BCC Minutes 12/16/2003 RDecember 16, 2003
TRANSCRIPT OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF DECEMBER 16, 2003
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
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 9:08 a.m. in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Tom Henning
Jim Coletta
Fred Coyle
Donna Fiala
Frank Halas
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Administrator
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
December 16, 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
December 16, 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.
e
e
Se
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. November 14, 2003 - Community Redevelopment Agency
C. November 18, 2003 - Regular BCC Meeting
SERVICE AWARDS
PROCLAMATIONS
Ae
Be
Proclamation to designate December 17, 2003, as A Commemoration of the
First Manned Powered Flight. To be accepted by Duke Vasey, Chairman,
Collier County Airport Authority.
Proclamation to designate Sunday, December 21, 2003, as National
Homeless Persons' Day. To be accepted by Mary Soucek, Chairperson and
Petro Jones, Incoming Chairperson, Catholic Charities of Collier County.
PRESENTATIONS
2
December 16, 2003
Ae
Recommendation to recognize Amy Tozier, Case Manager, Human Services
Department as Employee of the Year 2003.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
AJ
Item continued from the December 2, 2003 BCC Meeting. Public Petition
request by Mr. Charles H. Gunther regarding the removal of the Gateway
Triangle from the Community Redevelopment Agency.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Ao
Item continued from the December 2, 2003 BCC Meeting. ADA-2003-AR-
4351 Anthony P. Pires, Jr., of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo, P.A.,
representing Keith and Sue Orschell, requesting an appeal to interpretation
AR-4119 pursuant to 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 rural agricultural (A) zoning district for
property located at 6167 Adkins Avenue in Section 12, Township 49 south,
Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
Be
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. CU-2002-AR-2354, William Hoover,
AICP, of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc., representing Pastor Roy
Shuck of Faith Community Church, requesting Conditional Uses 3 and 4 of
the "E" Estates District to add a child care and pre-school to the existing
Faith Community Church, located at 6455 22nd Avenue NW, further
described as part of Tracts 15 and 16, Golden Gate Estates Unit 97.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING
Ae
Public Hearing for the 2003 Cycle 2 Growth Management Plan
Amendments (adoption hearing).
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2003-AR-3905, Terry Kepple,
PE, of Kepple Engineering, Inc., representing Stewart Marcus, requesting a
rezone from "RSF-1" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as
the Carlisle Regency PUD. The project will consist of a maximum of 35
residential dwelling units and is located at the southeast comer of the
intersection of Orange Blossom Drive and Yarberry Lane, in Section 2,
3
December 16, 2003
Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida, consisting of
11.7+ acres.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Ae
Appointment of members to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
B. Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee.
Gm
Appointment of members to the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory
Committee.
D. Appointment of member to the Environmental Advisory Council.
me
Appointment of members to the Development Services Advisory
Committee.
F. Confirmation of member representing the EDC to the Revenue Commission.
Ge
Staff analysis and drafting of an ordinance to regulate the Landscaping
Mitigation Bank. (Commissioner Henning)
He
Board of County Commissioners item for discussion, public input and
consideration of decision relating to Charter County Form of Government.
(Commissioner Henning and David Weigel)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Ae
To obtain Board approval to award RFP #03-3505 "Transportation Roadway
Asset Inventory Database" and authorize staff to commence negotiations.
Estimated fiscal impact to be $250,000. (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services)
Be
Item continued from the December 2, 2003 BCC Meeting. Provide
information to the Board of County Commissioners on hours of operation
for construction activities including excavating operations. (Joseph K.
Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development)
4
December 16, 2003
Ce
De
Ge
lie
Approve Budget Amendment recognizing award of Federal Aviation
Administration Grants, eliminating a previously approved project, and
returning net adjustment to General Fund. (Gene Schmidt, Executive
Director, Airport Authority
Provide information and clarification on the provisions set forth by Code of
Laws Section 74-201, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee
Ordinance, 2001-13, as amended, regarding impact fee assessments for
changes of use or new/added development/intensity. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development)
Authorize staff to proceed with financing requirements to purchase a 49.81-
acre parcel of land located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
Goodlette-Frank Road and Golden Gate Parkway, providing for drainage
improvements, transportation improvements and environmental protection.
Fiscal impact not to exceed $20,300,000. (Norman Feder, Transportation
Services Administrator.)
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. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public
Utilities)
Approve a Development Agreement with Stock Development LLC, which
among other things, resolves a long-standing issue involving the Lely
Resorts PUD and Development Order, and which agreement includes (1) the
conveyance to the County, at no cost, of needed right-of-way along Collier
Boulevard, and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road and for certain intersection
improvements; (2) allows for needed stormwater management projects; (3)
requires developer to construct, in place of a six lane roadway, a four lane
roadway from Rattlesnake-Hammock Road to Lely Resort Boulevard; (4)
requires developer to construct sidewalks, and provide bicycle racks and
easements for County bus shelters; (4) requires developer to pay County
$200,000 for County's overlay of Lely Boulevard; and (5) requires the
County give final acceptance for the maintenance of certain roadways which
were previously preliminarily accepted by the County. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services Division)
Direct County Attorney to file appropriate motions to pursue the recovery of
funds deposited with the Registry of the Court. (Mike Smykowski, Director,
5
December 16, 2003
11.
Jo
Office of Management and Budget)
Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve an agreement
with the agency for Health Care Administration and Naples Community
Hospital for participation in the Upper Payment Limit Program for services
provided on behalf of the Human Services Department, County Health
Department, and David Lawrence Center to generate an additional $438,915
in Federal Matching Funds annually. (John Dunnuck, Administrator, Public
Services)
That the Board of County Commissioners approve an agreement and plan to
provide out of county transports for Naples Community Hospital (NCH)
Healthcare Systems Facilities. (John Dunnuck, Administrator, Public
Services)
Ke
Item continued from the December 2, 2003 BCC Agenda. Approve a
Tourist Development Tax Category "A" Funding Policy for beach
renourishment and beach park facilities. (Jack Wert, Tourism Director)
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Lien Resolutions-Code Enforcement Case Numbers:
2003050858/Olga Hirshhorn; 2003070722/Aurora Bros;
6
December 16, 2003
2003051051/Buitrago, Alvaro; 2003060548/Cook, Wesley;
2003070586/Stonestreet, William; 2003060299/Tsalach Investments,
LLC; 2003060608/Baron, Mimon; 2003070986/Lora, Bulfrano;
2003070987/Lora, Bulfrano; 2003070985/Lora, Bulfrano;
2003080288/Condon, Lelly; 2003081510/CNC Investments LLC;
2003081093/Shelton, Randolph; 2003080966/Ramos, Luis &
Maryorie; 2003090114/Galloway, Barbara; 2003070674/Dion,
Cheryl; 2003071414/Tremblay, Claudette, 2003080361/Seva Est.,
Armand and 2003080930/Wilkinson-Meffert Const. Co.
2)
Petition AVESMT2003-AR4290 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the
County's and the public's interest in a portion of the 10 foot wide
utility easement conveyed to Collier County by separate instrument
and recorded in Official Record Book 1040, Pages 1987 through
1993, and to accept a 15 foot wide relocation utility easement, located
in Section 33, Township 48 south, Range 25 east, Collier County,
Florida.
3)
Requesting Board approval of direction to staff and the County
Attorney's Office to take all actions reasonably necessary to amend
the Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Court Order pertaining to
SDP-88-93, Dorset Park, to reflect approval of the Capital Center
Conceptual Plan of Development for property located at the northwest
comer of Coach House Lane and Airport-Pulling Road in Section 23,
Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
4)
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2002-030.
5)
Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners recognize a
modification to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Cooperative
Agreement No. 1448-40181-98-J-021 to extend the period of
performance from September 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003.
6)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Pelican Marsh Unit
Twenty Six".
7)
Request Board approval to allow Collier HMA to continue to utilize
the name "Collier Regional Medical Center" or "Greater Collier
Regional Medical Center" for their proposed new hospital and
7
December 16, 2003
medical office site on Collier Boulevard in Collier County.
8)
Ratification of a Conditional Building Permit issued to Kelly and
Wendy Paffel, for the construction of a swimming pool, deck, and
cage that allows for a three (3) foot encroachment into the twenty (20)
foot wide lake maintenance easement located in Pebblebrooke Lakes.
9)
That the Board of County Commissioners approve a resolution that
authorizes the Engineering Services Department to petition the South
Florida Water Management District to delegate a portion of the
Environmental Resource Permitting Program.
