparative to what we were doing because it's basically the
same stratum of material. And those -- those lakes were at 85 and 90
feet.
And -- and the state, you know, came in and -- and said that they
have not had any problem through the years, which are all monitored
under the DEP, these type of mines.
Anytime that yOu process sand material, we then become under the
Bureau of Mines reclamation, and so they're monitoring this. And
throughout history, they've never had these type of problems or they
would specifically monitor them through the program.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How -- how does one recover if there
is pollution intrusion into the aquifers as a result of the mining
operation? What do you do about it?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: A few things you have to remember. The
representative we had here from the Department of Mines was from
the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Mines. He
didn't seem that concerned about it.
Pollution has to come from somewhere. The type of-- this site, I
believe, we're putting a berm with some kind of impervious barrier in
it because the site is surrounded by citrus groves.
Now, they use pesticides. I -- I saw something in the -- and-- and
herbicides. There was something in the paper about arsenic.
But the berm should stop any of these pollutants from coming into
this site. The only thing you have to remember is these -- these citrus
groves are located on the same type of sand, so whether the -- whether
the rain washes the pollutant down into the sand or into the water, it's
still going to enter without aquiflute (sic) or an aquitard (sic), it's still
going to enter the surficial aquifer.
These pollutants should not get into the bottom aquifer. The only
pollutants I could see possibly coming from this operation is if this --
this machinery probably works off gasoline or diesel or -- MR. STEWART: Gasoline.
Page 29
September 23, 2003
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: All the components of that float, they bob
to the surface. Probably be handled that way.
The source of pollution, I don't know where it would come from,
but if the machinery did malfunction in a bad way, I think the first
thing they'd do is they'd be out there with the skimming equipment
and everything taking it out. We're not talking heavy metals, no
pesticides or herbicides, nothing like that.
MR. STEWART: We also had a -- there was a part of the -- the
packet, a Dr. Bowman at the University of Florida wrote a -- a paper
on the citrus groves and -- and what impacts that it could have through
pesticides and stuff going into a lake body and that -- that available --
that information should be available to you all.
And he had specific reasons that it couldn't harm the -- the water
body from the herbicides and things. And we are required to put this
berm up, which would be surface waters, you know, coming into it.
Also it would have to leach through the top 15 feet and I don't
believe it would just run into the lake. It would have to leach down
and then come into the lake where it would hit a small water table up
top. It should withhold it at four or five feet.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
My concern is over the transportation element and I'd like to ask
Mr. Feder if he would be able to come up front or whoever he thinks
would be -- Mr. Scott, Dan Scott?
I -- I tell you what my concern is. The reason that this is a high
area, that's the reason why Immokalee located there. And there will
be a detriment as far as Immokalee goes with the transportation
element coming through town, two-lane highway, which will remain
two lane for a little while to come.
Meanwhile, this project is going to run over a period of 30 years.
I'll be 90 years old when this thing finishes. Probably still a
commissioner, too.
Page 30
September 23, 2003
Don't shake your head no, Fred.
My -- my question is, is there some way we can recapture some of
this loss maybe with some interconnectivity that might be able to
interconnect with Lake Trafford Road or something else with a
right-of-way that might be able to enable us to offset or mitigate the
traffic impact we're going to have because of this project and the long
repercussions.
By the time this project reaches completion, the town of
Immokalee would have been built up all around it. I can tell you that
for a fact. It's a good project.
And though I don't -- I'm not concerned that much about the water
quality because I -- I know as long as they don't go below the
confining layer, there won't be a problem.
But I'd like to hear what the possibilities would be for
interconnectivity, something that we can do to mitigate the traffic
impact.
MR. SCOTT: There's a possibility to get --
THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, could you identify yourself for
the record, please?
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation and Planning. Sorry.
The possibility would be to get to Westclox which is the closest.
It's probably about a mile and a half, two miles south of this site for
interconnectivity from Westclox up to State Road 82.
So, what we'd be looking for is to be able to have some reserve
right-of-way on that edge of their property, not necessarily at the
beginning stages, but as we move forward where we could look at it,
interconnection in that -- in that area.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm waiting to hear the reply of--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We may have.
MR. STEWART: Most of the -- the truck traffic through, as far as
the mining operation itself goes, a little -- there will be some that goes
Page 31
September 23, 2003
into Immokalee, but most of it is going to be going down 82 to 75
serving Naples, serving Fort Myers.
And this is a commercial type product. It will be delivered as -- as
unlike a residential build product. It will be delivered to the concrete
plants and the block plants. And they're basically going to want to go
to 75 and then travel from that.
As Immokalee builds, there would certainly need to be sand
provided into there and there will be some initially, but most of our
traffic will run 82.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So, you don't think it will be
necessary for your company to donate the right-of-way for us to be
able to sometime in the future build this road?
MR. STEWART: We don't have any problem with donating the
right-of-way on our west line for -- for future if you want a connection
on the 30 feet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I want to be sure I don't miss
anything on that.
Mr. Scott, if you'd be so kind as to make sure that I get everything
in the record so that we don't have a misunderstanding five years from
now or ten years from now, now what the intent of this meeting was
all about.
MR. SCOTT: A hundred foot of reserved right-of-way on the east
side of this property.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We want to make that as far as a motion
and-- yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'll make that a motion and
include this in the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have some public speakers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me. I didn't mean to
jump the gun on it, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, we'll -- we're not going to take --
Page 32
September 23, 2003
I'm not going to accept the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've got to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala and then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Mr. Davidson, may I just ask
one more question?
So, who will be responsible to regularly monitor and guarantee that
this excavation does not penetrate the surficial aquifer? I mean you
guys have made me very comfortable with what you've said, but I
want to know who's going to monitor it to make sure that what you've
said actually is -- holds true. Who will do the monitoring?
MR. STEWART: Short of the state doing it and -- and I doubt
they're going to go up there and sound -- you know, we can certainly
make available that the mining operation would be open to the county.
Anyone that wanted to come out there from the county can look at
our -- all above of our screen deck and -- and -- and show that it's not
-- we're not penetrating a calcareous layer or a rock layer.
Short of that, I -- I don't know how to -- you know, unless the
county is going to assure themselves through us allowing them to go
out there, I don't know how that we can prove that to you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Stan, did you have -- did you have
something to say on that? I -- I noticed you moving up there. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am.
We have .them file yearly reports. Every third year is -- is actually
a cross-section of the lake, the previous -- the two years in between it's
just an aerial photo with the limits of what was done and rough guess
of the depth.
I suppose we could have them do a cross-section or some
soundings every year. I -- you know, 30 years worth of excavation, I
don't think in any -- you know, when they're getting close, at least we
Page 33
September 23, 2003
know about it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I would like -- just like to
make --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: They're not going to be down there the
first year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- sure that that safety feature is in
place just so that we know -- I mean, long after we're gone we know
that we have protected the water sources for our furore generations.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If he stays short of the hundred foot, he
shouldn't penetrate the aquifer; the aquitard, the aquiflute.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, could you put something in
place just to know that the county does something to monitor that, just
in case in this 203-acre lake it isn't short, you know, the depth isn't
short.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: In three weeks you'll see the executive
summary come through here for the excavation permit itself on
consent agenda, October 14th, and I will put a condition in there that
Jeff and I will come up with as to some type of program.
Not water monitoring because you just want to know if there's any
chance that we're going to penetrate the confining layer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Exactly, right.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We can do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, Commissioner
Coletta and Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now that -- now that we've got the
issues taken care of down below, what about the surface of the lake
and around the perimeter of the land? What are you going to -- what
measures are you going to put in place in regards to protecting the rest
of the environment around that whole area and also, as we have the
encroachment of people in there, how are you going to take care of
that issue as far as noise and any other type of problems that we may
Page 34
September 23, 2003
have here?
MR. STEWART: The -- there is going to be a berm that is going
around the property.
You were asking about surface water coming into the lake. We're
required by, I'm sure, Collier County as well as the state of having a
four-to-one slope on the -- the lake coming up that would extend them
four feet down into the -- the water would be the sloping requirement
for the lake.
We're not doing any type of dewatering activity at the mine site.
We're going to be required by DEP to put some type of transitional
littoral shelves, you know, back in the -- the lake under the BMR's
requirements for some.
The land is currently a citrus grove. It has a landscaping nursery
on one side of it. State property borders it and the comer basically
citrus surrounds it at this point.
Yes, in the future, I'm -- I'm sure that one of those parcels could
lend itself to some type of role of development, you know, being out
there.
The mining operation could be an attractive nuisance for someone
wanting to -- to go swim or something, and I think at that time we
would have to protect ourselves and the liability of it by fencing the
property.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And how high is the berm
going to be?
MR. STEWART: The berm, I think, is only set for three foot, but
it's going to be maintained throughout the -- the life of the mine.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You said three foot?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there a possibility that that berm
could be raised to six foot?
MR. STEWART: Would we put a six-foot berm around the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct, sir.
Page 35
September 23, 2003
MR. STEWART: -- the whole mine?
Jeff suggested if they develop any property adjacent to us we could
put some -- you know, a berm up or, you know, noise protection, you
know, at that point, which could be written under a permit also.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Noise protection and also site.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think Commissioner Halas is
concerned about a hundred-year flood. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, is that three-foot berm
going to be substantial for that event?
Am I correct, Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Halas?
MR. DAVIDSON: What we'll do here is do an engineering
computer model that shows what the elevation of that berm would be.
And, typically, in that area it's lower than most places because the
area is so high and the water table is relatively low.
So, three feet is probably more than enough to handle the hundred
year three-day storm event. That's why it's three feet.
MR. STEWART: The natural water table is down at five or six
feet, which would be the natural depth of the -- or the top of the water
body, and then there's going to be six feet of-- of dry land and then
there will be a berm on top of that.
So, it's creating actually a -- a reservoir to -- for water. A
hundred-year flood of that wouldn't affect it or cause it to come up out
of its lake.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If I may, a hundred year storm drops a
little in excess of 15 inches of rain and that area -- the topography I
had up there before, you see that that's the high spot. Everything is
flowing away from there.
If we get 15 inches of rain, I don't think it's going to accumulate at
that site. The three-foot berm should be sufficient.
Page 36
September 23, 2003
And I think putting a stipulation in the executive summary for the
excavation permit, that when any other project comes in here, they'll
have. to come in for a rezone next to this project. At that time we add
a higher berm in that location.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we ought to put that into the
record as -- as of right now that we want to make sure that that berm,
if there is any people that are moving into that area, that that berm
automatically goes to six feet in that particular area.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Good call, Commissioner
Halas. Right now they got -- the only neighbors they got are orange
trees, some crops and that's about it, but eventually they will, you're
right.
Two questions, if I may. First, we never finished the conversation
on the road donation for the right-of-way. Could you elaborate on that
and give us the correct language so that we don't close the public
hearing and then I have to ask somebody to come back?
MR. SCOTT: 50 feet actually on the east side. With the easement,
that will be 110 feet along the east side of their property and that will
be dedicated to the county.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there anything missing from
that, Mr. Scott? Is that complete enough?
MR. SCOTT: Yes, that's -- that's complete.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then the other question I've got is
what about future rights to access to the water for a public water
source? Is there any possibility on that?
MR. STEWART: The -- we're bound by EMSHA, which is a
counterpart of the Department of Labor. And we have a very strict
safety ordinance that we have to here through -- adhere to by the
federal government.
Page 37
September 23, 2003
And we have to put our people through training. We're not allowed
to have people on site out there being escorted by, you know, a mine
employee being on site.
So, during that period of time of the -- you know, the excavation is
going on, short of having a field day or, you know, asking people to
come out and some type of, you know, participation or taking kids
fishing for, you know, after two or three years of the excavation going
on, those types of things could be done but not as a public --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
MR. STEWART: -- you know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there -- is there a possibility,
and I may be out of line here, but I'm going to ask the question, that
we might have it at the end of the excavation period, 30 years from
now, that the county would have some sort of rights as far as this
water source?
MR. STEWART: At this time we don't know what we're going to
do with the property. If-- if the feasibility of mining changes in the
future, we may end up with a lot more land there than we, you know,
would anticipate and it would be hard for us to commit, you know, to
something that is going to be 30 years in the future with all the
changes.
Also, if-- you know, if things change where we're prohibited from
mining that we're going to have to, you know, pack our --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand, sir. I thank you for
the donated right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have any other questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's go to public speakers.
Miss Filson, would you please call up the first--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- public speakers after Don Scott?
MR. SCOTT: To clarify, the dedicated at no cost to the county and
Page 38
September 23, 2003
consistent with -- with other similar land development code
regulations for donations.
MS. FILSON: The two speakers I had registered for seven were
actually for eight.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Okay.
MS. FILSON: So, I changed them to eight.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks for the clarification.
Okay. Any other questions, commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, but if you could ask everyone
to speak directly into the mike, I'd appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Everybody speak directly into
the mike.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, that was
very good.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve with the
stipulation on the roads as mentioned by Mr. Scott as far as the
donated at no cost to the county the right-of-way and the berm, the
language that Mr. Scott just got through using so everything would be
absolutely correct.
Would you repeat it again, Mr. Scott, and we'll make it a part of the
motion?
MR. SCOTT: Consistent with other donations in the Land
Development Code.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion by
Commissioner Coletta. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Coyle, I
guess.
Page 39
September 23, 2003
MR. REISCHL: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, before you vote. Fred
Reischl.
Did you also want to include this six-foot berm language in that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
MR. REISCHL: Adjacent to residential.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Adjacent to the residential?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Definitely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make that part of my motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, yes. Forgive me,
Commissioner Henning. When we made our declarations earlier and
this was pulled from the summary agenda, I was waiting for it to come
back and make my declarations of who I spoke to and everything and
I want to make sure before we vote that I make that absolutely clear.
I -- I spoke to staff, county manager on it, I spoke to Ed Kant. I
also called Fred Thomas in Immokalee and spoke to him about it.
And that's my total -- my total declaration on that one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Great.
There's a motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by
Commissioner Fiala. Any more discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries five zero. Thank you.
MR. STEWART: Thank you.
Item #8A
Page 40
September 23, 2003
ORDINANCE 2003-49 PETITION PUDZ-02-AR-3242, JERRY
NEAL OF HOLE MONTES AND ASSOCIATES,
REPRESENTING FRANK W. COOPER AND F. C. PROPERTIES,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURE
AND "A-ST" RURAL AGRICULTURAL WITH A SPECIAL
TREATMENT OVERLAY TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE MANDALAY PUD
ALLOWING FOR 84 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD (C.R. 864) AND
APPROXIMATELY ONE-EIGHTH MILE EAST OF POLLY
AVENUE IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA- ADOPTED
W/STIPl II,ATIONS
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next item is 8A.
This item is required for all participants to be sworn in and ex parte
communication by the board of commissioners.
This is PUDZ-02-AR-3242. Jerry Neal of Hole Montes and
Associates representing Frank W. Cooper and F. C. Properties
requesting a rezone from A, rural agricultural, to A-ST, rural
agricultural with special treatment overlay to PUD, planned unit
development known as Mandalay PUD allowing 84 residential
dwelling units for the property located on the north side of Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and approximately one-eighth of a mile off of Polly
Avenue in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East of Collier
County, Florida.
Would you all rise, those wishing to participate in this discussion to
be sworn in by the court reporter.
THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm that the
evidence you are about to give in this cause is the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth?
Page 41
September 23, 2003
(The witnesses answered in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have any public speakers on this
one, commissioner -- or-- MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Miss Filson?
Ex parte commission. Is there any additional, Commissioner
Coletta than you stated?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For 8A?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I -- in my file I have
correspondence that I received and anyone who wishes to see it, I have
it right here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I also have received several items of
correspondence. They are in the file for public review.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I also have correspondence in my
file and it's always welcome for any public to review the file.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've received a large number of
correspondence in my file for the record. Also there was a meeting
called about a year ago from neighborhoods and so I attended that
meeting as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I had correspondence and
e-mails on this particular item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Cooper, welcome to the board of
commissioners.
MR. COOPER: Thank you. Glad to be here.
For the record my name is Frank Cooper. I am the petitioner for
this project.
Mandalay is a proposed low density project to be built on
Rattlesnake Hammock Road. It's a 28-acre site approximately -- well,
Page 42
September 23, 2003
zoning for up to 84 units just under three units per acre density.
It's surrounded by four communities. Basically, on the west you
have Huntington Villas PUD, which is a villa project, three and four
unit buildings.
To the north, you have Quail Hollow, a single family residential
community, to the east, you have Naples Place and Vista Gardens
Apartments and to the south, which is Rattlesnake Hammock Road,
and then right of this side of Rattlesnake Hammock Road would be
Lely Palms Retirement Home.
Currently the property is zoned agriculture with an ST overlay on
the eastern half.
As part of our zoning here, we will be building on the western half
of the property and maintaining ST overlay area as a conservation
area.
The potential uses for the project at this -- has changed somewhat
from the informational meeting that was attended by Commissioner
Fiala approximately a year ago.
At this point we're still going in for zoning consisting of single
family, one and two family which would be builder type products and
multifamily.
The multifamily though had been limited to no more than a
four-unit building. In addition, as a recommendation by the planning
commission we had put an instant requirement that at this point the
zoning allows for single family R1 and 2 family units and multifamily
uses were going to be used, we'd come back for PUD and substantial
change which requires public hearings with the planning commission
approval.
Our plans at this point are actually building, bill a product, which
would be a two-family type product on the site.
Also as part of that discussion with the planning commission we
agreed that we would have no two-story structures abutting in any of
the residential buildings that are in Quail Hollow.
Page 43
September 23, 2003
If there's any two -- I don't anticipate any two story, but for
whatever reason, if there was two-story buildings at a later date or if
we were to have a different buildable plan that was not single story,
none of those lots would abut the Quail Hollow lots.
One of the big issues that was -- came forth from the Quail Hollow
residents was one of them was obviously with the multifamily issue
but the second was the stormwater issues.
There's two -- a couple of things here on the stormwater issues I'd
like to just go ahead and go through.
Number one is Quail Hollow when it was built unfortunately did
not have any perimeter berms and the stormwater on the rear yards of
those lots adjutting (sic) -- abutting this project have no drainage and
they go into this project.
So, what we have proposed is part of-- in the PUD documents as
well on the -- on the exhibits is that we will collect their stormwater on
the perimeter of our property and route it to the slough on the eastern
half of the property and also down our western side between our
perimeter berm and our roadway system to go out to Rattlesnake
Hammock to the swale there, basically providing drainage for those
rear lots actually taken into the project.
Second of all, the question came up, well, gee, if we're building this
project, are we interfering with the overall drainage situation of the
county which would worsen their situation technically.
We have done the hundred-year stormwater analysis and this site is
an exporter site, which means any stormwater falling on this site in the
current condition actually goes off site versus staying on site.
As part of the development we do have our perimeter berms intact
and we would not -- in actuality have no stormwater leaving the site
that would exceed the current stormwater amounts within the site now.
So, we are not actually impacting existing drainage facilities going
south to here or the -- and, therefore, not impacting their potential
drainage.
Page 44
September 23, 2003
Landscape buffers, we've also put in a minimum of 15-foot wide
landscape buffers even though the single family would normally be
ten. We also put a hedge in which exceeds the code.
So, we are buffering, providing buffers for their project between
our project. The buffers are on our side of the line obviously and they
receive the basic codes in the minimum amounts.
We think we are, you know, trying to be a good neighbor. We've
kept it at a low density usage and buffering our units -- our homes
from their homes accordingly.
And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions or go into
further details.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Question by the board members.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You talked about the buffers.
One of the things the residents that I've -- that have contacted me
through e-mail have stated is they're very concerned with tearing the
trees down because it will not provide any -- any buffer to them.
They wanted to keep the trees there on the back line of the property
to edge along there. That would be a great buffer to leave the trees
there for 15 feet. Can you do that?
MR. COOPER: No, ma'am. I cannot. Personally I'm required by
not only your codes but also by West Florida Water Management to
have perimeter berms. And the perimeter berms are going to be
roughly anywhere from two to three feet in total variation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. COOPER: And when you start putting that dirt on top of the
trees you know what happens.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So, then if you have to put this
berm in there, many times I've gone out to see properties and they put
a berm in and they put landscaping on the berm but the landscaping is
so sparse and then, of course, it dies and so there's no protection for
the surrounding communities at all.
Page 45
September 23, 2003
What assurances do I have, number one, that it will be thickly
landscaped and that it will be maintained?
MR. COOPER: All right. That's answering two questions. You'll
see on Exhibits C7, 8 and 9 within your PUD document we've actually
drawn into the PUD documents the landscape requirements, which
basically provides that we have, I think it's 12-foot trees versus an
eight-foot tree or ten-foot trees.
On the 25-foot on center, we have either a three-foot hedge, in
some cases a double row hedge, so -- on top of the berm, so we're
providing this is where you would want a single family or one or two
family you wouldn't even be having a hedge, so we're putting the
hedge in as well as bigger trees.
And in terms of maintenance there is a homeowner association and
we're required to maintain that buffer. It's a landscaped buffer. It's in
your LDC code. We are required to maintain it obviously in the event
that the association wasn't maintaining it, the code enforcement
division is able to come out to the project, see it and cite the
association for not maintaining their landscape.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will the hedge be a continuous hedge
or just --
MR. COOPER: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- or just sporadic?
MR. COOPER: No, it's a continuous hedge, the whole way
through around the project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. One more thing. I wanted to
ask Robert Wiley from our stormwater management team to come up,
please. I'm very, very concerned with the -- the water that -- that
might be draining into the existing community.
Can you tell me -- can you tell me that this won't happen, Robert,
or what -- what can be done to assure us that the people that have
existing homes there will not suffer because of this property?
MR. WILEY: Okay. For the record my name is Robert Wiley
Page 46
September 23, 2003
with the Collier County Stormwater Management section.
We've looked at this several times with the applicant and with his
engineer. The basic premise that they're laid upon is that the
properties due north of them, which is Quail Hollow, basically has
straight discharge right into this man's vacant land.
So, he's taking care of that discharge by coming in along his
parameter and then moving the water around so he doesn't mix
external water with his own internal water.
And like you said, we addressed the issue of cover your flood
plain.
Now, the way we went through this is, first of all, we have done an
entire analysis for the whole region, the Lely area stormwater
improvement project.
We know where the flows are going and where they're projected to
go. Using that as a basis, we gave them some control elevation
information to use for starters.
They then did their flood plain analysis, keeping in mind they're
only addressing the western portion. So, addressing only the western
portion he will -- when we all see the calculations finally, because
we're still talking back and forth with each other, but it appears though
he will be an exporter, which means more water actually leaves the
site than comes onto it.
If he takes his entire property into consideration, he's an importer.
But you only address importer/exporter where he's developing it, so
the nondeveloped portion really does not apply here.
He's provided along the eastern side of the property where the flow
with a big, deep slough comes through there, that's what he left in
conservation, which will line up right with our Lely area stormwater
project to let the flow come through.
The concern that we had really was what was happening coming
out of Quail Hollow? He addressed it by coming up with this
perimeter conveyance system to receive their water and actually
Page 47
September 23, 2003
convey it around.
Right now there are several areas that they discharged into his
property and it, quite frankly, just sits there, so he will be able to
provide conveyance for their water to actually leave their site.
Keeping in mind some of the sites adjacent to Quail Hollow are
wetlands. And, so, seasonally they are inundated and that is very
much expected of here.
So, we have a mixture of things happening here. From what he's
proposed I don't see as this creating a negative impact from a
stormwater side to these surrounding developments from what he's
proposed right now.
Again, as I said, we're still working with them to adjust final
numbers of what control elevations are, what his actual numbers are,
importer/exporter calculations, but it really should not affect his
ultimate layout and buildability.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Robert, can you go up to the diagram
up here and basically show us the path that the flood water naturally is
going to take? Stormwater. And maybe with the -- a pointer you can
kind of give us the general trend of how this water is going to flow to
the south.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, commissioners. Stan
Chrzanowski again with Development Services.
This is light art topography done in what they call a shaded relief.
They can print it off in many different ways.
This is Rattlesnake Hammock. Route 951 is out over here. This is
the runway at Wing South Air Park.
You can see the general flow of the water was here. You can see a
wetland slough that's been penetrated by Rattlesnake Hammock. You
can see a little sign of-- I guess they -- yeah, they can zoom in.
You can see a little sign of culvert here. The flow comes here and
goes down and into the Lely area.
Page 48
September 23, 2003
Mr. Cooper's project is right in here. You can actually see -- if you
look, you can see these are house pads, the raised areas. The grades
are down this side here.
So, you can pick out that -- that the project to the north of Mr.
Cooper, all these house pads have been raised up. But like he said,
there's no perimeter berm, so when the water flows off this raised pad
into here, it just keeps going down into -- into this slough here.
Now, all the water flow in this area, you can tell how much -- how
much mankind has disturbed the ground that's out there. We've
created a bunch of dams, but this -- this flow still continues to come
through here and -- and we'll go down into there. Does that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It does to some -- to some point.
What I'm concerned about, if we can continue to mitigate all this
wetland, eventually this water is going to try to seek the lowest level,
so eventually it's going to have to affect the neighbors.
Is this going to be -- as a preserve here where you show that part of
this property belongs to the applicant?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The South Florida Water Management
District reviews all that.
The -- part of their project that's the preserve -- getting a little
unwieldy here. The part of their project that's the preserve is the east
end over here, and if you look at the aerial photo, that is the very wet
area in here, comes up the side and it ties to the lake and -- and the wet
area in the project to the north of them.
When the district permits this project, they will take all that into
account.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, if-- we could put
stipulations contingent upon U.S. Corps permit and South Florida
Water Management permit. You know, they must obtain those.
Commissioner Coyle?
Page 49
September 23, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Most of the people who have
contacted me concerning this project have expressed concerns about
the water flow and potential flooding and -- and the density.
So, I'd like to ask a couple of questions necessary to clarify those
issues a bit further.
Let's take the density. The concern has been that the density
appears to be -- be based upon the entire piece of property rather than
just the buildable property.
And I -- I guess I would like to -- to understand from staff or staff
could explain what the land development code provides and why.
MR. BELLOWS: The Land Development Code -- oh, for the
record Ray Bellows with Current Planning.
The Land Development Code provides the density be counted for
all properties within the PUD that aren't -- that aren't designated for
another use such as commercial if there was a commercial component.
We wouldn't double count that for density.
But it's kind of like the transferred development rights. The
petitioner would have the right to try to mitigate and build on the
preserve area. Instead, the way the code is written, we try to
encourage the preservation of those areas and allow for mitigation
elsewhere.
And in this case we're shifting what units could be built on the
preserve area over to the development residential tract. The overall
density still remains consistent with the Land Development Code and
the density rating system.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So, the alternative would be for the
petitioner to fill in part of those wetlands if they would get a permit to
do so --
MR. BELLOWS: And if they could get--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and purchase mitigation credit
somewhere else.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
Page 50
September 23, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And-- and-- and what you've tried
to do is to make sure that that land is preserved here. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you've permitted them to have
the density on the land that is buildable.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And -- and even at that we still worked
with the applicant to keep the units at a -- at a single family or duplex
type of scale, which is similar in nature to the surrounding
development instead of having a four-plex or an eight-plex, a multiple
family type development. It wouldn't be as compatible with the single
family development.
The staff felt very comfortable with limiting it to a single family
duplex type of arrangement even though there's smaller lots.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, how about if the
petitioner could explain to me the configuration of the drainage
system that will be constructed between your property and the
adjacent developed property.
What I'm interested in is are you -- are you going to have a swale
there? If so, how deep, how wide? How does that relate to the
landscape buffer? Will the landscape buffer be on the inside of that
swale? Will the swale be part of the landscape buffer?
You know, those are the kinds of-- of things I'd like to understand
a little better.
MR. COOPER: In your PUD packet on the exhibit would be C7 of
9. I think it might be best if you turned and look at that for a second
or I'd be happy to verbally describe it to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, tell me what page that's on.
MR. COOPER: I don't have the page number of the actual
presentation, but it's right behind the PUD section. In the exhibits of
the PUD itself, there are -- there are eight in there.
It would look like this. There will be sheets -- two pages from the
back of the --
Page 51
September 23, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. COOPER: And the bottom section of C7 is the northern
boundary of our project with Quail Hollow. You'll see on the left side
if you go -- take that exhibit and go from left to right.
You will start with the property line and then you'll see a swale
and/or a pipe depending on the best way to handle this.
Here's the property line. You'll have the swale and/or pipe
depending on how we handle it as we go along the back side of Quail
Hollow.
Then we then have a -- start raising our berm, plant the trees. We
have the option of putting a wall in also and then we go up and put the
hedge.
As Mr. Bellows asked, this is a solid hedge, and then we come
back down into a swale into the backyard of the homes to collect our
on-site water, which either have a -- which has a pipe connecting to
the center of that going into the lake and we would then go up to the
building structures on the rear of the property line.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now-- now, the
measurements as indicated in this diagram add up to be a total of 16
feet. And -- and I -- I wonder which figure you're really planning to
use.
MR. COOPER: Well, in this case, we've two things. We've
committed to a 15-foot wide landscape buffer but I'm also going to put
the swale in so in this case we're actually showing you're going to
have at least 15 to 16 feet in there.
You know, I'm also required on certain slopes as we -- just as Mr.
Wiley was 'saying, we're still debating exactly as we are running
through the numbers what our actual perimeter berm height will be. Is
it 12 foot, is it 12 and a half foot, is it 11 and a half foot so there's
some variation?
But we have minimum amounts of slopes that we have to do and
they have to fit. You have minimum widths for the -- for the trees that
Page 52
September 23, 2003
go on and it all has to fit. And if this area takes 15 feet, it takes 15. If
it takes 17 feet, it takes 17. Whatever it does. We know we need to
collect the water.
Now, these -- on this side of the line here, keep in mind this is the
backyard coming up from the houses, so this isn't -- the lowest spot in
here will be on our side of the property line. It's this swale we're
creating.
And as this swale will drain two ways, it will drain to the east and
to the east. When it goes to the west, it then will come down the side
of the property to go out to Rattlesnake Hammock to the swale there.
If it drains to our east, it will then go in -- go in towards the slough
and wrap around and go to the slough. And you'll see on the sideline,
if you mm to the next page, I believe, or one page in front of this, it
would be C9, it should be after it.
Just as a -- along the -- our eastern -- let's see now. Excuse me.
This would be Quail Hollow's side of the property line here. This
is on our eastern side. Going right through here and we begin having
that swale in our pipe that would then drain out to the slough and then
we have the berm coming up in the perimeter of the road.
And, so, basically our water at this point -- our road water stays in
our road and then goes to our lake system, so then no water goes
off-site.
So, we're -- again, we're transferring their water, wrapping it
around our site both directions to the slough.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then this -- this represents a
substantial amount of fill that you're putting in. MR. COOPER: Yes, sir. I wish it didn't.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we go back to C7, this would
indicate that the -- the center of the buffer will be 12 feet from the
property line. Am I correct?
The center of the berm with the buffer would be 12 feet from the
property line.
Page 53
September 23, 2003
MR. COOPER: Yes, sir, give or take.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. Now, let me -- let
me understand one other thing. A property owner has a right to take
whatever action is necessary to make sure that adjacent property
owners' water does not drain onto their property. Is that true? MR. COOPER: That was my understanding.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So -- so, there are -- there are
rights that go both ways here. The -- the -- your property has a right to
demand that other people's water not file -- not flow onto your
property.
MR. COOPER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The existing residents have a right to
demand that your water not flow onto their property. MR. COOPER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think those are fairly
well-established rights and there are remedies, if I remember correctly,
for a violation of those things. Am I correct, Stan?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. When you said that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name for the record?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Stan Chrzanowski, Development
Services. Sorry.
When you said that both sides have equal opportunity -- equal
responsible not to drain onto the other person, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Okay. Yeah. That's
important because I -- I understand the residents concerns about not
getting your water on their property but in fact their water right now is
going onto your property.
MR. COOPER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you have an equal right to make
sure that that doesn't happen but you can't do it by forcing their
property to flood; right?
Page 54
September 23, 2003
MR. COOPER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So -- so, the action you take
will divert the property -- the water away from their property to assure
that they will not be confronted with a flooding problem --
MR. COOPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
MR. COOPER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
-- I hope. Right?
Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further questions?
Miss Filson, anybody sign up--
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- on this? Okay.
Mr. Wiley?
MR. WILEY: Just for clarification, Robert Wiley from Water
Management.
We do want to make sure that everyone is aware that this perimeter
berm he's showing here, as I view it, is conceptual, because there are a
couple of points of concentrated discharge coming out of Quail
Hollow.
So, to say he's got a two-foot wide swale, I don't want him to
assume -- I mean, that he's held to that. He will have to size it
appropriately to handle that off-site flow. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right.
MR. WILEY: And I think it's an understanding we have, so don't
-- I don't also want him to assume a two-foot wide swale is all that is
going to be constructed there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That will be --
MR. WILEY: That will be adequately sized.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- handled during the permit process.
MR. WILEY: That's correct.
MR. COOPER: Yeah, again, as Mr. -- this is Frank Cooper again.
As Mr. Wiley said, this is -- these are conceptual pictures. This is
Page 55
September 23, 2003
the basic design that we intend to use. Do the measurements all
change or not? I don't know what the actual measurements will be,
but the design is there. We'd gone through a landscape in terms of
creating the buffer. This is how the buffer will look.
Again, is one area wider than the other? But there's certain
minimums that have to be maintained and the trees have to be there
and the hedge has to be there. And the hedge has to be in the location
that it's showing on this picture.
Just is it three feet away from the property line or is it five feet
away. Those are the measurements as it goes up and down or
changes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One last thing. And this is more
for Robert Wiley.
Robert, being that they're -- they're going to build right in the
middle of a wetland area there, which makes me very uncomfortable
because of the tremendous flooding problems we already have in East
Naples and we can't move that water because of the streets and
development that have already been in the place, do you feel
comfortable that -- that the water situation, the drainage on this
property, will be handled so that it won't cause any further flooding?
I mean, before I vote, I want to know that you feel comfortable
with that.
MR. WILEY: Okay. From-- from that standpoint -- and Robert
Wiley again.
From that standpoint, yes, I'm comfortable, keeping in mind the
discussion we've had today is his numbers are not finalized and they
will be working with this.
He is not really building in the big portion of the wetland. And that
is what is off to the east side.
Along his west side, he does have a considerable amount of
Page 56
September 23, 2003
uplands also, although scattered among our -- my display to wetland
pockets. So, he's not really having the impact.
The discussion was earlier addressing could he have built on the
eastern side. If he were to come and build on the eastern side and fill
in, I would not be standing here quietly. I would be very vocal and
disapproving it or recommending disapproval because that is the flow
way, the eastern side, but he is leaving that open to existing flows.
It does fit in with our regional standpoint of flood protection we're
working towards, so I really don't have a concern once we work out
the final numbers to address the amount of water he has to be able to
hold on site to prevent having impact to the off site during a
hundred-year flood.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that -- that -- I'm assured that
we're going to take care of the flooding and the flow of the water
there.
One other question I have, and I'd like to address this to Norman
Feder out of Transportation, excuse me, and that's in regards to the
impact on the roads with this added capacity from this PUD and how
this is going to affect the whole area here.
MR. FEDER: This is Norman Feder for the record, Transportation
Administrator.
We are in the process of making improvements to Rattlesnake
Hammock Road at this time and so we should be able to address the
traffic off of this margin.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Even with the future development
that's in that general area?
MR. FEDER: That is correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what's the -- what's the
prognosis for extending Polly down and to make -- widen that--
Page 57
September 23, 2003
MR. FEDER: That is --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- what is then --
MR. FEDER: -- that is later in our program. That also provides
some further redefinement. Every activity will be accessed to
Rattlesnake initially.
The PUD is providing some right-of-way for that policy -- Polly
extension as well. Rattlesnake Hammock extension, I should say.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further questions?
I close the public hearing.
Entertain a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to
approve --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- with staff recommendations,
stipulations and the planning commission stipulations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With all those stipulations, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that as long as we make it
clear on the record that the hedge will be one solid hedge rather than
as the picture shows, just sporadically.
Secondly, my second goal is that in the -- in the reports here, it said
that there will only be single family homes that border the Quail
Hollow backyards, and I want to make sure that that's stipulated.
And, thirdly, Mr. Cooper stated something about four-plexes
whereas staff stipulated duplexes.
So, I wanted to make sure that gets on the record. This is only
going to be single family and duplexes and that single family will be
the only thing that borders Quail Hollow.
MR. COOPER: It was single family or two family units bordering
Quail Hollow.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
MR. COOPER: It's single family or two family which would be a
Page 58
September 23, 2003
villa unit bordering Quail Hollow is what we have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That would be villas owned by --
MR. COOPER: Individual buyers. Individual--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. COOPER: -- owners but there are two units in a building.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. COOPER: It's called-- it's considered two family.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had understood it was supposed to
just be single family.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was -- it was stated that it was going
to be--
MR. COOPER: It's, you know, single family and/or two family.
The multi -- again, and there's no two stories is what I was saying, and
it's single family or two family bordering Quail Hollow, which is --
the whole project is two family.