10)
Approve Professional Services Agreement No. 03-3473 in the amount
of $337,466, for planning services to be provided by HDR, Inc., for a
comprehensive zoning overlay for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Request the Board approve a resolution which permits the
Transportation Services Division Administrator to accept on behalf of
the County private donations of plants for the public benefit, and
where appropriate, to give such plants for buffering to private
property owners who have been impacted by public projects.
2)
Approve a budget amendment for the Forest Lakes MSTU to transfer
$587,000 from Reserves for future construction to Capital and
Operating Expenditure Budget.
3)
Approve two Florida Communities Trust, Florida Forever Grant
Contract Agreements, one in the amount of $1,909,200,
reimbursement for the purchase of the Barefoot Beach Outparcel and
one in the amount of $1,100,000, reimbursement for the purchase of
mitigation lands for the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project
and authorize the appropriate division administrator to execute all
documents in connection with each project, as contemplated in the
agreements.
8
December 16, 2003
4)
Board approval to reject all bids received under Bid #03-3567 "Pine
Ridge Industrial park M.S.T.U. Drainage Maintenance".
5)
Approve the purchase of right-of-way Parcels 120 and 121 required
for the expansion of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate
Parkway (Project No. 62081). Total fiscal impact: $602,808.
6)
Approve Change Order No. 13 in the amount o f $ 234,015.51 to Aj ax
Paving Industries, Inc., for the Goodlette-Frank Road Project, from
Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road, Project No. 60134.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Award Annual Bid #04-3575 for underground utility supplies to
various vendors in the estimated amount of $1,000,000.
2)
Approve the Satisfaction of Lien documents filed against Real
Property for abatement of nuisance and direct the Clerk of Courts to
record same in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Fiscal
impact is $66.00 to record the liens.
3)
Adopt a resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for a Solid
Waste Residential Account wherein the County has received payment
and said lien is Satisfied in Full for the 1991 Solid Waste Collection
and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $12.00 to
record lien.
4)
Adopt a resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for a Solid
Waste Residential Account wherein the County has received payment
and said lien is Satisfied in Full for the 1992 Solid Waste Collection
and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $12.00 to
record the lien.
5)
Adopt a resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for a Solid
Waste Residential Account wherein the County has received payment
and said lien is Satisfied in Full for the 1993 Solid Waste Collection
and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $12.00 to
record the lien.
9
December 16, 2003
6)
Adopt a resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for a Solid
Waste Residential Account wherein the County has received payment
and said lien is Satisfied in Full for the 1994 Solid Waste Collection
and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $12.00 to
record the lien.
7)
Adopt a resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for a Solid
Waste Residential Account wherein the County has received payment
and said lien is Satisfied in Full for the 1995 Solid Waste Collection
and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $12.00 to
record the lien.
8)
Adopt a resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for a Solid
Waste Residential Account wherein the County has received payment
and said lien is Satisfied in Full for the 1996 Solid Waste Collection
and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $12.00 to
record the lien.
9)
Recommendation to approve the sole source purchase of cartridge
filters from George S. Edwards Company Incorporated in the amount
of $164,000.
Approve a budget amendment for County-Wide Sand Search, Project
90527, in the amount of $425,000.
Approve a work order, under Contract #01-3271, Fixed Term
Professional Engineering Services for Coastal Zone Management
Projects, with Coastal Planning and Engineering for responding to
permit agency comments and requests for information as part of
County-Wide Sand Search, Project 90527, not to exceed $100,000.
Approve a work order, under Contract #01-3271, Fixed Term
Professional Engineering Services for Coastal Zone Management
Projects, with Coastal Planning and Engineering for an environmental
assessment in support of a lease agreement with the U.S. Minerals
Management Services as part of County-Wide Sand Search, Project
90527, not to exceed $50,000.
13)
Approve Work Order CDM-FT-04-02 for utility engineering services
related to South County Regional Water Treatment Plant Lime
10
December 16, 2003
Softening Process, Project 70057, in the amount of $690,664.
14)
Approve Work Order HS-FT-04-01 for utility engineering services
related to North County Regional Water Treatment Plant Wellfield
Reliability, Project 71006, in the amount of $622,350.
Approve Work Order CDM-FT-04-01 to Camp Dresser and McKee
Engineers for engineering services related to telemetry and scada
upgrades for Manatee Pump Station in the amount of $120,696 for
Project 70124.
Authorize a work order under Contract No. 03-3427 to Professional
Service Industries, Inc. (PSI) in an amount not to exceed $375,500 to
assist in the preparation of conceptual plans and construction
documents to upgrade and reconstruct the facilities at the Immokalee,
Marco Island, Naples Airport and Camestown Recycling and
Hazardous Waste Collection Centers.
Approve a blanket purchase order with U.S. Filter for maintenance
and repair of odor control units at both the North County Water
Reclamation Facility and the South County Water Reclamation
Facility, in the amount of $163,231.
18)
Approve a Utility Facilities Reimbursement Agreement with Southern
Development Company, Inc. (Home Center Plaza).
19)
Approve Contract 03-3517 with Greeley and Hansen, LLC, for
"Professional Engineering Services for Water Main Projects" in the
amount of $889,999 for Projects 70151, 70152 and 70153.
20)
Approve Work Order WMI-FT-04-01 under Contract 01-3290 with
Wilson Miller Inc., in the amount of $161,500 for professional
services associated with rezoning and site development planning for
the site of the proposed Northeast Regional Water Reclamation
Facility and Water Treatment Plant, Project Numbers 70154 and
73155.
Approval of a budget amendment for $47,100 for the operation of the
Public Utilities Operations Center.
11
December 16, 2003
22)
Approve Budget Amendments to transfer carry forward funds in the
amount of $119,000 from the Solid Waste Department and $189,000
from the Pollution Control Department to fund the office renovation
project for the Public Utilities Offices on the Third Floor of Building
H.
23)
Approve a scope increase to the project to renourish Hideaway Beach
with Upland Sand to include renourishment of Hideaway South Point,
Project 90541.
24)
Approve a budget amendment to reallocate funds in the amount of
$253,000 for the South County Water Reclamation upgrades to the
Chemical Feed Systems, Project 72008.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Approve a Florida Emergency Medical Services County Grant
Application, Grant Distribution Form and Resolution for training and
medical/rescue equipment.
2)
Approve Work Order #PBS-02-33, Contract 02-3349 in the amount of
$67,940 to Professional Building Systems, General Contractors for the
construction of a restroom facility at Roberts Ranch.
3)
Approval of a Sole Source Agreement with Medtronic Physio-Control
for the maintenance and upgrade of Lifepak Monitors for the
Emergency Medical Services Department in the amount of $34,896.
4)
Request to appropriate $15,474 to carry forward for the purchase of
Automatic External Defibrillators (AED's), which will be placed in
high-volume Collier County Government Buildings.
s)
Approval of the annual contract between Collier County and the State
of Florida Department of Health tbr operation of the Collier County
Health Department at an FY04 cost to the County of $1,462,200.
6)
Approve a lease agreement with the Children's Museum of Naples
Inc., for vacant land at the North Naples Regional Park at an annual
rent of $100.
12
December 16, 2003
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
Recommendation to award Bid No. 04-3580, On-Call Electrical
Repairs and New Installation, to be used by various County
departments for maintenance and repairs. (Estimated dollar amount of
$100,000)
2)
Approve a budget amendment to acknowledge receipt of a $1,000 gift
from Wal-Mart Stores Inc., for the installation of a County
Government and Museum Sign at the south entrance of the US-41
Main Government Complex.
3)
Approve and execute an agreement to provide the District School
Board of Collier County, Florida, $102,917.65 from the GAC Land
Trust to purchase playground equipment and sunscreens at Sabal Palm
Elementary School.
4)
Approval of the 2004 contract renewal with Corporate Benefit
Services of America, Inc., for group health insurance claims adjusting
services.
5)
Report and ratify staff-approved change orders and changes to work
orders to Board-approved contracts.
6)
Approval of the purchase of Group Health Excess Insurance for
Calendar Year 2004.
7)
In compliance with the purchasing policy, report to the Board of
County Commissioners that there were no interest penalty payments
for violations of the Florida Prompt Payment Act during the Fiscal
Cycle beginning October 1, 2003 and ending September 30, 2003.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Approval of a resolution designating the Tourism Department, which
operates as The Greater Naples, Marco Island, Everglades Convention
and Visitors Bureau, as the Official County Tourism Promotion
Agency.
13
December 16, 2003
2)
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - BA #04-073 in the amount
of $25,000 - engineering fees for Vanderbilt Beach Beautification
Master Plan.