It's a villa product, Euro lot line.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, then why does it say single
family if the whole project is two family?
MR. COOPER: The zoning -- as approved zoning, as you know, a
lot of times you have multiple types of uses and the zoning could be
single family or it could be a two family or it could be multifamily,
which we have eliminate -- not eliminated but put that it can only be
no more than a four-unit building and it also goes back to the planning
commission if in fact multifamily was to be submitted, which at this
point is not being submitted.
So, it's a single -- the purposes and the plans that we have shown
and provide basically show that it's a two-family product, which is a
villa, a Euro lot line.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
family?
MR. COOPER: Four-plex.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Well, then why do you mention four
Excuse me.
That was on the anterior part of it away
Page 59
September 23, 2003
from the other community.
MR. COOPER: Yeah. If you -- if you had multifamily, which the
possibility exists provided the planning -- it goes back to the planning
commission and they approve it, and if you had a multifamily and the
planning commission approved it, it would be maximized at no more
than four units in a building, which typically a multifamily might be
an eight-unit building, 12-unit building, a 16-unit building, a 32-unit
building.
They're saying in the event this thing ever came of a -- a request
came back, the building is multifamily, will be no more than four units
in a building, which is very small for a multifamily building.
And also the planning commission would have to approve it.
So, the zoning with site plan right now, it says -- and this is right on
the main page of the site plan, project could be built as single family
or two family. If multifamily is utilized, then a PUD unsubstantial
change shall be required and the PUD unsubstantial change -- that if it
was required, as I think Ray can explain to you, requires the planning
commission approval for that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, if you would -- I'm
going to go to Commissioner Halas. If you would look at Page 3,
planning commissions' recommendations, I think it -- it's a lot more
clearer. There's a lot of clarity there on what their recommendations
are.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. What I want to get on the
record is whether we have single family, multitype family or four
family, the density is going to remain the same.
MR. COOPER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS' Okay.
MR. BELLOWS' Okay. Again for the record, a stipulation to no
two-story buildings are allowed adjacent to Quail Hollow. That is
also consideration of compatibility.
Page 60
September 23, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fred, I have -- I'm sorry, but I -- I had
read that and I understand that except that I had also read that the
people that had attended the meeting had asked for just a single family
product, not -- not a duplex to border the Quail Hollow --
MR. COOPER: I told them at the meeting. Again there was four
different product types and I showed them a single-family house. This
is an informational meeting approximately a year ago.
I showed them a single-family house. I showed them the picture
here, which would be a two-family house or a villa unit. I showed a
four-plex, a six-plex and an eight-plex. And the original PUD was
submitted with all that information in it.
During their -- the staff going through this and having residents
contact them, staff suggested that we limit if there's a multifamily
component, that we limit it to no more than four units to a building.
Going to eliminate that at the larger buildings, which we didn't
accommodate it.
And during the planning commission, the planning commission
also asked at that point we also limit the two-story, any potential for a
two-story unit against the Quail Hollow boundary.
And I think that's where you -- maybe we're getting confused, so
we eliminated any two-story units against the Quail Hollow boundary.
Now, again, the picture that we're showing here is what we
proposed to build. You know, the elevation will change a little bit as
we're still fine tuning with dark tip, but basically it's a two-unit
building.
I think you've all seen them accordingly in different communities
around. I think you've got another one on -- on the planning table
today that you looked at or have looked at.
But, anyhow, this is the product that we intend to build and I think
it's very compatible with the community of Quail Hollow.
As a matter of fact, Huntington Lakes that we're talking about,
which is our neighbor to our east, this is their product. They have this
Page 61
September 23, 2003
and three-unit buildings versus four-unit -- you know, they got three
units or two units per building and may even have a potential four-unit
building over there. I don't recall exactly.
But, again, so if you look at our neighbors, we're building the same
thing that's adjoining us right now. So, I don't -- I don't see an
incompatibility problem and plus we're putting up the landscape, et
cetera.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. My second rests.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So, you-- would you restate
your second, please?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, my second was that -- I wanted
to second it only to make sure that we have no four-plexes bordering
the -- the Quail Hollow properties as well as making sure that the
berm not only is thickly landscaped but that the -- the hedge is
continuous.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And for more clarity on -- on the
landscaping, commissioner, you might want to say consistent with our
Land Development Code and I think that would cover what you need.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. I'll -- I'll include
that in my second. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll modify my motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question, if I may. Did I hear that
we were going to also incorporate the EAC recommendation? I don't
recall hearing that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, you -- I didn't hear that either.
MR. COOPER: EAC has already been incorporated into the PU
document you have now as well as the planning commission changes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. COOPER: Thank you.
Page 62
September 23, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Any further discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Motion carries five zero.
We're going to take a five-minute break for our court reporter. Be
back at 10:50.
(A recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Board of commissioners are back from
recess. Everybody take their seats, please.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2003-50 REGARDING PETITION PUDA-2002-AR-
2475, J. GARY BUTLER, PE, OF BUTLER ENGINEERING, 1NC.,
REPRESENTING BAYSWATER FALLING WATERS LLC,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "E", ESTATES, AND PUD,
FALLING WATERS PUD, TO INCREASE ACREAGE OF THE
EXISTING FALLING WATERS PUD FROM 134.04 TO 161.54,
CHANGE DENSITY FROM 6 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO
4.95 PER ACRE, AND SHOW A CHANGE IN PROPERTY
OWNERSHIP, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF DAVIS
BOULEVARD AND WEST OF THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT
OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD IN SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 161.54 +/- ACRES - ADOPTED
W/STIPI libATIONS
The next item is 8B.
MR. MUDD: This item requires that all participants be sworn in
and ex parte disclosure be provided to the commission members.
Page 63
September 23, 2003
It's PUD-A-2002-AR-2475 for J. Gary Butler, P.E. of Butler
Engineering, Inc., representing Bay Water Falling Waters, LLC,
requesting a rezone from E, estates, and PUD Falling Waters PUD to
increase acreage of the existing Falling Waters PUD from 134.04
acres to 161.54 acres.
That's a change -- it's a change in density from six dwelling units
per acre to 4.95 per acre and show a change in property ownership for
property located south of Davis Boulevard and west of the proposed
alignment of Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 8, Township 50
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of a hundred
sixty-one point -- point five four plus or minus acres.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All rise those wishing participation in
this discussion for the court reporter to swear in. Raise your right hand, please.
THE COURT REPORTER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm that
the testimony you are about to give in this cause is the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth?
(The witnesses answered in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. And the petitioner is? Mr.
Bruce Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: Good moming, Mr. Chairman. For the record
my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: -- applicant. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me just take some housekeeping
items here.
MR. ANDERSON: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: My ex parte communication on this
item is in the ex parte file and is available for anybody to review.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I also have ex parte on this at
the meetings and correspondence and the file -- everything is in a
Page 64
September 23, 2003
particular file in regards to this PUD and is open for public inspection.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have received much
correspondence via e-mail as well as I've had meetings in my office. I
also wrote down the -- the particular road to check it out visually.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Go to Coletta.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Yes. I have had -- I met
with the county -- county manager on this, Bruce Anderson and the
petitioner and had correspondence with a Shirley -- Shirley Riley.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have met with representatives
of the petitioner and also have received correspondence from some of
the residents at Falling Waters and I met with a group of residents in
my office concerning problems or concerns about this -- this proposal.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Anderson, thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the applicant.
I would point out here that this is a mostly developed project.
There's an aerial photograph, a recent one of it.
I became involved in this project after the first planning
commission hearing, which was continued in order to hold a public
information meeting, which I helped conduct after I had reviewed the
planning commission videotape.
That public information meeting with residents inside and abutting
Falling Waters was held on August 26th.
This PUD amendment is very simple. It's very forward. It does
not involved any increase in the number of homes that are already
approved to be constructed within Falling Waters.
That number has been and will remain at not to exceed 799 homes.
Page 65
September 23, 2003
The PUD amendment seeks to add five acres of developable land and
22 and a half acres of conservation lands.
Again, let me emphasize, no additional dwelling units are being
asked for based on the new acreage that is being added. It is simply
existing approved dwelling units, will simply be spread out over the
additional five acres of developable land being added.
This petition has been unanimously recommended for approval by
both the Environmental Advisory Council and your planning
commission and my client has accepted the stipulations recommended
from these two bodies.
There are -- there are already in the existing PUD 25 acres of
conservation lands south of Cope Lane. The conservation lands being
added to the PUD are already subject to a conservation easement
given to the State of Florida South Florida Water Management District
which prohibits residential development on the lands that are subject
to the easement.
Adding these conservation lands to the PUD provides the county
and the residents of Falling Waters an additional enforcement
mechanism to make sure that the conservation lands are maintained in
their native condition free of exotic invasive plants.
The Collier County Transportation Department has asked, and my
client has agreed to convey without compensation 100 feet of
right-of-way along Tract W for the future Santa Barbara extension.
However, because the parcel is already in a conservation easement,
the county will need to be responsible for the right-of-way permitting
associated with that.
This land, as -- as Mr. Butler, who has been involved in the project
much longer than I, explained to me that this land was placed in the
conservation easement before the county had determined a final
alignment for the Santa Barbara extension and, in fact, I think at the
time it was under contemplation that the road would curve before it
would ever reach this Tract W.
Page 66
September 23, 2003
The developer of this project has previously conveyed without
compensation 100 feet of right-of-way for the Santa Barbara
Boulevard extension along the eastern boundary of the project.
In response to concerns that were raised, the developer has agreed
that if the PUD amendment is approved as presented, they will
construct approval in or near the Magnolia Falls area. The Magnolia
Falls area will be built in part on the additional five acres of
developable land that are proposed to be added by the PUD
amendment.
That five acres is the yellow parcel here. That's the developable
portion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Anderson, before you continue on
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- excuse me, commissioners, you're
saying because of concerns you're going to have a pool in tract
whatever tract it is? Is that Falling Waters residents concerning this?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Yes. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I received some correspondence which
I have here that residents don't want a pool. MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There is 40 -- 43 e-mails were collected
by one of the residents stating they don't want a pool. I'm confused.
MR. ANDERSON: I join you there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: I watched the planning commission videotape
and that was a -- a frequent refrain from the residents of Falling
Waters who spoke at the very first planning commission hearing.
So, in response to those, my client was willing to commit
themselves to build that second pool. Without regard to that
commitment, it is something that my client could choose to do or not
to do but was willing to make the commitment to do that in response
Page 67
September 23, 2003
to their concerns.
Now, the sentiment has changed among the residents, we'll be glad
to remove that commitment from the PUD and simply leave it as it
was with the developer having the choice.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'll deal with that.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And-- and-- and we have some
residents here from Falling Waters who may give some guidance. If
not, then I think that we can resolve it in a motion. Please continue.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
And maybe there's been a change of mind on this next one, too.
Also if the PUD amendment is approved, in response to concerns
raised at the first planning commission hearing, the entry road at the
guard gate will be widened for two lanes, one for visitors who must
check in with the guard and a second lane for residents.
Again, let me emphasize because this was a concern. No homes or
any other buildings, whether commercial or residential, will ever be
developed on the 22 and a half acres of conservation lands that are
proposed to be added to the Falling Waters PUD by this application.
No later than the time of turnover of the property owners
association from the developer to the residents of Falling Waters, title
to the conservation lands will be conveyed to the property owners
association subject to the conservation easement previously granted to
the South Florida Water Management District.
And until that time of turnover, the developer will be responsible to
pay the real estate taxes for the conservation parcels that are subject to
the conservation easement.
And, lastly, it is proposed that Cope Lane would continue to be
used for construction traffic until completion of this project, which is
hopefully in about two and a half years. After that use of Cope Lane
would be discontinued and a new asphalt layer would be applied by
Page 68
September 23, 2003
the developer to Cope Lane from County Barn Road to the current
existing access point to Falling Waters.
And with that I'll close my statements for now and be happy to
answer any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle and
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Like Commissioner Henning, the
public -- the comments I received from the public relate primarily to
the -- the swimming pool.
But I -- I also have correspondence concerning the original PUD
approval and the fact that it provides that you will discontinue use of
Cope Lane for construction traffic effective four years from the
approval of that ordinance, which I think was 1995.
What you're asking us to do with this modification is to extend the
right to use Cope Lane for construction traffic. Is that correct?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And how long would you expect to
do that?
MR. ANDERSON: It is anticipated for another two and a half
years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, with respect to the pool
itself is the risk of getting into an another Naples Park dispute. You
know, I -- I -- what I would prefer to do is not make a decision, not
have the board make a decision based upon whether the pool is built
or not but let the residents decide that. Is that possible?
MR. ANDERSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that something you -- you could
do?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, that's where I
was going, to actually to have the association poll the residents --
Page 69
September 23, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- before any amenities to such a pool,
but we'll -- again, I think we'll hear from the residents and see -- get
their guidance on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But if-- if we can solve that
now, maybe we can -- we can simplify the residents' concerns.
MR. ANDERSON: As far as my client is concerned, you can
solve that now. We'll be glad to put it to a vote.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let the homeowners association or
the master association do the survey. What -- what are you
suggesting?
MR. ANDERSON: That the residents that choose to vote will --
can vote whether they want to have a second pool or not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And, so, you won't insist that
that be part of the PUD; that is, the pool will not be part of the PUD
proposal today.
MR. ANDERSON: No, no. In fact, I -- frankly, those kind of
things really don't belong in my view in the PUD. That's a private
contractual matter between a willing buyer and a willing seller who
negotiated that and --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good. Thank you very much.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. My concern is Cope Lane. And
-- and my concern is that the people, the residents along Cope Lane,
have had to bear -- on their private road have had to bear the debris
that's caused by construction trucks, the dust that comes into their
windows constantly.
They don't have a road of their own while it's been tom up. They
were given promises that if they were -- if Falling Waters were
allowed to use that road, they would repave it and -- and they would
keep the berm landscaped.
Page 70
September 23, 2003
Well, I rode down the thing and it's a mess. And they haven't done
that and yet they continue to use it I guess because they don't want to
use their own roads to build their own -- their our duplexes.
And I -- I resent that actually. We don't want it in our community,
so we'll put it in your community. Well, that's not right.
And, so, I -- I don't go along at all with using Cope Lane for the
construction traffic.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I -- I would just point out I'm not the real
estate lawyer for this -- for this project, but I am advised by someone
who has examined the title that Falling Waters as an abutting property
owner to Cope Lane has a legal right to use that road just as much as
the people who built homes along there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Even though it's a private road?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, it's a private easement that anybody who
abuts Cope Lane has the right to use that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do people on --
MR. ANDERSON: And that includes --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Cope Lane have a right to use the
roads in Falling Waters?
MR. ANDERSON: No. They don't abut them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Falling Waters abuts this road but
they don't abut that road.
MR. ANDERSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a problem with that. But,
anyway, let me -- let me continue and say that I just feel that they
haven't carried through with their promises to the people that live
along Cope Lane.
They still have workmen out there discarding their debris after
lunch and so forth that the people in Cope Lane have to go and pick
up.
They have all of the dust and debris, as I said previously, from the
construction traffic. And, so, I -- I want to know what alternative
Page 71
September 23, 2003
there is besides using Cope Lane for the construction traffic.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, entry off of Davis Boulevard through the
project.
One -- one thing I did want to point out, the -- the client that I
represent is a successor developer to the original developer and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is he responsible for -- for completing
the promises that the original developer made to those people along
Cope Lane?
MR. ANDERSON: Those that he is aware of, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, so, he -- he would now go back
and fix those things that have never been fixed before?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, if you could be -- I'm sure these
speakers will be quite specific. I -- I can't make an open ended --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. We'll discuss it further later.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner-- before I go to
Commissioner Coletta, I remind you that if it's approved and approved
to go through Falling Waters, the impacts of more residents of Collier
County is going to happen there than in Cope Lane.
But I want to continue on this discussion, but I want to go to my
colleagues first.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
I'd like to call Mr. Feder up, ask him some transportation questions,
if I may.
Mr. Feder, two different things. One is the Cope Lane problem and
what should we be asking for? And another one is Tract W and the
fact that that's a conservation easement that would have to be
mitigated, I assume, with great expense. What would be your advice?
MR. FEDER: Okay. Let me hit the second one first and then go to
Cope Lane.
Page 72
September 23, 2003
First of all, the Falling Waters -- for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator.
The Falling Waters PUD is on the west side of what is the future
Santa Barbara-Polly extension.
They have provided previously in their PUD a hundred feet of
right-of-way across the top of the graphic that you see up here which
is in that Section C.
That stops though on the south end of the property as you come
south and at Tract W. And Tract W has been set up by action of the
developer as a conservation easement to the Big Cypress Basin --
South Florida Water Management District, I should say, as the
grantee.
The issue we have is that effectively places a conservation
easement along that hundred feet right-of-way corridor for the future
Santa Barbara-Polly extension.
We've talked and-- and we've already heard from the developer,
their representatives, that they are prepared to provide that land over
to the county basically at no -- no cost.
What we need though is for them to vacate by permit modification
that hundred feet from the conservation easement. The county will
have to pay for any mitigation obviously from any roadway
construction in the future, but we need them to take the action to
vacate that hundred feet and then, of course, to provide it over to the
county at no cost.
So, that's what I want to bring to your attention that we would ask
them to pursue the permit modification to vacate that hundred feet and
then to provide it to the county at no cost.
To the Cope Lane issue, you do have a private roadway there. I
don't know that I know all the history and I think I'll hear some more
in just a few minutes, but I think you do have a situation where that
has been used for a construction route for the project over the many
years and I thought there was some commitments in the original part
Page 73
September 23, 2003
for them to do so in a manner that left those residents for all the time
that they had this construction activity with a better access point, be it
still a private road.
And I'm not sure that that's necessarily the case as you look at Cope
Lane today.
Did that answer your question, sir?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, it does. Thank you.
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. This is to the petitioner --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Feder, don't go away.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- that there's also going to be
five-stow building heights. Is that correct?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson again.
I believe the existing PUD already allows four stow.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: With parking underneath.
MR. ANDERSON: And if this amendment is approved, there will
be two stow is -- is the tallest that would be built on the remainder of
this PUD.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Two stow.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And nothing on this five stow then.
Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Feder, if you could help me out.
Commissioner Coyle had the -- the original PUD. The developer
shall improve Cope Lane to the following standards: From County
Barn Road to ten feet beyond a certain address.
Did you read this or do I need to read this?
MR. FEDER: No, I didn't read it, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's allowing three cross culverts under
Page 74
September 23, 2003
the existing roadway to allow a natural sheet flow under past the road
at north and south.
Reconstruct the southerly side road -- or roadside swale from Tract
S of Falling Waters to County Barn Road.
Install three driveway culverts within metering in sections in each
driveway along the reconstruction portion of the driveway swale.
Well, I guess I don't need to read all this because it's still in their
PUD. I'm not willing to remove it from their PUD, all the
commitments, but there really are some concerns, I think the residents
had of construction traffic and how that is going to affect that
possibility.
I understand that you visited the site and your feeling is there's
enough roadway with paved width to accommodate opposing
vehicles?
MR. FEDER: I don't believe you've necessarily met the provisions
as required by the PUD if that's your question, sir. No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It does not meet the provisions?
MR. FEDER: I don't believe that it does. You don't have the
width that you normally would consider on standard roadway.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So, we're going to have to deal
with that--
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- during -- during this process of this
amendment.
I don't have any further questions at this time.
We will go to public speakers.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have three speakers. Rose
Zaleski. She will be followed by Judy Laws.
MS. ZALESKI: I'm sorry. Judy Laws prefers to speak first if
that's all right with you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine. You've got five minutes.
And, ma'am, if you would step in beside her after she speaks, you
Page 75
September 23, 2003
can have your -- your time at the dais.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Chairman Henning?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would it be possible for the
speakers to identify where they live just for our reference point?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
MS. LAWS: Good morning. My name is Judy Laws.
Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen. I'm president of Watercrest
of Falling Waters and I reside in Watercrest.
I represent 98 unit owners and that is approximately one-sixth of
the now occupied units in Falling Waters.
It is unfortunate that Bay Water has chosen this time of year to
apply for an amendment to the existing PUD.
As all of you know, several of our residents are still up north.
Unfortunately, unit owners, several of them, did not receive any
information with regards to this -- this change taking place, myself
included. I received nothing from Bays Water whatsoever.
Thankfully, I did receive a letter from the county.
The amendment to the PUD whereby Bays Water has obtained
land south of Cope Lane and the ensuing very confusing letter sent to
residents, which, kindly, I received a copy of, confused the entire issue
of continued construction.
I believe most residents were concerned that more than the original
799 units were going to be built.
Fortunately, that is not the case and we now understand that the
acquired land is for mitigation purposes only. We hope that no further
building will be done on that land in subsequent years.
What most unit owners do not understand, however, is how and
why another pool has been proposed. The recreational facilities are
leased by unit owners and the 98 unit owners in Watercrest alone pay
$75,000 yearly to use that pool.
There is an increase of five percent annually and with Bays Water
Page 76
September 23, 2003
taking approximately three years to complete their construction, that
becomes $86,800 for just 98 people.
The introduction of a pool, the size of which I really do not know --
I had heard that it may be 25 by 40, with washroom facilities, a deck,
ensuing parking, et cetera, will not come cheap.
Even if Bay Water would on a good will basis be willing to include
the pool at time of buyout gratis, the owners would still have
maintenance fees for same.
I believe that each unit owner should have a say whether by vote or
whatever means possible on this issue.
In closing, Bays Water, if indeed they go ahead and build a pool
are spending our money on a facility that many unit owners are not in
agreement with.
And I might say I believe it was not on the original PUD.
I hope the commissioners will propose a delay in proceedings until
the majority of unit owners are here and able to express their views on
this issue.
I might also add I have copies of e-mails which I believe -- thank
you -- I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Rose Zaleski. She will be
followed by your final speaker, Robert Jenkins.
MS. ZALESKI: Good morning, commissioners. I'm Rose Zaleski.
I'm represent Falling Waters II. That's 90 unit owners and we were
one of the first ones in Falling Waters.
I would like to know -- it's known that our property owners are
against a second pool at Falling Waters. I also would like to state that
I have never heard a pool mentioned at any of the presidents' meetings
which I attended.
And Bays Water wants you to believe that the presidents voted to
put this second pool in and it's not true.
We have numerous people here behind us stating we do not want a
Page 77
September 23, 2003
pool. I don't know if you want them to rise to show --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please stand up.
MS. ZALESKI: -- they're here.
Please stand those from Falling Waters.
And this is only a partial amount of people because most of our
people are noah and that's about all I have to say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Mr. Jenkins?
MR. JENKINS: My name -- my name is Robert Jenkins. I've been
a resident of-- a full-time resident of Falling Waters since 1996.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Can you speak up a little bit, sir?
MR. JENKINS: Would that mike be better?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah. Sure.
MR. JENKINS: My name is Robert Jenkins. I've been a full-time
resident of Falling Waters since 1996.
I pretty much -- Judy pretty much covered all the items that I feel --
and I was very, very happy to hear that Bay Water is willing to allow
the residents the vote on whether the pool should be -- we should have
a second pool or the present pool and other amenities should be
improved.
If in fact a compromise can be worked out where the residents can
vote on whether to have a second pool or the present amenities are
improved or nothing is done, I would be satisfied.
I would have nothing further to say.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Thanks for your time to forward the information over to the board
of commissioners.
Okay. Mr. Feder, I guess the -- how are we going to handle
construction traffic on Cope Lane and accommodate the existing
residents on this private easement to demonstrate any kind of
construction?
Page 78
September 23, 2003
MR. FEDER: I'm not sure I can totally answer the question, sir,
but I'll try.
First of all, I think what you need to require is that the
improvements that were committed in the PUD be done up front and
that they then, if in fact you allow construction traffic to utilize that
roadway, that at the end of that term that it also be brought back to
that state and meeting all the provisions of the roadway anticipated in
the PUD.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let's -- let's figure out the width.
MR. FEDER: Normal roadway would be at least 11 feet, lanes to
22 feet.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it's saying here, construction of
one inch type S3 asphalt surface approximately 22 feet wide from
County Barn Road poured to ten feet east of 5966 Cope Lane,
approximately 3600 linear feet.
So, is that a 20-foot wide --
MR. FEDER: I'm going to ask Ed Kant to come up here --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me --
MR. FEDER: -- on the project that was done, but typically what
you would want is 11-foot lanes out there. You could possibly go
with ten.
Again, this is a private facility, so let me -- let me ask Ed to try and
answer your question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: When you visited that site in
determining and looking at it, how wide would you say it is?
MR. FEDER: I did not measure it off but I think you've got less
than nine feet --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. FEDER: -- in that area.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Kant?
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, Transaction Operations Director.
My recommendation would be a minimum of two 11-foot lanes
Page 79
September 23, 2003
considering the fact you have some large truck traffic, although you
have slow speeds and low volume.
Normally with large trucks, it's a little hard to get 12-foot lanes but
because you also have a constrained right-of-way there -- I shouldn't
say right-of-way -- easement, I would think that 22 feet would be the
optimum for that particular type of traffic.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you put in a 22-foot road, where do
you get the property from?
MR. KANT: My recollection, again without benefit of having any
paperwork in front of me, my recollection is that that's a 30-foot
easement. There would be enough room barely to get the pavement
and some side ditches.
Frankly, it's not the best arrangement, but it does give a measure of
-- of added safety as far as improving that road.
Ultimately, that road would be left in place and so there would -- it
would be better than what started out there about seven years ago
when they started that project. Seven or eight years ago perhaps.
So, if-- if they need to -- to work with those property owners, then
-- you know, to help get that drainage improvement, that's something
that they'll have to take into account.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the same with the berm, right? I
mean, the berm is -- well, Norm, you saw it. It's pretty seedy looking,
isn't it?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is your client willing to improve Cope
Lane to a 20-foot wide paved area and improve the -- 22 foot.
MR. ANDERSON: Back to the construction from County Barn
Road to the construction access entrance to Falling Waters off of Cope
Lane, yes, sir.
Page 80
September 23, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And can you point that out on the map,
please?
MR. ANDERSON: Gary Butler in the role of Vanna White.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Vanna, you're off the map.
MR. BUTLER: County Barn Road is -- this is about right here on
top of that.
MR. ANDERSON: Pardon me?
MR. BUTLER: County Barn Road is off the map about right here.
This is Cope Lane that runs in an east-west direction. Our
construction access is right here.
We originally paved the road all the way back to this point for
these three neighbors.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But in -- in the PUD you were supposed
to pave it beyond--
MR. BUTLER: We paved it right to the eastern side of Shirley's
driveway. And we're out there right now extending it an additional
ten feet per her request at the planning commission meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that 20 foot wide?
MR. BUTLER: No. Back there it's about 16 feet wide.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, the original PUD says 20
foot.
MR. BUTLER: It talks about paving over the existing lime rock
road. This is a lime rock that weaves in between trees and things like
that. There's--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me read it to you and you tell me
how you interpret it. Constructed one inch type S3 asphalt surface,
approximately 20 feet wide from County Barn Road to ten feet east of
5966 Cope Lane.
So, you tell me how you read that.
MR. BUTLER: There was a portion of the original document that
talked about paving over existing lime rock.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
Page 81
September 23, 2003
MR. BUTLER: The lime rock from our entrance back tapers down
toward the very end of the road where Shirley's house is, that's only 16
feet wide.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. BUTLER: I was out there myself last week.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the language that I just read is -- I
don't read 16 feet. And I -- and I know that you have new owners of
this PUD. It doesn't matter to me. You still own the PUD, the new
owners do, and have to apply
MR. BUTLER: Yeah, we
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
understand.
Okay. Mr. Anderson, is your client
willing to pave Cope Lane 20 feet wide -- 22 feet wide just east of
5966 Cope Lane at its terminus to County Barn Road? Before
construction.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we will either -- my client will
either do that or discontinue use of Cope Lane.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You know, we're not -- we're
not changing this document. We're not amending this language out of
that document, so what I just heard from Mr. Butler, I think it was,
you don't even meet the requirements under the PUD. Those are still
in the document and enforceable by the county.
The --
MR. ANDERSON: Well, you were -- you were widening it by two
feet.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. ANDERSON: You were changing it by widening it an
additional two feet.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, yeah. And what I read out of
here, Mr. Anderson, it's supposed to be 20 foot wide. MR. ANDERSON: Approximately, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Well, 16 foot wide, is that
approximate? You know.
Page 82
September 23, 2003
MR. ANDERSON: You'll have to ask the engineers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And that's a matter of
interpretation. I'm not -- I want to amend this -- no, I'm not going to
amend it. I'm going to add new language because you're still going to
have to improve it to approximately 20 foot and add new language if
the -- it's used for a construction entrance, you will pave it to 22 foot
wide from its ten foot past 5966 to County Barn Road. MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And then -- and then repair it after
construction is done at Falling Waters.
MR. BUTLER: Can we leave the widening -- Gary Butler for the
record. Gary Butler.
Can we leave the widening from 20 to 22 up to the Cope Lane
residents because we've got pine trees and things that the road is paved
right up against right now.
We've got swales on both sides, we've got a limited amount of
right-of-way. I want to do that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want to do what?
MR. BUTLER: Let the Cope Lane residents decide if they want to
widen it to 22 feet, because right now 20 foot is adequate for the
amount of traffic.
There's about 18 lots on this road. We own six of them. There's
probably eight residences back there right now with no other future
residents because we own the rest of the tracts.
I mean, what they have out there is ten times better than what they
had before we started.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right, but it, in my opinion, it doesn't
meet the PUD requirements.
MR. BUTLER: Okay. There was another part of the PUD that
talked about paving over existing lime rock. The existing lime rock is
not there. There's a swale on either side of the road.
So, it's a difficult proposition, particularly after the portion that
Page 83
September 23, 2003
we're currently using.
There's also some confusion about who owns the road. These
deeds were deeded out originally with a reservation for right-of-way.
Subsequent to that, according to Mrs. Riley, those were quitclaimed
over to the county. So, we keep saying a private road.
The road hasn't been accepted by the county, but there is county
ability to do whatever they want to with that road. It is a public road
at this point, not a -- not a private road.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, maybe I should say to
county standards instead of 22 foot wide. MR. BUTLER: Thank you anyway.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next thing, Mr. Anderson, is your
client willing to -- on Tract W to petition the Big Cypress Basin to
remove the conservation easement on that hundred foot right-of-way
for the future Santa Barbara?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we -- we would ask that the county join
us. You might have a little more muscle than a mere private property
owner to help get that accomplished. And it was my understanding
from Mr. Feder's comments that the county would remain responsible
as they would otherwise for the mitigation costs associated with that
roadway.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Yes. And just a further clarification, we would seek
for the developer to in fact vacate that hundred feet across Tract W.
MR. MUDD: I got it marked.
MR. FEDER: They provided a hundred feet to the north of there,
as Jim is pointing, and the Tract W is that square and we do need to
have them vacate by permit modification and then to provide that over
to the county.
We understand that once it's in county's ownership if in fact
wetlands or other issues that needed to be mitigated, that we'll do that,
but it is up to them to go and get for a modification and to vacate that
Page 84
September 23, 2003
hundred feet to them provided to the county.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Anderson, is your client
willing to have the master association poll the residents of Falling
Waters on the amenity of the pool, the pool, swimming pool, whether
they wish to have it or not with a majority vote plus one? 50 percent
plus one.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, yeah, as long as that's not inconsistent
with the existing bylaws that govern the property owners association,
yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Or would the petitioner -- the owner
and developer is willing to petition the residents on the amenities,
either or -- either -- either the association polls the residents or if they
don't want to do it, then the developer will poll the residents.
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, whether they -- on whether to build a
second pool? Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
MR. ANDERSON: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Right.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wonder if you might want to
add that, it might be another part in that, that if they don't want a
second pool, they can have enhancements made to the existing pool.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
MR. ANDERSON:
(Applause.)
MR. ANDERSON:
There are --
We don't know what those are and -- and I -- I
cannot commit to that part. Some of the things they've talked about,
as I understand it, are -- there are physical practical problems with.
I'd just point out that your Land Development Code, and before
that your zoning ordinance, for as long as I can remember, has always
prohibited the county from enforcing private deed restrictions.
And that's -- there's a good rationale for putting that in the code
because you guys got your hands full with your own regulations,
Page 85
September 23, 2003
much less what private parties have bargained for.
And we're on a slippery slope here and we -- we'll -- we're willing
to either eliminate the pool entirely, the second pool right now, or put
it to a referendum vote conducted either by the developer or the
homeowners association, the residents themselves.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Anderson, I understand what you're
saying. We require that you have neighborhood meetings to resolve
these issues before it comes to the board of commissioners. This issue
is not resolved.
I mean, there are a lot of residents from Falling Waters with some
concerns.
So, I'm not sure what the density is on this added property that we
want to put into this PUD. I understand it's an estate zoning and I
think the estate zoning district in the Land Development Code is one
that -- even for two and a half acres as a right.
So, you do have some land use rights now. Hopefully we can
resolve this issue.
Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was just looking at this. I was
wondering if maybe we should think about four laning Cope Lane and
burying it underground.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Burying who underground?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Cope Lane. In other words,
having it as a tunnel underneath the ground so that we don't interfere
with the public.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to get some clarification
here.
In the discussion with Cope Lane, I believe that the petitioner said
that that was quick -- a quit claim deed to the county.
Is that so? Does the county own that at the present time or what's
the status on that?
Page 86
September 23, 2003
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Butler gave you a legal opinion which he's
not qualified to do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just -- I heard that and I just
want to get a clarification.
It was apparently offered to the county, but it
MR. ANDERSON:
has not been accepted.
COMMISSIONER
MR. ANDERSON:
COMMISSIONER
MR. ANDERSON:
HALAS: Because it's not up to standards.
Well, I don't know why.
HALAS: That's probably the bottom line.
But it's not a public road until the county
accepts it. I mean, a lot of people make those reservations in their
deeds over the years.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Norm, could you please step up to
the mike and let the -- let us know as commissioners what is expected
of a person before he turn -- that road, a private road, what would be
expected to bring it up to county standards, please.
MR. FEDER: To be accepted by the county, it would have to meet
the county standards. First of all, you've only got 30 feet of
right-of-way there.
Typically even for a two-lane roadway, we require at least 60 feet
of right-of-way, so twice as much right-of-way as you have out there.
You're required to construct to certain standards.
I think Ed pointed out you ideally would want 12-foot lanes
understanding that the right-of-way here is constrained. It's not 60
feet.
We're looking at 11 because of the nature of the truck traffic. I
realize the original PUD had ten-foot lanes. You don't even have that
out there today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So, what you're getting at here is that
this, as Mr. -- Commissioner Henning brought up, that is the
responsibility of the developer here --
MR. FEDER: It's all in the PUD previously --
Page 87
September 23, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
MR. FEDER: -- yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
Exactly.
Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further questions,
commissioner?
MR. ANDERSON: Commissioner Henning, if I -- I would like to
address myself to your-- your comments or concerns.
The addition of the second pool was announced at the public
information meeting. The second planning commission hearing was
held after the public information meeting.
Nobody from Falling Waters showed up to speak against the pool
at the planning commission hearing and we were, you know, surprised
as could be.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Anderson, I think the problem is
that the public information meeting was held in the summertime and a
lot of the residents in Falling Waters live in Canada or northern U.S.
So, this is their second -- you know, this is a winter home so they're
-- you know.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, we thought we were doing a good thing
by offering it up.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I agree but, you know, we -- we
need to -- I -- I think it's appropriate to find out what the residents
truly want.
MR. ANDERSON: We're -- we're --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay?
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Butler has an engineering point he needs
to ask about.
MR. BUTLER: On -- on Tract W, we talked about deeding it over
to the county and we're vacating the conservation easement and doing
mitigation. The county is doing the mitigation, the actual deletion of
the conservation easement over that 75 foot should be a part of the
Page 88
September 23, 2003
permitting that the county does on Santa Barbara extension.
It would be very difficult to vacate that conservation today. I
mean, I'll talk to the district and see if it's possible, but I think it would
be difficult to vacate that portion of that conservation unit today when
the permitting hasn't even started on that for the management of that
road.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, we're--
MR. BUTLER: So, we're agreeing to deed it. I think I can get
permission to deed it to the county now. I'll agree to cooperate with
the county to vacate that easement. The vacation is just a technical
legal process. It's the mitigation for the road that's going to be the
long upheaval and not just for that little small piece, the whole thing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the administrator from
transportation said that they -- we would bear the cost of the -- the
mitigation.
Mr. Feder.
MR. FEDER: For the record again, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator.
I am looking for them to go into a permanent modification to
vacate. They do have other conservation property where they can
address their overall project's mitigation with this hundred feet taken
offofW.
What I said that we would bear is then if that is in fact wetlands
that we're taking that hundred feet, we know that we'll have to
mitigate it if we come in and do a roadway.
If it tums out that they have no ability to deal with it on their
property, their overall requirements for mitigation, that's a separate
issue that I believe they have it within their site to do that and we
would request them to do that rather than leaving that to the county.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Don't go too far because we're
ready to --
MR. FEDER: Yes.
Page 89
September 23, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- formulate a motion.
MR. FEDER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions? Comments?
I'm going to close the public hearing.
Mr. Pettit, don't go too far.
Motion to approve with staffs stipulations, planning commission's
stipulations, not removing the language from the existing PUD on --
on any of these points, Cope Lane will be approved-- improved.
If the PUD, Falling Waters uses it for construction lane,
construction traffic, to county standards approved by the
transportation engineer? Is that -- is that what it is?
You know, I'm not saying that it's improved to the standards for
public use but, you know, residential use, what we're looking at is
safety and--
MR. FEDER: I think, commissioner, you specified as 22 foot
width with--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. FEDER: -- travel lanes total, and that's probably your best
shot.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I need some help with the --
either the developer or the association sending out a survey to the
residents for the amenities of the pool. Mr. Pettit?
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner -- I'm Mike Pettit for the record.
I'm not quite sure what you're looking for. It sounds like the
developer is prepared to cooperate with either process.
The one question I would have is -- is what the bylaws of the
association might require. I have no idea what those might be.
It may be simpler for the purposes of your motion to put that
burden on the developer to do that tabulation.
MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, If I could suggest-- Fred Reischl.
If you take the language from the pool out, and then that would
Page 90
September 23, 2003
leave it entirely in the developer and/or associations' hands instead of
putting who's going conduct the vote in for the PUD.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You mean removing the amenity from
the --
MR. REISCHL: Well, that was not in the PUD that we forwarded
to the planning commissioners. It's the planning commissioners'
motion. And we added that for -- for the board to see. But that was in
the PUD prior to the planning commission hearing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't get what you're trying to tell me
to--
MR. REISCHL: If you just remove the language saying that the
developer at the developer's cost will construct a pool in addition to
the one that's existing, wording something to that effect.
If you just strike that sentence, then -- and the developer has stated
on the record here that they will conduct some kind of survey, I think
that would suffice.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Or improve the existing pool to
new condition until the last unit is sold in Falling Waters?
MR. REISCHL: That's your choice. I just -- that was just my
suggestion, so if you want to put in language, then you increase the
size of the pool, that's your choice.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I mean, there's -- if we're -- if
you got amenities in an existing community, and you add more
residents, there's going to be more burden on the -- on that amenity.
MR. REISCHL: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: In this case it could be lounge chairs or,
you know--
MR. REISCHL: And just for your consideration also, most PUDs
do not mention pools at all, so you can consider that also.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Tract W, conservation easement, the
developer will --
MR. FEDER: The developer will provide the eastern 100 feet by
Page 91
September 23, 2003
going in and conducting a reassessment of their permit, removing that
hundred feet from the conservation easement and then providing that
hundred feet to the county at no charge.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the county shall --
MR. FEDER: The county shall provide for whatever mitigation is
required on that hundred feet once it's been vacated from the
conservation easement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And what about the permits or the
application for that?
MR. FEDER: The application for the permit reassessment needs to
be by the developer to vacate that 100 feet conservation easement and
then to provide it to the county at no cost.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Did I forget anything,
commissioners?
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. If they don't-- if Falling Waters
does not use Cope Lane for construction traffic, I would like to -- to
guarantee that they'll bring it up to the quality that they had promised
in the PUD and put a deadline on --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- when that will be done.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, it's still there, commissioner, and
it's enforceable by the county. We're not removing that language at
all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just meant -- I just meant the
condition it's in now, the berms that are -- that haven't been
maintained and the -- the paving or the -- yeah, paving that was
supposed to be done hasn't been done.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. It's all here. And, again, we're
not removing that, so if they choose not to, they still need to abide by
the PUD.
Marjorie Student?
Page 92
September 23, 2003
MS. STUDENT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to clarify for the record that this is a PUD to PUD
rezone, what we're really doing is taking some provisions from the old
PUD and carrying -- putting them again into the new PUD, including
the condition about Cope Lane.
And I just wanted to make that clarification.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we put a time limit on that when
they should -- because they haven't done that yet.
MR. REISCHL: That's -- that's a good point -- Fred Reischl again
-- to have a time when those improvements will be done.
Do you want it prior to COs, prior to building permits? That
would, you know, tie it to something so that they would have to have
it done before their--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's an existing commitment, so prior to
permitting.
MR. REISCHL: Right. Issuance of a building permit.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second with that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala wants to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Do you have any questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. You did an excellent job.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Miss Student?
MS. STUDENT: Was the condition prior to the issuance of a
development permit? And my question would be what kind of
development permit and for what, so it's not some open-ended, just
any development permit. That's all.
MR. REISCHL: Mr. Butler suggested prior to approval of the site
development plan.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great.
Page 93
September 23, 2003
All right. Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Motion carries five zero.
Commissioners, it's 12:00 noon. Do you want to take a lunch
break?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Of an hour?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'll be back at 1:00 o'clock.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Board of Commissioners are back in
session.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2003-51 REGARDING PETITION PUDZ-2002-AR-
3495, CHRISTOPHER D. HAGAN, P.E., OF JOHNSON
ENGINEERING, REPRESENTING V.K. DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS WENTWORTH
ESTATES PUD. THE CURRENT PUD IS KNOWN AS LELY
LAKES PUD AND CONSISTS OF RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL USE. THE PROPOSED PUD WILL CONSIST OF
Page 94
September 23, 2003
MIXED USES FOR A MAXIMUM OF 1,499 RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS, 85,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL
USES, 18-HOLE GOLF COURSE AND ASSOCIATED
AMENITIES. THE PROPERTY TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS
REZONE IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF
TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (U.S. 41) APPROXIMATELY 1-1/4
MILE SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI
TRAIL EAST AND RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD (C.R.
864'} - ADOPTFD W/STIPI II,ATIONS
Next item is 8-C. This is -- go ahead.
MR. MUDD: This item requires that all participants be sworn in
and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. It's
PUDZ-2002-AR-3495. Christopher D. Hagan, P.E. of Johnson
Engineering, representing V.K. Development Corp. requesting a
rezone from PUD to PUD, Planned Unit Development, to be known as
Wentworth Estates PUD.
The current PUD is known as Lely Lakes PUD and consists of
residential and commercial use. The proposed PUD will consist of
mixed uses for a maximum of 1,499 residential dwelling units, 85,000
square feet of commercial uses, 18-hole golf course and associated
amenities.
The property to be considered for this rezone is located on the
southwest side of Tamiami East, U.S. 41, approximately one and a
quarter miles southeast of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and
Rattlesnake Hammock Road, which is County Road 864, in Sections
29, 30, 31 and 32, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Section 5,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 1,558.49+/- acres.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we swear everybody that's
going to participate, let's go to ex parte communications.
All my communications, besides talking to our staff, is in my ex
Page 95
September 23, 2003
parte communication file and can be viewed by anybody from the
public.
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
Anderson and also the developer.
Yes. I've talked with the -- Mr.
I've also talked with the County
Manager and I've talked with legal staff on this. And all my ex parte
is in the file.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have extensive things to
report. I've gone to neighborhood meetings. A number of them. East
Naples Civic Association meetings.
I have met with the developer many, many, many times. I have
spoken with Rookery Bay a number of times, with The Conservancy.
I've received letters and E-mails.
Let's see. I know there's something else in here, too. I think
that's it for the time being. And I have everything in my file here, as
well.
Oh, and I did some background research on the developer
because they are brand new to this community and I've never heard of
them before. And before I got into this, I wanted to see what kind of
developers they were in Wisconsin. So I even did that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you.
I have met with the -- Bruce Anderson and Chris Hagan, also
with petitioner. Correspondence with Gary Lytton and Ed Kant.
And my folder is up here for anyone to look at if you care to.
And I met with the County Manager.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have met with the petitioner and
his legal representative. I've also met with Mr. Gary Davis of The
Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I have several letters and other
Page 96
September 23, 2003
correspondence in the file for review.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Would all participants wishing
to give statements please rise, raise your right hand, and be sworn in
by the court reporter.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Anderson, is this your item?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. Pleasure to see you all again.
For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. I am pleased to
represent V.K. Development Corporation of Wisconsin, the applicant
and contract purchaser of the property, which is the subject of this
application.
With me today to help answer any questions that you may have
are Vincent and Sanjay Kuttemperoor, two of the principals of V.K.
Development; Chris Hagan, project engineer from Johnson
Engineering; and other members of the project's professional team
who testified at the Environmental Advisory Council and County
Planning Commission hearings.
The Environmental Advisory Council unanimously
recommended approval. Planning Commission recommended
approval by a six to two vote. And my client has accepted the
stipulations of these two groups and they are incorporated into the
PUD.
The subject property is 1,558 acres zoned PUD, currently known
as the Lely Lakes PUD, and includes approximately 514 acres that are
now owned by' the State of Florida and utilized as part of the Rookery
Bay Reserve. Privately owned acreage within the PUD is 1,044 acres
approximately.
The existing PUD allows ten acres of retail commercial uses and
749 dwelling units, including a hotel resort village with 150 rooms,
related commercial uses, restaurants and meeting rooms and two golf
courses.
The Collier County comprehensive plan allows a density of three
Page 97
September 23, 2003
units per acre on the subject property. This PUD amendment
eliminates the hotel resort village uses and seeks approval for a
maximum of 1,200 dwelling units, which equates to a density of.77
units per acre when you include the State-owned lands within the PUD
boundaries or a density of 1.16 acres -- units per acre without counting
the State-owned lands. However you count the density, it is less than
half of the three units per acre that the comprehensive plan clearly
allows on this property.
The PUD amendment almost triples the amount of preserve areas
that are not owned by the State within the PUD. It goes from 105 acres
in the existing PUD to approximately 307 acres in the PUD
amendment as proposed.
The project team has coordinated closely with and met numerous
times with the Florida Department of Environmental Protections,
Rookery Bay Reserve staff to try and establish good neighborly
relations and communications with them before this project was ever
filed with Collier County. My client has committed to the Rookery
Bay staff to continue the good working relationship that has been
established and to that end will offer an educational program to
residents of the development about the mission and special nature of
the Rookery Bay Reserve.
Project team members have met with representatives of the
Florida Wildlife Federation to address wildlife crossings by consulting
-- agreeing to consult with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission.
And they have met with the Collier County Audubon Society and
have agreed to add two more acres to the proposed gopher tortoise
preserve.
We're aware of the comments that have been submitted in the
past by The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, my client having met
with them several times. My client has addressed their concerns as of
now. Their concerns on water quality, density and other issues. It is
my understanding that The Conservancy will withdraw their prior
Page 98
September 23, 2003
objections to this petition on the public record today.
My client has agreed to reduce the density to 1,200 units and to
include in the South Florida Water Management District permit water
quality monitoring criteria and enforceable limits, the details of which
will be worked out in consultation with The Conservancy and the
Rookery Bay Reserve staff.
As to transportation issues, my client has agreed to pay half of
the road impact fees for the entire project when the first plat is
recorded. This gets the money to the County for roads much earlier
than would otherwise be required. My client has also agreed to pay
$392,800 for road improvements to the surrounding transportation
network, which payment is in addition to impact fees.
V.K. Development has also committed to bring Southwest
Avenue up to County standards by widening it from 20 to 24 feet,
enclosing drainage within the right-of-way, and adding sidewalks and
streetlights. Estimated value, $350,000.
And they have committed $250,000 approximately to help make
up a funding shortfall that the County currently has to install
streetlights along U.S. 41 from Broward Street to Collier Boulevard.
Almost $1 million in transportation improvements and prepayment of
road impact -- 50 percent of the road impact fee payments. My client
has more than met their transportation responsibilities.
With regard to Collier County stormwater management, my
client has had several meetings with the director, the staff, and the
County consultants to coordinate project development with the Lely
area stormwater improvement plan. To that end, they are providing
easements along the perimeter and throughout the site to support the
proposed improvements.
My client has agreed to pay for the construction and maintenance
of the stormwater pump within the plan area necessary to rehydrate
the wetlands and provide flood protection. And they've also agreed to
coordinate a water quality monitoring program with the County's Lely
Page 99
September 23, 2003
drainage basin staff, Rookery Bay, and The Conservancy and the
environmental permitting agencies to support the County's drainage
project in that area.
Lastly, my client has consulted early and often with members and
leaders of the East Naples Civic Association, who, as I understand it,
support this petition and hope that it will be an up-scale residential
community that raises the property values in the surrounding areas.
Unfortunately, the designated representative from the East Naples
Civic Association could not stay for this afternoon's session. Mr.
Robert Murray. He did speak with the Planning Commission hearing
and authorized me to state that he would reiterate his support and
comments that he made at the Planning Commission in support of this
project.
I want to thank you for your time and urge you to approve this
petition, which truly is the product of community consensus building
by V.K. Development. I will be pleased to try to answer any
questions that you may have or refer them to the appropriate member
of the project team for response.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the Commission.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got a number of questions. To
start off with, you stated in your presentation that you're looking at
using the 1,558 as the total density which brings you up to .96; is that
correct?
MR. ANDERSON: No. Your last number is wrong. It's .77.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. This is with the new revised
1,200 units?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the problem is that 557 acres
was sold to the State of Florida for approximately $5.1 million. And
so, therefore, as you stated, you've got 1,044 acres and that brings you
up to, you said, to a density of-- MR. ANDERSON: 1.16.
Page 100
September 23, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 1.16.
Okay. Looking through the archives and going through the old
PUD, it was established at that point in time that because of the
sensitivity of this whole area here that the density for the total amount
of land at that point in time, which was the 1,500 acres, was
established at .48.
It also was established in -- I can tell you that the minutes were
from 10/13/98. If that land was to be sold-- the 557 acres -- the
maximum density in that property with the total amount was
established at 749 units. And that also included the 150 units from the
hotel, which gave it a total number of 749.
And it was also put in the record that if the 557 acres was to be
sold to the State of Florida that the amount of units had to be reduced
accordingly to stabilize or to come up with .4 units per acre. So,
therefore, if this is the case, then you're down to about 520 units.
And this was stated in the -- in the March -- excuse me -- October
13, 1998. And this was the established PUD. And, in fact, at the time
it was Joe Ryan and there was -- Commissioner Norris, Constantine at
the time were on the Commission. And if I can just quote here.
"Mr. Ryan: My name is Joe Ryan with Lely Development
Corporation. If I represented it that way, it was a mistake or was
miscommunicated. That our intent was always for a total of 749 units,
of which 150 could be a hotel."
"Commissioner Norris: 150."
"Mr. Ryan: Up to 150. So never going over that total of 749
units."
And as we get into some other things here -- basically, again, this
is Commissioner Norris. And he says, "Now that we're saying the --
some of the residential portion of the PUD -- the Lely Lakes PUD, it's
your negotiation to selling that off to Rookery Bay." That's the -- we're talking about the 557 acres.
"Mr. Rankin" -- I believe, who was working with one of the
Page 101
September 23, 2003
developing companies at that point in time -- "that's correct."
"Commissioner Norris: So those units will be lost from the PUD;
those residential units."
"Mr. Rankin: I didn't say it that way, but I know that the
program that we are going to be proposing will be for fewer units and
fewer acres. So, therefore, there is a correlation there. I don't know if
the actual density per acre is going to be the same or reduced, but it
won't be increased."
So I guess where I'm coming from on this is that we're going
from roughly 520 units after the land was sold to now we're --
originally we're at over 1,400 units and, I believe, we're down to 1,200
units. And I feel strongly that this is a very sensitive wildlife
environment.
And, obviously, these commissioners that were involved with the
original PUD realized that this also was a very highly sensitive area
being that's part of the coastal high hazard area and felt that they have
a commitment to the citizens of Collier County whereby they want to
make sure that we don't have a situation where we can't get people out
of there in an undue -- in undue time in case of an emergency.
So, I guess, where I'm going on this is that I feel at this point in
time that even 1,200 units is too dense for the area. And, obviously,
former commissioners that sat up here also felt that also.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, if I may provide a brief response. The
minutes from the past meeting are interesting, but they're not binding
on the new application or a PUD amendment. When an undeveloped
PUD -- when a PUD amendment is sought for an undeveloped PUD,
as you so frequently tell me, the entire PUD is opened up. And
opening it up, it cuts both ways.
The new PUD is a vast environmental improvement over the
existing PUD. They have made other commitments -- public benefit
commitments, as well. Those items are expensive and that's how
they'll be paid for.
Page 102
September 23, 2003
And I would, again, remind that your comprehensive plan sets a
ceiling of three and we're below half that, even excluding State lands.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Also -- oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you don't mind. And I really
respect your concern over the density. And that was a concern of
mine, too, as we went into this.
I was very happy to be in on the leading edge of this thing.
Before they even decided to purchase the property, they wanted to see
what the -- what all the -- what the value of the property would be and
what things that they would have to overcome.
Well, as soon as I heard that they were even going to do this, I
ran right over to the Rookery Bay area and wanted to see how it would
affect Rookery Bay. Because I'm really concerned with the
environment, especially in that area. It's so sensitive.
And the Rookery Bay people started working with them. We
found, as it said in the EAC report -- Ed Carlson said of all of the
projects that have come before him since he's been sitting on the EAC
this is the first one that has ever been so environmentally sensitive and
responsible. That impressed me in itself.
The people in Trail Acres were very concerned with the traffic --
construction traffic on their street. And I can't blame them for it. I
have a relative that lives down there and a friend that lives down there.
And it gets terribly flooded. And so I was really concerned.
Well, they're not going to take the construction traffic down that
street. Not only that, because they're not going to take the
construction traffic -- they didn't even have to do anything with the
street and they're fixing it anyway. And they're fixing the flooding
anyway, which has been another problem. And they're even going to
put a light up on U.S. 41 for the people in Trail Acres, which is
something that they've wanted, Whistler's Cove people have wanted.
I've never seen a community work so hard to -- to not only
appease, but to please the rest of the surrounding communities. And I
Page 103
September 23, 2003
just -- it's very seldom I ever speak in favor of a development, but this
one I really am. It's going to be wonderful to us, for us, and with us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd also like to interject, too, and I
feel -- I understand where you're coming from, but I also feel that as a
County Commissioner we have a responsibility for the safety, welfare,
and being of the people here.
And I'm concerned that with all of the development that's
scheduled for that particular area -- and we know that's coming up
on-line -- that the density issue starts to take effect about how much
more density are we going to put in this area and also the fact that --
dealing with safety and welfare issue. Since this is a coastal high
hazard area, I'm concerned that if we ever need to evacuate people
from this area their only way in and out of here is basically U.S. 41.
And if you look, there's really no roads that mn north, other than
951. And I'm sure that with the development on 951, if we need to
move people out of here, we're going to have a problem with adjusting
to get people out of here on a timely manner in case we ever needed
to.
So that's one of the reasons that I feel that it's important that we
look seriously at this -- the amount of impact that we're going to put
on this area. And I realize that Rookery Bay has looked at this, but I
also look at the fact that I'm concerned about if we need to evacuate
people. We just don't have the roads there at the present time.
And I feel that we ought -- even though the PUD is opened up,
yes, everything is for discussion. And that's why I brought up the fact
that we started off with .4 units per acre. And this is back in 1998
when we didn't have a lot of heavy development. But, obviously,
those commissioners realized that this is a very sensitive area.
And the other thing that I'd like to also address is I'd like to see
building heights come down. I realize that the petitioner has taken it
on himself to lower the building heights to 90 feet. I'd like to see that
lowered to 75 feet. I think that's what the two dissenting votes on the
Page 104
September 23, 2003
Planning Commission was that two of the parties on the Planning
Commission felt that the building height should be at 75 feet.
The reason I say that is because we recently just approved a PUD
down there at Lands End and we also asked that that developer lower
his building heights to 75 feet, which he very much said that he would
do. So that's where I stand with this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I respond to that for just a
moment or maybe I shouldn't.9
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I guess it's up to. I don't see any
sense in it, but feel free, if you want to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right. We have Rookery Bay
people here in case you would like to hear from them as to how they
feel. Originally they had thought about putting 20-story buildings in
there. And I said, you know, 20 story wouldn't even go. And so then
we talked a little bit and we got it down to ten stories.
But I said I can't even go with that because I have to first talk to
the people at Rookery Bay. They're the ones that are going to be
affected mostly.
And when talking to Rookery Bay -- I talked with Gary Lytton
and he had a few staff people there. We discussed it at length. And I
had discussed it with him again later. And they felt that that would be
something that was acceptable.
What they were concerned with is the berms that they need to do,
the birds that are flying and so forth. They wanted to make sure that it
wasn't a -- detrimental to them. And they gave their blessing, as you
can see. Judy is nodding her head over there from Rookery Bay.
So that, I thought, was great. They gave half of what they were
going to originally build. And as long as it met Rookery Bay's
requirement-- because that's what I'm concerned with is Rookery Bay.
I want to make sure that nothing hampers that sensitive environmental
area. And that was good with me.
And I -- as far as the transportation, I was really concerned with
Page 105
September 23, 2003
that, too. At first they had 1,499 units. For the sake of round figures,
let's say 1,500. And they've dropped that 300 units.
And I felt that with all of the things that they're going to be doing
for the community that they probably need that many units in order to
help to pay for that stuff. And they're going to do a great deal, as
Robert Wiley will probably tell you, for our stormwater management,
as well, to help that Lely basin and work with the Sabal Bay area.
So, to me, they had so many good things that outweigh the
density that I could go along with that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I personally found it quite
remarkable that so many people from the environmental community
signed on to this. And some people from the Environmental Advisory
Council spoke very high praise of it, one even saying the fact that he
had never seen a project that was so worthy as this particular one.
When you hear those kinds of comments, especially Ed Carlson
coming out very heavily in favor of it, you know, I have to lean on the
expertise of those people. And I had great concern when The
Conservancy had objections. And they've come forward since then
and those objections have been met. And I appreciate the fact that
because of their objections the count -- the density has been reduced
by almost 300 units.
I see this as a positive thing. I mean, we seem to have everyone
in agreement that we've got a great project going forward that's going
to meet a whole bunch of needs. That's my own personal feeling.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Everybody -- you want to go
to public speakers now or does somebody else have a question or
comment?
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just assume hear from
public speakers before I make my comments.
MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, if I could put one statement on
Page 106
September 23, 2003
the record. Fred Reischl, Planning Services.
In the body of the ordinance that you have in front of you there
was an inconsistency with the legal description in the title. The title
was advertised correctly. I just wanted to point out that inconsistency
for the record. Obviously it will be corrected.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: First public speaker.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have eight speakers. The first
one is Tondia Raymond. She will be followed by Esther Van Lare.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ma'am, before you say anything, I
just want to tell you that we're just like you. You don't have to feel
nervous or anything like that, so speak your mind.
MS. RAYMOND: Well, my name is Tondia Raymond. And
actually I'm -- I've lived in the neighborhood for 19 years. I've been in
Florida for 22 years.
I have gone around -- at first this was -- it was really terrifying
for our neighborhood because you have to realize this has been a very
laid-back community for many years. Most people didn't even know
we existed.
I mean, we've had bulls let loose in the street because we had a
cow pasture. So, you know, this has taken our residents a little bit of
time to get used to. And from what everything is being stated by these
gentlemen, I do think-- it sounds like it's a wonderful idea.
I wanted to see what exactly is going to be committed to the PUD
because I don't want, you know, to be promised the world and not get
yesterday's newspaper. I do have these sheets that I have gone around
to all of our neighbors. And that was a feat in itself. MR. MUDD: I'll pass them out.
MS. RAYMOND: And I told them the only thing constant is
change, especially in real estate. But if the change is done correctly
and efficiently, it can be a good thing for our community, for
Wentworth, for Whistler's Cove, especially with our traffic light
hopefully coming in the future, and having the DOT work with us on
Page 107
September 23, 2003
that.
As we now know, there is no construction traffic. Our
community would really rather not -- their maintenance workers be
coming through our neighborhood and have it be gated as in, like,
Foxfire. Foxfire has their own residential community gate and then
they have the other gate which allows the service workers, real estate
people, everyone come in there, okay?
Because, I mean, we -- I have 18 children on our street alone,
okay? There are lots of kids in this neighborhood. Kids, cats and
dogs. And it's just been that way for a long time.
I just wondered on all these issues that the residents are
concerned about what will be fulfilled, what will be committed to the
PUD. But I think the gated -- for the residents to only be able to come
in from Southwest Boulevard, it would be a great issue because of
lawn maintenance, pool workers, so on and so forth.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions by the
Commissioners?
Anything else, ma'am?
MS. RAYMOND: Pardon?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else you would like to say?
MS. RAYMOND: No. That's it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. RAYMOND: Also, Glenn Forbes, who has spoken before,
ended up in the hospital. And he has a letter here. He said, "If
allowable, I would like our representative, Donna Fiala, to read this
into the record with thanks of many residents," blah, blah, blah. So do you want to take this?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Just give it to the County
Manager.
MS. RAYMOND: Thank you very much.'
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Esther Van Lare. She will be
Page 108
September 23, 2003
followed by Law Jackson.
MS. VAN LARE: I'm Esther Van Late. Before coming to
Naples and making this my full-time home, I lived in Brookfield,
Wisconsin for over 30 years. And I was interested that Commissioner
Fiala had called and decided to look up there and see what they had
done.
I met Vincent when I was president of the school board. He
came before us and wanted to do something with some land and that
was my first encounter with him. And I am here this morning to speak
in favor of Wentworth Estates.
I believe East Naples deserves this kind of a high-caliber project.
I would like you to know what I know about V.K. Development, the
company, and Vincent Kuttemperoor, the man, and his family. I
believe that the quality of the people behind the project is as important
as the quality of the project itself.
After my initial introduction to Vincent when I was on the school
board, I crossed paths with him many times over the years after I
started selling real estate in Wisconsin. As a Realtor in Brookfield, I
never worked for him, but I sold many of his homes to my high-end
buyers. And all of my buyers spoke very highly of him and of the
quality of V.K. Homes.
If there was any problem ever-- and in Wisconsin we have a lot
of problems with leaky basements and things. But if there was a spot
of dampness on the walls, Vincent would be out there making sure
that everything was taken care of, that the grading was corrected,
whatever was done. And he personally was very involved in all of it.
He has -- his developments up there are some of the most prestigious
in the greater metropolitan Milwaukee area.
As a former professor of mathematics, physical and nuclear
engineering before becoming a home builder in the 1970s, Vincent is
extremely detail-oriented. He strives for perfection and he's
demanding of himself and of others. He has always carefully
Page 109
September 23, 2003
developed land to preserve the natural environment. He's always
worked closely with city government to accomplish what will not only
be good for V.K. Development, but also what will be good for the
community.
The Green Bay mayor called Vincent, "One of the most
honorable people I've ever worked with." The Port Washington
mayor said, "Vincent and his sons have been very open to working
with us, interested in what we are trying to accomplish."
Another community development director in Wisconsin said,
"What we have found is that they truly do have the community's
interest at heart. They don't believe in development at any cost. They
are very strong in their integrity and they are men of their word."
The general manager of one of V.K.'s lumber suppliers said of
Vincent, "He's probably the most dynamic, hardworking, energetic
person he's ever met." And I would agree with that.
The Brookfield mayor said, "I think we would be shortchanging
ourselves if we didn't have people who want excellence, like Vince,
taking a part in the growth of this city." May I say that I think the
same can be said for Naples.
V.K. Development and the Kuttemperoor family have given
much back to their community in Wisconsin. They have made
substantial donations to the new center for the arts, the new surgical
center at St. Catherine's Hospital, soccer fields, church activities,
Fourth of July fireworks displays, a senior citizen taxi service,
affordable senior housing, memorial for fallen police and firefighters,
the creation of parks, the preservation of historic buildings and
wetlands, little league, an endowment fund for the benefit of the St.
Ann Daycare Center, an endowment at the Brookfield Academy, and
the list just goes on and on and on.
I could quote articles written about V.K. and testimonials from
homeowners, bankers, government officials and countless others from
Wisconsin, but this is not Wisconsin. This is Naples. And we have
Page 110
September 23, 2003
very many high-quality developers here already and some wonderful
developments.
I believe there's room for one more. And I hope you will vote
today to give East Naples a chance to see what Vincent Kuttemperoor
and V.K. Development can do for this community.
About a year ago I discovered that Vincent was looking for a
home for his family here and for land to develop. I had heard about
this parcel and I told him about it and he took it from there. I'm
excited at the prospect of a V.K. Development here in Naples and I
know Vincent and his sons will do everything they can to preserve the
beauty of our natural surroundings, as they did in Wisconsin, while
creating jobs, increasing property values and enhancing the already
wonderful quality of life that we have here in Naples.
You can see from the project description-- and if I know
Vincent, you probably have been inundated by volumes of
information about the project and about what they will do. And you
will also hear from other people, I'm sure, from Rookery Bay that this
developer is committed to working with everyone concerned toward
the completion of a high-quality, low-density area of beautiful
residences while preserving, protecting and enhancing the natural
environment, resources, wildlife and wetlands, improving the regional
drainage, and promoting environmental education. And I don't know
what more we can ask.
So I urge you to vote in favor of the V.K. Development and its
first contribution to Naples. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name again, ma'am?
MS. VAN LARE: Esther Van Lare.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Law Jackson. He will be
followed -- she will be followed by Michelle Penrod.
MS. JACKSON: Good afternoon. First, for the record, it's Jan
Jackson, J-a-n. Law? No.
Page 111
September 23, 2003
I live at 1347 Seventh Street, Trail Acres. And I have done so
continuously since 1978. After attending two meetings on -- an
information meeting and the Planning Commission meeting
concerning V.K. Developers, I'm quite pleased with what we've heard.
The improvements to Southwest Boulevard are exactly what that
area needs; widening sidewalks, lighting. And I just want to tell you
that I can think of no other developer I'd rather see to take care of this
land than V.K. Developers. And basically that's it. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker will be Michelle Penrod. She
will be followed by David Tricker.
MS. PENROD: Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Michelle
Penrod. I think that Esther has pretty much summed up what we were
talking about.
There is another thing that someone hasn't mentioned. V.K.
Development has also decided to put in a bench for our children for
the school buses. If you could see our bench now, it's made out of
cinder block and wood and these children have to sit there and wait for
the bench (sic). And when it rains, they're in water.
We talked about the traffic light. And we all know that DOT --
as we get more people that live in the area, we will get a light. I work
very hard, my husband works very hard, and we are very proud of our
home. And I know this is going to bring the value up of our home.
I've personally spoken with Vincent and Sanjay myself and they
are wonderful people. They are good Christian people. We all must
remember, too, that we do not live in a perfect world. I think that if
we all work together on things that we want in Trail Acres and -- we
can do this.
As Jan said, I don't think there's a better developer out there than
V.K. Development. I think he's the man for the job and I am all for it.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is David Tricker. He will be
Page 112
September 23, 2003
followed by Gary Davis.
MR. TRICKER: Good afternoon. I'm David Tricker. I'm a real
estate broker, developer, and home builder. And I came to petition
with praise for our developer, V.K. Development, here today. And,
alas, my predecessors have probably said just about all the wonderful
things that are possible to say.
I'm bound to state, however, that I believe the credentials and
qualifications of V.K. Development are exemplary. I think it's also
prudent though to mention that in developing our great Collier County
we must realize that developments of this type, of this caliber, not --
don't just enhance the immediate neighborhood, but they go a very
long way to enhancing the entire County. If we review, perhaps, the
past five or six years and consider what has taken place in North
Naples, most certainly we all must hope that the same would ensue for
this part of our town.
I believe that the master plan that V.K. has developed that you've
seen here and other individuals from the V.K. team have described to
you really exemplifies truly what is the best. When put into the
context of a developer that embraces environmental sensitivity,
embraces providing a master plan that is structured, to deliberately
provide the best amenities for the ultimate residents of that amenity, so
it would be -- it would behoove me to request that you approve this
petition and revision.
And considering Commissioner Halas' comments and referencing
Joe Ryan -- actually, Joe Ryan and I were associated together back in
those days. And when that original petition for that 749 was set forth,
it was with a totally and completely different plan in place. The plan
today far surpasses that in so many ways. The ways that have already
been described to you by the V.K. team.
So I strongly support what they're hoping to do. I strongly
support Wentworth Estates and I hope that you will do the same.
Thank you for your time.
Page 113
September 23, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Gary Davis. He will be
followed by Howard Taylor.
MR. DAVIS: Gary Davis of The Conservancy. I just want to
mention I haven't been sworn. I came in a little late, so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want us to swear at you now?
MR. DAVIS: I certainly have had enough of that on this
particular project.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sure not as much time as the five
of us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe we can save some time, Mr.
Davis. They've said that you've approved building heights up to 200
feet.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would any further participants on this
item please raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court
reporter.
(The speakers were sworn.)
MR. DAVIS: Okay. Let me just start by saying that The
Conservancy has appreciated the cooperation and the attitude of V.K.
Development in trying to work out the issues with this project.
We want to remind the Commission that the Department of
Environmental Protection is not the only voice for Rookery Bay. The
Conservancy helped preserve Rookery Bay in the beginning and we
helped buy much of the land that's now part of the Rookery Bay
Reserve. And we still own 78 acres of land in Rookery Bay, so we
would like to continue to defend this area. And that's why we've been
so active on this proposal.
Secondly, I will say that, yes, our concerns have been met and
that we're withdrawing our objections on this project. I will echo some
of the sentiment that Commissioner Halas raised though about density
in this area. That was one of our major concerns was that this was an
environmentally pristine area that we should not be, in general,
Page 114
September 23, 2003
increasing density in this area.
There is the potential for 10,000 new people to be living adjacent
to Rookery Bay with the developments that have been approved or are
in the works. So that was our concern.
But with the reduction to 1,200 units and with some of the other
environmental concessions that have been made on the project with --
particularly with the area of preserves as compared to the previous
development, we're okay with the density on this project. And we will
withdraw our objection to that.
But think of this in terms of the big picture. That if we build out
-- the whole County, according to the growth management plan as it
existed a couple of years ago -- because that's the last time this
estimate was made -- we would have about 780,000 residents in this
County. So whenever we have the opportunity to minimize the
density in an area like this, we should take that opportunity.
The second concern that we had -- that we raised in our written
comments to the Commission was water pollution. The Rookery Bay
waters are considered outstanding Florida waters and their-- the State
law says there shall be no degradation.
Our problem is that the Water Management District permits
typically don't really ensure no degradation. And if we defer to the
Water Management District on water pollution issues, we don't have
the kind of assurances for the protection of Rookery Bay that we need.
The permits typically have no monitoring requirements and no
enforceable permit limits. I'm happy to say that V.K. Development
has agreed to conditions that will be put in their water management
district permit that will require monitoring and will require
enforceable permit limits. And we will work out those details, but that
really mitigates that concern that we had.
So, again, we look forward to working further with V.K.
Development and our objections have been met in this case. Thank
yOU.
Page 115
September 23, 2003
Any questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
MR. DAVIS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Any questions by the Board?
Go ahead, Mr. Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Looking at traffic impact here, I
would like to get the response from Mr. Norm Feder, head of
transportation. And I'm very -- still very concerned about getting
people out of that area in case that we do have an emergency.
And I know that this is a great development. I've seen the plans
for this, but I'm very, very concerned about the density in this
particular area.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Feder-- before we go through
that, Commissioners, can we get through the public comment section
first?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sue.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Howard Taylor. He will be
followed by your final speaker, Brad Comell.
MR. TAYLOR: Good afternoon. My name is Howard Taylor.
I'm a Naples resident.
I've come to speak in favor of the Wentworth Estates project.
And I will be brief, given all the speakers before me and what they've
said.
I just would like to point out two things. One is that the quality
of this project is really the quality that will rival a project like
Mediterra. And I hope that that is really taken into account.
The second thing that I would like to point out is that when V.K.
Development says that they are going to do something, you can
absolutely take it to the bank. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Brad Cornell.
MR. CORNELL: Hello commissioners. Brad Cornell
Page 116
September 23, 2003
representing Collier County Audubon Society.
Pardon me. I have a little allergy issue going on here, so my
voice is not the radio voice that it usually is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You wish.
MR. CORNELL: That's why I'm doing this at this microphone.
First, I want to say that we don't endorse projects -- development
projects. That's not what our business is. I don't need to explain that
any further.
But we are very appreciative of the developer's willingness to
address issues of environmental and community concern in the
process of examining and going through the permitting process. So I
wanted to say that upfront.
I also want to say that Audubon in the form of Florida Audubon
or Audubon of Florida has an interest in Rookery Bay, as well. We
helped get that established in the beginning, along with The
Conservancy and the State. So there's definitely a vested interest on
our part, as there is on the whole community really.
Regarding gopher tortoises, the eight acres of designated preserve
is good. I'm appreciative of seeing that. I think it's not quite sufficient
until you look at its configuration and contiguity with the other six or
so acres that are going to be managed as uplands. There's an old horse
stable and some pine flatwoods that are adjacent to this designated
preserve. I think the combination of those would be very suitable for
tortoises.
I think in addition to that -- and this was something that we had
discussed with the developer. We'd like to see clear requirements in
the homeowners' association documents, including pet prohibitions in
the preserves, burning and other upland land maintenance provisions.
So that -- you know, obviously one of the issues with all these sorts of
on-site preserves is: What's going to happen once the developer tums
the key over to the homeowners' association?
That's a difficult issue, but we'd like to see that. And I'm sure it's
Page 117
September 23, 2003
possible to see that worked out.