3)
Award Bid #02-3392, Emergency Management Public Safety Wind
Protection Project, to Teragram Inc D/B/A Allsafe Shutters in the
amount of $82,000 to provide wind protection to eight (8) public
safety facilities in Collier County.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of
whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the
Detailed Report of Open Purchase Orders serve a valid public purpose
and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said
purchases.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Authorize the Making of Offers of Judgment for Parcels 806, 106, 111
and 115B in the Immokalee Road Project (Wilson to Collier
Boulevard #60018).
2)
Authorize the Making of Offers of Judgment for Parcels 117, 118A,
130, 114, 121 and 122 in the Immokalee Road Project (Wilson to
Collier Boulevard #60018).
3)
Approve the stipulated final judgment relative to the acquisition of
Parcel 218 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Kathryn Hankins, et
al, Case No. 99-1296-CA, Golden Gate Boulevard Project No. 63041.
14
December '16, 2003
4)
Approve the stipulated final judgment relative to the acquisition of
Parcel 203 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Douglas Terry, et
al, Case No. 00-1297-CA, Golden Gate Boulevard Project No. 63041.
5)
Recommendation that the Board approve a retention agreement for
legal services on an "as needed" basis with the Law Firm of Nabors,
Giblin and Nickerson, P.A., to meet County purchasing policy
contract update requirements.
6)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Acquisition of
Parcels 119A, 119B and 719 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Daniel F. Johnston, et al, Case No. 02-1446-CA (Goodlette-Frank
Road Project #60134).
7)
Approve the Mediated Settlement Agreement as to Parcel 194 in the
lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Robert W. Pieplow, et us, et al,
(Immokalee Road Project 60018) total cost $44,275.
8)
Approve the Mediated Settlement Agreement and a Stipulated Final
Judgment to be drafted incorporating the same terms and conditions as
the Mediated Settlement Agreement relative to the acquisition of
Parcels 117, 133,717A, 717B and 733 in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Calusa Bay Master Associations Inc., et al, Case No. 02-
2040-CA (Goodlette-Frank Road Project No. 60134).
9)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the easement
acquisition on Parcel 326 in the lawsuit entitled Collier County v.
Agnaldo Delima, et al, (Golden Gate Boulevard Project).
10)
Accept a Child Dependency Grant-In-Aid of $43,952.76 from the
State of Florida, Justice Administrative Commission (JAC) and
authorize Chairman to sign the Amendment.
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
15
December 16, 2003
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. Petition AVPLAT2003-AR3673 to
disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the public's interest in a
portion of the 10 foot wide drainage easement located along the rear of Lot
23, according to the plat of"The Lodgings of Wyndemere Section One" as
recorded in Plat Book 13, Pages 8 through 12, Public Records of Collier
County, Florida, located in Section 19, Township 49 south, Range 26 east.
B. This item has been deleted.
Ce
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. An Ordinance amending Collier County
Ordinance No. 72-1, as amended, which created the Collier County Lighting
District; to add Trade Center of Naples, Trade Center of Naples Replat of
Lots 44 and 45, Industrial Village, Industrial Village No. 2, Kathleen Court,
Lot 155 J & C Industrial Park, and J & C Industrial Park to the Collier
County Lighting District; by deleting Imperial Golf Estates Unit 1, Imperial
Golf Estates II, Imperial Golf Estates III, Imperial Golf Estates I Access
Road, Imperial Golf Estates 4, Imperial Golf Estates Unit 5, and Railhead
Industrial Park from the Collier County Eighting District; providing for
inclusion in Code of Laws and Ordinances; providing conflict and
severability; providing an effective date.
0
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2003-AR-3665, Vincent A.
Cautero, AICP, of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing Gates
McVey-Knopke, LLC, requesting a rezone from the "A' rural agricultural
zoning district to a "PUD" Planned Unit Development district to be known
as the Lemuria PUD. This project will consist of 72 residential dwelling
units for a density of 2.976 dwelling units/acre. The property to be
considered for this rezone is located on the east side of Goodlette-Frank
Road; north of Orange Blossom Drive, south of Vanderbilt Beach Road, and
16
December 16, 2003
adjacent to the south of the Collier County Carica Road Water Storage and
Pump Station, in Section 3, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 24.21+ acres.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
17
December 16, 2003
December 16, 2003
Item #2A
REGULAR, SUMMARY AND CONSENT AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. MUDD: You have a hot mic, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take their seats, please.
Welcome to the Board of Commissioners of Collier County's
regular meeting, today being December 16th, 2003.
Today's invocation will be given by County Manager Jim
Mudd, followed by a led of-- leading the pledge of allegiance would
be the commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Post 7721,
Wesley Bates.
Would you all rise, please.
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 and 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. Also,
Lord, we pray that you help those people in need during this season
of giving, and that everyone share in this very blessed season and
everyone gives thanks for all their wonderful benefits and all their
wonderful blessings that you've bestowed on them. These things we
pray in your Holy Name, amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commander Bates, what an honor to
Page 2
December 16, 2003
have you here today. Thank you very much.
The commander is a long-term friend of Commissioner Coletta
and I, working in the community, and Commissioner Fiala.
And the post has some issues with sign -- and the County
Manager's office and the County Manager and myself are working
through those issues, so thank you.
Mr. Weigel, do you have any changes to today's agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing further from the County Attorney,
other than what's on the change list, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager Jim Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
The agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioners
meeting, December 16th, 2003. The first item: Move Item 10(C) to
14(A). And that's approve budget amendment recognizing award of
the Federal Aviation Administration grants, eliminating a previously
approved project, and returning net adjustments to the General Fund.
And that's at staff's request.
Item No. 2 is add item 10(L), and that's a request for a permit to
conduct a carnival hosted by the Naples Junior Chamber of
Commerce. And that's at staff's request. And the Board has all
received those items, if-- they just came in after we went with the
agenda to the printer. And that's why the second and third items are
on the regular agenda, so that we can fully vet them in the public's
eye.
The third item is add Item 10(M), and that's to approve an
interim agreement between Schenkel Shultz and Collier County to
act as architect for the Naples Jail project and retain services of TKW
Consulting Engineers, Inc., TLC Engineering for architect, Walker
Parking Consultants and Goetz and Stopes Landscaping, retroactive
to December 3rd, 2003, after declaration of emergency. And that's at
staff's request. And that's because the original AE firm went out of
Page 3
December 16, 2003
business, as you recall, from the last agenda item.
The fourth item is to withdraw Item 16 (B)1, and that's to
request the Board approve a resolution which permits the
Transportation Services Division Administrator to accept on behalf
of the county private donations of plants for the public benefit, and
where appropriate, to give such plants for buffering to private
property owners who have been impacted by public projects. And
that's at staff's request.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are we continuing that or just --
MR. MUDD: We're going to withdraw it, Commissioner. We
have some -- we have some legal things that we have to do in that
particular request. It's a good idea, we just need to make sure that
we've got all the I's dotted and the T's crossed.
The fifth item is to move Item 17(D) to 8(C). And that's
PUDZ-2003-AR-3665. And that's Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, of
Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing Gates
McVey-Knopke, LLC --.and I probably pronounced that wrong --
requesting a rezone from the "A" rural architectural zoning district to
a PUD planned unit development district to be known as the Lemuria
PUD.
This project will consist of 72 residential dwelling units for a
density of 2.976 dwelling units per acre. The property to be
considered for the rezone is located on the east side of
Goodlette-Frank Road, north of Orange Blossom Drive, south of
Vanderbilt Beach Road, and adjacent to the south of the Collier
County Carica Road water, storage and pump station in Section 3,
Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 24.21 plus or minus acres.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you get to say that again.
MR. MUDD: That's at staff's request.
And the next items are items of note. Item 10(B) will be heard
Page 4
December 16, 2003
after 1:00 p.m., and that's to provide information to the Board of
County Commissioners on hours of operation for construction
activities, including excavating operations.
The next item of note is Item 16(B)(5). Pursuant to Statute
125.355(B) of the Florida Statutes, approval of this purchase, which
exceeds the average appraised price of two appraisals, will require an
extraordinary vote of four commissioners of the five by this Board.
Approve the -- and the subject is approve the purchase of
right-of-way parcels 120 and 121 requested for the expansion of
Santa Barbara Boulevard in Golden Gate Parkway project, No.