The only other concern that I want to raise here -- and this is
something that, I believe, the developer is very willing to address.
And we have been told this. It has to do with old pesticides on old
agricultural fields.
Four hundred and some acres of this site are old agricultural
fields. And I want to point your attention to a study that I've recently
come across from Rookery Bay staff, namely Mike Shirley and Sherry
Brant Williams, who looked at Bell Meade and South Golden Gate
Estates agricultural fields testing for chlordane, DDT, and its
derivatives and some other nasty pesticides that were banned in the
past.
And they found quite high levels of those in those old ag fields.
And this report is -- which was done in 2000 illustrates some of the
issues and how they did this testing. They took about 135 samples and
about 60 some of those were positive and quite high concentrations.
I think that points to a need to have better -- in this particular
project to have more soil samples taken than have been done. Ten
samples were taken. The threshold of detection was really not low
enough. And we believe that more soil samples need to be done on
those 400 acres with the input and advice from DEP and Rookery Bay
staff.
I believe also -- and I think this is being addressed. The water
quality monitoring is important for assurances that whatever is on -- in
those soils, even if they weren't detected, that we don't have a
problem, you know, in the discharge water coming out of the water
treatment system.
And, also, if there was something found, we would want to be
able to remediate it before construction started. So that's an important
thing that those tests need to be done upfront. (Commissioner Coletta left the room.)
MR. CORNELL: And the chemicals that are found very nearby,
Page 118
September 23, 2003
you know, north of U.S. 41 are chlordane, DDT and its derivatives,
Dilydrine. Those would be the principal ones that at least Rookery
Bay Research would point to.
And, finally, I would say that recognizing the risk that these
kinds of chemicals pose to both human health and environmental
health, it would seem advisable for the County and for you all to
consider amending your LDC to require this kind of soil sampling on
any old agricultural fields that were being considered for land use
change. I would recommend that to you strongly. Not only just for
this project, but obviously any old agricultural fields. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Brad, there's a process for land
development code changes. And Mr. Schmitt, I'm sure, will tell you
how you can petition for land development code changes.
MR. CORNELL: I've spoken with your staff-- a member of the
staff and they were encouraging of that. And I will pursue that.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had a comment, if I may, with
Brad.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Brad, you had mentioned something
about -- excuse me. You had mentioned something about Rookery
Bay and we wanted to make sure that the homeowners also understood
and appreciated the sensitivity of the surrounding area.
I understand that there's been a commitment on the part of V.K.
Development, who is working with Rookery Bay, to educate each
homeowner so that they will minimize the impact on the adjoining
wetland preserves. And so I think that really accomplishes what you
were hoping to have done.
MR. CORNELL: Well, yes, education is a very important
component of seeing compliance occur. But also having requirements
in the homeowner association documents regarding the preserves --
Page 119
September 23, 2003
the tortoise preserve, the upland preserves, and the water management
issues.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's reasonable.
MR. CORNELL: That they are properly --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. That's fair.
MR. CORNELL: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. End of public speakers.
Mr. Feder, Commissioner Halas has a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I wanted to find out what the
traffic impact was. And, I believe, there was some -- some type of
agreement that there was going to be made possibly a -- 1,000 units
that were going to be taken out of the traffic count.
Is that --
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator.
Commissioner, you had asked generally on the transportation
issues. We did a vesting determination not too long ago..In looking at
that, you have quite a few vested units in growth obviously here in
East Naples. 41 in this section to the west of this development -- to
the east of this development, I should say, is under six-lane
development right now. We don't have concurrency issues.
We have some constraints to the east of here. And in your
planning efforts that you've got submitted forward, you had
established a transportation exception area -- concurrency exception
area in that section of 41 over to Airport with the idea being that
you're trying to promote redevelopment of that area, which this
development, I think you've heard, may help be a bit of a catalyst.
So you've got the combined issues of only 41 as the access
points, some definite development in the area, but the availability of
capacity to the east, and at least our orientation to encouraging
redevelopment issues to the east.
One thing I need to bring to your attention though in particular on
Page 120
September 23, 2003
the write-up on this item is that -- a little over a year ago this Board
took action to eliminate the ability for a developer or an individual to
come in and prepay to buy concurrency vesting without going through
a determination of adequate public facilities and certification.
Benderson (phonetic) -- I think everybody remembers that name
-- was the last one to come in under that old process. And you
eliminated that loophole in your process and said, "Now, it has to go
through the process of final plat or plan to be evaluated. Is there
available capacity? And if so, then to pay half of the fees with the
other half three years later to get vesting for the project."
If I call your attention to the transportation provisions within this
PUD, on page 408, they start 7.5. And that is E1 write-up. The
write-up in here basically infers that by paying half of the impact fees
for the project at the time the first final plat for all or a portion of the
project comes in that, in fact, there's vesting being provided to this
project.
And so the only way we can do that outside this process now that
we no longer have the prepayment capability is through a developer
contribution agreement. And the only way that we, as staff, would
recommend to you to consider a developer contribution agreement,
which we did recently -- we had a DRI with the Collier Land
Development Corporation, G.L. Homes not too long ago -- was where
there was some issues provided that were in the public interest above
and beyond just the impact fees that warranted our consideration of
going outside the normal process.
I raise that to you to make sure that you understand that right
now that provision is in here. You would need to have a developer
contribution agreement follow this up if you want to maintain that
language that the first plat for even a portion of the project they pay
the estimated 3.5 million in impact fees and get vesting for the whole
project.
You could either modify that language to eliminate that issue or
Page 121
September 23, 2003
you could take the approach that looking at what they've committed to
out of their prior PUD -- they had about 350,000 worth of
improvement, which I think you've heard today that people are
looking for it on Southwest. That was in the original PUD previously,
but, nonetheless, they've maintained that commitment.
They've also committed to about $400,000 worth of intersection
improvements, as well as they are providing the land, as was noted by
Corntnissioner Fiala, for the Lely Manor portion of LOSWP, Lely
Overall Stormwater Project, to the County. So they are doing some
substantial things, besides that three and a half million.
But I really can't take that one into account because that's
something that they'd have to pay at the time of the final plat or plan
anyway to get vesting for the overall project. What we have asked
them, and they have agreed to, is adding to those commitments
$250,000 to finish off that second phase of the street lighting basically
from Broward over to 951.
If you take that 250, along with the 400,000, the 350,000 on
Southwest, you're essentially at about a million above and beyond the
land they're providing for the stormwater. And then you would have to
judge if that's, indeed, sufficient commitment for us to proceed with a
developer contribution agreement as opposed to not addressing vesting
in this, but waiting at the time of final plat and only vesting that
portion that they're platting at that time.
Have I been clear on that? If you have any questions, I'll be
happy to try to answer.
I will tell you that I have agreed with them that if they make that
additional commitment that that seems to bring us within the realm of
reasonableness to consider a developer contribution agreement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When I first saw this project and
saw the increase in density, I was shocked that the density was being
increased so greatly. And when I met with the developers, I shared
Page 122
September 23, 2003
my concerns with them and I told them that the density issue was
going to be one of the biggest concerns I had, in addition to the
potential traffic impacts.
And I asked the staff to give me assurances that they had
properly computed the traffic impacts and that they had included in
the traffic analysis all of the development that is planned in that area
and that it would not have an adverse impact upon the level of service
of our roads.
And I was given that assurance yesterday. And I would not
approve or vote in favor of this development if that were not the case.
So the staff has given me adequate assurances that the traffic impacts
can be handled with the improvements that are occurring there.
The other issue is density. And, of course, as we've found,
density is not necessarily the only element to be considered in
determining the quality of a development. That the older
development, although much smaller, didn't do as good a job with
respect to stormwater flows. This development improves the
stormwater flows, the Lely flow-way, as I understand it. I've been
assured of that by the staff and through my own analysis.
The prior smaller development did not provide the wildlife
corridors or the preserves that this more dense development is
providing.
So I'm left with the conclusion that they -- a well-designed
project of higher density can be far preferable to a poorly designed
development of a smaller density. And always being uncertain as to
whether or not I reach the right conclusion there, I am generally
influenced by the neighbors. If the neighbors feel that this is a
reasonable compromise, if they feel that their property is protected, if
they feel it's going to be a good addition to their community, and if the
water quality and stormwater flows will be maintained so Rookery
Bay is not damaged, I find it very difficult to -- to oppose this
particular development.
Page 123
September 23, 2003
I find it remarkable that the different interests in the community
have come together with essentially the same conclusion. Not
necessarily enthusiastic support in all cases -- because I know The
Conservancy still has some concerns. And I think we all share those
concerns. We've got to be very vigilant about what we do with respect
to all this development.
But the point is that -- that most all of the people here have
spoken in favor of this project or at least have not objected to it. And
with that, Mr. Chairman, I would make a recommendation of
approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that.
Although, I would have loved to have made that
recommendation, I'll get right in there and second it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I withdraw my --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no. I'm just kidding you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
seconded by Commissioner Coyle. Discussions?
You know, I understand and I feel for Commissioner Halas'
concerns, but, I guess, what is exciting is the East Naples Civic
Association's support in this application and hearing Conunissioner
Fiala speak out in favor of this, knowing that this is going to pick up
the East Naples community.
So, Commissioner Fiala, I'm going to support you for those
reasons.
Mr. Feder.
MR. FEDER: In your motion I would ask the Board to give me
direction. Are you looking to either change the language that is
written here in the PUD to eliminate the idea that 3.5 million provided
at the time of any final platting portion or all gives them vesting or are
you instructing staff to develop a developer contribution agreement
citing the items noted here, including the addition of that
Page 124
September 23, 2003
approximately quarter million for street lighting, to develop a
developer contribution agreement to allow the language to stay as it is
in the PUD as written?
And the last thing is I think Commissioner Halas asked a
question -- I've just asked Bruce Anderson about some contractual
arrangement to reduce density in the area.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
MR. FEDER: And you might ask Bruce Anderson to address
that. I apologize, Commissioner. I didn't address it in the previous
discussion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: To clarify the motion --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Was Bruce Anderson going to have
something to say about--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He was?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I hope so.
What we're trying to do is find out if there is going to be from the
Lely area some type of agreement where there wouldn't be an
additional 1,000 units being developed in that area because of the
additional impact in-- on U.S. 41.
MR. ANDERSON: They -- the private contract between my
client and Lely to acquire the property had a provision that did provide
for a reduction in the Lely Resort' DRI of 1,000 dwelling units.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And is that going to be an
agreement that's going to be drawn up or where do we stand on that?
MR. ANDERSON: It's not part of-- we'll have to get something
from Lely identifying specifically what portion of the property that
those units would be taken from.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because I'm very concerned, as I
stated earlier. I think this is a great project, but I have some concerns
on the density, especially when we're increasing it three-fold here, and
making sure that we have adequate access out of there. And what
Page 125
September 23, 2003
concerns me is that we don't have that many north/south roads. And
we have just got basically east/west and it's confined going in the
easterly direction.
MR. ANDERSON: A representative of Lely has just told me that
they have sent someone a letter. I haven't seen it or I'd be showing it
to you now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The check is in the mail; is that
what you're telling me?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, that's what I'm told. I'm just relaying
the information that they have sent a letter agreeing to that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. If I could just make one
other observation before I modify my motion to answer Mr. Feder's
question.
There's a lot of density that is included in our baseline
concurrency determination plan --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that is going to come out. There
are thousands of dwelling units along that corridor that are likely to be
pulled out very soon. So I believe what we will see is a substantial
reduction in outstanding density units.
And, Norm, would you agree with that over the short-term?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I do agree. I know of a couple of
projects that are already moving in that direction. Obviously, in our
effort, we've taken a worse case. They have the ability until they
come in and modify. So every time we can get that modification
downward, we're trying to bring it to your attention.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But in almost every case we've had
an opportunity to modify, we have reduced that outstanding density.
And we see that trend continuing and, in fact, gaining momentum.
So I think if it would provide you any comfort at all,
Commissioner Halas, even if the Lely thing wasn't going to be
Page 126
September 23, 2003
reduced by a thousand, there are others that will be. And I think the
overall net effect will be positive on that particular traffic corridor.
Now, the -- with respect to the motion, I would prefer not to
change our ordinance with respect to purchasing the certificates of
public facility availability. But if we can do it under the existing rules
as you have stated, I think we should proceed with that and develop --
and have a developer's agreement. I just hate to go back and revisit
that ordinance and start changing the ordinance at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, my second agrees with that.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, that's what I was trying to relay to
you. By developer contribution agreement you can structure
concurrency and vesting in that matter.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we need to state on the record for
what's going to be in the DCA?
MR. FEDER: I would appreciate that to help us in drafting. I
think the items, as I understand them --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead.
MR. FEDER: First of all, they are agreeing obviously to any of
the provisions in the PUD. But beyond that or included in that, they
are agreeing to the provision of the improvements to Southwest
Avenue to include widening the roadway, sidewalks, lighting, and
other issues estimated generally about $350,000.
They are agreeing to approximately just under about 400,000 in
intersection improvements. While there's a couple identified in the
PUD, they've also agreed that they could be used where needed
around the County to make improvement as needed.
They are agreeing to providing all of the land required for the
Lely Manor-- and I'm sure they'll yell real quick if I say this
incorrectly. Any of this. All the land for the Lely Manor part of the
overall LOSWP stormwater program.
They are also agreeing to $250,000, a quarter of a million, added
to what you have written in the PUD today to provide for the balance
Page 127
September 23, 2003
of that street lighting along U.S. 41 between Broward over to 951.
Also, they are agreeing that that 3.5 million when they do come
in with the first plat, as is written in the PUD, that those monies can be
used anywhere in the County for needed improvement,
acknowledging that really the only major facility they access is U.S.
41, which is already six-laned. I believe I've covered all the items.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's included in my motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And is it included in Commissioner
Fiala's first and Commissioner Coyle's second?
We'll close the public hearing. And in the motion it's contingent
upon an agreeable DCA; is that correct? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion?
All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
And the only reason is because -- again, is the height and the
density in that project. I think it's a great project, other than that. But
it's just the idea that I felt that the density was a little bit too much for
that particular area.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries by a super majority.
Commissioner Halas dissenting.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, if Norman can--
MR. FEDER: My apologies. We did raise the issue of the letter,
as we understand that may be out there. If we've got a letter stating a
reduction of units, I would like to include that into the developer
contribution agreement if that's the desire of this Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
Page 128
September 23, 2003
You know, I forgot to read this letter that you gave me from
somebody and read it into the record. Shall I do that now? MR. MUDD: Yes.
(Commissioner Coyle left the Boardroom.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. It's kind of like the cart
before the horse. I'm sorry.
"Commissioners, I recently had an emergency knee operation
which will prevent me from speaking out -- boy, do I know what that's
going to feel like -- in behest of myself and many other Trail Acre
Estate residents regarding the V.K. Development of Wentworth
Estates PUD and the meeting scheduled for September 23rd."
"Even though some of my extrapolated figures on the traffic flow
through Trail Acres were larger than the study made by V.K.
Development, it still remains that according to their own study, if the
dead-end at the end of Southwest Boulevard is allowed to be used as
an additional access to their development, it will add 600" -- and he
probably wrote that before he knew that this was going to be
happening, right?
Actually, he's just talking about the construction traffic on the
Boulevard. And I won't take up your time anymore than that because
that's not happening.
MS. RAYMOND: What about the maintenance workers and so
on Southwest? On the paper that I gave you from the residents.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There is not going to be. No
maintenance workers on-- Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: No construction traffic is going to use the
Southwest Boulevard entrance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, but maintenance workers like
lawn workers and so forth will probably be using that?
Will they be using both exits and entries?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
Page 129
September 23, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
area?
MR. ANDERSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
use both of the entryways?
MS. RAYMOND: I guess.
that.
It won't just be concentrated at that
Can you live with that so that they
I'll tell people in the neighborhood
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've got a lot of good things
coming your way. You know, I mean, there's a lot of good things
happening --
MS. RAYMOND: They were just worried about the safety of
our children.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're going to take a three
minute break-- stretch break and no more than five minutes. (A short recess was held.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you could please take
your seats.
You have a hot mike, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Board of Commissioners are back in
session. This item is-
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2003-52 REGARDING PUDZ-2002-AR-3011,
DWIGHT H. NADEAU OF R.W.A., INC., REPRESENTING
A.R.M. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF S.W. FLORIDA,
1NC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL
AGRICULTURE TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
TO BE KNOWN AS TUSCANY COVE PUD FOR A
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR A MAXIMUM OF 375
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS GENERALLY LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 951),
Page 130
September 23, 2003
APPROXIMATELY ¼ MILE SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD
(C.R. 846)- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: 8-D. The item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Board of County Commissioners heard this petition on
June 24, 2003 and sent item back to the Collier County Planning
Commission for further consideration.
This is PUDZ-2002-AR-3011. Dwight H. Nadeau of R.W.A.,
Inc, representing A.R.M. Development Corporation of Southwest
Florida, Inc., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to PUD,
Planned Unit Development, to be known as Tuscany Cove PUD for a
residential development for a maximum of 375 residential dwelling
units generally located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, County
Road 951, approximately a quarter mile south of Immokalee Road,
County Road 846, in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
consisting of 78.07 acres.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All wishing to participate in this
discussion, please rise and raise your right hand. The court reporter
will swear you in.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte communication. I don't have
any further than I did last time we heard this. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just have -- I had a meeting
with Rich Yovanovich and also I got an E-mail from Mark Strain.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I had some meetings with Mr.
Nadeau. And that was just this past week.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have also met with Mr. Rich
Yovanovich and I have an E-mail from Mark Strain. And it's all in the
Page 131
September 23, 2003
folder.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich.
Can you just -- you know, keep it short. Just tell us what
happened at the Planning Commission.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich on
behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Nadeau is here, as well, if you have any
questions of him.
If you will recall, you asked that this be remanded back to the
Planning Commission for them to consider the phasing schedule that
we discussed in front of the Board of County Commissioners, also the
reduction in density that we had proposed and the phasing schedule in
particular.
It went back to the Planning Commission and they endorsed the
phasing schedule seven to one. The one dissenting vote was related to
the width of the sidewalk. And the reason we decided to keep or
needed to keep the sidewalk at five feet was to address the
Commission's desire that driveways be 23 feet in length, instead of 22
feet in length. And if it were a six-foot sidewalk, it would have to be a
22-foot driveway.
So that's what happened. The Planning Commission basically
voted to recommend approval seven to one based upon the phasing
schedule we had discussed previously with the Board of County
Commissioners, which is summarized on page three of your executive
summary.
(Commissioner Coletta returned to the Boardroom.)
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I put in front of you-- there was
some confusion as to whether or not you may or may not have gotten
the latest and correct version of the PUD document. The latest and
greatest has been handed out to you to verify that the conditions in the
executive summary are, in fact, accurately reflected in the PUD
document.
If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them, but the
Page 132
September 23, 2003
Planning Commission did recommend approval seven to one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I go to the Commissioner's
request, Commissioner Coletta, do you have any ex parte
communication?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do. I've received E-mails
on this from several individuals. I've also met with Mark Strain, Rich
Yovanovich, the petitioner, Jim Mudd.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Do you have any questions,
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As a matter of fact, I do. There's
a couple of things in here that I wanted to go over with you. And I do
appreciate the opportunity to do so.
Previously the Planning Commission recommended restricting
the CO until 951 was completed. I think that was the main bone of
contention at that point because Mark Strain came up with a counter
letter later, which -- when we came to disagreement, we sent it back to
the Planning Commission. Give me a recap from that point forward.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The Planning Commission after hearing
about the reduction in density to 375 units, the phasing schedule of
200 building permits for the first year and 20 more building permits
per month until the road commenced no longer included a condition
that construction be held back until the road was completed. So the
Planning Commission did not think that that was necessary based
upon the revisions of the PUD document that we made.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And do you see any conflict
with when they're going to start 951; when they plan to go with the six
laning?
Is there going to be some coming together of these particular
things? I mean --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. If the schedule holds the way it's
scheduled, everything should work out just fine for everybody.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you go over your entrance
Page 133
September 23, 2003
and exit?
Also, too, were you going to have a way to get to Immokalee
Road; was that--
MR. YOVANOVICH: At this point, Commissioner, we don't.
What we do is -- right now our-- we're going to be limited to a
right-in, right-out condition so traffic can't go south on 951. And the
PUD requires that we do that.
And we don't own property to get us to Immokalee Road at this
point. So we will not have access to Immokalee Road. We do provide
for interconnection with the activity center immediately to our north
so that our project can access the activity center to the north without
ever having to get onto 951.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's all the questions I have at
this time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further questions?
Any public speakers?
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just for the transportation
department, we -- the last time that this was before us, we spent quite a
lot of time discussing the traffic requirements in the upcoming future.
And how does this fit into the whole equation?
Do we meet all the concerns that you, the traffic department,
had?
MR. KANT: Yes, sir. Several issues, one of which, of course,
was the -- constraining that to a right-in, right-out. We also want to
make it clear that access is not something -- you know, it's a
conceptual idea at the PUD stage. And they may have to be shifting
that access.
As far as the traffic generation is concerned, when that road is six
laned there will be more than sufficient capacity for that particular
project in conjunction with all the other existing and proposed
projects.
Page 134
September 23, 2003
One of the things that we would like to -- and you're going to
hear this again yet this afternoon on some other issues. One of the
things that we would like to add as a proviso of any approval is that
the developer shall, to the maximum extent feasible, work with
adjacent property owners and the County staff to reduce or minimize
access connections to Collier Boulevard through the use of joint
access crossings of the canal.
This is an issue the Board a number of months ago had
designated 951, Collier Boulevard, as controlled access. And because
we have a number of small properties, we're winding up with a
number of additional new accesses across there. And we're trying to
limit those because they do take away from the capacity.
But we would like to encourage this developer and all the other
developers to do -- as they've pointed out, they want to get access to
the activity center. They might be able to get access to the south.
Although, that's pretty much going to be difficult given the level of
development of Crystal Lake at this point.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Kant, what I like about this is it
does provide access in there. And, you know, that is in the PUD,
correct?
MR. KANT: Yes, sir. That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: To the activity center. And that's,
you know, the real reason why density bonuses were given because of
connectivity to activity centers.
MR. KANT: And we encourage that every opportunity we get.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Even though they reduced it
by quite a number amount.
MR. KANT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. No further questions.
Any--
MS. FILSON: No speakers, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, I'm going to
Page 13 5
September 23, 2003
close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
I'll make a motion we approve.
Second.
With the considerations that's
outlined in the Planning Commission recommendations and contained
in the revised PUD document.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle and
seconded by Commissioner Halas. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next victim.
Item #8E- Continued Indefinitely
Petition PUDZ-03-AR-4008, C. Laurence Keesey, of Young, Van
Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, P.A. representing Waterside Shops
at Pelican Bay Trust and WCI Communities, Inc, requesting a rezone
from "PUD" to "PUD" (Planned Unit Development) for the purpose
of revising the PUD document to relocate 170,343 square feet of
approved, but not yet constructed and uncommitted commercial use
from the north commercial area to the south commercial area, reduce
the approved maximum number residential dwellings by 800 units to a
new maximum of 7,800 residential dwelling units for property located
Page 136
September 23, 2003
at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail (US-41)
and Seagate Drive in Sections 32 and 33, Township 48 South, Range
25 East, and Sections 4, 5, 8 and 9, Township 49 South, Range 25 East
Collier County, Florida. (Staff's request) - Approved to Continue
lndefinitelv
MR. MUDD: Next item, Commissioner, is Item 10-E. This item
is requested to be continued indefinitely. The Board of County
Commissioners need to vote to continue this item because we didn't
receive a petitioner request to do this.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. This is Petition
PUDZ-03-AR-4008.
And the reason that the staff requested that this item be continued
indefinitely is because it has a DRI item that was not submitted with
this PUD. And it's your policy that you get to see both those items --
the DRI and the PUD changes -- at the same time.
And this is the Waterside -- this the Waterside Shops basically in
Pelican Bay Trust and WCI Communities, Inc.
Commissioners, you'll need to vote to continue this. And sue -- I
asked Sue just a couple of minutes ago do we have any speakers on
this particular item and she said no.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Fiala to continue the item.
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.)
Page 137
September 23, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries.
Is that right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
Item #8F
PETITION PUDZ-2003-AR-3607, WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP,
OF HOOVER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
REPRESENTING BARTON AND WENDY MCINTYRE AND
JOSEPH MAGDALENER, REQUESTING CHANGES TO THE
EXISTING NICAEA ACADEMY PUD ZONING. THE
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PUD DOCUMENT AND
MASTER PLAN WILL ELIMINATE THE USES OF PRIVATE
SCHOOL AND ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY AND ALLOW
FOR A MAXIMUM OF 580 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS.
THE PROPERTY TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS REZONE IS
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD
JUST SOUTH OF THE CRYSTAL LAKE PUD (RV PARK)-
APPROVED TO CONTINUE TO OCTOBER 28,2003 BCC
MF~ETING
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10-F. This item
was 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.
This is PUDZ-2003-AR-3607. William L. Hoover, AICP, of
Hoover Planning and Development, Inc., representing Barton and
Wendy Mclntyre and Joseph Magdalener -- I know I messed that one
up -- requesting changes to the existing Nicaea Academy PUD zoning.
The proposed changes to the PUD document and master plan will
eliminate the uses of private school and assisted-living facility and
Page 138
September 23, 2003
allow for a maximum of 580 residential dwelling units.
The property to be considered for this rezone is located on the
east side of Collier Boulevard just south of the Crystal Lake PUD,
which is a R.V. park in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 119+/- acres.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All participants wishing to give
testimony today on this item, please rise, raise your right hand to be
sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte communication. I have two.
I talked to a constituent and the developer's representative.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: None.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I talked to the developer's
representative and had an E-mail with Richard Calabrese and Mr.
Mudd, too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hang on a minute.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have spoken to William Hoover
previously on this. And that's the only ex parte that I have had.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no ex parte to come up with
at this point, no.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Hoover, you're on deck.
MR. HOOVER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Bill Hoover of Hoover Planning representing the petitioners.
The property is 119 acres in size located on the east side of
Collier Boulevard about eight-tenth's of a mile south of Immokalee
Road. Approximately the western 40.7 acres of the site is within the
density ban of the Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road activity
Page 139
September 23, 2003
center.
The petitioners are proposing to amend the existing Nicaea
Academy PUD by deleting the existing uses, which consist of a
maximum of a private school with 600 students, an ALF on 5.3 acres,
and up to ten residential units. And the three land uses would be
replaced by 580 condominiums at a density of up to 4.87 units per
acre.
Traffic-wise, the proposed use -- it's a little unusual because of
the school generating so much traffic in the morning, the -- if we build
what's proposed versus what's approved, there would be a major
reduction of 351 a.m. peek hour trips. There would be an increase of
77 p.m. peek hour trips and an increase of 823 weekday daily trips.
The Planning Commission approved this project and
unanimously approved it earlier this month. I'll keep my comments
brief in case you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions by the
Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm a little concerned about the
proposed density that you have here at this point in time. We just had
another PUD in front of us and I realized that you have a density --
have the ability to have a density increase all the way up to seven units
per acre because of the idea that you're very close to supposedly an
activity center.
As we well know, not only -- at this point in time you're not
going to have the interconnectivity with that activity center. So,
therefore, most of the traffic is going to have to go out into 951. And,
of course, we have a lot of proposed building that's going to be there.
We just recently had Heritage Bay that came in. We got that
approved.
And we're very concerned about the impact to traffic on 951 and
the intersection of Immokalee Road. And I think that we need to look
very closely at the density at this point in time. And that's -- so,
Page 140
September 23, 2003
therefore, I'd like to propose that maybe we could work with you and
take out some of that density so that we make sure that we have
adequate road volume left at this point in time.
MR. HOOVER: Okay. I'm hoping -- the petitioner's
representative is here. If you have a -- if you have a number, do you
want to give that to me?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think right now that you're at
4.87. I'd like to see maybe down around 4.11, which would -- to give
you -- so you don't have to sit there and figure it out, it would be
approximately 490 to 500 units.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, the last developer
PUD that we approved was 320 acres -- 320 units.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 375 units, I believe.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 375 units. And they had staging
stipulations, right-mm only.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just threw that out there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They had an interconnection to
another community.
MR. HOOVER: Okay. On the interconnections, why don't we
defer a few minutes on this, if you don't mind, and Ed Kant -- there's
an opportunity it looks like on maybe combining three access drives
onto Collier Boulevard into one possibly with a project to the south
called Bristol Pines. And we've been talking about this over the last
24 hours. And Ed wants to add a traffic stipulation to this project.
If that's okay with you, I'll let Ed talk on this. So it's basically, I
guess you could say, an interconnection that would allow the
possibility where there would be another road that's parallel to Collier
Boulevard -- one mile to the west of Collier Boulevard -- that would
go all the way from Vanderbilt all the way up to Immokalee Road.
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, Transportation Operations Director.
What I have just put up on the visualizer, the large green area just to
the south of that -- what looks like a subdivision is the area that we're
Page 141
September 23, 2003
talking about. And just south of that--just south of-- this is the
Nicaea Academy. This is a road called Tree Farm Road, which is not a
public road. And this area is the Bristol Pines development.
I met with the owner of this property here and also the
representatives from Bristol Pines and Nicaea Academy property.
And one of the things that we had tried to do originally when this first
came before the Board was to get all three of-- or get these two
developments to use Tree Farm Road. Unfortunately, they couldn't
provide ample evidence that they had the right to do that.
So they went back and they said, "Well, you know, we can't
really deny you -- we can't really get denied access." And so it looks
like they would have to put an access here. These folks have to put an
access here. And this access would still be here. And then we're
dealing on the other side of the street with several commercial
developments over in this area, one of which, I understand, has just
recently been sold and will be amalgamated with a number-- with a
large piece of acreage to its west.
So when we look at the overall access management for 951 --
and, unfortunately, I kind of cobbled this together at lunch today. So
I'm not sure how -- it's right in there, if I can get it. MR. MUDD: I'll work on it.
MR. KANT: This is Immokalee Road at the north end here.
This is Immokalee and 951. When we come about a half mile south--
almost exactly half a mile south, we get to Crystal Lake and the
middle school. When we continue to go about a half a mile south,
interestingly enough, we wind up almost exactly opposite Tree Farm
Road.
We go another half a mile south, we get down to Wolfe Road.
And we go another half a mile south and here we are down to
Vanderbilt Beach Road.
This type of spacing for major intersections is consistent with
your direction to make 951 a controlled access facility. It also gives
Page 142
September 23, 2003
us some ability to work with these property owners to try to get these
locations as future full accesses.
I realize I'm taking some time to give you this, but I think it's
important because you're going to deal with a number of projects
where the same issues are going to come up. And I'd like to make
sure that we understand that we're all working toward the same goal of
making this as efficient a roadway as possible by minimizing these
connections.
So, again, as we did in the prior hearing, we are going to request
that a proviso be added to this development stating that the developer
shall, to the maximum extent feasible, work with adjacent property
owners and the County to reduce or minimize access connections to
Collier Boulevard through the use of joint access crossings of the
canal.
Toward that end, I've met with, as I said, the developers and the
owner of that road and we've agreed to meet sometime in the next
couple of weeks to try to work that out. So in your approvals today,
we would ask that you consider the accesses that are shown as
conceptual, that you include this proviso, and that you encourage the
developer to work with those neighboring developments so that we
can, perhaps, accomplish what will be in the best public interest.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I misunderstood. I heard Mr. Hoover
saying he is going to build a road from Vanderbilt Beach Road to
Immokalee.
MR. KANT: No, sir. I -- did I hear you say that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's what I heard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a good idea.
MR. HOOVER: There's an existing road that runs parallel to
Collier Boulevard. It's called Massey Drive, I think. It goes from
Vanderbilt up to section line. And then there's another road that
comes down. Again, it's a mile east of Collier Boulevard that comes
almost down -- I think they sort of touch and come around. What the
Page 143
September 23, 2003
-- Mr. Kant--
MR. KANT: Well, what you've got here is 951. If Tree Farm
Road were built straight through -- this is Massey Street. Massey
Street is another private road which runs down to Vanderbilt Beach.
And there are several other small roads off of it.
But if this is ever built as part of a secondary or connector road
system, it's going to significantly assist those units -- those people
living back in there in a lot of that undeveloped land and also provide
opportunities for others to hook into that road.
Massey runs currently about not quite half a mile from
Vanderbilt Beach up to roughly this intersection. We've done a little
bit of deed research and it appears that there may be some easements
back there. But, again, in speaking with one of the property owners
earlier today and in speaking with one of the attorneys earlier today, it
appears that there is a fee ownership of the western part of that road.
And that's what we need to resolve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ed, in order to provide a road of
adequate capacity there along Tree Farm Road, should we not ask the
petitioner to donate some right-of-way there to assure that we've got a
wide enough road to do this?
MR. KANT: Thank you, Commissioner. I got carried away with
this other issue and I wanted to also report that late yesterday
afternoon in talking with the petitioner they've agreed to a 40-foot
reservation along their southern boundary so that -- now, we have
some wetlands to deal with, but the fact is that they're willing to
configure their site plan to allow for that 40-foot of right-of-way all
along their southern boundary, which is about a half a mile.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Were they willing to donate this
free of charge to the County?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, sure.
Page 144
September 23, 2003
MR. HOOVER: What I was advised by the client's
representative was that we would make the -- we would make that
land available to the County at no cost.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: At no cost to the County?
MR. HOOVER: At no cost. Except when we're in the preserve
area, we've already got a water management permit for that. So our
development line has to stay outside of the preserve area.
And all I asked Mr. Kant was if you guys ever do decide that,
that the County would pay for any mitigation that might be required in
amending that preserve line out there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how much land are we talking
about prior to getting to the preserve? What is the footage on that?
MR. HOOVER: Three-quarters of a mile. I think this entire -- it
looks like it's about two and a half acres inside the non-preserve area
and then maybe about an acre and a quarter inside the preserve area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not bad.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta -- do
we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have two.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did you want me to wait?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you like to wait?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd be happy to wait.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please call up the public speakers.
MS. FILSON: The first public speaker is Chuck Posch. He will
be followed by Floyd Chapin.
MR. POSCH: Good afternoon, gentlemen. My name is Chuck
Posch and I own 17 acres directly adjacent to the proposed project.
It's been an eye-opening experience here for me today.
I must admit that I started out today with a low opinion of the
process. But after sitting here all day, my mind is completely
changed. And I appreciate all of what I've seen here today.
Page 145
September 23, 2003
I requested a few months ago -- and I put a letter in -- for a
ten-foot berm along our common border. And I apologize for my
dress because this morning I didn't even-- I wasn't even thinking
about coming here and speaking, but I realized -- I found out that the
request that I had made had fallen through the cracks or whatever.
But I had requested that ten-foot berm and I find out that what we
have now and what we're dealing with is like a three-foot -- two or
three-foot berm. The request was made because of all the construction
projects, all the people in construction. And after the project had
completed, all the people that would just wander onto my property.
Because I have a beautiful piece of property and people would like to
walk through it. And that was why I made the request.
Somehow it got -- it was just left and not -- and not -- work had
not done anything about. And I think -- I'm sorry that I wasn't here at
any of the -- the two prior meetings that I wasn't here for. Because I
have a father-in-law who is deathly ill in Chicago and we've been
spending a lot of time there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I might be able to help you, sir.
I take it your property is located right around here on the east side of
9517
MR. POSCH: Yes. It's directly adjacent.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Send a letter to me and I'll be
happy to talk to you about it. Meanwhile, if you could point out
where your property is. Does it figure into what we're trying to do, as
far as right-of-way and all that?
MR. POSCH: Yes. As a matter--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Show us where it is. While
we've got you up there, we need to talk to you.
MR. POSCH: As a matter of fact, I'm the owner of the road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: God bless you, sir. You came at
the right time. You're going to help us through this. Don't go too far.
We need your help to make this happen.
Page 146
September 23, 2003
MR. POSCH: All right. I need your help, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. May I continue?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll tell you what my concern is.
We're basing all this upon goodwill and conjecture that this might
happen and that might happen and we're going to have an access road
that is going to tie in.
If it doesn't happen, what do we have? We're going to have an
access road, what, every quarter of a mile all the way down through?
Totally unacceptable. We're going to be right down there with Airport
Road and a couple of these other places where one development after
another kept pumping out on there and pretty soon, you know, nothing
moves.
What can we do to try to ensure that we're going to have this
access road one way or the another and make it work, rather than put it
together where we're going to work in good faith. That leaves an
awful lot. Once it leaves here in good faith, we don't know where it's
going to go.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, what you do is
stipulations of the approval, as far as a -- trying to join these properties
together through the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very good, Commissioner
Henning. I like that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there anything else, sir?
MR. POSCH: No. That's it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Send a letter to me. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Floyd Chapin.
MR. CHAPIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Floyd Chapin, C-h-a-p-i-n. I reside in Naples and I have a couple of
questions I'd like to raise and a couple of concerns I have in reference
to this item before you this afternoon.
Page 147
September 23, 2003
First of all, I want to thank you for taking your time to listen to
all of us talk. You guys have got to be masochists.