62081. The total fiscal impact is $602,808.
And the last item of note is Item 16(K)3. The County Attorney
was able to settle with the property owner for $1,000, rather than
$800, and received the executed judgment from the owner on
December 12th, 2003. Therefore, the additional deposit is $600,
rather than $400. Also, the correct case number for this item is
number 00-1296-CA, rather than 99-1296-CA. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala, you
changed seats.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have any changes to today's
agenda or any ex parte communication on summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No changes, but on 17(D), I have
met with Todd Gates, and he gave me a whole file to look at and
study before this meeting. And I will enter them into the records.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no changes to the agenda.
And likewise, on 17(D), I have met with the petitioner, and I do have
some correspondence which is in the file.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
Page 5
December 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no changes to the agenda,
but on the board of zoning appeals, I've met with the petitioners and
staff on 7(A) and also 7(B), and I have that information right present.
And also, on the summary agenda, which has been since pulled, that
deals with the Lemuria PUD. And other than that, I don't have any
other disclosures at this time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Point of order. Do we have to
disclose again when 17(D) has been moved when it comes up again,
or does this take care of our disclosures? That's okay, I just wanted
to mention that, no problems, two times. But in any case, I did have a
meeting with the petitioner on 17(D).
Nothing on the consent agenda, but one note that I would like to
pass on. On Item 16(G)2, the $1,000 gift from Wal-Mart, I'd like to
see if we could direct the Chair to write a letter of thanks for the gift
made by them, just to make sure that that gift doesn't unnoticed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Will do.
Anything else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's all. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your item on the hours of operation
for excavation, does that work for you to be heard after 1:00 p.m?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, after 1:00 could go all
the way to 8:00 tonight, so if it's possible if the Chair could allow for
it to be presented a little bit closer to one rather than later, it would
be appreciated.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I appreciate -- I would like to
move some of the speakers in and out. I'm sure they have things to
do today. So I want to accommodate that item closer to 1:00 as we
can, if that's what Commissioner Coletta told some of his residents
out there.
I also know that we have a number of speakers on charter
Page 6
December 16, 2003
government that I would like to move from its present to just after
7(B), seven baker. If we could do that.
And I'm not sure, County Manager, do you see any other issues
that we need to move around to accommodate the public?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if we could-- if we could do the
beach renourishment piece around 4:00 p.m.? I know that vice
Mayor or somebody from the city wants to come talk to the Board.
And tonight they have their parade that starts at -- their Christmas
parade that starts at 6'00. So if we could get that around 4:00, I think
that would be good.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: That would be great.
MR. MUDD: And that was Item 10(K), sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
And I have no ex parte communication on today's summary
agenda. So with that, I'll entertain a motion to accept today's regular
agenda, consent agenda and summary agenda, as amended.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Passes unanimously.
Page 7
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
December 16, 2003
Move Item 10C to 14A: Approve Budget Amendment recognizing award of Federal
Aviation Administration Grants, eliminating a previously approved project, and
returning net adjustment to General Fund. (Staff request.)
Add Item 10L: A request for a permit to conduct a carnival hosted by the Naples
Junior Chamber of Commerce. (Staff request.)
Add Item 10M: Approve an interim agreement between Schenkel Shultz and
Collier County to act as architect for the Naples Jail project and retain services of
TKW Consulting Engineers, Inc., TLC Engineering for architect, Walker Parking
Consultants and Goetz and Stopes Landscaping, retroactive to December 3, 2003
after declaration of emergency. (Staff request.)
Withdraw Item 16(B)1: Request the Board approve a resolution which permits the
Transportation Services Division Administrator to accept on behalf of the County
private donations of plants for the public benefit, and where appropriate, to give
such plants for buffering to private property owners who have been impacted by
public projects. (Staff request.)
Move Item 17D to 8C: PUDZ-2003-AR-3665, Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, of Coastal
Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing Gates McVey-Knopke, LLC,
requesting a rezone from the "A" rural agricultural zoning district to a "PUD"
Planned Unit Development district to be known as the Lemuria PUD. This project
will consist of 72 residential dwelling units for a density of 2.976 dwelling
units/acre. The property to be considered for this rezone is located on the east
side of Goodlette-Frank Road; north of Orange Blossom Drive, south of Vanderbilt
Beach Road, and adjacent to the south of the Collier County Carica Road Water
Storage and Pump Station, in Section 3, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 24.21+ acres. (Staff request.)
NOTE:
Item 10B will be heard after 1:00 p.m. Provide information to the Board of County
Commissioners on hours of operation for construction activities including
excavating operations.
Item 16(B)5: Pursuant to s.125.355(b), Fla. Stat., approval of this purchase, which
exceeds the average appraised price of two appraisals, will require an
extraordinary vote (4 of 5) by this Board. Approve the purchase of the right-of-
way parcels 120 and 121 requested for the expansion of Santa Barbara Boulevard
and Golden Gate Parkway Project #62081. Total fiscal impact $602,808.
Item 16(K)3: The County Attorney was able to settle with the property owner for
$1000 rather than $800, and received the executed judgment from the owner on
December 12, 2003. Therefore, the additional deposit is $600 rather than $400.
Also, the correct case number for this item is No. 00-1296-CA rather than 99-1296-
CA.
December 16, 2003
Item #2B & #2C
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2003 COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AND NOVEMBER 18,
2003 REGIH~AR gCC MF, FJTING - APPROVFD AS PRF, SF, NTFD
Entertain a motion to accept the minutes of November 14th, '03
CRA and November 18th regular BCC meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right, who spoke up?
Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner-- second by Commissioner
Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING DECEMBER 17, 2003, AS A
COMMEMORATION OF THE FIRST MANNED POWERED
FIJIGHT - ADOPTF, D
I just want to say one thing. On the consent agenda there was
an item that it's exciting and a monumental time for Collier County,
Page 8
December 16, 2003
approving a partnership with the newly formed Children's Museum
of Collier County. And I am looking forward to that project coming
out of the ground, and will assist in any way I can. Thank you very
much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have representatives here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's -- today proclamations, we
have two. First one will be read by Commissioner Fiala.
Proclamation to designate December 17th, '03 as our commemoration
of the first man-made powered flight. To accept this award would be
the Chairman of the Airport Authority, Duke Vasey.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And with him I -- oh, look at that,
we have Bob Titus and we have Gene Schmidt and we have -- oh, my
goodness.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's called a brain trust.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tom was present during that first
flight. Oh, it was Gene, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It is indeed an honor for me to be
allowed to read this proclamation. Really, Commissioner Coyle was
scheduled to do that because he's played such an important role with
the Airport Authority, but I asked if I could possibly read it instead,
because I'm going to be fortunate enough to read it again tomorrow at
the celebration, and I wanted to practice today. And I'm just so
pleased that you're all doing this for all of us. I hope you have a
wonderful audience. And I hope all of us, all of the Commissioners,
can make it tomorrow also.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Plan to be there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's wonderful. And some of
us I think are even going to try and get there early and roll up our
sleeves and help out with the volunteer. Anybody in the audience,
they need volunteers tomorrow. What do you have, 950 children
coming?
Page 9
December 16, 2003
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Nine hundred and fifteen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nine hundred and fifteen children
coming.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Those are the school children
that we know are coming. Others will.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And with that, proclamation:
WHEREAS, on December 17th, the Wright brothers
accomplished the first manned powered flight of a heavier than air
aircraft and thus opened the door to some of the greatest
accomplishments and adventures ever witnessed by humankind; and,
WHEREAS, Collier County, Florida has provided County
aviation facilities; and,
WHEREAS, Collier County, Florida is home to an aeronautical
service provider -- or two aeronautical service providers, including
Air Works, Enterprises, Hornet Flight Training, lan Groom Air
Shows, Marco Aviation, Sun Coast Sport Planes, Wings,
Incorporated, Chevron and others; and,
WHEREAS, Collier County, Florida is home to the Lorenzo
Walker Institute of Technology, a school for instruction of aviation
skills, a U.S. Air Force Auxiliary, Marco Island Senior Squadron
Civil Air Patrol and Collier Model Aeronautic Club; and,
WHEREAS, aviation is a growing economic engine, and as a
transportation source, connects Gulf Coast areas with a wide range of
markets throughout the country with seasonal seafood, sporting and
recreation venues, tourism and business destinations; and,
WHEREAS, the future of aviation is dependent upon a
well-informed and educated populace. And this celebration of
powered flight is also a celebration of the ingenuity and creativity of
Americans and America's contributions to air and space flight.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that December 17th, 2003
Page 10
December 16, 2003
be designated as Commemoration of the First Manned Powered
Flight.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 16th day of December, 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.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Any opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
MR. VASEY: Chairman Henning, Commissioners, as citizens
of the great State of Florida and residents of Collier County, in the
distant years ahead when our lives and time have become past
history, recorded for study by generations yet unborn, they who read
and think will look upon the first 1 O0 years of aviation as the most
breathtaking in the history of man. It is a time when man learned to
fly, to evolve electronic miracles with which to communicate,
calculate and control, to put men on the moon and to explore the
planets.