As I said, I have some concerns about this proposed change. In
reviewing the documents, I believe that they do not conform with your
policy as it relates to your growth management plan. In that you talk
about the density bonuses. In fact, consistent with the following
characteristics may add to the base density.
Density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements. And, in my
judgment, this project does not meet the requirements that are set forth
by your policy. There are no interconnecting roads, irrespective of
what Mr. Kant and the developer said today.
I agree with you, Mr. Coletta. You know, promises are promises.
Let's see it in writing. Let's do it.
The traffic at Immokalee and 951, for those of you who travel it,
and I do, with another 580 units dumping onto 951 near Immokalee
Road will be overwhelming. And as a result of that, I really think this
project ought to be rejected, denied, modified, or sent into oblivion. I
really do. Unless the developer can come up with a plan that is going
to be consistent with the needs of Collier County.
And I think -- basically I'm not going to take your time. I think
I've made my point. I think we have to really seriously consider this
and any other projects that come before you as it relates to traffic
impact and density, as you've talked about all afternoon. I've listened
to you and I concur with your feelings 100 percent. Any questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions from the Board?
You know, I appreciate those comments and we do have
concerns on just those two items that you're talking about. And we
need to address those.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, can I make a
suggestion that we continue this item and give the petitioner and our
Page 148
September 23, 2003
staff and the adjoining land owners an opportunity to sit down and
work out these details about interconnectivity and right-of-way and
determine traffic patterns and volumes and how we're going to get in
and out of this place?
Because all of that has a bearing upon the density that you want
to approve for any project like this. And I think that would address
Commissioner Halas' concern, or at least give them an opportunity to
deal with that density issue and the impact on the roads, and
Commissioner Coletta's concern about the rights-of-ways and whose
property is going to have to be used for that purpose.
Rather than rejecting it, I would suggest we give them an
opportunity to work together to see if we can't work out a -- if they
can't work out a completed plan to bring back to us for our review.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we also ask them to talk
about the berm with the gentleman that was just here?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, they're going to have to have a
discussion with the gentleman because he owns the easement across
that property. So I think the emphasis is interconnectivity. MR. CHAPIN: Interconnectivity.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think Chapin said it quite well. That
we need to provide more interconnectivity and really take a look at the
density, too.
MR. CHAPIN: Take away the density bonus and then you might
be able to work from there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that's -- any land use petition or
PUD, everything in it is a negotiated item. The density and other
things. So that's still on the table.
MR. CHAPIN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Page 149
September 23, 2003
Mr. Hoover, do you have anything? Do you have any concern
about the continuance?
MR. HOOVER: Yes. We've got sales contracts on the property.
And I don't think that's going to -- we may lose the contracts on the
property due to -- it previously was continued five weeks by the
Planning Commission sort of on the same issue.
And the -- my clients agreed not only to do as many
interconnects as possible. So he's maintaining the flexibility on his
front that if Tree Farm is available, we'll work with the neighbors on
providing a common access there, as well as pay our fair share.
We'll also provide -- I think this -- by donating the extra 40 feet
here all the way out to one mile east of County Road 951, you'll see
that the road is almost there. What that may let people do is when
there's commercial developed at the agricultural nursery in the
southeast comer of Immokalee and 951, personally I see maybe
another grocery store going in there or maybe something like a Target,
let's say. And I think this secondary road going up there may lend the
opportunity for eventually that road cutting over.
So our residents, as well as the residents to the south -- maybe
they'd take 951 up to the store, but when they're coming back they
come back that way because they have to make two left tums out onto
951. And left tums is really what -- in intersections is what mess up
traffic flow.
And so I think my client has met -- you know, he's done
everything that has been asked of him regarding the traffic. And as far
as the interconnects, he's willing to donate easements and things like
that. So he's in a little bit of a tight place because he's trying to close
on some property that's previously already been delayed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Hoover, so you're saying you
want us to vote on this today?
I've got to ask Mr. Petit. Does this take any super majority?
MR. PETIT: Yes. It's a rezone.
Page 150
September 23, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Personally I feel very
uncomfortable with the information that we have. Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that it looks to me like we
have -- the door of oppOrtunity has just opened. And if there can be
some quick and decisive talks between you and the gentleman that
owns that road, hopefully we can come to -- have this come to a
conclusion. Chances are this won't have to be continued over a long
period of time. It could be a short period of time. Do you concur with that?
MR. HOOVER: I think I'm reading the Board that I need to
continue -- ask for a continuance for two weeks.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is two weeks enough?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is two weeks enough to have your
discussion.
MR. MUDD: Or do you need to go to the 20th?
MR. HOOVER: Actually, I'm out of town the week of October
1 lth to the 18th.
MR. MUDD: So you're looking for the 28th of October?
MR. HOOVER: It would need to be October 28th, unless --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coyle to continue this for two meetings, which will be October 28th.
There is a second by Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Page 151
September 23, 2003
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries five to zero.
We're going to take a break. The court reporters are going to
change out.
(Recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We are back from recess.
Item # 10E
SUPPORT OF 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_ APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next item is Item 10(E), and
it's a time certain item. This item was continued from the September
9th, 2003, BCC meeting because of time issues with the next speaker
and his calendar.
This is consideration to support the Southwest Florida Resource
and Conservation & Development Council's application for resource
conservation and development program assistance after hearing a
presentation by a SWFRC&D representative, which is Mr. Wayne
Daltry today.
Mr. Lorenz--
MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, Environmental
Services director. Basically, the title and county manager's
introduction pretty much says it all. Wayne Daltry is here to give you
a presentation on the council's area plan and to request your support
for program assistance application to the united States Department of
Agriculture.
Page 152
September 23, 2003
The area plan is in your packet for today along with the bylaws
of the council. Also, there will be a requirement for certification by
the chairman. There's a signature page as well. And with that I'll just
have Mr. Daltry present the information to you, and I know he has
some other staff as well that may be available for questions.
MR. DALTRY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
county commission. First, let me get two things quickly out of the
way. This costs no money, and I am here as a Lee County person also
because five counties are in the service or proposed -- this existing
resource conservation council.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And your name for the record?
MR. DALTRY: My name is Wayne Daltry, and I am the current
chairman of the resource conservation development council.
The proposal is basically to get USDA funding to provide some
staffing support for this council. It exists -- it's a 501 (c)3. It's current
secretariat and administrative office is at the Southwest Florida
Regional Planning Council. The council itself is set up with three
members from each of the five counties -- Charlotte, Collier, Lee,
Glades, and Hendry. It also has membership opportunities for the
Seminole Indians and Miccosukee tribes, both of which are in the
area.
The proposed funding would be used, as I said, for staffing, but it
is not keeping the council itself from being active. We are currently
supporting and processing grant applications to access rural funding
and other funding sources that such a council would provide assistance
in getting support for.
This is a fairly unique organization, not for Florida or the nation,
but unique in that it was formed out of bits and pieces of other RCDCs
in Florida. We had a couple counties that were not covered. We had a
couple counties that were being cherry picked, so to speak. They were
renewing service there and not getting service.
This council formed from a discussion of the soil and water
Page 153
September 23, 2003
conservation districts of the area, and the resource conservation
service, NRCS, Natural Resource Conservation Service or their agents
in the area, working with some of the people who were looking for
grant opportunities, looking for services they weren't getting. Last
July there was a workshop attended by about 75 people from the five
county area. The statement was, "Let's form the council," and they
turned to me just because I had some experience in forming regional
councils.
I will freely say I'm worth every penny I'm not paid. This is an
unpaid position. Once there is funding available to this council for
staffing, I'm gone, and somebody who can devote the time to it will
provide the time to it. The way this will work is that as an
organization, once it is funded, it will do a lot more outreach with the
soil and water conservation or NRCS on finding good clients or
applicants for the various grants. The kind of things that are available
where we got funding for is reducing fire hazards in rural areas. There
is an overdrain and during the dry season -- you-all remember when
we used to have those dry seasons, and it becomes like timber boxes.
These are ways that some of the fuel was taken out and controlled
bums given in order to prevent bad fires.
A historical preservation grant has been applied for with
Everglades City. We did not get it this time, but once in the breach,
once more in the breach. So that is the basic intent. Get the rural
areas some funding for the kind of projects they want.
Here is the one that molds my heart. In the farm bill there's
funding available for agricultural areas to not develop, to basically
either stay what they are or become what I say or use the phrase
"water ranches." Reverse their drainage projects, and it becomes a
storage project for you and you and everybody else. You maintain the
water table and rehydrate the area.
In the past, you know, in a lot of areas where cattle is not exactly
a high income producer but drainage has been an issue on reducing
Page 154
September 23, 2003
water supplies for other uses, this has been a good tool. For
Southwest Florida and the Everglades Restoration, it's becomes
something that's really potential from the larger landowners who
haven't really been able to capitalize on any intense agriculture and
just had the wrong conditions. But it had significant drainage works
for some of the actual activities they have had in the past that are now
being thought of as, "Oh, if we could restore the water storage in these
areas, we would be better off." So that's one thing I'm hoping
becomes a target of our group.
So it's five counties. The governing board or the council itself is
15 members, three from each county. It has already been endorsed by
the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. A number of
letters on formation were received by the area local governments.
The grant application request before you is one that we are
requesting, basically, the endorsement of the county. It is no cost.
The other four counties -- I believe all five soil and water conservation
districts have endorsed this application. Once we submit it, which
would be with your signature November-ish, we would have a year or
a year and several months before we got any funding through that.
But during that entire period, I'd say we would still be continuing as a
functioning corporation pursuing grants for areas or applicants that are
trying to get access to some of the funds that have just not been
coming to our area.
The farm bill has been a well-funded federal program. Suddenly
over these last couple years, it's 'an area that Florida has not even been
able to gather all of the funds it's been entitled to over the past year,
and we're just trying to reverse that for our area. Are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board members?
Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wayne, good to see you.
MR. DALTRY: Good to see you again.
Page 155
September 23, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wayne, when you say it won't cost
us any money this time, will it cost us money anytime in the future?
Are we obligating ourselves to supporting an organization or staff?.
MR. DALTRY: This corporation has no expectation or no
request of funding of any of the local governments. If you make an
appointment to the board you are, of course, devoting some hours to
that from your own staff. If you make a grant application for it, you
will be responsible for your share of match should you receive a grant
in the program. But the corporation itself and the staffing of the
corporation and the operation of the corporation will have no funding
expected from anybody who signs this thing now and for the
foreseeable future, and I am not responsible for anybody who's present
after I'm gone.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to some of the
organizations we have here who are actively involved in trying to
preserve natural resources, in particular our green space committee,
Conservation Collier, how would the organization interface or perhaps
help their efforts?
MR. DALTRY: One we're already working with is using such
organizations to identify willing landowners who are also in the right
place and using that vehicle to get funding then in for the preservation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta and then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. If I may, please, ask you,
would you please elaborate on what you've been doing for Everglades
City. I know there's a major problem there with historic city hall there
that used to be the county seat.
MR. DALTRY: The best we did at this first stage was -- David
Loving is on the council. He was the vehicle to get a grant request to
our endorsement. That's basically what we did. We just endorsed it.
We are just right now, until we get staffing, a willing vehicle to
Page 156
September 23, 2003
support grant applications developed by others. So very minimal
effort is what we've done for Everglades City, but we will be
expecting, once we get funding on the proposal, to give Everglades
City and LaBelle and More Haven, Immokalee, a lot of the places that
don't have standing structure or have relatively minimal structure but
need the same access to the federal funds and other grant programs
that any sophisticated urban area already has, access to help them get
funds.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you be able to do
anything for private roads and economically deprived areas, possibly
Immokalee, where there is no tax base to work with?
MR. DALTRY: I don't know all the infrastructure funds
available. I think it's more oriented towards water and sewer than road
maintenance because that's typically supported by property taxes or
some organization. That one I can't give you any promise. I don't
know the full breadth of funding programs available. I look towards
Tony, and if he has additional information -- he says not really. We
can look into that for you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. It sounds like a great program.
From what I can understand it's going to be totally funded by grants.
It looks like you've got our grant writer right there that you would like
on your committee. Our grant writer is really totally consumed as it is
with our needs because she is our grant writer. I know that it takes a
lot of research and time and effort in order to apply for a grant or to
find the grants to apply for and then to apply for them and do all of the
paperwork.
If you have our grant writer working on your committee, will she
be working to get grants for you, and if so, will we need to replace her
or assist her and get another grant writer in order to fill the gap that's
left while she's working for this group?
MR. DALTRY: First, let me give some immediate relief. No,
Page 157
September 23, 2003
she would not be working for the group. We're asking her to serve on
the council. That's approximately three hours every two months.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But not writing any grants?
MR. DALTRY: Not writing any grants. Lee County has
supported the grant writer to put this particular grant together. After
that applicants have to either-- like if she was writing a grant for
Collier County that was going to go for a program that was useful for
getting, that would be normal work for her.
Until we get the funding to develop a grant writer specifically for
outreach, rural areas or underserved area, that's about the way we're
going to do it. It's whoever can provide volunteer time, and that's why
half of the community is made up of people who are providing
volunteer time for such activities.
We would not expect her to write any grants for the program.
The three hours of two months -- because we meet every two months.
The intent is to have all subcommittees before and after every
meeting. Now, if we start getting a grant load, we're going to ask
people to read them. Of course, every council member will be
responsible for reading the grant applications we're going to endorse
and act intelligently. So one expects grant writers to be a bit more
intelligent on the components of grant writing than the rest of us or
other common folks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I go to Commissioner Coletta,
Mr. Daltry, as I read this, the perception that I had is much different
than what you're explaining to the Board of Commissioners. Now,
let's just, you know, keep it straight. If you receive a grant there's
going to have to be a match; correct? MR. DALTRY: I don't--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Have you ever received 100 percent
grants?
MR. DALTRY: The staffing grant is 100 percent. If you receive
-- make application for a grant for like the fire, yes, you will need
Page 158
September 23, 2003
match for that, but that's for your work or your area. I think I already
mentioned that. You would need to match any grants that you are
applying for through the kind of grant programs this program makes
more available.
The funding or this application is for a staffing grant that is to be
100 percent, and at the most we're trying to get the soil and
conservation service to devote more time of their NRCS attached
employees into this program. So I'm not saying -- I'm saying that we
are not asking Collier County for match money for the grant that's
before you. But should Everglades City need apply for a grant that
has a 50 percent match, I hope they have 50 percent or they're going to
be before you asking for 50 percent under Collier County's heading.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And staff time is -- there is a dollar
amount on staff time.
MR. DALTRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, it could be $100 an hour
or it could be $200 an hour. It depends on the qualification of the
expertise that you're requesting to donate.
MR. DALTRY: Well, the expertise I was asking to donate was,
basically, under our council setup of three from each county, we're
looking for a private person, a county person, and then another in
Collier County if the other is a city person. The private seems under
represented except when you realize the soil and water conservation
service -- which we're going to know as stitched on the hip that has the
direct access to all of the private rural organizations and, of course,
has its own board set up. So that is our access outreach connection for
immediately.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What I see the purpose and intent is
to try to preserve, you know, flow ways or something of that nature
where it does connect to two different counties for natural resources,
and also it provides social abilities. I've also seen something about
preserving urban areas.
Page 159
September 23, 2003
MR. DALTRY: The NRCS Department of Agricultural
Programs seems to be for our area in particular due to our rapid
urbanization applicable throughout most of our urban areas.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So that means new urbanism, smart
growth, things of that nature; correct?
MR. DALTRY: The rural land stewardship program, which you
probably heard suddenly a lot of because it's a new pop phrase being
used in Florida, is the concept that this agricultural and rural lands
program is promoting, so they have in there a list of programs, things
that now fit under that smart growth heading such as what you're
doing with your rural county, the rural Collier assessment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. It's something that we did do.
MR. DALTRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But the concept of new urbanism or
smart growth is a spin word that our citizens really are not aware of
what it all means. I'm not even sure -- well, no, I can say that I'm
almost positive that the citizens of Collier County would not be in
favor of that type of thing. What role would this RC&D play on
land-use items?
MR. DALTRY: It would play no role that you were not asking it
to play. As a program set up for assisting grants, it's not going to be
doing your urban and rural planning. You've got a regional planning
council where you meet together on multi-county purposes and, of
course, the regional planning council interacts with your local
planning program. It's going to do none of that. But if you want a
grants, and if there was one available to examine new urbanism
opportunities, you've already done it for your rural area by promoting
or pursuing a grant that would create green space and aggregate land
uses.
I mean, what you've already done in your Collier County study,
that's something I think that's becoming available under grants
programs through the USDA. But they're still -- and this is where I
Page 160
September 23, 2003
learned conservation. They're still the traditional group that teaches
contour plowing, wise use of resources, best management practices in
stormwater so that the farmer doesn't discharge unnecessarily polluted
water into your streams under the old flood discharge system. This is
a program that also helps educate people on how to do some of their
rural task farming better.
So you have that interim process for the existing soil and water
conservation districts. The trick there is to make sure they, too, have
this corporation to assist them to get the grants that they're otherwise
not getting because of the strange competitive nature rural areas have
with some having regional affiliations that are able to bring more
support to an application than individual stand alone counties.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Wayne, I'm pretty familiar with the RC&Ds up in
the midwest. Now, by having a RC&D, you can get at dollars that
other people can't get at based in the Department of Ag and the NRCS
budgets.
MR. DALTRY: We have not been able to get to them.
MR. MUDD: That's right. So it opens doors for funding that
you can't have without having an RC&D that's been established in this
particular county. That's all this organization does is open that door.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that clarifies it for me. Before I
go to Commissioner Coletta, if there is a grant out there to take big
government out of local government's business, I'm all for it. If you
can take the corps of engineers and the district out of our business, that
would be great.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wow. I don't know if I could
ever top that.
MR. DALTRY: I was just going to link arms and start singing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That was pretty neat.
Wayne, I know that the southwest regional planning council has
Page 161
September 23, 2003
been very supportive of this, and we already put money into that to try
to move this forward. I see this as another tool in the tool box.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm okay with it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to make a motion
for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
MR. MUDD: What you're approving is authorization for the
chairman to sign the form contained and attached to indicate Collier
County support for the southwest florida regional or the RC&D
council's request for RC&D program assistance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coletta, a second by Commissioner Halas. Any more discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none. Do we have any
speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you for
the clarification.
MR. DALTRY: Thank you.
Item #9B
Page 162
September 23, 2003
RESOLUTION 2003-333 APPOINTMENT OF MARLENE
FOORD, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM COLLIER COUNTY
GOVERNMENT, TO THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA RESOURCE
CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT (SWFRC&D) COUNCIL-
ADOPTFD
MR. MUDD: The next item, Commissioners, is a time certain
that's to be heard after 10(E). It's 9(B) to appoint a representative
from Collier County Government to the Southwest Florida Resource
Conservation & Development, SWFRC&D, Council. We received a
request from Mr. Polizos asking that Marlene Foord be appointed to
the council.
This council does not work specifically for the Board of County
Commissioners so, therefore, it isn't a violation in our ethics policy for
an employee to work. We have another employee, Alicia Abbott, that
works on the Big Cypress Basin board. I would say if you're going to
let Marlene Foord sit on this council that the board at least indicate
that it is for the public good that she performs those duties. Mr. Daltry
said it would be three hours every two months. If it's in Lee county, it
will probably be six because she's going to need about an hour and a
half to travel back and forth every two months.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we've got the county plane so
that should solve it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It should take only two hours to get
there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But you have to wait four hours
for the plane.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta.
Second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion on the motion?
Page 163
September 23, 2003
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
Item # 10J
RESOLUTION 2003-334 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND REFUNDING HALF-CENT
SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2003 IN AN NOT TO
EXCEF, D AMOIJNT OF $51,000,000- ADOPTF, D
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to Item 10(J) which
was to be heard after those two items. This has to do with approval of
a resolution authorizing the issuance of capital improvements and
refunding half-cent sales tax revenue bonds Series 2003 and not to
exceed the amount of $51 million. Mr. Smykowski, the director of the
office of management and budget will present it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Keep it short.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Michael Smykowski. We do have an adoption of a bond
resolution before you today that would finance the construction of the
Collier County Jail, the community development expansion, and there
is a refunding portion. Typically in refunding scenarios we're looking
for 5 percent net present value savings based on current market
Page 164
September 23, 2003
conditions.
It would be an estimated 8.64 percent savings. At this point if
there are no questions -- the board has on separate occasions for both
of these projects -- both in the award of guaranteed maximum price for
the jail in June as well as in July when they approved reimbursement
resolution, it was noted specifically in the executive summary that a
sales tax revenue bond would be forthcoming to ultimately finance the
construction of those projects.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: To convert this to English so the
viewers understand what we're doing, among other things you're
refunding bonds that have a higher interest rate than we can get now
resulting in a savings to the taxpayers of almost a half million dollars.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. It's not unlike refinancing
a home mortgage to put it in simple terms, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. I make a
motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Second by Commissioner Fiala.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
motion signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you.
Motion by Commissioner Coyle.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor of the
Page 165
Item #8J
September 23, 2003
ORDINANCE 2003-53 ORDINANCE SUPERCEDING AND
REPEALING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NUMBERS 99-
22 AND 00-58, COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS THE COLLIER
COUNTY ETHICS ORDINANCE. (DAVID WEIGEL, COUNTY
ATTORNF, Y)- ADOPTF, D W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next item -- we're going back
to Section 8, which is advertised public hearings. The next item on
the agenda is Item 8(J), which is for the Board of County Commission
to consider the adoption of an ordinance superseding and repealing
Collier County Ordinance No. 99-22 and 00-58 collectively known as
the Collier County Ethics Ordinance. Mr. Pettit will present.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I just have some things that I would
like to see if we can put into this ordinance, Mr. Pettit, before you
speak. Well, we know that elected officials and staff cannot receive
money or gifts designed to influence their decision under this
ordinance; correct?
MR. PETTIT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any way that we can get in
there that the elected officials or staff shall be honest to the public,
especially when it comes to tax dollars, and elected officials staff shall
treat tax dollars like their own?
MR. PETTIT: Yes. We can amend the ordinance on the floor
and put language of that sort in. You may want to place it in the
statement of policy, which is Section 3 of the ordinance.
MR. MUDD: If I can, Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: You can put it right after the second sentence so
that the statement of policy would read something like this: "It is the
public policy of Collier County that public servants work for the
Page 166
September 23, 2003
benefit of citizens of Collier County." That already exists. "It is the
responsibility of each public servant to act in a manner that contributes
to insuring the public's trust in its government." That already exists.
The new added line is, "In particular to always be honest with the
public they serve and to be good stewards of the tax dollars entrusted
to them." That would be the line that I would add that would capture
those particular thoughts that you just spoke about. Then it would go
on to say, "To this end an individual covered by this ordinance shall
(1) not use his or her position as a public servant..." and it goes on.
So, we'd basically capture that in intent. You'd get both of those
things with that one sentence.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Pettit, can you just hit the
highlights of the changes of the ethics ordinance?
MR. PETTIT: Certainly. We outlined those in the executive
summary. I think some of the important ones are that the ethics
ordinance has been expanded to cover in some particulars all county
employees. It now contains the policy statement we just talked about
which, I think, gives a context to what we're trying to accomplish here
which we lacked in the old ordinance.
Now, you can read that policy statement, although that in and of
itself is not the prohibition or what you're allowed to do. It put those
prohibitions in context and will make it a lot easier, I think, for people
to interpret or understand.
We've got some additional restrictions on gift prohibitions,
especially for employees involved in vendor selection or contract
approvals. We defined the term relative. We deleted the personal
relationship exception, which I know has come up in the past as a
concern from some members of the public and others, I believe, as
possibly allowing the prohibition to be swallowed up by the exception.
We also now have post-employment restrictions which impose
restrictions potentially on all employees depending upon what their
activities are while they're here. Those would go forward looking
Page 167
September 23, 2003
forward from the date this ordinance becomes effective and would last
for two years. They apply either to the different categories of
employees, such as the county manager, chief assistant county
attorney, and they also apply to people involved in the management
and supervision of contracts, selection of vendors and contract
performance. They also would apply to all kinds of employees to the
extent that they would want to come back before the Board of County
Commissioners or to the division administrators and the department
staff on a matter for compensation in which they were personally and
materially involved while they were county employees. Let me give
you an example.
I have a very good paralegal sitting upstairs, and I was thinking
about this. She doesn't manage contracts. She's not one of the
designated types of officers that would be subject to these
post-employment restrictions. However, it would seem to me that as
she works on matters for the county attorney's office and the board, if
there was a matter where she took a significant role performing
services, whether it would be a litigation dispute or the drafting of a
resolution, whatever it may be, she could not then later come back and
talk with the staff and represent somebody for money and deal with
the county manager or this board.
So it would reach out and get people like that solely in the
instance where they have had material involvement in the matter at
issue. So she might be able to come back on matters she never had
any dealings with while she was with the county because she's not in
one of the other prohibitive categories.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commission Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a number of questions, Mr.
Chairman. None of them have anything to do with the intent of the
ordinance or the provisions. They have to do with clarity. Having
dealt with ethics ordinances now for five years, I know that if it is
unclear you can be sure it's going to be violated. I would like to go
Page 168
September 23, 2003
through some things and see if we can't clarify some issues so that
there can be a clear understanding of what is expected from us and all
of our employees.
Let's start on page 4 under the definition of county managerial
employees. We're saying -- and included in this definition are those
county employees actively engaged in selecting contractors or in
supervising, overseeing, or vouchering for contract performance. It's a
good provision. How about the people who are responsible for doing
building inspections? Wouldn't that also be a reason for someone not
to accept a gift? Shouldn't those people also be included under this
ethics ordinance?
MR. PETTIT: I believe they are to the extent that it would be a
gift that would otherwise be prohibited. I mean, this extends beyond
county managerial employees, Commissioner Coyle. That definition,
by the way, is there in part to deal with post-employment restrictions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I would disagree with you
that these definitions are all inclusive. Let's go through them and
perhaps you can enlighten me as to where some of these definitions
are contained.
On page 5 under paragraph C, the second paragraph says,
"However, no employee shall participate in the selection of a vendor
for approval of a contract." Employee -- I cannot find a definition of
employee. I can find a definition of a county managerial employee. I
can find a definition of a public servant. I cannot find a definition of
employee. Now, are we incorporating some set of definitions from
another ordinance somewhere or have I missed something?
MR. PETTIT: No. The definition of public servant includes the
term "employees of the Board of County Commissioners." I
understand your point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. Now, it says,
"employees of the Board of County Commissioners, and we only
have eight employees plus the county attorney. The employees -- the
Page 169
September 23, 2003
other employees are employees of the county manager, and therein
lies the problem. We've got some structural issues here, I think, that
have to be cleaned up to make this do what it's supposed to do.
It says, "public servant includes all public officials as defined
above," and "a public official is a member of the Board of County
Commissioners, advisory board members, and county managerial
employees, and it also says all employees of the Board of County
Commissioners. We have only eight employees and the county
attorney.
MR. PETTIT: If you look at Section 2 of the ordinance, the first
page, I understand your question, I think. It states that "the scope of
the ordinance shall apply to all public servants of the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners, which includes public officials or
that are elected or appointed and all county employees.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I think that should be
included under the definition. MR. PETTIT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it's going to make it a lot
clearer if we include those under the definition.
Now, when we go to gifts at the top of page 5, paragraph A, I
guess I understand this to mean that I can serve as an official or
director of a development corporation in Collier County and be paid a
salary without having a problem. I don't think that's your intent, but it
might lead one to believe that that's okay.
MR. PETTIT: I think that would apply potentially in a situation
where somebody had an additional job.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, there's been times when there's
been -- previous to this board and even during this board, we've had
members that have had a business where they received--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It shouldn't be allowed. Go ahead.
I'm sorry. I'm just joking with you.
MR. MUDD: They received compensation from that particular
Page 170
September 23, 2003
business or function while they're serving on the Board of County
Commissioners.
MR. HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: In the past the Board of County Commissioners'
particular role hasn't been a full-time job from what I've been told. It's
becoming more of a full-time job, but in the past it hadn't been.
MR. PETTIT: Let me address that too. In our personnel rules --
and this is not a right at least as I've interpreted it over time -- but there
is a provision to deal with dual employment. I believe there are
county employees who may have dual employment, and if they follow
the necessary procedures through the directors and division
administrators and the HR staff, they're allowed to receive that dual
employment. And I think here the intent is to take away any question
of a gift. It would not include salary, for example, or expenses they
receive from that dual employment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You understand where I'm going.
There is a county commissioner who is trader indictment -- a former
county commissioner that's under indictment because of something he
did as a result of a company that he was involved with. I'm merely
trying to find a way to find this so that we can prohibit those kind of
things from happening in the future.
I just want to call it to your attention and see if you think you can
deal with it. Then if we can go to page 6, bottom of the page under
"lobbying," I'm not sure I understand the qualification "direct
compensation." There are all sorts of ways of compensating
somebody for lobbying for you. Is there a good reason for saying or
emphasizing direct compensation in both that particular paragraph and
the top of the paragraph on page 7?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it should read "any type of
compensation."
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Unless there's a good reason for
Page 171
September 23, 2003
qualifying it. I just don't understand what the reason might be.
MR. PETTIT: Well, I will tell you, and I shouldn't plead
ignorance, but I'm going to plead ignorance on this one because now
Judge Manalich drafted this, and he was involved in a lot of the
discussions on what you see as changes. And this actually occurred to
me today as I sat here and heard an owner, an obvious owner of a
business, stand here during a land-use item and address the board. I
assume he takes a salary from his business, but I don't think his
primary purpose is to lobby on behalf of the business or others and
receive direct compensation that way.
That is the distinction I was making in my head because I became
aware that this person was not registered as a lobbyist. I looked at the
language in the old ordinance, and I looked at this, and my impression
was -- and I have since checked upstairs where the interpretation of
our office has been, and I think this is why this is here is to try to get
at that problem.
What we're talking about is if you hire, for example, an engineer
or an attorney to come in here and assist you in a presentation of a
land-use petition -- although in the quasi-judicial matters now there's
an exception for attorneys being proposed here, so I guess that's not a
great example.
Let's say the engineer -- that person is here as a lobbyist because
they are being paid direct compensation to attempt to influence the
decision on this board on a land-use item. So that is the distinction I'm
drawing in my mind and based on the history I collected today.
Frankly, the light bulb kind of went off in my head today as I was
sitting here listening to people present items.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I have a little bit of a
problem with it, but I understand exactly what you're trying to solve.
There's another problem that has to be solved, and that's where a
person escapes being labeled a lobbyist by receiving not direct
compensation but indirect compensation. And if there's a way of
Page 172
September 23, 2003
wording it so that escape clause or escape opportunity doesn't exist
that would be good.
Also, at the top of page 7 we're talking about a reporting
individual or procurement employee. I'm not sure that either of those
are clearly identified in the definition section. It would be helpful if
any place we're referring to a person or a job category that would be
covered in the ethics ordinance -- it would be good if we had it very,
very clearly identified under the definition section so that there
wouldn't be any misunderstanding about who should be covered by
these things.
MR. PETTIT: I'll just say -- I'm looking here, and I don't see the
reference on the page referred to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Page 7, second line down from the
top, and the last three words on that line, "a reporting individual." It
also says "or procurement employee." That procurement employee
might be self-explanatory, but a reporting individual --
MR. PETTIT: Actually, those are terms of art that come directly
out of Chapter 112 of the Florida statutes, and maybe there's a way we
can define them by referring to those statutes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But Chapter 112 also has a more
extensive list of definitions. I think if we include reference to that, we
also ought to include the definition for that. So, again, look what's
going to happen. This is going to go out to employees and to the
people who follow us. They're going to read it. If they don't
understand it, they're going to violate it. They're not likely to go back
to the Florida statutes to try to understand where we got the
terminology.
Okay. I've covered most of my concerns about clarity. The
intent I think is great. I would like to commend the chairman for his
efforts in expanding the applicability of the ethics ordinance and
tightening up some of the loopholes. But a really important point is
this must be precise because it's always in the interpretation where we
Page 173
September 23, 2003
run into problems.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I also, too, would
like to extend my appreciation to the chair for all his work that he has
done on this ordinance. I do have a couple of things. One is first a
statement. I don't know how you would ever handle it in an ethics
ordinance, but I do believe somewhere along the line we should have
it addressed where if you're going to be a county commissioner it
should be your main job. It should be your -- just about your sole job.
You can't serve two masters. You can't have anything that's going to
come back to conflict.
We are three commissioners that have left their life-long
employment to take this position with full realization that that is the
commitment you have to take. With that I'm going to leave that
statement, but I do have a couple of questions.
When I say "page," I'm going to the written page at the bottom,
No. 3. Up at the top, if you come back to the last sentence it says,
"The statement of policy in general standards of conduct set forth in
this subject are not subject to the penalties provided for in this
ordinance." What's that mean?
MR. PETTIT: The intent there was to indicate that the penalty
provisions are elsewhere in the ordinance. You would not rely simply
on the statement of a policy in and of itself as the basis to impose the
penalty. You would need to have a violation of a specific provision of
the ordinance. However, the statement of policy would give you
context in helping you define the other terms in the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, one more if I may.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's quite all right.
The next one I have -- look at page 3. We did that. I'm sorry.
It's page 5. Sorry about that. Some day I'll get this desk balanced so
Page 174
September 23, 2003
that -- down over here we have a strike out, and I can't figure out why
it was struck out. "Elected official means any member of the Board of
County Commissioners." Why was that struck out?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's included under public servants.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. If that's the reason why, I
can buy that. One last one, and this is on page 8.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. I misspoke. I think your
point is a good one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, okay. See, I trust you so
much, Commissioner Coyle, that when you say it's all right I'm ready
to move on. Could you address that, please?
MR. PETTIT: The question of striking out the elected official?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
MR. PETTIT: I think that the definition of public servant sweeps
that in. Public officials in particular-- members of the Board of
County Commissioners, advisory board members, and county
managerial employees, "public servant" includes all public officials
which would sweep in all the advisory board members, the Board of
County Commissioners, and so those two terms -- I think the thought
process was there didn't need to be a separate definition of an elected
officer.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's why we have attorneys to
explain these things to us. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas and
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think, Mike, you're probably
getting at the gist of what we're trying to get across here, and that is to
simplify the ordinance so that any individual that reads it doesn't have
to have a lawyer to understand exactly what is implied by this ethics
code that we're going to establish. So I think that's where we need to
go. Make sure there's no gray areas, that it reads very explicit, and that
anybody with a 12th grade education or above can read this without
Page 175
September 23, 2003
having to be a rhode scholar, and I think that's what we really need to
put in place here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was my first comment as well,
so I'll just say yes. The second thing is more of a housekeeping item.
We talk about lobbyists throughout this, and yet I would never
recognize a lobbyist. I don't know whether they're paid or not --
whether they're a paid lobbyist. I don't know whether they've
registered or not, and I don't know whether they've registered every
year or not.
Is there some way to identify a paid lobbyist? For instance, I
would recognize, I'm guessing, Bruce Anderson as a paid lobbyist, and
he was here this morning. But somebody sitting in the audience, even
if a list was provided to me -- I don't know that person. How would I
know that that's a paid lobbyist? So I was wondering if maybe
somewhere along the line we can figure out a way that maybe they
wear a ribbon or something --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Name tag.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that would then identify that
person.
MR. PETTIT: First of all, as this has been proposed, you will
notice that one of the changes is that attorneys coming before judicial
officers such as yourselves when you have a quasi-judicial proceeding
such as a land-use petition are not going to be treated as lobbyists.
When they are here to talk to you about legislative matters or other
types of matters, then they would be treated as lobbyists. That's based
on the fact that the Florida Bar regulates attorney conduct in judicial
tribunals, and that change was proposed in this ordinance.
So that's one point on the attorneys. Otherwise, I think the way --
again, I actually -- because as I was sitting here today, I had my first
opportunity to see how this works a little bit. And I was looking at
this thinking about having to make this presentation, and I think one of
Page 176
September 23, 2003
the issues about the lobbyists is do you want to act as a policing
agency because the burden of identifying yourself as a lobbyist and
registering and paying the fee is upon the people who are covered by
the ordinance.
I don't believe that this ordinance as it was drafted previously or
as it sits here today placed a burden on the board. One of the reasons I
would say that is one of the provisions you'll see in here is on page 11,
agenda page 12 at the bottom -- you'll see this is from the old
ordinance too. The validity of any actual determination of the board
or of any county personnel board or committee shall not be affected
by failure of any lobbyist to comply with the provisions of this
section.
The idea was not to a place a burden on this board to seek out
people who were violating the law, if you want to call it that. So I'm
not sure how to respond on your question about how you identify a
lobbyist. We've tried to define that. Maybe we can provide more
clarity.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think that's broken myself.
MR. PETTIT: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think it's broken myself.
MR. PETTIT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe we can get some
clarification from Jim down here from the clerk of courts in regard to
that. It was brought to our attention some time ago that it was --
basically, we were told to make sure that anybody that came before us
that they were a registered lobbyist. So I guess we'd like to have some
clarification from the clerk of courts over here.
MR. MITCHELL: The question specifically?
For the record, Jim Mitchell.
I remember the incident that you're referring to where Dwight
came and spoke to you about the potential legal issues on hearing an
Page 177
September 23, 2003
unregistered lobbyist. Unfortunately, I'm not an attorney. I cannot
really speak to those particular legal issues.
The one thing that I can tell you is the clerk of the circuit court
does maintain your lobbyist list. But we'll have to get together with
Mr. Brock, and maybe have him come back and address the particular
legal concerns that he had with you guys hearing a lobbyist if they're
not properly registered.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, and being able to recognize
them. I wouldn't know, No. 1, if they -- you know, who they even are.
I was reading over the list that Commissioner Henning provided me,
and I recognized some of the names, but I bet over half I've never
heard of before.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Miss Student, would you
be so kind as to get the sign just outside the door there? I think what
we did before is there should be a sign out there that says about
lobbyists registering.
MS. STUDENT: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What we did, I believe, is we
put this sign together with the help of Dwight Brock, the clerk of
court, to be able to put the burden of who a lobbyist is on the person
that walks through the door. So when they see the sign, they know
that they have to be registered and what a lobbyist is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Maybe it should be a neon sign.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A flashing neon sign --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll go along with that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- with a revolving barber pole.
Would you read that for us, please.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, Assistant
County Attorney. I am reading the notice sign about lobbyists.
"Important notice: All lobbyists must register with the Clerk of Courts
prior to speaking before the Board of County Commissioners. To
Page 178
September 23, 2003
register call 774-8406 or visit the Clerk of Courts Board Minutes and
Records Office on the fourth floor of the Harmon Turner Building (F).
It is a criminal offense for a lobbyist to address the Board of County
Commissioners without first registering with the Clerk of Courts."
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So they've been forewarned.
MR. PETTIT: We do have a public speaker.
MS. FILSON: We have a public speaker, but I want to let you
know that it's also mentioned on our speaker slips and on the front
page of our agendas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, then it isn't our responsibility
to know whether that person is a lobbyist or not, right?
MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, what we have is we have a
list that comes before the -- this is Jim Mudd for the record. We have
a list that I get the first thing in the morning before a board meeting
that lists all the lobbyists. I draw up my old list, and I've got my new
one sitting right here, and we go down the list. Sue has one, too. We
try to identify those people as lobbyists or not.
As an ounce of prevention, the chair could ask a question as they
do in the planning commission before a speaker gets up: "Are you a
registered lobbyist?" at that particular juncture. That's another ounce
of protection that you could have. But, clearly, we posted it just about
everywhere we could post it.
As far as those folks, if they're coming before the board and
receiving some compensation for being there to try to sway you in
your decision, that's why the whole registration process is there. But
we do have several of our representatives on this list because
sometimes they wear that other hat.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Can we go to public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes. We have one registered speaker, Robert
Wiley.
MR. WILEY: For the record, m Robert Wiley, and s~nce I'm
I, · .
doing this off the clock, I'll have to give you my home address. It's
Page 179
September 23, 2003
18100 Glades Farm Road in Estero, Florida.
We got this e-mail -- I guess all of the county staff received it.
They asked us if we had any comments to provide comments, so I did,
and basically I was advised to address my comments to you directly.
Hopefully, it won't result in my immediate termination. I say that
having been here for over 16 years and having seen people terminated
for coming to speak on their own time. I do this -- it's from personal
experience having seen that happen.
My concern deals with post employment primarily. I've been
working with the county for over 16 years. I'm an engineer. If I were
to take employment with any other engineering firm, my forte is going
to be coming into -- my experience is based upon stormwater in this
county. So, basically, if this is approved as written, I view it as saying
that I could not work in Collier County for a ~local engineering
company. I really would look at that and say, after 16 1/2 years of
working for the Board of County Commissioners, why is this being
imposed upon me.9
If this condition were something I had accepted at the time of my
employment, then fine I accept it, but it's a bit late now. So I'm just
concerned about it that it would affect my future employability should
I ever decide to leave county employment for retirement or for
whatever reason. That's just a concern that I have.
I do like the one provision that the attorneys have put in there to
exempt themselves. That's sort of like our senators exempting
themselves from all federal laws, you know. I wish it were -- if we're
going to throw everybody in the pot, throw everybody in the pot.
Don't leave people out.
I do have a concern that it would appear to be -- what I would
consider to be a noncompete clause for a county employee such as
myself, and there's a lot of us out there in these situations that are
involved in a lot of day-to-day operations that all at once are going to
get hit by this or them saying your forte or your strength for future
Page 180
September 23, 2003
employment in the county no longer exists.
I personally have no problem with the gifts. I mean, I appreciate
the clear definitions here. I don't like even being considered offered a
gift. It's for years put us in the embarrassing position of explaining to
people why you shouldn't even be offering it to us. I'd like a
document you can show in front of somebody.
There's some good strong points, but it's just post employment
that has hit a lot of employees or will hit a lot of employees that all at
once really brings consideration to should we resign now before it
goes into effect. But if we have to give two-weeks notice and you're
going to adopt it today, well, we can't resign in good status. I don't
want to get in that position myself. That's a concern that hopefully
you'll give good consideration for.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta. Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Wiley, I've known you for a
long time, and you're above reproach. The problem is that quite often
we'll have people that know the system extremely well. They'll leave
the employment of the county, and they'll come back through the back
door. They're people with familiarity there to the point where they've
rewritten things. We've known of several occasions where this has
happened. True, in your case and some other cases, I can see where
there might be a burden, but how do we separate one from the other?
This has always been a problem.
This is one of the reasons why commissioners should not have
the ability to come back, because they still hold a certain amount of
influence for two years. As far as the county attorney goes, I read this
where he's included as one of the employees of Collier County
government. I see the strike out you're talking about. I was going to
bring it up, but then I read a little bit farther. I found where it did
come back and refer to county employees under the commission, and
that's exactly what the attorneys are. So unless I'm mistaken, and I'm
Page 181
September 23, 2003
sure that will be clarified, they're covered.
I don't know if this is giving you much comfort, but I do feel for
what you're saying. I'm not too sure what I can tell you. If the past --
you might have to work in the office dealing with all these things and
not be able to come to the county to be able to deal directly with the
commission. What would be the limitations, commission and staff?.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, it does cover the county attorney's
personnel. It's just that the county attorney isn't called a lobbyist,
okay, when a lawyer is representing a client. Okay. In that case he
wouldn't have to register as a lobbyist. But post termination pieces
affect the county attorney's office as well as the employees that work
for me and you, by the way, because you are an employee of Collier
County in the definition of this particular ordinance.
What I would also say is David Weigel -- this was a very difficult
thing for David, because David is basically a county attorney that
deals in local legislation issues. That's his forte. So when you say you
can't come in front of the Board of County Commissioners in this
county, that pretty much tells David he's leaving because he can't
work here because he can't sustain himself and his family with that
post termination.
David and I spent -- well, when Ramiro was here, we spent a lot
of time talking about this. Ramiro and I and Commissioner Henning
have been working on this ordinance for six months. It's been in front
of this board at least twice, now the third time, for guidance. What I
would also mention to the board is this is a vast improvement over the
pieces of garbage that we presently have. If we make all the changes
that you want to make, specifically Commissioner Coyle, we will
probably have to readvertise again.
I would beseech this board, okay, that we at least pass something
better than what we've got on the books right now, and we work on
those particular definitions to add some more clarity where there
might be some gray areas. But I will say to you this is a vast
Page 182
September 23, 2003
improvement over the two pieces that exist right now on our books.
And this does effect a lot more employees covered by this ordinance,
in particular, anybody that touches a contract, per se.
In answer to Robert, it says that you can't come lobby the board
for a particular project after you're an ex-employee for two years. It
doesn't say that you can't get a job for an engineering firm and work
for them in their stormwater areas. What this ordinance is trying to do
is -- Robert's developed some professional etiquette with you.
Because he comes in front of you -- and he's your subject matter
expert, and he comes to you with stormwater, if Robert tells you it's
so, I can tell you 99.99 percent of the time it's so. There's not very
many times where I've said, "Are you sure, Robert?"
But I will tell you having that same person address you when he's
an ex-employee, he brings a certain credential with him when he
comes to that podium. What we're trying to say, in his
ex-employment hat that he's wearing, is guess what? He might be
telling you all kinds of fibs, but you're so used to believing him
because he was the stormwater director that you'll do that.
Trying to get that separation of two years between the board and
an ex-employee is to give you that benefit of not having to decipher is
this the old Robert Wiley that's talking to me, or is this the new Robert
Wiley that's talking to me that I can't trust. So it's a mechanism to be
put in there to basically safeguard the board from getting captured into
a place where they don't want to be.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Robert, I think if everybody had
the same level of ethical behavior you did, we wouldn't need an ethics
ordinance. I would trust you. I can tell you that your concern is a
valid concern.
When this similar provision was enacted in the City of Naples in
1998, we lost one of our most valued employees as a result of it. I
hope that doesn't happen here, but I think there is sufficient flexibility
Page 183
September 23, 2003
in the wording to permit someone to go to work for a company in their
area of expertise and do a good job and make a good salary without
having to personally come in and appear before the Board of County
Commissioners or advisory board during that two-year period. After
that two-year period is gone, then one can move into that direct
representation phase later on.
I think there's opportunities to deal with that. I don't think it
Would be as severe as you might imagine, and I hope that it doesn't
become an issue for you at all since we would like to keep you here in
county government. But if we didn't have people who had lower
ethical standards in Collier County, we wouldn't have to have this
thing at all. Unfortunately, it's a provision that is probably necessary.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that if you've ever done any
work on the outside, you'll notice that in the private sector they have
basically the same type of ordinances regarding employees who are
high up in the management roles where they do not compete directly
with that firm for a number of years. I think that's what we're trying to
do here.
It's not to punish you in any way. It's to make sure that we
protect the interests of the citizens of Collier County. We've known in
the past there has been some times when that's been jeopardized. We
trust you very much in your line of work and everything. And as
Commissioner Coyle said, this is a provision that's put in there
because of past transgressions and the fact that we're trying to protect
the interest of not only the county but all people here. As I said, this
basically falls in line with the private sector and how they operate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Wiley, I want to thank you for
taking the time to come address the board as an employee with
concerns, but I think Commissioner Coyle really hit it on the head.
It's because of the past is where we're at today. It's not only for you,
but it's for me too.
Page 184
September 23, 2003
You know, recently my wife had a baby, and when she became
pregnant one of my friends that I've known for a long time brought
some little trinket gifts for my wife in a public setting. One of the
members of the public did come up to my wife and make a statement
that she's not to accept those gifts. It is what it is. She didn't -- she
took the gifts because there is provisions within friendship and gifts
under a special occasion, but I know what you're saying and how it
affects you personally. It affects all of us personally. Is there anything else that you want to offer?
MR. WILEY: Well, from the standpoint of what the ordinance
as proposed reads, I could not even come back and talk to someone
that currently is my employee and their department level. You can't
even address the department. That pretty well puts me as an engineer
in stormwater out of business in this county. You can't even go talk to
the staff.
I think some of the language in here is really putting a severe
burden upon your existing employees on what they could do future
employability-wise. I guess my concern to direct Commissioner
Halas is, at the upper management level you know that's going in.
Lower management, regular everybody John Doe staff, doesn't have
that same noncompete type of criteria put against them, which is now
being put against all of the county staff.
I'm just using myself as an example. I'm sure that if a lot of
people had the opportunity to have taken off-- I just happened to be
scheduled to listen to a lot of items on the board here anyway, so I
thought I'm going to stick my neck out here and take a chance of
getting it chopped off to express a concern of the employees that a lot
of us are facing in the same situation.
I know it's not even directed to me personally. I understand that.
I understand it's because of past transgressions. But I would ask you
to take real consideration of what you're really asking your employees
to accept now. That if we should ever choose to leave the
Page 185
September 23, 2003
employment of Collier County, we have to move somewhere else or
change fields of work for at least two years. So given that let's look at
a positive spin to it. As part of the employees compensation package
when they leave, there's accrued time that you can still get paid for in
your benefits, separation pay. Why not propose to give them two
years salary?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think --
MR. WILEY: Now, that's a far-fetched example. That's a very
gross exaggeration. But give it some consideration. Make it so that
it's not a one-sided issue. You probably won't, but that's my concern.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Coletta made a
statement, and I want to thank you for recognizing our trying to
tighten up the ethics ordinance. It's one thing to swear that you won't
-- that you'll be a good public servant, in which we did when we were
sworn in taking the seat, but actually putting it in the ethics ordinance
is another thing. That's going one step further. So I'm hoping to
report this to the republican executive committee. As you know, at
the last meeting when the majority of the commissioners were there,
we had to abstain from a certain topic because it had the potential to
come before the commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Guess what? It's come to the Board
of Commissioners. This is called sunshine law. It's not that we want
to bow to any ethics of what the citizens of Collier County want. It's
because of the sunshine law. Thank you.
MR. PETTIT: A couple points, Commissioners -- again, Mike
Pettit for the record. One of the issues that you brought up,
Commissioner Coyle, is understanding and making sure the
employees understand, and I'm going to side with the county manager
here.
Page 186
September 23, 2003
I was put in a position of having to draft an opinion about what's
on the books now, oh, I don't know, over a year ago now. It took me a
long time to try to figure out whether the individuals whose conduct
was being questioned were covered by what's on the books now. This
is an improvement. You've raised good questions. I think you might
want to think about moving forward, and I can make some kind of
commitment to you to come back within a time period with some
additional definitional clarity.
Another point that you may not be aware of or maybe are is the
manager, as I know, developed an ethics council. I'm going to act to
assist that council. We're going to have courses on this ordinance.
We're going to disseminate it to the troops. We're going to have
discuss sessions. The purpose of that ethics council really will be to
make people aware of what their ethical responsibilities are as
government employees here in Collier County, and also just to make
them aware of what the rules are, and that is beginning this week.
So I guess my request would be that we do go forward with
perhaps the change that Commissioner Henning brought up. I can get
that change made, and we can move it on to the secretary of state at
this point with a commitment -- and you tell me how soon you want
me to come back. I will put some definitional clarity in. I think I
understand all of the issues you raised.
A final point regarding the points of Mr. Wiley. He is correct that
this restriction does not stop at the board or advisory board or at the
division administrator level. It does go down the staff. I want to make
sure that everybody understands that. If he, for example, was working
on a stormwater project, was hired away by a local engineering firm
that happened to have some involvement with that project, either as a
county vendor or otherwise, he could not during this period of time
come back and work with his colleagues on the stormwater project or
lobby them or try to interact with them to assist the developer and so
forth. So that is an issue for you to think about, I guess.
Page 187
September 23, 2003
With that said, my proposal is that we go forward as Mr. Mudd is
suggesting. I've made notes on the definitional issues. But, again, as I
said, what we have now -- it will continue on in the books until we
change it, and it is difficult. It is far more difficult to interpret and
apply.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Entertain a motion?
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to say that I'll make a
motion for approval, but I'd just like to reiterate that we cannot
underestimate the need to make this ordinance clear and unambiguous.
People should not have to go to a lawyer to determine whether or not
they can take certain action. They should be able to open up their
employee handbook or take this sheet of paper or this ethics
ordinance, read it, and clearly understand what they should or should
not be doing. With that understanding that we will clean that up and
get it simplified, hopefully, then I would make a motion that we
approve it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
MR. PETTIT: That would include the change that Commissioner
Henning had brought up earlier?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Halas. Any further discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion -- county
manager, Jim Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, on top of that, the policy, the
ethics policy that we have in the books, I have re-signed it and redid it
to add emphasis to no gift taking and things like that. That will go out
in the first paycheck after this meeting. It's already been printed up. I
had a copy here in order to do that. And the other thing is,
Commissioner, I'll try to get the return ordinance back to you or to this
Page 188
September 23, 2003
board the first meeting in December, if that's okay. MR. PETTIT: That works for me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. MITCHELL: I went back to the minutes of the meeting that
you guys were talking about where Dwight came forward, and
basically the only thing he was doing was out of an abundance of
caution to not allow -- if you know a lobbyist is not registered, and
you allow him to speak to you, there is a concern that you would be
aiding and abetting a criminal act. So the only thing he was doing was
just providing you caution that if you had knowledge that they were
not registered not to allow them to speak. That's the only thing that he
stated at that meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess my question is, how do we
know whether-- you know, there's that gray area. It has to be then
more defined. There has to be some stipulation by the lobbyist that if
they're caught there's a real strong penalty and what that penalty is. It
says there's a penalty, but we don't know what the penalty is. At least
it's not stated up there on the sign.
MR. PETTIT: We could maybe make a change on the sign to
that effect. I think the other issue is we have the list. Certainly in
instances where it appears that somebody is acting as a lobbyist, the
Page 189
September 23, 2003
question can be raised, and we can review it at that point if there's any
question as to whether somebody's a lobbyist or not. With the new
ordinance, once it takes effect, there will be one category of folks that
appear before you who now are clearly lobbyists who when they
appear with a certain hat on will not be. But I will take it as a
practical matter, I'm guessing, and I don't mean to single out anybody,
but let's say Bruce Anderson as an obvious example. I'm guessing he's
going to be registered as a lobbyist anyway because he comes here on
so many matters that it will be too difficult for him to figure out when
he is and when he isn't, and he will be registered.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Next item.
Item #8K
ORDINANCE 2003-54 REGARDING PETITION PUDZ-2002-AR-
2944, D. WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP, OF Q. GRADY MINOR &
ASSOCIATES, P.A., AND RICHARD YOVANOVICH OF
GOODLETTE, COLEMAN AND JOHNSON, REPRESENTING
ROYAL PALM INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY, REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL AND "A-ST"
RURAL AGRICULTURAL/SPECIAL TREATMENT TO "PUD"
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS ROYAL
PALM INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY PUD FOR AN
EDUCATIONAL CAMPUS AND RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
CONSISTING OF UP TO 650 DWELLING UNITS FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6000 LIVINGSTON ROAD-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 8(K) which used to be Item 17(J).
It reads, "This item requires that all participants be sworn in and
ex-parte disclosure be provided by commission members." It's
PUDZ-2002-AR-2944, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor
Page 190
September 23, 2003
& Associations, P.A., and Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman
& Johnson representing Royal Palm International Academy requesting
a rezone from "A" rural agricultural and "A-ST" rural
agricultural/special treatment to PUD, Planned Unit Development, to
be known as Royal Palm International Academy PUD for the
educational campus and residential community consisting of up to 650
dwelling units for property located at 6000 Livingston Road in Section
13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 162.7 plus or minus acres."
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All those wishing to participate in this
discussion, please rise and raise your right hand to be sworn in by the
court reporter.
(Sworn by the court reporter.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte communications by the
Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Coletta.
On this particular item -- can you come back to me? I need to
pull it out.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS' Yes. I've talked with some people
that are residents of Imperial Golf Estates and have also talked with
the petitioner and his clientele.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I had none myself. Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I had meetings with the
representatives of the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, there we go. On (J) I had
meetings with Mr. Yovanovich -- actually, three times, numerous
phone calls were received and numerous e-mails. I have it in my
folder here if anyone would like to see it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich, thanks for
being here today.
Page 191
September 23, 2003
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thanks for having me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you registered?
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich, a
registered lobbyist. I'm a little disappointed that I won't be a lobbyist
for much longer on certain acts.
For the record, I'm representing the petitioner. I have with me
Wayne Arnold who is the planner on the project, and Norm Trubilcok
(phonetic) who is the engineer on the project. What the project is is
it's a mixed-use PUD for both a private school and a residential
component of the project.
The project is located on Livingston Road north of Immokalee
Road straddled both -- there's a western portion of the project and an
eastern portion of the project as far as Livingston Road bisecting the
project. If I can take you quickly through the site plan, the property --
first there's the aerial. Just to orient you, this is Livingston Road. This
is Imperial Golf Estates right here. This is the Mediterra PUD and to
the east is Pelican Strand -- I'm sorry, The Strand.
The master plan is broken down to a residential component
which is both on the west side and east side of Livingston Road, and
this is the 50-acre campus right here. It is a private Catholic school
that will be pre-k through high school when ultimately completed.
We went through the planning commission, and there was a
recommendation 9-0 to approve the PUD. The only real issue that
came up during the planning commission was a discussion as to what
should we do regarding sidewalks on our internal roadways.
The proposal that the planning commission voted for 9-0 was that
we would be required to have sidewalks on one side of the internal
roadways. The rational for the requirement that we only have
sidewalks on one side was it's a narrow site. We were able to stay out
of preserve areas by having a sidewalk on one side versus a sidewalk
on two sides.
Also, the planning commission was also very concerned that if
Page 192
September 23, 2003
there were sidewalks on both sides, you basically were going to have a
sea of concrete. One of the planning cormnissioners half-jokingly said,
"Well, why don't we just pave the whole thing and call it a sidewalk"
recognizing that it would be one ugly project if you have a sidewalk
on both sides.
The planning commission -- we proposed to the planning
commission that, one, it made good sense to have a sidewalk on only
one side because the way we've designed the roads would prohibit a
car from actually gaining any speed, so it would be slow traveling
roads. We would stay out of the preserve area. We would also
potentially have some mitigation credits available because we're
mitigating on site. And there's a chance that we will have mitigation
credits available that could be used by the residents of Imperial when
they extend their roadway.
Imperial, basically, has a stub out to right here on their site.
They're going connect to Marquis Boulevard, which is going to be on
our site, and go to the east to get to Livingston Road. So that's going
to be a secondary access for Imperial for them to get out of their
project. They're going to have to go through a preserve, so they know
they're going to have some mitigation issues.
The intent was to have some mitigation credits left over, if
possible, that can be used by Imperial while they're constructing their
road and, hopefully, mitigating for the impact of their secondary
roadway. We've already agreed to accommodate the drainage from
that secondary roadway into our water management system.
So the planning commission thought that the best planning
solution for this project was a sidewalk on one side of the roadway,
reduce the density which we agreed to take -- we were originally
asking for 650 units, and we've reduced that to 550 units -- make any
mitigation credits available to the residents of Imperial, and keep us
out of the preserves by not requiring us to put a sidewalk on the
second site.
Page 193
September 23, 2003
That planning commission recommendation 9-0 was supported
by planning staff. They believe that this makes good planning sense
to have the sidewalk on one side, and that was the issue that really
came up during the planning commission. Again, the solution that I
just discussed and was proposed was recommended 9-0 by the
planning commission.
If you want to get into more details on the petition, we're happy
to do that. Wayne could address any questions you have. I can
address any questions or Norm can address any questions. But other
than that, that was the major issue, and that's how it was resolved by
the planning commission. Again, they recommended 9-0 to implement
the conditions we worked through at the planning commission.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the Board of
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's the width of that sidewalk
that you're proposing?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It is a 5-foot wide sidewalk,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, this is going to take up the
traffic of the school children and also the possibility of residents out of
Imperial Golf Estates?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. The residents of Imperial, I don't
believe, are going to be using our sidewalk system, but definitely our
internal residents will be using it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, how about if somebody
wants to ride a bicycle?
MR. YOVANOVICH: They'll be using our sidewalk or riding
the private streets within the project.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that we need to put some
more width in there. You're saying four feet? MR. YOVANOVICH: Five.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Five feet. We may need some
Page 194
September 23, 2003
additional width in there to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians at
the same time. I would like to listen to the staff members.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, I saw a piece on the
TV last night that one school, a private school, is pulling out of Collier
County because of the cost of impact fees. As I'm always concerned
-- I'm always concerned about additional costs being passed onto the
consumer. This is one example of something that can work, you
know, for this particular case or the school. I hope that everybody
would take that under consideration.
Do you want to hear from our staff, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If they have any input on this.
MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. That was an
accurate description of what happened at the planning commission last
Thursday. Sidewalks was the predominant discussion. From a
planning perspective, we can support the reduction to one side,
however, transportation services still has a disagreement with that.
Diane Flagg is here to address that if you care to hear her.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what was the main
disagreement on the Planning Commission?
MR. REISCHL: The discussion centered around the sidewalk
issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The planning commission approved it
with the amendments.
MR. REISCHL: With the sidewalks on one side, right. In fact,
that was in their original PUD. Staff removed it for sidewalks on one
side, and then the planning commission agreed to put it back in.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll close the public hearing.
Commissioners, what's the will of the board?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just wanted to make sure that
there was some other issues taken care of. I believe there's a
Page 195
September 23, 2003
stormwater issue. Did you people -- well, you came to a conclusion
with the stormwater issue when the people in Imperial Golf Estates
put that road through; is that correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. And I thought I addressed that, but
if I didn't, Commissioner, we have agreed to accommodate the
drainage from the roadway through our water management system.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then if there's any credits left
in mitigation, we want to make sure that it's clear you're going to assist
in helping getting that back road exit taken care of.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We will give them whatever credits we
have left, and hopefully they will be able to use those in permitting the
roadway.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Great. I'm glad you're good
neighbors.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, one point that we need to put on
the record, just so that you know, is having sidewalks at 5-foot on one
side of the cul-de-sac is different than what your Land Development
Code presently states. The Land Development Code requires it on
both sides.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the board has the right to deviate
from the Land Development Code. Okay. Thank you.
Any further questions? Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. Did we get all the staff
members' input into this whole equation here? I think we need to get
everybody's input into this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. White, do you have anything on
this item?
MR. WHITE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What about Diane Flagg?
MS. FLAGG: The point that I would add is you're dealing with
162 acres of dirt out there, and the Land Development Code does
Page 196
September 23, 2003
require sideWalks on both sides. This is a school that they're planning
on putting on this site. We have many areas throughout our
community where these school children don't have safe pathways to
schools.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further questions?
Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're going to approve -- what are
we going to approve here? As it stands or are we going to approve it
with --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Planning commission's
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a second, Commissioner
Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll be a second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Coletta. Second by Commissioner Halas. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
Seeing none, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0. Thank you.
Next item.
Item #9C
Page 197
September 23, 2003
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR THE COUNTY
MANAGER- APPROVED LUMP SUM PAYMENT OF $13,036.03
(82.8% OF MAXIMUM MERIT PAY RANGE OF $4,723 TO
$1 5.744~
MR. MUDD: Next item, Commissioners, is 9(C) which is to
approve the annual performance appraisal for the county manager.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great job. Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Thank you, sir.
Any other questions or comments?
MS. FILSON: I have a speaker on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What item number is that again.
MR. MUDD: That is Item 9(C), sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me just.start off by saying that
when the Board of County Commissioners, this board, approved the
county manager or Jim Mudd to go from a temporary to a full-time
hire for the county manager's position, I was very skeptical that we
were making the right choice. Working with the county manager
since he has held this position, I am very impressed, and I want to
thank you for your dedication to the Board of Commissioners on
reaching our goals of putting this infrastructure in Collier County.
I want to thank you for your dedication to the employees and
getting together with them to relay the will of the board and, also,
getting out into the community at a spur of the moment. I've seen you
do that. And, also, going out with me personally when I've had
troubles in my district and dealing with those issues. MR. MUDD: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have one speaker.
MS. FILSON: We have one speaker, Mr. Chairman. Would you
like me to call him?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, please.
Page 198
September 23, 2003
MS. FILSON: Bob Krasowski.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Krasowski.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: He's not here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to make a motion
to approve with the addition of merit pay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll tell you what I came up with.
What I was looking at is the average the county manager received out
of a possible 5 perfect score was 4.14 versus a 5 perfect score of 100
percent. That equals 82.8 percent. If you take the percentage of the
pay, the maximum amount that would be allowed would be $15,744.
So 82.8 percent of that would be $13,036.03. If we're going to retain
the very best that we've got, and we're all in agreement that we do, we
have to make sure that we come up with just compensation to do so.
That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With merit to increase the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: $13,036.03.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What is recommended in the
executive summary?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It gives you a little bit of
latitude between $15,744 as the top and, of course, I don't have that
right in front of me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. I've got it here. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, from the range of $4,723.
What I did is I just took the percentage and worked it across the
actual amount and came up with that number.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. It's still within the limits. I'll
second that motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What was the percentage again?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 82.8 percent.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
Page 199
September 23, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion?
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, I need to put one thing on the
record real fast, and this is for the clerk. Okay. It's written, but I want
to make sure that I state it.
By my existing contract, all such merit adjustments shall be
included in the manager's base salary, and I'm reading off the
executive summary. However, to be consistent with the cost saving
merit pay changes for administrators and directors, the manager
voluntarily requests that his merit pay be awarded as a lump sum
payment for FY-03 performance and not be added to his salary.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Correct. That's part of my
motion, and that's part of the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me just ask you to do one
thing. There seems to be some confusion when you elected to do this
for the employees earlier in the year in the budgeting process, or there
seems to be some confusion about why this was happening. If you
could just briefly address the issue of the gift that keeps on giving and
why you did this because it saved the taxpayers money.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. What happened in the past was the board
decided what merit was going to be for the employees, and it ranged
the spectrum. Sometimes it was 3 percent, sometimes it was 6 to 7
percent, and they had everything locked into it. Two and a half years
ago, the county manager, Tom Olliff, with his administrators all sat
down, and we tried to set up a professional pay scale for the
employees of Collier County.
One of the things that was on your consent agenda was the pay
scale salary ranges for our employees. One of the things that I have to
report -- and I told you before. About 79 percent of our employees are
below market point, and about 29 percent are above -- or 28 percent
are above. We're trying to make corrections to that pay scale so that
we can get it so it's not so lopsided and more evenly based on that
market point between a lower-paying range and above-the-market pay
Page 200
September 23, 2003
range.
We don't have all the pay ranges and their advancement
programs delineated yet completely. We've got about 10 done of the
34. That's how do you progress along your pay scale from your entry
level to your final level that you have. It's also a 30-year pay scale. I
want to make sure everybody understands that.
When I talk to the employees, they said, you know, a pay scale
isn't -- you're here for two years, and all of a sudden you're at max pay
range, well, that isn't how it works. That's a 30-year pay scale from
min to max, and I want to fit you in along that range in those 30 years.
Why do you pick 30 years? Because normally the retirement time
where you fit in and get full retirement in the Florida retirement
system.
What we did this year to try to -- based on board's direction to try
to limit the girl that keeps on giving -- that's merit. What you're doing
is you're rewarding an employee for doing a good job last year. But if
it's included in your pay, it doesn't just give you an award for last year
in this year's pay in '04, but if it's in your pay it's there for '05, '06. So
you just keep rewarding that person for doing a good job in '03 all that
time even though he or she might use the peter principle and peter out
and not be so good anymore. So what you really want to do is have a
system where merit basically rewards people for doing a good job the
year prior, and it doesn't keep being the gift that keeps on giving.
What we tried to do this year based on everything I've just
described to you is if a person is 10 percent -- and this is below
director or administrator, because directors and administrators straight
up just get merited lump sum, and it doesn't get added to their pay.
For the employees that aren't directors or administrators, if they're 10
percent above that market point, which is kind of the midpoint in that
range, okay, they stop getting merit in their pay, and they get the lump
sum merit as a check. So it's going to slow them down bumping up to
max in that process, but it still gets them -- if they're at the lower
Page 201
September 23, 2003
range, it moves them along until I can get a full scale pay scale
development program for those employees on all the different ranges
that we have. And what it will do next year is it will save the board in
continuing costs about $370,000 by our calculations. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Did I answer your question?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion? Mr. Mitchell.
MR. MITCHELL: I'm good.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All in favor of the motion
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Next item.
Any opposed?
Motion carries, 5-0.
Item #9D
REVIEW AND APPROVE THE FY 2004 ANNUAL WORK PLAN
FOR THE COIJNTY MANAGER- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings you into taking a look
at my KRAs for next year. Any suggestions that you have that you
want me to add for next year's performance that you want to grade me
on? That would be Item 9(D).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Some of the things that are coming up
next year for the Board of Commissioners is implementation of the
Page 202
September 23, 2003
checkbook currency once we get it back from DCA. And I think that
we owe that to the community to make sure that that's done. One
thing else I would like to see is to make sure that the county
employees that have vehicles are fitted in the perspective vehicle that
they're using.
What I'm saying is, you know, if they're out there driving a
Cadillac, should they really be driving a Chevy? I've seen a lot of
extended vehicles, vans, four-wheel drive vehicles, big sport utility
vehicles. I'm not really sure if that fits the duties of their job. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: With those two additions, I'll
entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle.
Second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor of the motion signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
Item #9E
DISCUSSION REGARDING CONTRACTING AND CHANGE
ORDER PROCESSES - DISCUSSED W/ITEM #1 OM TO
Page 203
September 23, 2003
DETERMINE BETTER REVIEW, LEGAL REQUIREMENTS,
PROCESSING, LIABILITY, AND MORE DOCUMENTATION TO
DETERMINE REASONS FOR THE CHANGES TO BE MADE
AND BY WHAT STAFF PERSONEL. COUNTY MANAGER TO
FOLLOW-UP AT THE OCTOBER 14TM BCC MEETING WITH
SUGGESTIONS FOR A BETTER PROCESS. CO'S ARE
BROUGHT TO THE BOARD IF THE AMOUNT IS 10% OVER
THE AMOUNT ON WORK ORDER AND STAFF AUTHORIZES
AMOUNTS UNDER 10% (W/MONTHLY REPORT SUBMITTED
TO BCC). EACH CHANGE ORDER SHOULD HAVE A REVIEW
PROCESS FOR THE SCOPE OF WORK AND IF THE DESIGN
ENGINEER AND/OR CONTRACTOR IS IN ERROR IN THEIR
RF, SPONSIBII~ITY/DETFRMINATIONS- APPROVFD
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to Item No. 9(E).
That's a discussion regarding contracting and change order processes,
and that's at Commissioner Henning's request.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I would like to -- the change orders
we have -- pull it off the consent onto the regular agenda, and at that
time I would like to discuss that.
Did we approve or discuss Item 8(L) which was an add-on?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. That turned out to be 7(B), and I made
that correction as I read it this morning. It was a No. 7 item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is with the flood maps?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. That's under 10.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, that's 10. Okay.
MR. MUDD: It's 10(L), sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Then the next item is-
Item #10A
AWARD AND APPROVAL OF SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION
Page 204
September 23, 2003
CONTRACT (SUBJECT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S FINAL
APPROVAL AS NECESSITATED BY THE STATE REVOLVING
FUND LOAN REQUIREMENTS) FOR THE NORTH COUNTY
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY EXPANSION TO 24.1-
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY MAXIMUM MONTH AVERAGE
DAILY FLOW- SOLIDS STREAM, TO WESTRA
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PROJECT 739502, BID 03-
35397 IN THE BID AMOIINT OF $8:6927500- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: So that would bring us to number or Item 10(A),
and that's to approve the award and subsequent contract subject to the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Agency's final
approval as necessitated by the state revolving fund loan requirements
for the north county water reclamation facility expansion to 24.1
million gallons per day maximum month average daily flow solids
stream to Westra Construction Corporation, Project 739502, Bid
03-3539, in the bid amount of $8,692,500. Mr. DeLony will present.
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, public utilities
administrator. I'm just going to go quickly through this presentation
and provide you the background with regard to this particular project.
This chart here lays out the project purpose. Most importantly, this is
consistent with the wastewater capital project and master plan, which
the board approved back this past year. It certainly will allow us to do
that treatment capacity to service future growth.
The scope of the project outlined here is two additional -- or two
new aerated sludge holding tanks as well as some other items that deal
with gravity fitters and area-to-sludge feed tanks for the plant. This
chart or drawing or sketch here that we have shows you where the
proposed location would be for this project at our north plant, and
these are the project costs.
We had -- our lowest responsive bidder was Westra Construction
Page 205
September 23, 2003
Corporation at approximately $8.6 million. We have these funds
budgeted in our current budget, and we will fund this budget through
the low interest rate state revolving fund loan that we've already
coordinated for with the SRF folks in Tallahassee.
This is our recommendation, that we go ahead and award the
tentative award or subsequent contract to Westra and authorize the
chairman to execute this contract according to our standard county
agreements. That concludes my briefing on your question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the Board of
Commissioners.
This is consistent with our Growth Management Plan?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, it is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
consent order by FTAP?
MR. DELONY: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
And this is consistent with the
Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Coyle. All
in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
FIALA: Aye.
HENNING: Aye.
COYLE: Aye.
COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries 4-0.
We're going to take a short five-minute break.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take their seats, please.
Page 206
September 23, 2003
Board of Commissioners back in session.
Next item?
Item # 1 OB
RESOLUTION 2003-335 AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF
FEE SIMPLE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY REQUIRED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER RETENTION AND
TREATMENT PONDS REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF SIX-LANE IMPROVEMENTS TO COLLIER BOULEVARD
(CR-951) FROM GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD TO
IMMOKALEE ROAD. (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT
NO. 37, PROJECT NO. 65061). ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT:
$3~250~000- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 10(A), and that's adopt
a resolution -- excuse me, 10(B) -- is to adopt a resolution authorizing
condemnation of fee simple interests in property required for the
construction of stormwater retention and treatment ponds required for
the construction of six-lane improvements to Collier Boulevard, which
is County Road 951, from Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee
Road. This is capital improvement element No. 37, project No.
65061. Estimated fiscal impact, $3,250,000.
And Mr. Gregg Strakaluse, the transportation engineering
director, will present.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Commissioner, I do need to get a couple
of statements on the record for legal reasons. I'll make it brief and
quick.