Young men and women, being educated in county schools, will
provide the technological acumen and fuel aerospace and supporting
industries in the future. The measure of their challenges will be
criterion leading to exploration and development of community
Page 11
December 16, 2003
resources, the saving of lives and the provision of safe, fast and
comfortable travel on a worldwide basis.
On behalf of the Collier County Airport Authority, and those
who use our general aviation facilities, I sincerely appreciate this
proclamation and welcome efforts that improve and expand public
awareness of aviation for those who live, work and play in our
county. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. MURRAY: And good morning, Commissioners and to all.
My name is Bob Murray and I'm a volunteer. And because I'm a
volunteer, some folks at the airport who had an idea asked me to see
if I could help put together something, and as a result, tomorrow
morning we expect 915 school children, we expect well over several
hundred individuals and we expect rain. But we will not have rain. I
am assured we will not have rain.
In any event, all of our volunteers, and there are over 100, will
be there tomorrow morning. And unless, as I've told each of the
school persons, be they the principal, the teacher or the dean, unless
it's pouring, come. We have something to show you. And let me just
share with you what we will have to show you.
We have assembled at the entrance parking lot, we have an
assembled a number of items that will represent education to the
children and to adults to find out what a windsock is and how it
works and why it works, to understand how a propeller makes a
plane go. And when they finish going through these 11, 12 items,
they'll be ushered into the Civil Air Patrol hangar and they will be
greeted by one-quarter scale or larger 22 planes, some of which will
fly. Among them will be a kite that was the original developed plane
by the Wright Brothers. It didn't have an engine. That preceded the
1903 flight by one year. There is also the kite, which will fly, we
hope. If the winds are no too great, we can fly that and we will do
Page 12
December 16, 2003
so. It -- the original flight was 120 feet, I'm sure we'll get to do that.
But then we will introduce the other planes, of which there will
be a jet, an L 1011; that will fly at 160 miles an hour. There will be
WW-II and WW-I planes, and there will be dog fights. And finally,
there will be a flyover. The flyover will be of planes that are
modem-day planes and private planes. And then we will ask the
children to go back to school, excited and happy that they learned
something.
And we are truly appreciative of all the help we got, and
certainly from the county. Aviation is important to all. Community
is important to all. The East Naples Civic is a participant, the
Kiwanis clubs are a participant. So it is a coming together of
everyone, and I'm proud and pleased to have been a part of it. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murray
for clarifying flyover for us.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SUNDAY, DECEMBER 21,
2003, AS NATIONAl, HOMEI,ESS PERSONS' DAY- ADOPTED
This next proclamation will be read by Commissioner Coletta.
This proclamation designates Sunday, December 22nd, 2003 as
National Homeless Persons Day. To accept this award is Mary
Soucek, Chairperson, and Petro Jones, incoming Chairperson of
Catholic Charities of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is indeed a pleasure. I've
been involved with Catholic Charities now and on their advisory
bOard for over eight years, and their president for two and a half of
those years in the past. I'm presently just a board member. But if I
Page 13
December 16, 2003
may.
WHEREAS, research has shown that over 13 million adults
nationwide have been homeless at some point in their lives, and the
numbers of individuals and families needing assistance from social
service programs continue to increase at an alarming rate; and,
WHEREAS, nearly 34.6 million people across the nation were
living in poverty last year, of which 12.1 million of them were
children, with many of whom have no place to call home; and,
WHEREAS, in Collier County, it is estimated that at any point
in time there are over 800 men, women and children homeless; and,
WHEREAS, over 54 years have passed since the Housing Act
of 1949 which calls for a decent home and substable (sic) living
environment for every American family; and,
WHEREAS, the Collier County Hunger and Homeless Coalition
is made up of over 56 local social service organizations and
government agencies who share the mission of supporting the
planning, delivery and coordination of high quality services to the
hungry and homeless of Collier County; and,
WHEREAS, the hunger and hopelessness impacts the entire
community, and each individual in the community can make a
difference in finding solutions to these problems. Solutions begin
with action, and action begins with awareness.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier
County Commissioners that they designate Sunday, December 21st,
2003 as National Homeless Person Memorial Day.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS day, 16th of December, 2003,
Tom Henning, Chairman.
And I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Halas.
Page 14
December 16, 2003
yOU.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Thank
MS. SOUCEK: Good morning, everyone. And thank you,
Chairman Henning, thank you, Mr. Coletta for the proclamation this
morning.
What you see before you this morning are drawings that were
done by kids who are homeless here in Collier County. And I want
to talk to you a little bit about that in a few seconds here.
But on behalf of the 56 member agencies and friends of the
Collier County Hunger and Homeless Coalition, as the outgoing
chair, it is indeed a privilege and an honor to accept this
proclamation from the Board of County Commissioners today.
Each year advocates and friends of the homeless people
throughout the nation join the National Coalition of the Homeless in
observing the Homeless Persons Memorial Day in recognition of
homeless men, women and children whose final residence was the
streets, the woods or the shelters. In many cases, homelessness
caused or hastened the deaths of these individuals.
Although Homeless Persons Memorial Day is officially
observed on December 21st, the first day of winter and the longest
night of the year, which is a real impact when you think about it, we
the Collier County Hunger and Homeless Coalition have elected to
observe this day, this event on Thursday, December 17th, from 6:30
Page 15
December 16, 2003
to 7:30 at St. Matthews House, to assure good participation from
coalition members, homeless individuals and the community at large.
And everybody here present today is invited to attend that service on
that day on that evening.
It has been a very busy year for the coalition. We have seen,
once again, an increase of four percent in the number of homeless
individuals living in Collier County. And this is based upon a point
in time survey, our homeless count survey that was conducted in
February of this year when we counted on the streets that day in a
24-hour period 690 people who are homeless. When you put this
together with the statistic formulas, it comes up that on any given
day, as Mr. Coletta says, there are over 800 men, women and
children who are estimated being homeless here in Collier County.
We, the coalition, together with the county have been working
hard to address the needs of the homelessness -- of the homeless
through the continuum of care.
This year alone, we saw the opening of 60 units of transitional
housing at the Wings of Hope Shelter for Domestic Violence. We
also saw the opening of 46 units designed to house over 73 people
and eight families at Wolf Apartments. This is both transitional and
permanent housing. And with the help of the county, we hope to see
the remaining of 11 park model homes at the First Assembly of God's
Campus Care to be completed before December 31st of this year.
These 11 park model homes are designed to home -- to house five
individuals or family members per unit, thus totaling up to over 55
people in these units. And this is very important, especially this time
of year when it gets so cold.
As a coalition and as a community are working hard to address
the needs of those who are less fortunate. I want to thank all of you
for all the hard work you have done and hope to see all if not many
of you at the memorial service on Thursday this week. Thank you
Page 16
December 16, 2003
very much.
Item #5A
AMY TOZIER, CASE MANAGER, HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR
FOR 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioners, each
and every month for the past several years the Board of
Commissioners has always recognized an employee that has gone
above and beyond the call of duty in their performing of their job.
Ending the year, we have the pleasure of recognizing an Employee of
the Year. And this year I would like to call up Amy Tozier. She is a
case manager for Human Services. Amy?
Amy Tozier graduated from the Florida Gulf Coast University
with a bachelor's degree in human services, specializing in
gerontology. Amy started her employment with Collier County in
2000 and has demonstrated a significant innovative (sic) in working
with both her colleagues within the county and within the
community.
In February of 2003, she's worked with the health department
and the David Lawrence Center to establish Get Help Clinic for area
homeless. This clinic provided much needy (sic) medical and social
services for these individuals who live in our area but were unable to
afford housing.
Amy has also worked closely with the Services for Seniors staff
in initiating and completed (sic) a process of automating and entering
assessment processes for the services for senior clients. In order to
accomplish this, Amy investigated and successfully computerized
programs in the county and extrapolate (sic) some information from
Page 17
December 16, 2003
other counties for the use of this program. Amy worked on her own
time and after hours to fine tune this computerized -- of the required
forms and data gathering for this new program. She's (sic) is
working with Collier County Information Technology Department to
further the usefulness of this automation by researching a data base.