Again, Item No. 10(B) is a condemnation resolution to acquire
property needed to expand Collier Boulevard between Immokalee
Road and Golden Gate Boulevard from a dangerous inefficient
Page 207
September 23, 2003
two-lane roadway cross-section to a safer, more efficient six-lane
roadway cross-section.
At this time, this condemnation resolution only identifies that
property necessary for pond sites associated with the future six-lane
stormwater management system.
Of the limited available vacant land, staff has identified five
parcels that are critical to permitting and building the road stormwater
management system. And as I'm sure your board is aware, there's
significant development interest along this corridor.
What I'd like to do is point out the map in the background,
specifically the locations of those particular pond sites. There are
actually six pond sites for the corridor. One of those pond sites has
been identified as part of the Vanderbilt Beach Road project, and it
has also been previously approved in a condemnation resolution for
the Vanderbilt Beach Road project.
The other five pond sites, starting in the southern end of Collier
Boulevard, moving towards the north end, are spaced such that
stormwater drainage can convey to those particular sites. Those are
critical sites, considering the vertical elevations of the roadway that's
being designed, as well as consistent with trying to search for the
vacant pieces of property.
As staff and our consultant work with the community and further
develop the roadway and utility design, staff will present to you a
follow-up resolution to acquire property along the west side of the
corridor for physical expansion of the travel lanes, utilities and
pathways.
Again, this resolution you have before you is limited to the
acquisition of pond sites on lands or portions thereof that have not
been developed.
The expansion of Collier Boulevard has been identified in the
long-range transportation plan since 1992. Due to existing traffic
volumes that exceed approximately 20,000 average daily trips per day,
Page 208
September 23, 2003
the existing road fails from a level of service standpoint.
Just last December your Board approved a $1.4 million design
contract for this project with the consulting firm of C.H. Dunhill, and
Bill Gramer is here from that consulting firm.
Your Board also has just adopted County's fiscal year 2004
budget, which includes a $6.8 million to acquire property necessary
for this project.
The transportation division's five-year work program has
identified just over $20 million for construction of the road, utilities,
sidewalks and landscaping. Each of these board actions considered
extensive planning data, engineering data and public input that I'd like
to make part of this record.
The county currently has a 100-foot right-of-way along this
existing corridor. And this corridor is particularly constrained by a
primary canal along the eastern boundary of the road. Several
developments along the west side of the corridor have already set
aside dedicated right-of-way for this project. Several developments
again have set aside right-of-way. The improved section of Collier
Boulevard requires a minimum width of 155 feet to approximately a
maximum width of 180 feet at the intersections.
The improved road cross-section would include six travel lanes,
an eight-foot pathway on the west side of the roadway, and a curved
median for turn bays that will eventually be landscaped as part of the
county's landscaping master plan. The right-of-way will also
encompass utilities, including a water main, sewer main, reclaimed
water main, telephone, electric and cable services.
The evaluation for alternative pond sites, along with the legal
descriptions for necessary property to be acquired, has been provided
as part of your package. There is a memo attached outlining the
alternatives.
Besides alternative pond sites, staff and the engineers have
considered safety, first and foremost, environmental conditions,
Page 209
September 23, 2003
including threatened and endangered species, plants and animals,
aesthetics, constructability and, of course, cost.
Discussions with the South Florida Water Management District
indicate that this project is likely to be permitted with the plan that is
being presented today.
Based on these materials and my presentation, I ask that your
Board adopt this resolution. This concludes my presentation. Bill
Gramer and myself are here for any questions associated with this
resolution.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion, questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #10C
CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCT THE SANTA BARBARA FORCE
MAIN, BID 03-3534, PROJECT 73132, 73150 AND 73151 IN THE
AMOIJNT OF $6~126:324- APPROVED
Page 210
September 23, 2003
MR. MUDD: The next item, Mr. Chairman, is 10(C), and that's
award a contract to construct the Santa Barbara force main, Bid
03-3534, which is project 73132 and 73150 and 73151 in the amount
of $6,126,324. And Mr. DeLony will -- your public utilities
administrator will present.
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, public utilities
administrator.
Commissioners, this project purpose is demonstrated on this
chart, but the bottom line of it allows us to move wastewater flows to
accommodate future growth between the north and south service areas
of our water/sewer district.
Again, this is also consistent, as the earlier project is, with our
2002 wastewater master plan.
This is the scope of the project. It's about six miles of 20-inch
wastewater force main extended from Radio Road and Santa Barbara
going northwards to Logan Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach roads. It
also includes a pump station that will be at the intersection of Logan
Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach intersection.
I apologize, this map is oriented east-west when really it should
be north-south. But the north arrow is located in the upper right-hand
comer of this display, so it's set on its side.
But generally speaking, the lines will run on the east side of both
Radio Road and Santa Barbara and, as I mentioned earlier, will go on
a north-south axis along those two roads, and the pump station then
will be on the north of Vanderbilt Beach and Logan Boulevards.
This is -- excuse me. There we go.
This is the project scope, about $6 million for this project. And
our recommendation is to award this contract to Mitchell Stark in the
amount of $6.1 million, as outlined in the executive summary, 10(C).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions from the board members?
(No response.)
Page 211
September 23, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second that motion.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's your time line for
completing this?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I think I've got about 20 months to do this.
I've got it be (sic) conflicted, though, with the road expansion projects
to make sure we're out of the way in time for those road projects to
come on line. I think it's about 20 months, as I recall.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So you're going to make
sure this is in place before the --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
MR. DeLONY: And if it's not, we'll work through the conflicts.
Because the engineering's been done to make sure that we
accommodate the road widening without any further impact on this
particular project.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Very good.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Henning. All in favor of the motion, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Next item?
Motion carries unanimously.
Page 212
September 23, 2003
Item #1 OH
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "A" BEACH
RENOURISHMENT/MAINTENANCE GRANT APPLICATIONS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,140,300
- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Item 10(D) will be heard at 5:30.
Brings us to Item 10(H), which is approve tourist development
Category A, beach renourishment/maintenance grant applications for
fiscal year 2003-2004, in the amount of $1,140,300. And Mr.
DeLony, your public utilities administrator, will present.
MR. DeLONY: Commissioners, Jim DeLony, for the record,
public utilities director.
This is to obtain your approval of category funding application,
as recommend by both the Coastal Advisory Committee and the
Tourist Development Council.
These items are routine items and year-long items and we're fully
consistent with your direction that we're only bringing four beach
items or items associated with TDC funding of beaches that would not
be affected by any policy changes which are to be considered by you,
as I understand it, the 14th of October now.
Again, these have involved project management miscellaneous
fees, sea turtle monitoring, maintenance of dunes and beaches and
some annual fees of actual costs that we have associated with our dune
structure. So again, it would not be anything that policy would affect
and is fully consistent what you told us to do previously. This was
back in your meeting in June. This was in the amount of $1.1 million.
I recommend your approval of this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion.
Page 213
September 23, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I entertain a motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve the
item.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas seconds.
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: The motion carries unanimously.
Item #10I
RESOLUTION 2003-335A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
RESOLUTION 2003-117 WHICH ESTABLISHED A FEE
SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT RELATED REVIEW AND
PROCESSING FEES AS PROVIDED FOR IN DIVISION 1.10 OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Your next item, Commissioner, is Item 10(I), and
that's proposed amendment to Resolution 2003-117, which established
a fee schedule of development related review and processing fees, as
provided for in Division 1.10 of the Collier County Land
Development Code.
And Mr. Schmitt, your community development administrator,
will present.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, good afternoon. For the
Page 214
September 23, 2003
record, I'm Joe Schmitt, community development and environmental
services administrator.
Before you today is a proposal to approve an amendment for the
fee schedule for the building permit and development review fees.
As you certainly are aware, the majority of operations within
Collier County, community development and environment services
division are funded primarily by fee revenues. That is fees by those
who are engaging our services.
As directed by Florida statutes, fees collected as part of the land
development and building construction process are segregated into
their own fund, and we call that Fund 113, an enterprise funds. And it
can only be used to fund the costs incurred in regulating and servicing
the land development -- or the building code.
My division's planning, engineering and environmental review
departments that are involved in the review and approval process of
zoning and activities, those have been separated into a fund known as
we title Fund 131, and they're responsible for enforcing the Land
Development Code.
Beginning this fiscal year, fees collected as part of the land
development process, the development services fees, will be deposited
their own fund created specifically to support each of those activities.
As part of this process, it is my goal to ensure that services are
fully supported by our customers; that is, those paying for and
receiving for our services. And that the fees collected reflect the
division's cost of providing those services, and not more. Currently
about 70 percent of my division's personnel are funded under this
process, and that is the fee for service.
I need to read into the record, because there is an amendment:
The following sections proposed in the CDS fee schedule have been
temporary withdrawn from being included in this amendment -- or in
this -- at least in this resolution. Thank you. The -- we will bring it
back at the next board meeting. And these fees will be revised and
Page 215
September 23, 2003
brought back on the 14th.
That's Sections L.2, which was data conversion fees; L.5, which
was our research fees; L .6, computer generated reports; L.7, CD
burning fees; L.9, photocopies; Section JJ, record retrieval; Section
KK, copy fees, and Section LL, research fees. We found that those
fees were in conflict with state statute. And we just were informed of
that.
So let me run through q~ickly through where we're going with
this so you understand, frankly, what's going on.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have to? Can we go to
questions?
MR. SCHMITT: Unless you have any questions. I think the
most important -- let me skip -- I want to skip to the most important so
you understand the bottom line here.
I mean, this is the bottom line: I am not collecting any more
money, it's just shifting of the pots of money. And as this is in
compliance with guidance and agreements that I've reached with the
Clerk of Courts and the recent audit conducted, basically as you can
see, in last year we collected about $16.6 million. This year it will be
15.9, so that is down in revenue. But frankly, I'm just shifting the pot.
I'm actually going to reduce building fees about 24 percent, building
permit fees, but I have to compensate for that loss in revenue and raise
the planning fees. So building fees will pay for enforcement of the
building code, planning fees will pay for enforcement. That's
planning, engineering and environmental review fees will pay for
enforcement of the Land Development Code, and there will be, to use
the term, a Chinese fire wall between those two functions.
The other significant issue -- that's a breakdown basically looking
at about a 2,800 square foot home, how fees are broken down in the
cost of a home, impact fees certainly being the majority of that cost.
The building and inspection fees, about .2 percent and 1.43 -- or. 143
percent in planning and engineering fees.
Page 216
September 23, 2003
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, in kind of as a summary, what Mr.
Schmitt has done, for the last two years we've tried to make sure that
he had the service fees and the cost for service laid out and itemized.
And we're finally there. We finally know exactly how much it costs
to do a permit. We know exactly how much it cost to do a plan
review. And Mr. Schmitt, in this fee revision, is basically putting the
dollar amount, a cost for service, on each one of those so that we don't
have building permits subsidizing the whole operation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Put fairly simply, there are laws
that say that when you charge a fee for a service, the money should go
to provide that particular service.
MR. SCHMITT: That's exactly correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you are lining the fees with the
services that you provide so that you will be in compliance with the
law and be accounting for this money properly.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, that's exactly correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so I would recommend
approval.
MR. SCHMITT: And just for the record, the Development
Services Advisory Committee was briefed on this September 3rd; we
briefed the productivity committee on September 17th. The effective
date for these fees will be November 3rd. And based on that, in
summary, staff is recommending that you approve the fee as outlined.
This has been about a year process in converting these fees, and
basically to use an over-used word but it's somewhat of a paradigm
shift. Because what we've done, when my division was first set up,
we did run a profit, if you want to call it that. We used the building
fees to subsidize the other part of our business and now we are
basically segregating those costs.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle. Is
there a second to the motion?
Page 217
September 23, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You mentioned that the DSAC
and productivity committee had heard this presentation on the 3rd of
September and the 17th of September. Could you give us the outcome
in both cases?
MR. SCHMITT: The DSAC approved it. There were some
issues in discussing fees associated with meetings. For instance, if
they pay for planning services and then there's subsequent meetings.
One of the things I put in here, I'm charging for meetings, because
again, it eats up staff's time. I'm going to look at that, because it was
just brought to my attention this afternoon.
But they approved it, the DSAC approved it. In fact, much of
this was initiated by the Development Services Advisory Committee
in looking at trying to segregate the building fees from the planning
fees.
And the productivity committee unanimously approved it. And
frankly, sent their congratulations to the staff for the work that they
did in developing a clean cut between these activities within
community development.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what I wanted to -- where I
was going with this and you answered the question, and that was --
what was the vote on both of the committees that worked on this and
brought forth what the resolution was -- outcome was.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have some questions.
Land Development Code interpretation by administration is
$1,0007
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the Board of Commissioners is
$1,000. If it's appealed, go to the Board of Commissioners, it's
Page 218
September 23, 2003
$1,0007
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
one?
Is that for each commissioner or just
MR. SCHMITT: No, that's the fee for the services provided.
Again, that's--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Schmitt, we respect your opinion.
Same way on a variance, administration of variance in the --
MR. SCHMITT: I'd have to look up the fees. I don't have it
memorized. I mean, I would have to look them up.
But what we've tried to do is not -- the fees, in some cases, when
we did the study certainly came out higher than what they indicate
here from a standpoint. But given the quantity, we can make up the
difference.
What we didn't want to do is make the fees so prohibitive that
nobody would come before the board and apply for activities. And
that was the same with the building department, we kept the building
permit fees at a reasonable rate where we would still would have
people come in, citizens come in, and ask for building permits
associated with a shed or with a fence or those type of activities. It
would not be -- it would not dissuade somebody from actually
complying with the law.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we value your opinion.
The next one on page -- in the agenda packet, Page 15, and I
think it's 13 in your proposal, screen enclosures, permits and pan roof
fees. What I read here is for screen roofs, it's a $2.00 charge, pan
roofs, it's a $3.00 charge, and existing roofs, it's a $2.00 charge. And
what I'm reading here is, you know, if you have to rescreen your pool
enclosure, it's going to cost you $2.00 a square foot of floor area over
your pool deck.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that right?
Page 219
September 23, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To put screens on your --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's part of the screen cost.
MR. SCHMITT: That's the cost to pay for an inspector to go out
and reinspect the screen enclosure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean if somebody breaks a
hole in your screen, the dog runs through your screen and so you have
to replace that screen --
MR. SCHMITT: No, no, there's no permit for that. There's no
permit --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So there's no permit for rescreening?
MR. SCHMITT: If you're going to re-erect --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Re-erect the structure?
MR. SCHMITT: -- the structure, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But not to replace the screen.
MR. SCHMITT: Not to replace the screen, no permit required.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All right, I understand that,
thanks.
You know, you buy a house, you get a pool, you got these
questions.
MR. SCHMITT: No, the only thing we inspect on the screen are
the connection to the roof and then the grounding. But I still -- that's
an inspector that goes out there, and frankly, that runs a fully burned
rate, almost $100 an hour.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right, I understand that.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, but if it's a brown screen framed
issue and after you buy it your wife wants to change the color to
white, you're going to pay the fee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: That's the superstructure, what you pay for the
enclosure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Whatever makes her happy is fine
with me.
Page 220
September 23, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can of white spray paint.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know if my math is
wrong or not, but if you've got a 40 by 50 screened in area, what does
that come out to?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it's not by that, it's by the floor
covering.
MR. SCHMITT: The floor covering.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The floor covering.
MR. SCHMITT: One hundred square feet, $200.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Two dollars a square foot.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was coming up with a fee of
like $2,000. It was scaring the daylights out of me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, there's a motion and a second.
Any further discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #10L
TO WAIVE FORMAL COMPETITIVE PROCESS AND
APPROVE A CONTRACT WITH 3001 (THE SPATIAL DATA
COMPANY) AS A SINGLE SOURCE VENDOR FOR GROUND
Page 221
September 23, 2003
SURVEY AND LIDAR ANALYSIS SURVEY WORK IN THE
AMOUNT OF $49,425 TO SATISFY A FEMA REQUIREMENT
FOR CERTIFICATION OF EXISTING LIDAR TOPOGRAPHY OF
COIJJER COl JNTY - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10(L), and
that is a recommendation to waive formal, competitive process and
approve a contract with 3001, the Spatial Data Company as a single
source vendor for ground survey and LIDAR analysis survey work in
the amount of $49,425 to satisfy a FEMA requirement for certification
of existing LIDAR topography of Collier County. And that's at stafPs
request and Mr. Schmitt will present.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, before you start, Mr.
Mitchell, is there anything from the clerk's office that would raise any
objection to this?
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir. As long as you guys make a motion
to waive the policy, that's well within your discretion of the board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: And Commissioner, I will tell you that one of the
reasons that staff's asking to waive the policy is that 3001 did the
original LIDAR. If you have to go get another organization to go in
there and confirm it, you go through a lot more cost, number one, and
number two, they're a lot slower in order to get it done. We asked for
an 18-month extension to the flood plain map requirement and we
received six months. And so instead of having it done in October, we
have to have it in April, I think, the 4th or something like that. And in
order to get that done and get the LIDAR verified certified, that's why
staff's making this proposal.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great benefit to the citizens of Collier
County?
MR. SCHMITT: This is basically in response to the FEMA finn
Page 222
September 23, 2003
issue. Shown up there are two LIDAR maps over a drawing. On top
of that are the flood elevations that currently exist now in the revised
maps. And what we're trying to do is work with FEMA to validate the
elevations within Collier County.
As Mr. Mudd pointed out, 3001 flew the original LIDAR. It
would not be in the best interest of the county to try and go back to
another vendor to revalidate a. previous vendor's LIDAR. What we
have to do is have that certified over 100 points. I think as a pretty
good example, given that we have several folks from Naples Park
here, this is a good example of-- let me -- the high areas of Naples
Park. But some of these areas are listed in the flood zone, and actually
in fact they should be zone X.
And basically what we're going to do is the base data, which is
the LIDAR data, light detection and elevation, data that we used to
create these maps. What we're intending to do is have -- based on
FEMA's guidance, we have to certify this data so they accept it under
national mapping standards. And then that will be forwarded to
FEMA, along with our-- the property descriptions, most notably the
issue, Commissioner Coletta, in the Estates as well.
And we'll use this data to validate our claim that some of the data
that was provided earlier in this study is in fact incorrect. And the
purpose is to do a letter of map revision, a large-scale letter of map
revision to help resolve this issue involving the flood map issues in
Collier County.
So we -- based on that, we're asking for your approval for this
contract to immediately initiate the certification for this, based on the
guidance from Federal Emergency Management Agency, and that's
both the certified, the LIDAR data, and then based on that we'll send
in the property descriptions.
But the most important piece here is the amount of work that's
going to have to be done by 3001. They'll have to come out and
establish 100 known points again on the ground and basically certify
Page 223
September 23, 2003
the data that meets the national mapping standards.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion --
MR. SCHMITT: Subject to your questions, that's all I have on
this issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This vendor is being held to the
April deadline, too, I would assume?
MR. SCHMITT: We have -- yes. They're ready to do the work
now. We've been in consultation with Duberry and Davis, who is
FEMA's contractor who developed the maps, and 3001 and my staff
and, in fact, they're fully prepared to begin this work.
And our intent is to get this done and meet the requirements that
has been imposed on us by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency for this data.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's start tomorrow morning.
Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion?
Just for the public's information, if we win on this issue, we
submit these maps and they accept it, it's going to save the residents of
Collier County millions of dollars. And, you know, I'm very
concerned of the residents in Commissioner Coletta's district and the
extra money that they would have to pay each month for flood
insurance.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
Page 224
September 23, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #1 OD
REVIEW OF THE NAPLES PARK COMMUNITY PLAN
SURVEY DEVELOPED BY TRULLINGER ASSOCIATES, INC.
TO AUTHORIZE THE DISSEMINATION OF THE SURVEY TO
NAPLES PARK PROPERTY OWNERS FOR CONSIDERATION
AND EXECUTION, TO AUTHORIZE THE TABULATION OF
SURVEY RESULTS BY TRULLINGER ASSOCIATES, INC.
UPON RECEIPT OF RETURNED SURVEYS AND TO
AUTHORIZE TRULLINGER ASSOCIATES, INC. TO DEVELOP
A REPORT FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - APPROVED SURVEY
W/CHANGF, S
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item, we have a time certain --
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Excuse me, can I
ask a question? Am I allowed to?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ma'am, you can sign up to speak
before the Board of Commissioners. There's a sign-up sheet.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: I have a question
about flood insurance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Schmitt, who presented that, I'm
sure can answer that question. He's right back there. We have a time certain?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have a time certain for 5:30
this evening. And this is Item 10(D), and this is a recommendation
that the Board of County Commissioners review the Naples Park
community plan survey developed by Trullinger Associates, Inc. to
authorize the dissemination of the survey to Naples Park property
owners for consideration and execution, to authorize the tabulation of
Page 225
September 23, 2003
survey results by Trullinger Associates, Inc. upon receipt of return
surveys, and to authorize Trullinger Associates, Inc. to develop a
report for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. TRULLINGER: Good evening. Can you hear me okay?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just a little bit closer.
MR. TRULLINGER: My name is Jim Trullinger, I'm the guy
that did the survey to this point.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: A little closer.
MR. TRULLINGER: I think I'm too tall for this system.
that?
How's
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's like the barber chair, you've got to
scoot down.
MR. TRULLINGER: Let me begin again.
I'm Jim Trullinger. I've been working on this survey for a while.
I thought before we would get into some of the specifics on it that I
ought to give you a little bit of background on my company, my
credentials, so that you'll understand that the guy that's trekking
through this Naples Park moras has a few years of expertise.
I've been doing research since the early Seventies when I was in
the U.S. Foreign Service doing reporting in Viet Nam. I had also
worked over the years for the private foundation service, as well as
academia.
Since 1995, I started my own company, which is called
Trullinger Associates, Inc. It's a Florida corporation. We have since
that day taken on assignments for major multi-national corporations;
names like General Motors, Sony Electronics, Xerox Corporation,
Whirlpool, et cetera, et cetera.
Typically the type of surveys we conduct are telephone surveys,
mail surveys, we do focus groups, we do market profiles, and we do
recruiting for mock juries all over the State of Florida, as well as a few
in Georgia and Alabama. So those are the few things we do.
Page 226
September 23, 2003
My objective, since day one in this Naples Park endeavor, has
been to put together as objective and as honest and as impartial a
survey as possible, based on a very complicated document, namely,
the proposed community plan for Naples Park, put together by the
Dover-Kohl and Partners group.
What I have done has entailed a number of steps. I would like to
go through those briefly to outline what has brought me here this
evening.
I started on September 2nd, right after being hired by the county,
with an initial meeting of representatives of both sides in this issue.
We met for a total of three hours, an hour and a half per group. And I
got their initial feedback and opinions about what they wanted in the
survey. So I was just in a listening mode at that point.
Then the next day, September 3rd, was a big open community
meeting at the church up in Naples Park. And I'm told the estimate
was 200 to 300 people were in attendance. I was there by myself and
simply took questions and did a lot more listening. Shall we say there
was some vigorously expressed opinions that evening. But I'm a big
guy, I can take it. And I made a lot of mental notes.
My main impression I came away from that meeting with is the
idea that a lot of folks in Naples Park wanted the survey to cover a lot
of issues. As a matter of fact, there were issues brought up at that
meeting which went way beyond the Dover-Kohl plan. Such things as
Best Friends Park, things like that. I made it clear throughout,
however, that I was going to stick to the proposed plan in design of the
survey.
So at that point I went back to the drawing board, for the first
time began to put pencil to paper, and drew up a draft, the first draft of
the survey.
And on September 7th, which was a Sunday, we posted that draft
at our website, as well as invited folks in the community to give us
any feedback by e-mail, by fax or by regular post. And there were --
Page 227
September 23, 2003
there was coverage in the local paper so that a lot of folks were aware
of that.
We normally have 10 to 15 hits per day on our website. It
skyrocketed right after that. We were averaging for the first couple of
days 300 to 500 hits per day. And last week overall it was in the range
of 50 to 75. And there have been ups and downs, peeks and valleys,
depending upon the coverage in the local paper.
As far as the feedback from the folks in Naples Park, I've gotten
-- I didn't count them, but there must be 30 to 40 different e-mails,
faxes and pieces of snail mail that have reached me. And I would say
off the top of my head, I would split them about 50/50, those in favor
of going forward with a complicated survey, or any type of survey,
listing the various points of the main plan, and those that were
vehemently opposed to the whole undertaking and wanted a simple
yes/no choice.
So at that point I, based on all the feedback, had another meeting,
and that was on September 12th, with both sides in the dispute. And
we met for approximately 40 to 45 minutes each, and I got their
comments on the first draft. And very succinct, pointed comments.
Some very helpful ones, I might add. And I might further add that the
most helpful comments to me came from the opponents of the
proposed plan.
And then I began a redraft and came up with draft number two.
Now, that's what was presented to the board I guess last week. That's
what you have in front of you.
Since that time, I have gone beyond the second draft, and I have
made some additional changes, some as recently as this morning, and
posted them to my website. I'll be happy to either give you each a
copy of the revised thing, which I have here in five copies, or I can go
through the major points.
MR. MUDD: Five copies and go through the major points.
MR. TRULLINGER: Okay, do both.
Page 228
September 23, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: One thing that I don't like is getting
things at the last minute to something that we have to approve.
Because I had a lot of comments on the survey.
MR. TRULLINGER: There has not been much substantially
changed. And your comments I'm sure will still be quite valid, based
on what you're about to receive.
What I've basically done since draft one is expand the directions
a little bit, particularly in the area of lots. Now, for several days we
have been going through the Collier County list of property owners
and trying to figure out how many lots people have, based on
descriptions. And we have fractional lots. 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, et cetera.
We've had to analyze practically every record to make sure we had the
lot count correct.
Just today we finished up on consolidating lot count for duplicate
name records, so we won't be mailing out to someone that has two
separate listings, two separate copies of the survey. So we boiled the
list down from about 3,200 records to approximately 2,800 that we're
going to be mailing.
So I thought I would put in the instructions some details about if
you don't agree with the lot estimate, we have put on the label, which
will be on the back page, here's how to correct it, and we'll fix it in the
tabulation.
We're going to tabulate results when this is finally over, based on
lot ownership. I've heard this expressed as a preference of the board,
and I've certainly heard it widely supported by both proponents and
opponents in Naples Park. Everybody wants a lot-related tabulation;
in other words, weighted results. So unless I hear something different
this evening, we will proceed in that manner.
The other major changes -- nothing major, minor changes. I
changed the order of a couple of questions. Three and four got flipped
from the draft that you were given originally. I thought that they
would flow more reasonably, based on that.
Page 229
September 23, 2003
And I've tightened up on some of the language. For example, on
the first question, there was originally some language in there
regarding the proposed connection road between the Pavilion shops
and other parts of Naples Park, and I've dropped that. It's been
suggested, and I agree, that this really should be a separate question.
And there's no room on the survey for this to be a separate question,
unless we reduce the size of the print or add two more pages, which is
going to drive up costs. So I took it upon myself to drop it.
I might add, I didn't have one suggestion from one person in
Naples Park or anywhere that I put that matter in there. I took it upon
myself to put it in there, because at the time it seemed important.
I also feel that since a group living in Pavilion Club would be
directly affected by that change, and they're not going to be getting the
survey, since they're not in Naples Park, per se, that perhaps it
wouldn't be considered fair to include that question on it, so I dropped
it.
A couple of other questions. Oh, again, on number one, I added
an option regarding reopening of presently closed avenues. The fourth
little box on there is new. Previously didn't exist. I thought that
would be a good addition.
As I mentioned, I changed the order on questions three and four.
I did a little bit of clarification on five. No new language, just simply
changed and capitalized option one and option two, to make it stand
out a little better and a little clearer for the readers.
No changes at all on questions six through nine. Didn't have one
objection to any of those questions from anybody.
A minor change on question 10. I added one word to that. When
I get around to talking about rental housing inspection, I added the
word yearly inspection.
And on question 11, in regard to a possible proposed zoning
overlay, I changed the language a little bit in regard to parking in front
yards. I added a thing about reduce the amount of paved parking area
Page 230
September 23, 2003
in from yards of larger lots. I previously left that kind of vague.
And the only other change made since the draft that you got is on
the very last question, I had a number of comments about the order of
the choices there. And I have since made it consistent on every
question except the big complicated question, number five, and had it
-- the first choice is I'm in favor of, the second choice I'm opposed to.
And everything else follows. So if someone is opposed to everything
or in favor of everything, all they have to do is to check the second or
first box all the way through, until they get to question five, and there
they check the third or the fourth box. It's becoming a no-brainer in a
way.
I rearranged the format on the very bottom. We're going to affix
a label, a colored label in the bottom right comer, which will have the
-- our determination of the lot count. We will also be assigning a
confidential security number to every record, so if there's any dispute,
any question about lot ownership, we'll be able to look at that number,
figure out who it was sent to and straighten it out.
This will also I think go far to ensure that there will be no
attempts by anybody to go out and photocopy these, to stuff the ballot
box, so to speak. Even though this is not a vote, this is a survey with a
margin of error. We're going to do everything we'can to keep it legit.
We're going to print it on special colored paper that's going to be
difficult to get. You can get it but you've got to order it. Complicated
thing.
We're going to require that everyone send it back using a
business reply envelope. If it doesn't come back in a BRE, it's not
going to get tabulated. We're not going to accept any mass
submissions of questionnaires that might have been organized by one
party or another related to this issue.
And we are going to -- when the responses have all come back in,
we're going to set a date and invite representatives both in favor of and
opposed to the proposed plan to observe the tabulation process. And
Page 231
September 23, 2003
that's how it's going to work. We will then get the findings to the
board and you can take whatever means -- whatever measures, steps
would next be appropriate.
So that's what we've done. I invite any additional comments or
questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board members?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know that you have updated these
questionnaires since they were originally sent out to us and I'd like to
ask a question about question two.
When you say there's no projected cost to the property owners
and in parenthesis private funding is said to pay, what do we mean by
private funding? Private funding could be property owners, couldn't
it?
MR. TRULLINGER: It could. This is all based right out of the
proposed plan. And they talk about the fact that the private sector will
come in there presumably with county permission and erect some
single-family attached housing in exchange for the right to build these
-- the obligation, I should say, to build these so-called community
squares.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, could we remove the
ambiguity and just say if there's not going to be any cost to property
owners, just say that and let it stay there?
MR. TRULLINGER: Well, I have no problem with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would that make sense?
MR. TRULLINGER: I thought it would clarify the question a
little bit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if I were to get it, and it said
no projected cost to property owners, private funding is said to pay,
that sort of says well, we might charge the private parties who live in
this area for things and have them pay for portions of it.
MR. TRULLINGER: What if I were to change the wording to
Page 232
September 23, 2003
private sector is said to pay? Because that -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That probably would be more
explanatory.
MR. TRULLINGER: All right. I have no problem with that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have several questions, and I have
some personal questions that I hope you don't take offense to, but it
will be based on how I vote on these decisions, whether I approve to
accept this survey.
Do you own any land in this area to be surveyed?
MR. TRULLINGER: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does any of your family?
MR. TRULLINGER: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any personal friends?
MR. TRULLINGER: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you have no emotions tied to this?
MR. TRULLINGER: I have no stake in this. I have no position
on it. In a way, I don't care. All I care about is that this be regarded
by one and all as a fair and legitimate snapshot of public opinion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
MR. TRULLINGER: I've made that repeatedly clear since the
get-go. I live in Collier County, not too far from Naples Park, but
nothing that's done or not done there will have any effect on me or my
property value.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions on the survey. On all these
it says I believe there should be further study of whatever the issue is.
And the first one is traffic calming before making any changes.
I can tell you sitting up here that I'm not going to spend any more
money on Naples Park on this redevelopment issue, or I'm not going
to subject any more questioning of the Naples Park issue once this is
done. So why is that question there?
MR. TRULLINGER: Because I think it's a legitimate choice.
Seems to me -- and by the way, we have received back a handful of
Page 233
September 23, 2003
actual completed surveys. People don't understand that we just want
comments, and they faxed me or mailed me their completed survey.
And guess what? I looked through them and a number of people have
checked that box. Seems to me that it's a legitimate alternative. You
can't have everything black or white. The only one that's nebulous
beyond that is the I don't know option. So I'm sure most people are
intelligent enough to realize that the further study is going to cost
something. Nothing's for nothing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you know, this first round was
on the backs of all the taxpayers, because citizens came before the
board asking us to initiate a community study on community
character. So I have some real questions on whether we should do this
or not.
The next one is, I'm not sure about this proposal or I don't know.
What are we saying to the people?
MR. TRULLINGER: Well, every survey worth its salt offers
that as an option, "I choose Bush, I choose Gore, I'm undecided."
You've got to offer that as an option, rm sure there will be people that
truly don't know what side to take on this. Even though it's been hotly
contested, they just don't know.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You got -- let's say that you get 51
percent of the people in Naples Park check that box, I don't know,
what are you going to do with that?
MR. TRULLINGER: On that particular question, we would
tabulate the results in a couple of ways. We would tabulate every
response that comes in and say 14 percent say don't know or 51
percent say don't know. And then we would probably also take
everybody that responded one way or another beyond that choice and
split them percentage-wise and say that 60 percent of those that did
know something or had an opinion felt this way and 40 percent felt the
other way. So in other words, you'd be able to slice and dice the data,
based on a number of perspectives when you get them.
Page 234
September 23, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next question is -- I think this is No.
7. I don't know if it's changed. And it's about sidewalks. MR. TRULLINGER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And it's stating, if the underground
package is approved. It's like a no-brainer, you know? If you're going
to put drainage in an area, it's going to affect the sidewalks. I think
everybody knows that. Do we have to have that much detail?
MR. TRULLINGER: Well, I mean, if the board feels that that's a
no-brainer, I'd love to have this survey a little bit shorter, I'd be happy
to take it out. But it does cost something in the proposal. So I feel it's
legitimate to say this may cost you, what is it 150 to $300 or more or
less? I say leave it in.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Number 10, proposed plan suggests
an increase code enforcement and education, and are you in favor of
this? Are we saying that it's going to cost the citizens more money?
MR. TRULLINGER: Well, the plan says that. As I say in my -- I
think it's in the second draft as well, the cost, if any, to property
owners for increased code enforcement education is not estimated in
the proposed plan, although it mentions that a small tax on all property
owners might be necessary. I feel that's fair to put that in there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me just say, and I don't know you
don't understand this, the Board of County Commissioners funds code
enforcement and is to enforce the Board of Commissioners' code,
Land Development Code, Growth Management Plan ordinance and
something like that. If we're not enforcing them, we have a problem.
And the citizens -- I can tell you, my constituents call me and tell me
that we don't enforce it. And here's the example. Such and such
place, the grass is 18 and a half inches long and it needs to be cut.
That's a code enforcement complaint. That should not cost the
citizens anything for, you know, increased code enforcement. We got
a problem out there, we need to deal with it.
So I don't know how the other board members feels about that
Page 235
September 23, 2003
particular one. I think we can remove it and do our job. MR. TRULLINGER: The whole question.9
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The whole question, yeah. I mean,
you know, we're enforcing our codes and ordinances.
MR. TRULLINGER: Of course, the plan does talk about the
need for a possible additional enforcement. And that's where the
projected cost comes in.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that needs to come up at a
budget item.
MR. TRULLINGER: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, I mean, if it's deed
restrictions, if they want to create deed restrictions, and I don't know if
the plan says that, but if it's not county-wide, that's when you want to
enforce it. Just like Pelican Bay, they choose to hire extra law
enforcement for extra patrol. That's their choice. But in this case, you
know, again, it's our ordinances and Land. Development Code.
MR. TRULLINGER: Well, Commissioner, I would be delighted
to take that out, if you want me to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I don't know how the other
board members feel about this, sir.
And one other thing, I really respect Commissioner Halas's
opinion. I'm stating my concerns about the survey, but the bottom line
is whatever Commissioner Halas wants, I'm going to go for it, because
I know he has spent a lot more time than I have on this.
You know, just looking at this as if I was to go into a ballot box
and look at it, I would say, do you think I'm stupid on some of this
stuff?. I mean, I'm not -- I mean, I'm trying to critique the survey.
And also, you know, the question about, you know, the code
enforcement one, I would like to say -- see more of I'm in favor of this
item or I'm not in favor of this item. That's my only person opinion.
I'm going to shut up after this.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to say that, to start off with,
Page 236
September 23, 2003
as I look through the survey, there's a lot of time and effort put in here
by both sides, and you need to be commended for that.
As far as the No. 10 question in regards to code enforcement, I
think that the -- there's some cases there in point where in Naples Park
there's been great concerns for code enforcement. And from the
e-mail that I get on this subject, I think that the people would be
willing to tax themselves a small minute a bit to have additional code
enforcement people that would be in their area and --
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: No, no, no.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, let me just ask you
this: Looking at this question, would it be saying that the county's
doing a great job in code enforcement if they check I'm opposed to
increase code enforcement in education?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That would be good, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They would say that we don't need
any more code enforcement. Let's say that, you know, they own an
ATV and a boat and two dogs and a family of 24 living in one house.