Amy worked-- has been instrumental in allowing case
managers to be less involved with paperwork and more involved with
the attentions of the needs of Collier County senior population.
And she's demonstrated exemplary customer services
throughout her short tender (sic) at county government. Amy, in
some extreme challenging situations, has required her work to (sic)
above and beyond the expectations and responsibilities. Custom
satisfaction surveys have constantly indicated that her clients find her
not only to be a kind, caring person, but also consumed (sic)
professional.
Amy, God bless and it's a true honor to recognize you as our
Employee for 2003. Thank you.
Just a small token of our appreciation for your dedicated
service, Amy, and a plaque for recognizing you as our Employee of
the Year. And just a short note from myself. Thank you. We want to
get another picture.
Thanks for the honors of doing that today.
Item #6A
REQUEST BY CHARLES GUNTHER REGARDING THE
REMOVAL OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE FROM THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY- NO ACTION
TAKEN
Today we have, at this time, public petitions. We only have
Page 18
December 16, 2003
one, and public petition requested by Charles Gunther, regarding the
removal of the Gateway Triangle from the community
redevelopment agency. Mr. Gunther?
MR. GUNTHER: Thank you. My name is Chuck Gunther,
2448 Bayside Street. In the -- we call it Freedom Triangle.
I came here because we've gone through about three years of a
CRA that we had a lot of problems with in the beginning, the way it
was started. We had a lot of problems as it's gone on. We're trying
to see if we can rectify that a little bit.
The easiest thing to say, it started -- we were told we were going
to be a separate district and it turned out, when it all started, we
became one district with the Bayshore group. This is something we
didn't want in the beginning, we voiced that opinion. But without any
input from us at all, it was just thrown right in there as one group.
As it's gone on, we've seen what happened with the mini
triangle, where basically a developer was given a -- was close to
being given the development rights, and let's face it, what was going
to happen, it would have been eminent domain to take these people
out of there to build what the developer wanted. And I think
rightfully so, we stood against that.
We feel our neighborhood should build on its own, we should
grow on our on. It's a neighborhood that has to grow. We have a lot
of catalyst areas in the area. We have the Antaramian (phonetic)
that's coming in. They'll be building, they'll be cutting -- breaking
ground pretty soon. We also have Hamilton Harbor, which if you
look at the map, it's a big -- a big development, where the main ways
out into town will be down Bayshore Boulevard and coming into the
-- coming at the Triangle.
One of the problems with the Triangle for years has been water,
the stormwater. And this is a problem that they recognized in the
Page 19
December 16, 2003
beginning when they platted the area. We've known that. We've
known that ever since they started raising 41, they started raising
Davis Boulevard and Airport Road. These are three roads that
became dikes. They're holding us in to where -- we're basically a
lake. This was through no doing of the neighborhood; this was from
either the state or the county.
The pipes in that area were never retrofitted, never changed.
Nothing was ever done. So the pipes basically stayed the same. Just
recently we found that -- there was a pipe that was found completely
by accident, nobody knew was there, that's a force main. That takes
all the water out of the -- this complex, the courthouse complex, and
Shadowlawn Elementary School. That's a lot of water.
The property has been bought by the stormwater group and
approximately it was three-and-a-half acres. That sat for three years
now and nothing's been done. The last time it rained, the people they
bought the property from for the first time had water in their house.
So by not doing anything, they've actually caused more problems.
Now we hear they're buying more property. That's good. But if
we think about it, what they're looking for to stop the stormwater
problem is they need a lot of drainage and they need a new way -- a
way to hold water. And we've told them one of the easiest ways,
which we're being told is experimental, is deep well injection, shoot
the water down underground. If they're smart about it, they can shoot
it down, bring it back up and actually use it for drinking water, water
for anything. And it actually uses drinking water, which is terrific.
The big problem there is expense.
Well, the way it's going now, we all saw the articles in the
Naples Daily News about the Gulf and how the Gulf is being
polluted and is a dying water. All of our waste -- all of our
stormwater is being pushed out to the Gulf basically untreated.
That's one of the problems.
Page 20
December 16, 2003
What we're saying is now to straighten what we have out, they
have to treat the water to go out into the Gulf. If they have any
brains at all, they have to do that. If, you know, put a treatment plant
in it to treat it, treat it and shoot it down underground. That's your
cost problem right there, that's knocked out, that problem's gone.
You can double the cost and bring it back up. That helps. So that
takes care of the water problem.
The one problem with water, though, when we were told we had
water problems, is anywhere you go in this town, I don't care if it's
Port Royal, Lakewood, we all have water problems. This is Florida.
Our water table is not three feet or six feet under, it's right under your
feet. We're standing on water most times. You can't dig too deep
before you start hitting water. When you take roads, like the three
roads around our triangle, you have to create a dike. When they
widen the roads, they raise them to get rid of the stormwater. We
know that. When you create a lake, the water has to go somewhere.
That's our problem. That's one thing.
The funny part about this is, when we were put in with the
Bayshore group, we were told, well, we all have water problems.
Well, that's true. But those water problems are completely distinct
and different. Our water runs down the middle of 41 and out into the
Gulf, or out into one of the inlets, actually, down by Sandpiper. It's
completely separate from the Bayshore waters. So that's a
completely separate thing. So we can't say we're together on that.
We can work that as a separate thing.
The problem there is not the problem with the neighborhood, the
problem is the county has not -- and we've seen it in the paper-- has
not allocated monies for wastewater -- or stormwater problems. This
has been for years. And any neighborhood you go into in this town
has that. If you go back-- I'd like to see where we spent big sums of
money on the stormwater. That's what we want.
Page 21
December 16, 2003
We fought for years to stop this. Every time we have -- we're a
forgotten neighborhood. We're also a low income neighborhood.
Most of our people in this neighborhood are working, we're working
people. We built this town. Our people have worked in Port Royal
and Pelican Bay and Windstar. We've built all these places. We're
the construction workers, we're the baker, the candlestick maker,
we're all these people. We're the working man that goes out there
and works. Today we tried to get some people here. It's hard, they
all work. They can't afford to take time off.
On the way here, I heard the median income in Collier County
is $32,000 as year. Well, $32,000 a year doesn't leave too much
money when you have -- when you talk about rents, affordable
housing at a little over $1,000 a month. That's not helping the
working man. The people who work at your McDonalds and your
restaurants are not making that kind of money. That's what we'd like
to see.
I brought up in the advisory board what we have to do is before
we start going to these neighborhoods and rebuilding, why don't we
talk about jobs and teaching these people how to work and make
money to keep us going right. Then you can rebuild and the people
can be with it. What we're were saying is let the neighborhood build
from within.
When this all started, a lot of it started way back -- well, it's
been three years since the CRA, but before that there was meetings.
A lot of the meetings we've been told were had but nobody knew
about. We were told there was mailings, there was this, there was
that, people handed fliers out. Most of us don't know about that.
And I can tell you, over this past three years we've had mailings that
we know people haven't gotten. Complete blocks wouldn't get
mailings where we knew they went out.
The only way to rectify that I know of is go out and knock door
Page 22
December 16, 2003
to door. Even that doesn't work because you can't find the people
home. I know, I talk to my neighbor, I walk through my
neighborhood all the time. The owners are not there. Most -- I'd say
most of our neighbors is absentee owners, and that's residential,
commercial, everything.
The people in our neighborhood want to develop, but they don't
want to develop by being taken by the developer. The complaint in
this county for years has been this is a developer driven county.
We'd like to get away from that. We'd like to say let's develop from
within our neighborhood. We can do that. There are creative ways of
doing that that nobody's looked at. We can have -- they used to have
farm bureaus, we can do the same thing here, get together and create,
you know, a growth pattern. We can do that.
One of the big things that come out of this that actually got a lot
of people's attention in the beginning was a name. This area has been
known as the Davis Triangle for years, which was a name -- it's what
the neighborhood calls it. A neighborhood name is a colloquial term.
It has nothing to do with what people call it. You know, if you
wanted to call it a name, it doesn't mean it's that name. It's what it's
known as, commonly known as.
That name, I was told, was given by Donna Fiala. Not Davis
Triangle, but the name of Gateway Triangle. Well, that's what
caught a lot of people's attention. They didn't like being called
something that they had no input on. We're being -- we were told all
the way through the beginning of this, well, there was input from the
neighborhood. But we kept asking, show us the sign-in sheets.
They've never been produced. If there were sign-in sheets, we
should see them.
Now I'm being told, if you want to change the neighborhood
name -- which I don't want to change it, I just want to be recognized
as a different name -- I'm being, I'm being told come up with 50
Page 23
December 16, 2003
percent plus one of the owners in the area. Well, that didn't start with
Gateway Triangle, it shouldn't happen with us.
We're asking for the name of Freedom Triangle. In your
packets you all see a letter that was mailed out prior to 9/11, so we're
not taking advantage of 9/11. Freedom is a name that we all -- I
think all of us hopefully stand behind. I would hope that.
I've seen some things around that some people don't think
freedom is so good. I have a couple of quotes I'd like to give you
that upset me, because when people think of freedom, they should
think of something that's good and something that people have fought
for.
How many minutes is this now?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's 10.
MR. GUNTHER: That's 107 Let me go through a quick -- a
few quick quotes that are going to make you laugh here. We had the
one -- just at the advisory board meeting here two weeks ago, we
took -- they took a vote and they voted that they did not like me
coming here with this petition, and I think it was because I never told
them about coming with the petition. I had told them many times
about splitting off, because we should be split off. And that's natural.
But I think they felt slighted because I didn't tell them about this
petition.
The quote I have, I really have trouble figuring out because it's
kind of-- it doesn't make sense to me, I'm sorry. It says, the
Freedom Triangle to me, that always sounds like an NACP --
NAACP area, where everything is freedom this and freedom that,
and I'm thinking I hope it doesn't give a community -- or a
connotation that you guys don't want in your area. That was a quote
from Donna Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that was -- by the way, that
was given to me, and that's what I told you at that meeting was this is
Page 24
December 16, 2003
what I've been told. So don't -- let me tell you that it was not a quote
from me, but it was -- it was my -- I was relating to the group what I
had heard. Just so that we know where it started, okay?
MR. GUNTHER: Okay. On the tape of that meeting, it's a
quote. It really left me completely lost because I'm saying freedom is
something to me NAACP stands for. They know what freedom is,
they had to fight for it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of course it is, and that's what
they're -- that's what I was told.
MR. GUNTHER: So how would that give our neighborhood a
bad connotation? That's what we want to stop, that's what we want
to stop. Okay. I don't want to fight with you. We had another one --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, you do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. GUNTHER: Well, I'd like it be known--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Gunther, if you could just wrap
itup.
MR. GUNTHER: Okay.
We have a lot of things here. Donna Fiala says she doesn't
know our group. She came to one of our meetings to change putting
speed bumps. We have her name on a list, on a sign-in sheet then.
So she knows our group. I thought we lived in a democracy where
we have representatives, you know, standing for us. We have not
been included with a lot of things. Donna will do things and it goes
by us. We don't learn about until after it goes through Bayshore.
That's what we don't want, we want to stand on our own.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I speak now? It looks like his
fight is with me, so I think I better --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Gunther, thank you. Is there any
Page 25
December 16, 2003
questions from--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- for Mr. Gunther or any direction
today?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I went to the CRA. I
had understood that he was going to come in here today. And Mr.
Gunther has worked very hard in the Triangle, and let's not ever take
that credit away from him. And he's worked in that Triangle for a
long, long, long time. I didn't realize he had so much of an issue with
me, but that's okay.
What I wanted to know is, when he proposed breaking the CRA
in half-- and he's right, by the way. When this initially started, and
we were holding meetings from the county over at -- in the Triangle
and our people from the county, Deborah Preston at the time, passed
out fliers. She and Amy --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Taylor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Taylor actually went house to
house passing out fliers to everybody, inviting them to meetings. We
tried to get people. Initially we had a huge meeting. But then after
that it just kind of fell apart. But what we were trying to do was
determine what the problems were in the Triangle and see if we
couldn't do something to solve them.
Anyway, and they -- I wasn't the Commissioner or anything,
this was way back in the early Nineties. And as president of East
Naples Civic Association at the time, our people wanted to see what
we could do to help the people in the Triangle. So that's what the
meetings that Chuck was talking about. And we were -- we really
tried. We did mailings and we did house to house and door to door.
And anyway, so when this -- we decided to form a CRA, first
Page 26
December 16, 2003
one in Collier County in the county government side, they had them
in the City of Naples but none in the county -- well, they felt that it
was better to -- I don't know who "they" is, because I wasn't part of
that issue at that time. But they felt it was better to combine them
because they were in such close proximity. So they did, they
combined Bayshore and the Triangle to make one CRA. What's
happened is actually Bayshore has been growing in value. So the
dollars that come in from the Bayshore area are really going to be
spent in the Triangle because they have so many more water
problems there.
And Chuck says that water problems haven't been addressed.
The county spent over a million dollars just buying property recently.
And we've worked very hard in there. But there's so much money
that needs to be spent in the Triangle in order to fix the water
problems, the sidewalks, the lighting, all of the infrastructure in order
for them to move ahead. And with their property values not
increasing yet, and they will, once we get these problems fixed, the
money is actually being borrowed from the other portion of that
CRA.
So I went to the CRA board -- advisory board meeting and just
asked the people there, is this what you want to do? Chuck was
there, he listened. And the composition of the board is half-and-half
Triangle and Bayshore. And the Triangle guys who were in business
there were very upset, they did not want to see a change. So I
suggested to Chuck, if he -- if he feels that most of the people in the
Triangle want to break away and cut the CRA in half-- but what
they're doing is cutting their funding sources -- I said he needs to go
and get 50 percent plus one signatures, because we don't want a
repeat of Naples Park, and we don't know if he's speaking for-- he
says he's speaking for everybody, but the people in the group there
felt that he was not.
Page 27
December 16, 2003
So I felt -- I feel that in order for us to move forward with
Chuck's request, he ought to produce some petition that says 50
percent of the people do want to break away. They're going to hurt
themselves with their revenue source, but if that's what they want to
do, then I think we should consider it at that time and not before.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else?
MR. GUNTHER: And I think we can do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Gunther.
MR. GUNTHER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Item #7A
ADA-2003-AR-4351, ANTHONY PIRES, OF WOODWARD,
PIRES AND LOMBARDO, P.A. REPRESENTING KEITH AND
SUE ORSCHELL, REQUESTING AN APPEAL TO
INTERPRETATION AR-4119 PURSUANT TO DIVISION 1.6
AND SECTIONS 2.7.3.5.2.2., 5.3.2.11 AND 5.3.2.2. OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR REPLACEMENT OF A MOBILE
HOME IN THE RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6167 ADKINS AVENUE-
APPEAL DENIED AND PLANNING DIRECTORS
INTERPRETATION ACCEPTED. STAFF TO LOOK AT CODE
AND COMF. [lACK WITH SOMETHING MORFJ DF. F1NITIVE
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next, the next item is 7(A),
and that's an item that was continued from December 2nd, 2003 BCC
meeting. It's ADA-2003-AR-4351. And that's Anthony Pires, Jr., of
Woodward, Pires and Lombardo, PA, representing Keith and Sue
Orschell, requesting an appeal to the interpretation of AR-4119
pursuant to Division 1.6 and Sections 2.7.3.5.2.2, 5.3.2.1 and 5.3.2.2
Page 28
December 16, 2003
of the Collier County Land Development Code for replacement of a
mobile home in the rural agricultural "A" zoning district for property
located at 6167 Adkins Avenue, in Section 12, Township 49 south,
Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. And the Board of
Commissioners heard from our staff at the last meeting, so I think it's
most appropriate at this time to ask Mr. Pires to lead us into some
wisdom.
MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Commission.
I apologize, I have a cold that likes me very much. I've been
trying to get rid of it but it still is hanging on.
Thank you for the opportunity to hear this appeal filed on behalf
of Keith and Susan Orschell with regards to issuance of a building
permit.
And I want to say first of all that the issue is not one of a
vendetta or anything against any particular individual from a
personal nature, it's that we believe that the county has in place a
process, a procedure to be utilized in the agricultural district when
there is a replacement of a mobile home, when the mobile home is
not a -- qualified as one of the permitted or conditional uses in the
agricultural district, and that process is an application to the Planning
Commission and to the Board of Zoning Appeals, with the
subsequent determination, based upon various criteria, as to whether
or not the mobile home should be replaced.
I believe, as you indicated, Mr. Chairman, the last time that the
staff made a presentation with regards to the fact that this is the --
call it the third mobile home on the site, the second replacement
mobile home in the last six years. There was a single mobile home
in 1977, I believe a double wide was placed through the normal
permitting process, and then this past year, in 2003, a triple wide was
Page 29
December 16, 2003
placed on the property, following a permitting process.
From the perspective of my client's property where they live
relative to the property involved -- thank you, Mr. Mudd -- they both
live on Adkins Avenue, but a little bit of a distance apart. Orschell's
property is here, the Schoch property is there.