Well, maybe they're not family, but somehow they're related. And
they would be probably not in favor of it because they probably
wouldn't comply to the Land Development Code or the ordinances.
That's all. Again, I'm going to be quiet.
And Commissioner Coyle, do you have any --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did Commissioner Halas finish?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I compliment you on the work
you've done. It must have been really, really difficult.
The advantage you've had is that you've listened to both sides of
this thing.
The only problem is I think this is the first time you've
encountered us in this particular setting. And I'm sure it's hard to
understand what our positions are. But I'd at least like to share mine
with you. And like Commissioner Henning, I'm going to be guided by
Page 237
September 23, 2003
Commissioner Halas's position, because it's his district and he's very
familiar with it.
But basically here's where I am with this issue: Members of the
community came to the county government and said we want to do
something to improve our community, will you help us? And the
government said -- the staff said well, sure, we're always happy to try
to help, and in fact we're doing this in other communities.
And then as we get into the process, we find that there are people
that are opposed to it and they say no, we don't want you to do this.
And so now we have opposing factions for and against. And then we
try to get -- go through the democratic process and have a vote and let
everybody express their opinion so that we'll know what to do.
Because we're not going to make the decision. The residents would
make the decision as to whether or not any kinds of changes or
improvements or whatever occur in Naples Park. It's never been a
Collier County government project.
But we spent a lot of money on this. I'm not spending anymore
money on it. At least -- wait a minute, wait a minute, you need to
understand the implications of that statement. What we've done is
we've taken money from all the taxpayers in Collier County and we've
sunk it into this particular project. And I'm not happy with the result
and the residents aren't happy with the result probably on either side of
the issue from the residents. The last thing I want to hear is somebody
saying we want to spend more money studying this.
What I would like to do is find out do you want it or do you not
want it.9 If you want it, then you'll get it. If you don't want it, then
you're not going to get it. And the next time a community comes
before this board to ask for some assistance, the first thing I'm going to
ask them is have you formed a municipal services taxing district to
pay for it.9 I am not going to vote in favor of providing any money to
any community for this kind of a planning effort in the future unless
you've got the money to pay for it. I am not going to waste taxpayers
Page 238
September 23, 2003
money on this sort of thing ever again. At least I will not vote for it.
But please, if there's a way to bring this thing to a final
conclusion. You know, either you want it or you don't want it. Let's
get out of this thing or let's get on with it. And so -- well, you don't
want it, there are other people who do want it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Folks, please, please, no conversation
between the board members and -- out there. You have plenty ample
time to come up to the Board of County Commissioners and view
your opinion on this item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it's a democratic process, we
want people to vote, or at least give us an indication in the survey
what we should do, because we're not going to ram it down anybody's
throat.
But I just want you to understand and maybe my fellow
Commissioners to understand that I'm looking to see this thing brought
to a resolution. I don't want to prolong it with additional studies. I
just want somebody to say yeah, let's do it, no, let's not do it. And then
we'll make a decision and get on with our lives and get out of this
business of fighting each other all the time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Just in response to what
you just said, Commissioner Coyle, what happened when this all
began -- of course, I live in an area called East Naples, and we want
very badly to improve our area, very much so. And the county had
allotted money for East Naples and for Naples Park, a little bit for
each.
Naples Park people came and said can we use your money,
because we're ready to go. So of course we in response, because we
wanted to help you as much as we need everybody else's. We gave up
our money so that you could do this. Now what it's done is it's left a
bad taste in all the Commissioners' mouths, and we'll probably never
Page 239
September 23, 2003
get that again.
We're paying our own way. I mean, you look at Bayshore, and
you see progress. You look at the Triangle, those are poor people in
there and they're paying their way. But it's too bad that you have to
yell and stuff like that, because, you know, we're trying -- all we did
was come in on the tail end. We didn't start this. We thought you
wanted it and we were trying to help you. And all we do is get yelled
at. And it makes me feel bad, because I voted to give up the money
we had for an area that do want to improve to you who then use it
against me. I'm sorry, but I just had to say that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Trullinger, it's quite
interesting, you were saying that basically on scientific survey, just the
hits on your website indicated that it was about a 50/50 ratio for or
against; is that correct?
MR. TRULLINGER: For or against the survey, not the proposed
plan.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what I'm getting at, for or
against the survey, exactly.
MR. TRULLINGER: And that's from the folks that contacted
me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I really believe that this is
where the democratic process plays out. And what I think we need to
do is if you'll take the suggestions that both Commissioner Coyle and
Commissioner Henning gave you in regards to maybe just cleaning up
the survey a little bit better, I don't think it's that far out, and I think we
ought to let it get out there to the public, and we want to bring this to a
total end and get this thing either one way or the other. And I think
the time has come to get on with the program here.
MR. TRULLINGER: When you say clean it up a little bit, what
do you mean by that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the suggestions that were
Page 240
September 23, 2003
offered this evening by Commissioner Henning.
MR. TRULLINGER: The suggestions I heard by Commissioner
Henning were to drop questions 10 and 11, basically.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, 10.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just 10.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The --
MR. TRULLINGER: Okay. Commissioner Coyle was getting--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wait a minute, I wasn't done. I had a
lot of time to speak. Sir, I'll review it for you, my concerns.
I don't see what we're going to get out of "I'm not sure about this
proposal" or "I don't know." I just don't know why that question is
there. You know, I don't see -- it's not going to resolve anything.
MR. TRULLINGER: Well, what are you going to do,
Commissioner, if someone is truly undecided?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Leave it blank then.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know what I do when I go in a
ballot box and there are people on the ballot that I don't know about?
I skip it. I don't check anything. Or ifI don't like either one of them, I
skip it, you know.
MR. TRULLINGER: So what's wrong then with putting that as
an option? I don't get it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So what are we going to do by putting
it in there and if you get 80 percent of the people saying I don't know?
What are we going to do with that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We don't want to continue this on.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And then the next one is anything that
says I believe this should be further studied.
MR. TRULLINGER: Well, I've got to tell you, I would have a
severe problem professionally dropping the I don't know option. I've
never done a survey where we don't offer that as a choice. And I'm
telling you right now, I don't like it for it to go out that way. I will do
it if I'm instructed to do so by the board, but it will not be with my
Page 241
September 23, 2003
company letterhead on there. Because I don't want to have my
company reputation sullied by what I regard as an improper survey.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, sir, we're going to call the
public speakers and maybe you can convince me why it should be
there. And you'll have time to think about that, because I just don't
know.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other thing I think we ought to
look at is this is this person's realm of occupation, and obviously he's
made a study on this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right, and he's the expert, but I don't
know.
MR. TRULLINGER: I might also tell you -- I might also
mention one step that I neglected to mention before, and that is we
have validated this proposed survey, and we did it by conducting
telephone interviews with 50 property owners in Naples Park. We
found the following, which has led me to believe stronger than ever
that this whole thing is legitimate as drafted.
First of all, we found in a telephone interview that the length
averaged eight minutes to complete this thing. Now, a number of the
opponents of the survey are indicating oh, it's too long, it's too
complicated. Eight minutes where we were reading every question,
and most of the optional choices and then asking the people, do you
understand the question? How can we improve this question?
Probably will take them five minutes or less to do the survey. That's
my first point.
Second point, we heard some people complaining on the
telephone about well, this language is a little bit vague or we don't
understand this question. But most people we talked to understood it
just fine. So I thought I'd mention that and give you a
recommendation, my strong professional opinion, that this survey be
approved as is and sent out to our printer tomorrow. That's what I'm
Page 242
September 23, 2003
ready to do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You'll think about my --
MR. TRULLINGER: Yeah, I will. I mean, I don't know what
else to say, to tell you the truth.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that -- I think that no matter
what result we get back, if it doesn't indicate a clear level of support
for the plan or a clear level of rejection of the plan, the board probably
will do nothing. Well, I shouldn't speak for the board. I would not
vote to authorize another penny to do another day's worth of study on
this project.
If people are uncertain at this point in time after all of the public
meetings that have been held, if they cannot decide whether they want
it or don't want it, I'm not putting any more money into it. End of
story. So it's going to come out either I want it or I don't want it. And
under those two circumstances, I'll make a decision. The rest of it, as
far as I'm concerned, I will not support any more money be spent on
this project, unless there is clear support that the majority of the
people wants it.
MR. TRULLINGER: Seems to me, Commissioner Coyle, that
you're going to be getting invalid data by not giving the probably tiny
handful of people that don't know which way to go on this basically
no say, no option. If you remove that as a choice for them, you're
going to be looking at data that conceivably could be way beyond the
margin of error in terms of accuracy.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. TRULLINGER: So my feeling is we're splitting hairs.
There's going to be a tiny number of people that say don't know. But I
feel they should have that option.
Now, I'm open to the idea of taking out further planning as an
option. That's not a biggie for me. But I would suggest you leave it in
to keep it consistent with the survey terminology that practically every
Page 243
September 23, 2003
other survey in the world with the exception of the Naples Park
Association includes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. At this time, I think it's
appropriate to go to public speakers.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have seven speakers. The first
being Loretta LeLeux. She will be followed by Edward Kobak.
MS. LELEUX: For the record, my name is Loretta Leleux. I
live in Naples Park, 800 104th Avenue. I've been a resident there for
13 years.
I'm going to take my life in my hand and tell you that I was part
of the original committee that worked on this. Maybe I shouldn't have
given my address.
But anyway, I've been asked why we didn't advertise this, why
didn't the neighborhood know all of this. And we've been working on
this what, three years, and we appeared before the Board of County
Commissioners, so we were on television every time we came. We
publish a community news in Naples Park, that was written up in
there. We have property owners meetings. We talked about that and
we voted to support the endeavor of getting a community plan. So
every step of the way we were, you know, out front and public. We
didn't go house-to-house, but we were out in public.
It was brought up to the other association, and at that time they
also backed it. When we start publicizing the -- you know,
Dover-Kohl was going to be here, we had, you know, signs. We -- the
water-- the utilities company sent out fliers to notify everybody.
People didn't come to the meetings, didn't come to the planning
meetings. The people that were interested did. And it wasn't until
they did the wrap-up and brought out, you know, the things that were
of concern, and when they came back and said, well, you've got to
have a cost associated with it. That's when everybody started coming
out of the woodwork, so to speak.
But we were out front. And I'm sorry that you've taken flack for
Page 244
September 23, 2003
it. I've taken flack for it. So have the other people that are on the
committee. I still think that this is the best thing for Naples Park.
We have--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You'll have your chance, ma'am.
MS. LELEUX: I think Trullinger did an outstanding job with all
our input. I think it's an easy survey. It's not that complicated.
Anybody that says it's too long or too complicated is insulting my
intelligence and the intelligence of the homeowners. We're all capable
of making the decision to purchase in Naples Park in the first place
and to obtain a mortgage. If we can understand that, I think we can all
understand the survey.
The "I don't know" was a concern with us because we felt that a
lot of people were making -- taking opinions of other people, and it's
kind of like playing the telephone game. You know, you tell one
person and it passes on, and by the time it gets down to the nth degree,
it no longer has very much of the same information. And based upon
on the fact that we made available copies of the community plan for
people that wanted to read the plan to see what was in the plan -- I
only had 15 people request a copy of the plan. That tells me there
weren't very many people that read it and know very much about it.
They're just going by word of mouth and playing the telephone game.
So how much of it is legit and how much isn't? It becomes distorted.
And so I think that I don't know is very definitely an option.
Because I think a lot of people don't know and aren't sure.
The comments I'm getting from-- because I e-mail a lot of
people, and I'm getting positive comments. All along I have. And I
think that we have been the silent majority. I speak up and take my
life in my hands, but I think a lot of people do not like to be
confronted with animosity and all this awful thing that makes you
think you want to put your house on the market and move out of
Naples Park, okay?
So I thank you for what you have done for us. I'm pleased that
Page 245
September 23, 2003
we're going to have a menu driven survey on this. And I think you're
going to be surprised about the results when they come in. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Edward Kobak. He will be
followed by Barbara Bateman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And folks, I know we're all ladies and
gentlemen here. And I met many of you and I've enjoyed the
conversation. And I hope that everybody respects their neighbor on
their comments, and look forward to the next comment. Sir?
MR. KOBAK: My name is Ed Kobak. I live at 9675 Seventh
Street North. I'm not afraid of my address.
I have to disagree with the speaker. She said she's one of the
silent majority. That's wrong. It's been wrong at the meetings. We've
asked over and over to have a yes or no vote.
I'd like to know how many people were in that group that
approached you Commissioners originally to get this $280,000
appropriation, whatever it was. How many were there?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think there was like a half a dozen.
MR. KOBAK: Now, if you had polled the rest of Naples Park,
you could have saved $280,000, I am sure. That's number one.
Number two, can I address somebody personally up there?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
MR. KOBAK: Mr. Halas, I voted for you. I'm sorry to say, you
went on the thing that you would represent the majority in the Park. I
voted for you and it's the sorriest thing I've done since I've been a
voter.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, I don't think that's necessary.
MR. KOBAK: It is necessary, because that's exactly how I feel.
I feel betrayed. He's taken a neutral position. Is that right when you're
supposed to represent the majority of people?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Again, I think we're all ladies and
Page 246
September 23, 2003
gentlemen here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to tell you right to your
face, that number one is that this is a democratic society. There are
3,300 people there in Naples Park. And every time that we have a
meeting, whether it's at the church or whether it's here, I hear the same
200 voices. I don't hear the other 3,000 voices, okay? And I think it's
time that we have a survey, get it over with and then we'll find out.
And whatever it tums out, that's the direction we're going to go into,
because that's a democratic society.
MR. KOBAK: At the last two meetings there were probably 90
percent of the people that asked for a yes or no vote on this survey.
We didn't get it. Why not? Mr. Trullinger said it was up to you
Commissioners. If you put a yes or no on there, you could take it right
now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sir, this is a survey and not a
ballot. It's a survey, because the amount of money that was put into
this whole plan to get an idea of what the people of Naples Park
wanted, this is why we have to end up in this process to where it's a
survey, because these are the items that the people that came forth and
spent their time during Thanksgiving about a year or so ago, that went
in, sat down with the people from Dover-Kohl, who's a research
organization out of Miami, because there's been stipulations that
they're a developer and they're after everybody's land, that is false.
They're there to assist the people to make sure that whatever they
decided that they needed that they would like to see if their
community, these are basically the same type of questions that relate
on the survey.
So I'm sure that however it goes, if the majority say we don't
want any of this, which is on the last page, that's -- the problem's
solved.
MR. KOBAK: But you're going -- putting the horse before the
carriage, or behind the carriage. If I were going to spend $280,000, I
Page 247
September 23, 2003
would sure not take five or 10 people's word. I would poll the people
in Naples Park, all 3,000 some odd--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're absolutely right, sir. And if
I was at this board at the time that this all started, you can bet that
before anything of this nature would have been brought forth, I would
have gotten all different homeowners involved and said let -- you tell
me if you want this, not just one homeowners group. I would have
gotten all three homeowners group. But I wasn't there at the time, all
right? So we have to salvage what we can at this point in time.
MR. KOBAK: Well, you have yours and I have mine, and I
think I have more behind me.
Now, the Commissioners, you also, I would like to ask you why
there's not a yes or no vote on this survey. To the whole --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have anything else to bring
up, sir, besides that?
MR. KOBAK: Well, I think you should do the will of the
people.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, sir.
MR. KOBAK: My time is up. I thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Barbara Bateman. She will
be followed by John Austin.
MS. BATEMAN: Can I be heard now?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, it's great.
MS. BATEMAN: Well, good evening, Commissioners, Mr.
Chairman. This is a lot different from the last time that we met, and
we really appreciate the time specified, 5:30. Made a big difference.
It's not a strain on everyone, and we appreciate that.
Before I start, my name is Barbara Bateman, and I'm a 28-year
residents in Naples Park, and I am also the civic chair person for the
Naples Park Area Association.
And Commissioner Fiala, it's unfortunate that you were misled
Page 248
September 23, 2003
by a few members of our community. And I know that they meant
well, but it was a case that we needed to have an outreach of all our --
best percentage of our community, rather than two associations that
have one association, their average meetings are -- they run anywhere
from 25 to 30 people.
The Naples Park Area Association did have a small presentation
of maybe 20, 25 people max by Erica Lynn, and that was last spring.
Prior to that, we had no other information. And not everybody
watches the video tapes of the board meetings, and a lot of people
don't get the Naples Daily News, and I could go on and on.
And Commissioner Coyle, I understand you don't want to spend
any more money, but there are a lot of us that have lived in Naples
Park for well over 35, 40 years, and our tax dollars have gone into the
county as it has developed through the years.
And certainly with us taxing ourselves like the community
development districts or improvement districts where they tax
themselves and then they also have money going into the general
fund, we would like to see our money that goes into the general fund
come back into our community without having to always tax
ourselves, like these more wealthier communities.
One of my questions is what progress is being made with Naples
Park survey? I don't know what the county is trying to do to our
community, but did you know that when this --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute, wait a minute.
MS. BATEMAN: -- survey is completed--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I say something here?
MS. BATEMAN: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The county is not trying to do
anything to your community. The county is trying to have a
democratic voting process so your community can decide what your
community wants to do. I take great offense at people characterizing
this as a county project. We spent a lot of money getting where you
Page 249
September 23, 2003
are today at the request of people in your community three years ago.
Where were you then when you were -- you could have told us that we
shouldn't have been spending that money.
MS. BATEMAN: I agree. A lot of us in the community didn't --
we're not blaming the Board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't come here and tell me that
the county is trying to do something to your community. Because
that's not happening. We're really trying to get you to exercise a
democratic process and vote.
MS. BATEMAN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, that's all we're trying to do.
MS. BATEMAN: Okay. But did you know that when this
survey is completed, it will be our fourth survey? Did you know that?
The first survey was completed on November the 21 st, 2002,
which was a citizen's planner packet. 122 people responded. And
there was well over 100 more that participated.
The second survey was Voice Your Opinion, and that was taken
on February the 6th, 2003.
And then this third survey was the April 29th of the citizen input
form by the county. I believe 562 people participated.
Now, how many times do we use these or how many times are
we going to perform these surveys, and how many times do they need
to be taken? I think Commissioner Coyle kind of answered that. This
is it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is.the final survey.
MS. BATEMAN: This is the final?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, this is the final survey.
MS. BATEMAN: Okay. Because it was beginning to appear
that these surveys kept continuing until the county finally, you know,
would get what it wants but not what the greater number of the
property owners want.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ma'am, the county --
Page 250
September 23, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Again --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not the county's idea.
MS. BATEMAN: It's not the county, it's the people of Naples
Park. Which was originally a very few --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we understand the issue that it
wasn't a full representation, like Commissioner Halas said that. We
understand that.
MS. BATEMAN: Good.
Many of the comments I received about this Trullinger survey,
which we heard, and a lot of changes have happened since a number
of our elderly people have not gotten the most recent updated version,
but a lot of the elderly people did say it was kind of complex for them
and it was too long, and they'd rather have one or two pages. And I
believe that was your point, Commissioner Halas. You would like to
see it at one or two pages.
So I really want to -- our outstanding commissioner responsibility
I feel is to look for our health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and
would you say that this accurately reflects the considerations towards
Naples Park community? Because we have been overwhelmed with
the outrageous costs for the transformation of Naples Park. And I
really hope that you search your conscience and realize how this
project has been affecting our community, because so many of our
citizens have been experiencing poor health physically and
psychologically. It has really been very detrimental to our
community.
So I certainly hope your search your conscience and realize it's
really been devastating to so many of us. Thank you very much for
your time. And we're not blaming the board by any means. I know it
comes back and we I guess have no one else to focus on so we say
well, Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the thing is --
MS. BATEMAN: But we have a number of people in our
Page 251
September 23, 2003
community that had moved this forward, and I really wish that we had
had more input in the very beginning. It's unfortunate, but this is
where we are now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And it's also unfortunate that
there's been forces out in the community that have basically construed
what really took place in the survey that was done by Dover-Kohl to
the point where there's a lot of innuendos and insinuations that there's
going to be a high price tag, and that's not the end result. The end
result was that you can tailor any type of package, but it was always
stressed in the newspaper-- whenever anything came out in the
newspaper, it was an automatic $10,000. And I think that alone is a
misrepresentation of the whole Dover-Kohl project. Because it was
not the -- that was not the whole concensus of the thing, to be as
expensive as possible. It was to tailor something for the residents
there that wanted it for originally.
MS. BATEMAN: Yes, I understand that. However, I notice that
in a number of articles I have read and literature that's going out, and it
has been stated an estimated cost. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Austin. He will be
followed by Chris Carpenter.
MR. AUSTIN: Hi, I'm John Austin, I live on 97th Street.
Before I start, I'd like to say I think Ms. Bateman was treated
rather roughly by this committee, and I resent it. And that's coming
from the coalition of Naples Park. I resent the way she was treated.
Please refrain from another woman coming up here and being treated
the same as that.
I'd like to stand before you today --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And vice versa, sir.
MR. AUSTIN: What's that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And vice versa.
MR. AUSTIN: No, she was kind. Ask the people in the
audience.
Page 252
September 23, 2003
I'd like to stand before you today and repeat one statement for
three to five minutes, it goes like this. You failed to note 2,669
property owners that you had a plan that was going to cost $10,000
plus interest for redevelopment. You failed to notify 2,669 property
owners that you had a plan that was going to cost $10,000 plus interest
for redevelopment. I could do that for five minutes, and you think
what? It would go right over your head. Because we've been here,
we've said it. I've got the reports from June 10th. Everyone on this
panel is quoted in there as being leery of the cost. And one thing
you're really leery about is did you inform the people, the property
owners of Naples Park, before you went on this with this plan? You
didn't. And that comes from Tom Olliff, who warned the board not to
proceed with it unless they spoke with every property owner in Naples
Park. That has never happened.
So when you say this is a community plan, it's not. It's
Dover-Kohl, and they don't want it. They say it's a community plan.
Joe Schmitt said it's not his, from the planning and development. He
says it's the communities. Your group says it's not your plan, it's the
community's. The community has never accepted this plan, so how
can you call it our plan? Anybody want to answer that? How can you
call this the Naples Park community plan when it was never voted on?
Totally wrong. You'll sit there and say let him talk, he'll go home.
We won't go away, I'll tell you that.
Okay, let me talk about the five or six that came to see you. One
of them is rumored to be a citizen of Canada. Since when do we
march to the tune of the Canadian drum? Another woman was a real
estate agent who just left here. She didn't want to stick around to see
what I had to say. She went out and located five spots for future
growth in Naples Park without the plan being accepted by you. She
was directed by Vera FitzGerald to go out and buy five locations for
park space. And you know when you were talking about private
investment? That's the big builders. They want those spots. They
Page 253
September 23, 2003
want to take eminent domain around those spots with condominiums
and townhouses. She would make a hell of a profit as a real estate
person.
Then we had a member of the planning board spearheading this,
along with Commissioner Carter. And he is actually violating the
ethics code. I'd say it was a conflict of interest for him to write letters
to the editor and speak before the group here in regard to this plan, just
because he lives in Naples Park.
Okay, next, you have my plan up there. We got sick and tired of
waiting for the yes or no vote to come out, and you all in this
document, back to your June 10th meeting, are looking for a yes or no
vote. You want a yes or no vote but you'd like a menu. You want a
yes or no vote, Tom, you want a yes -- Mr. Coyle, you all want a yes
or no vote. You haven't had one.
So this procrastination led us to say let's show them what's out
there. So you have our plan. It's a poll, but I use the word vote. And
it's documented and it will be -- you're all invited, your committee,
Joe, the whole group. Bring them all. We're going to save these till
October 15th. You come and help us open them. And Tom. And if it
says yes in here, by God, you'll never hear from us again. But if it
says no, we want to you act on it. That's the yes or no vote.
Now, let me say something here that comes from the Constitution
of the United States. The Constitution demands that the government
can't do anything without the consent of the governed. And that's the
governed out here, the people of Naples Park and the ones that showed
up here. They're the governed, you're the governor. You can't do
anything without their consent. So we're helping you. We got a poll
going, a legitimate poll. We have all the documents. We know there's
2,669 property owners. There are 7,000 people living in the Park. I
hear 3,000, 3,500, this and that. There's 7,000 people living in the
park. They weren't all informed. There's 33 percent renters. It's
down to this, 2,669. That's the tally. We have it alphabetized. We
Page 254
September 23, 2003
took it from Abe Skinner's office. And we look forward word to you
all being invited October 15th to open up this and find out what the
people want finally. The democratic way, a yes or no vote. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Chris Carpenter. She will be
followed by Manuel Rodrigues.
MS. CARPENTER: Hi, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Chris Carpenter.
First, I'd like to compliment Mr. Trullinger on the job that he did.
I found him to be very professional, very responsive to our comments
and suggestions, and I think he did a really outstanding job.
Regarding the answer choice for all of the questions, I believe
there should be more study. I ask that you please not assume that
people automatically know that there could be a charge involved with
more study. Maybe you could put a paragraph at the beginning
explaining this, or put it next to each answer choice in the question.
But I don't think it should be assumed that people will know this.
Oh, gee, just a couple of things that I wanted to point out to you.
Not to bring up anything unpleasant, but at the June 10th meeting, Mr.
Schmitt said that staff would involve the public with a ballot and he
apologized to the residents of Naples Park because he felt that the staff
failed in getting information out to the public about the plan, and he
made a commitment that staff was going to do better in developing a
ballot to ensure that it could be understood and that people have a
choice.
And I just wanted to point out to you that county staff did not
send out announcement to Naples Park property owners about Mr.
Trullinger's meeting on the design of the survey. The only written
notice that we got was a Naples Daily News article, and it came out
the Friday of Labor Day weekend, and the meeting was held the
following Wednesday. And I just feel like staff kind of let us down a
Page 255
September 23, 2003
little bit. And I just wanted to point that out to you.
And the last thing that I wanted to point out is there's been an
awful lot of animosity on both sides. I don't want the plan and I've
been heckeled and harassed and even threatened, and so it goes both
ways.
And anyway, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to state
my opinion. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Manuel Rodrigues. He will
be followed by your final speaker, Cathy Velund-Stucko.
MR. RODRIGUES: Good afternoon, gentlemen. My name is
Manny Rodrigues. I've been a resident of Naples Park for 15 years --
14 years.
This survey here really should only be a yes or no. I've stated
that I think on our June 10th board meeting. I find it ironic that two
gentlemen of the board state this should be a democratic process.
Well, I agree with you, this should be a democratic process. This vote
should go in our general election. It should be a yes or no vote, and
that would truly be a democratic process.
What this is here is not a deliberate attempt by nobody, but it is
confusing, and it leads a lot of open items, such as on all these --
basically on every paragraph it states that the cost to all property
owners would depend upon amount of county matching funds, if any.
Well, I want to know what those matching funds if any are going
to be. This is an open item. It really is an open item. And that's listed
in almost every single paragraph of this survey.
And I do respect the hard work that's put on here by everyone,
but I do feel this survey is just a facade. To me it's a facade, and it
really -- to be truly meaningful, it should be an up or down vote on
general election.
And I must say that one thing that I have learned through all this
here is that I should have gotten involved when those 12 members or
Page 256
September 23, 2003
20 members stated to the board at that time that they represented me.
Because I can tell you, they did not.
And I was -- I wasn't sitting around watching TV, I wasn't sitting
around smoking or drinking beer, I was out with my two boys, one
cross-country, one football/baseball, and ii was a coach. So I was
involved in communities. And I apologize to myself and my family
for not being involved in this process at an earlier stage when things
started to come about. I just let it happen for the other guy. I let the
other guy get involved in thinking they were going to do the right
thing.
Well, that's the only thing I can say, the only positive thing out of
this whole situation is that I am now going to get involved every time
someone says that they represent me. And I can tell you that they do
not represent us. And thank you very much for your time.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Kathy Velund-Stucko.
MS. VELUND-STUCKO: Hi. I'm Cathy Velund-Stucko, born
and raised in Collier County. My dad came here in 1945. I've been a
property owner in Naples Park for 22 years, guys. I have seen boat
loads of changes in Collier County, disgusted with a lot of them, a lot
of them are great. But I said what has gone on in Naples Park -- my
husband's attended the meetings; I'm the same as the other guy, I work
full time, I do charitable work, I've got a seven-year-old and I've got a
college student. I said we have just about had it. I said everybody has
said the voice of the people. We elect you guys into office, we want
you to be our voice. It seems like everybody -- and that just can't be, I
have my little neighbors, the old retired couples, I have the older
people that have been there longer than me, and every single one of
them, it's kind of strange that these statistics come up that yes, there's
so many people that want this.
And I have to agree, I have to address the board and say I don't
understand, as a little peanut born and raised here, if somebody came
to me and asked me, we want to redevelop an area, that you better do
Page 257
September 23, 2003
a little bit of research, because that's the beginning point. You say
we're blaming you? The paper will blame you, everybody's going to
blame you because you could have stopped it to begin with. Because
if you guys had done the survey, as everybody said at the beginning,
do a mailing, Naples Park wants money, okay, mail it off to all of
them. See what kind of response we get. Is it worth even taking it to
them or are you guys going to do it yourselves?
And I just don't understand how something -- and I have to say, I
would like to know, what would the cost be if you did a yes or no
vote? What is the big -- I know you said you've done four surveys,
three surveys, whatever. What would it cost the board, or why can't
Naples Park, if all these people say they've gone through all these
surveys -- my husband and I have filled them out ourselves, my
neighbors have filled them out -- what is it going to cost the board for
us to get a yes or no vote? So you got -- we don't want the big survey.
It complicates. You know, you want to say -- I said it is
black-and-white. It's either you want it or you don't. They say that's
simple, no -- it is, it's really simple. Don't complicate something.
Don't give somebody three pages, say here you go, this is what you've
got to do. After they've already gone through it, guys.
God bless you. You know, listen to us. It's simple, it really is.
It's not that complicated. God bless you, thank you for your time.
Everybody does--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ma'am? Ma'am?
MS. VELUND-STUCKO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Excuse me, I want to thank you
very much for getting up there and expressing your thoughts, because
I think it was near and dear to your heart. And I think all of us on the
Commission have learned a lot from this exercise. And I'm sure that
you'll see the Commission will be more forthright when something of
this nature comes up.
But I just want to get one thing here clear. At this point in time
Page 258
September 23, 2003
the county has not sent out any surveys. I believe that was -- all the
surveys were Dover-Kohl. So the surveys that you were involved
with were the Dover-Kohl surveys, and what they were doing is when
they sent the first one out, they basically got input in regards to what
people wanted, and then from there they narrowed it down again with
another survey.
And this survey that is presently going out is the only survey that
the county has put extra money -- set extra money aside for to get a
final result so we can put this thing to bed. And if it comes back that
nobody's in favor of this, hey, that's it. And we just felt that it needs to
be through a democratic process.
So I listened -- I've heard you, we've learned a lot from this
whole exercise, and I can assure you that we will be much wiser in the
next time around.
MS. VELUND-STUCKO: Yes, sir, and thank you for listening,
but if it was simpler, it really would -- if you guys could take that into
consideration, I'd really, and I think many people would really
appreciate it. And if you went to the -- a couple people in Naples Park
that looked at the things that aren't here, aren't able to get out and said
would you rather do this one or this one, I really hope that you guys
will take that into consideration.
Again, thank you, and God bless you all.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One thing I noticed here, as
well as many other times, people always say why don't you listen to
the people? You should be for the majority. But usually it's only the
opposition that's there, and they're very, very vocal and so they always
think they're the majority. And usually the people that are on the
other side feel very uncomfortable about getting into the fray so they
just kind of sit back. But they do vote. So that's what the survey is for.
Secondly, somebody was saying something about how can we
just believe a few people. You weren't even here, Frank -- I mean,
Page 259
September 23, 2003
Commissioner Halas, so you don't even know about this. But --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I wasn't here either.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you weren't here either? Oh,
for goodness sake.
Well, let me stand up and say I was here. And things in my
community always start with a small group. I can't tell you how many
things we've activated just because we felt there was a need to make
something better.
For instance, Bayshore, we started that. Another one was our
park in East Naples that was, I'm sorry to say Collier County parks
people, but at the time it was deplorable and did not compare all to the
rest of community and the landscaping in East Naples. But it all
started with a small group.
Just like in Isles of Capris, they wanted a park, they didn't have
one, their children couldn't get one. And so somebody went out and
identified little pieces of property that were there on the Capri. And
they've just finished the park, by the way. They're going to have their
grand opening and they're all in love with it. They're so happy. But it
always starts with a small group.
How did I know when this small group came that it didn't
represent everybody? I kind of thought it was just like what I'd
always been involved in. And, you know, when we got involved, the
whole group got together and we all worked for the cause, and so I
didn't realize it would be any different. So I do apologize to you for
that.
I have to also tell you, last remark, many times people issue
accusations and derogatory remarks, and that never warms my heart
for somebody's cause. Not that any of you have, but I have received
them. And I just want to tell you, it never makes me feel like I want to
vote in favor of the person who's accusing me of something, because I
wouldn't do anything to harm anybody, and I don't -- it makes me feel
bad. Anyway, that's all I had to say.
Page 260
September 23, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I remained quiet for
a long time, as I've been listening to everything taking place.
And actually, this whole process is quite interesting. Every one
of the Commissioners here come from a strong background of civic
involvement. I myself have started seven new civic associations in
my district in the past two and a half years.
And I can tell you that the anger is going to go away, but what
you people have got going as far as coming together, even though the
cause might be in disarray over what's right and what's wrong, the fact
that you've come together and yo identified some, you'll remain
together after this.
And in the future you're going to see a lot of things your
community's going to benefit from your interaction today. About 10
percent of you will remain active. The rest of you will disappear back
into the woodwork. But that 10 percent's going to be a very vocal
group and they're going to move forward and they're going to be very
prerogative. And I'm looking forward to seeing you back again,
hopefully in a much happier light.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that the Board of County
Commissioners, where we're going, we're going to give the residents
or the property owners in Naples Park 11 times to say yes or no. And
I think that's important.
People are -- I understand, I've heard the -- a lot of people saying,
you know, we're not in favor of this. Well, we're going to give you 11
times to say we're not in favor of this. You know, and that's going to
speak numbers to the Board of Commissioners.
So at this time, what's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to make a motion that we
carry on with this survey, get it out into the neighborhood, and with
the exception of taking out -- I believe we talked about, I think it was,
question number 10. And continue on and get this over with. And
Page 261
September 23, 2003
that will be the end of this whole thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas,
' second by Commissioner Fiala. Discussion?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, one other thing. You had one thing
in there from Commissioner Coyle where he said to put in private
sector funding, was a word change in order to add some clarity to
question number two. I want to make sure that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I'll amend my motion to fit
that wording.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there anything else that needs to be
critiqued from the survey?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to say, why was
everybody afraid of the survey? They get to say yes or no in here. I
just didn't understand that. It's explained fully and you get to say yes
or no, no matter what.
So anyway, I just wanted to say I didn't understand that, but
you've got my second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one comment. I was going
to say, some of you aren't going to be pleased with the fact the
survey's going to go out. If you want to really express your
aggression, when you get the survey, take a black marking pen, write
no on top of each answer going down -- how many times?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Eleven.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
CHAIRMAN HENNING: --
message will be loud and clear.
Eleven
11 times. And I think your
that.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: You can't do
You cannot do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, don't do that.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: You cannot do
Page 262
September 23, 2003
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can't do that. No? Why
can't you do that? I thought we made the rules. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, folks.
MR. REESER: (Was off the microphone at this time) One
question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, after -- after the meeting.
MR. REESER: How are we going to (inaudible) lost their jobs,
loss their income from the stock market, lost everything. Every time
they send a bill around to my house like my automobile insurance, my
flood insurance, my homeowner's insurance. They take every damn
thing I get off of my paycheck. And I'm 80 years old working to make
it so I can make ends meet and these people are going to come up with
10 or $20,000 that I've got to have to pay for a month. Where am I
going to get this money and where are all these retired people going to
get the money, 200 or $300 a month on top of others expenses?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'd be glad to talk to you after the
meeting, sir.
Okay, nothing else. I'm sorry, I'm not taking anything. We had
public input. We have the legal sufficiency and this is only a survey.
MR. PETTIT: Correct. It's just a decision of the board as to
whether they want to direct the consultant to disseminate the survey.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further comments from the
Board of County Commissioners? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: One thing. I'm not really happy with
this, but I'm going to vote with the majority.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 263
September 23, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As long as the majority feels this
way, we'll get all those back anyway, so I don't know what anybody's
fearful of.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then we'll have it in writing.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, we sent out a public notice to all
the papers and whatnot that after this item -- we'd only do one item
after 5:30 and this was the Naples Park survey piece; that we would
reconvene at 9:00 tomorrow morning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That sounds fine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we're going to take one more item
or we're not going to take --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Board is recessed until 9:00 a.m. on
Wednesday.
Page 264
September 23, 2003
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:55 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
TOM HENNING, Chairrffan
ATTEST:.
D,W~-~'~-~' BROCK, CLERK
S{Onature only.
These minutes approved by the Board
as presented ~ or as coxected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY ROSE WITT, KELLEY
BLECHA, MARGARET SMITH AND CHERIE NOTTINGHAM
Page 265