And as you can see, the property in the area is agricultural. And
from the perspective of this particular application, you sort of have to
connect the dots in the Land Development Code, and we all know
how much fun that can be because of all those various disparate
provisions of the Land Development Code.
In the Land Development Code, the agricultural district
regulations provide as follows as far as permitted uses: In the rural
agricultural district, which this property is zoned, 2.2.2.2.1.,
permitted use is a single-family dwelling. A single-family dwelling
is defined in the Land Development Code, at LDC 6:20.1, as a
building which contains only one dwelling unit, is intended, designed
and used and occupied by no more than one family, meets the
minimum width across any front, side or rear elevation of 24 feet,
meets the minimum floor area and maximum height requirements of
this code.
Then it goes on to say, though, the following conditions are as
much a part of the definitions as the principal definition, and you go
to F. F, a mobile home shall not be permitted in zoning districts
which allow single-family dwellings as permitted uses unless the
term mobile home is expressly stated as a permitted or conditional
use.
When you go back to the agricultural district regulations, there
are only two instances under current codes when a mobile home
allowed as a permitted or conditional use. Those two instances are in
a situation -- one is a use accessory to permitted use, use of a mobile
home as a temporary residence while a permanent single-family
Page 30
December 16, 2003
dwelling is being constructed, subject to various criteria. That's in
Section 2.2.2.2.2.8., Page LDC 2:14.1. And the other time it's
allowable is use of-- in 9 -- use of a mobile home as a residence in
conjunction with bona fide agricultural activities subject to other,
again, various criteria.
In this particular instance, we are not aware of any facts
indicated or provided that the mobile home at issue is used as a
residence in conjunction with bona fide agricultural activities. We
don't believe there are any. And secondly, it's not a temporary
residence while a permanent single-family dwelling is being
constructed.
So that going back to the uses in the agricultural district, you
then have a single-family dwelling. And you go back to the
definition of single-family dwelling, it does not include a mobile
home. Because a mobile home is not included in the permitted use of
a single-family dwelling in the agricultural district, except two very,
very limited instances as accessory uses to bona fide agricultural, or
while a permanent residence is being constructed.
Part of our request for interpretation thus involved an
application and interpretation of Section 1.8.10 of the Land
Development Code, which wasn't even considered, wasn't even
reviewed, wasn't even analyzed, dissected or considered in the
application. The staff instead utilized a specific Section 1.8.1 1 that
says improvements or additions to nonconforming mobile homes --
improvements or additions to nonconforming mobile homes
containing conforming uses in the "A" agricultural district only shall
be permitted if the addition or improvement complies fully with the
setback and other applicable regulations.
Our position is it is a not -- it does not contain a conforming use.
The mobile home in this instance was used as a single-family
dwelling. By definition it cannot be used as a single-family dwelling
Page 31
December 16, 2003
in the agricultural district.
We are not saying don't let it be there, per se. We're saying that
the code in the community and the county has recognized over years
that the agricultural designation of a piece of property and the
character of a community may need to be evaluated when you want
to replace mobile homes who are being primarily used as the
principal residence on the property. And in this particular case, that
protection is provided in division -- in Section 1.8.10. If I -- bear
with me for a moment. 1.8.10.1 -- 1.8.10.4 states: Nonconforming
residential structures, which for the purpose of this section shall
mean detached single-family dwellings, duplexes or mobile homes in
existence at the effective date of this zoning code or its relevant
amendment and in continuous residential use thereafter, may be
altered, expanded or replaced upon recommendation of the Collier
County Planning Commission, and approval of the Board of Zoning
Appeals, you all, by resolution.
Then there are eight criteria outlined in Sections 1.8.10.4.1
through 1.8.10.4.6, including a consideration of the impact that this
replacement will have on the neighborhood.
Once again, the zoning category is agricultural. And you have
by your code and the agricultural district stated, by definition and by
the code, that a mobile home cannot be the Primary single-family
dwelling unit by definition. It can only be utilized, we contend, in
two instances: While a permanent residence is being constructed, or
in conjunction with a bona fide agricultural use.
Therefore, a mobile home being used as a single-family
dwelling in an agricultural district to be replaced, we would submit,
would require an application to the Planning Commission, review
and consideration by them applying the criteria to protect the health,
welfare and safety of the community and the neighborhood,
subsequent recommendation and consideration by this Board.
Page 32
December 16, 2003
That's what we ask this Board to therefore modify and reverse,
the interpretation by staff to determine that no permit for the
replacement of the triple wide mobile home should have been issued
without the prior review and approval of the Collier County Planning
Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals in this particular case.
In one other instance -- one other -- I know in your packet you
have a bunch of materials with regards to the particular property and
the replacement mobile home. This is a survey that was in the packet
of materials that showed the double wide -- did I get it right this
time? Thank you. I'm learning image master 101, I think.
It shows a particular-- that's the double wide. Then the size of
the triple wide is almost twice as large. If you look at the dimensions
on that, I believe it's 23 by 44. Now, the dimensions of the triple
wide are 42 by 56, so what you have -- you are increasing the
nonconformity and you are not going through the process outlined in
the code.
That's all we are saying is that we believe the interpretation is
wrong. Number one, it ignored the provisions of Section 1.8.10, it
ignores the definition contained in your Land Development Code,
very specifically defining single-family dwelling unit, that a mobile
home shall not be permitted in zoning districts which allow
single-family dwellings as permitted uses, unless the term mobile
home is expressly stated as a permitted or conditional use. Only
twice is it allowed in the agricultural district as a single-family
dwelling, again, in conjunction with construction or in conjunction
with bona fide agricultural activities.
Available for any questions you may have. We ask --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board?
MR. PIRES: -- your favorable consideration in that particular
reversal and indicate it should have gone to the Planning
Commission and before you all.
Page 33
December 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Pires, I'd just like to clarify
your position here. Do you believe that the current Land
Development Code permits the replacement of a mobile home of the
same size under these particular conditions, or are you objecting
primarily to the substitution of a larger mobile home?
MR. PIRES: I believe the way the code reads, it says replace it.
In 1.8.10.4, it states, nonconforming residential structures. And we
contend it's nonconforming because it's been used as a single-family
dwelling, which it's not allowed to be. By definition, nonconforming
residential structures, which for the purposes of this section shall
mean detached single-family dwellings, duplexes or mobile homes in
existence at the effective date of this zoning code or its relevant
amendment and in continuous residential use thereafter, may be
altered, expanded or replaced. It doesn't indicate how it's replaced,
whether it's the same size, smaller or larger.
And once again, upon recommendation of the Planning
Commission and approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals. It doesn't
say it's not going to happen, it just says these are some criteria you
might want to ensure. If you're going to keep using mobile homes as
a single-family dwelling, you need to have different safeguards,
different protections for the community and for that parcel.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
did you all declare when I --
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine.
Are we all supposed to declare or
No, the Board of Zoning Appeals.
BZA, yeah?
I -- just so that we
Page 34
December 16, 2003
know that -- I did speak with the Orschells. I went over and took a
look at the property. And I have a pack of material that I would like
to submit. I just want to make sure that I say that, thank you, on the
record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? Commissioner
Halas, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Since this is agriculture and since
there's been since the beginning of time a mobile home on this, isn't
there grandfather rights included in this?
MR. PIRES: Once again, our position is, is that the use of the
property on that particular mobile home, there was one that was there
up until '97 that was replaced by a double wide. 2003 they applied to
replace the double wide with a triple wide. I don't believe the
grandfathering comes into play because the code sets out the
mechanism, if you want to call it grandfathering or if you want to
call it the opportunity to upgrade, replace with another mobile home,
it doesn't say you can't do that, it just says here's a process you
should go through. It's not just a straight permit process. This gives
the Planning Commission, gives the Board, gives the community an
opportunity to comment on that particular application. And it
provides criteria in the ordinance as to -- to be considered in making
a recommendation as to whether or not the replacement should occur.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So are you saying that this is in
violation and therefore we're going to tell these people they can't put
that there? Is that what you're saying, we want to force these people
out of their home?
MR. PIRES: What we're saying is that without their
participation, the staff made a determination that a building permit
was all that was issued -- needed. We disagree with that particular
position, and that this process should have entailed the manner and
means and procedure of an application to the Planning Commission
Page 35
December 16, 2003
and reviewed by them and by the Board of County Commissioners.
You all can make a determination that that should be the proper
process and make a determination that these people need to go
through that, an after-the-fact basis. Or you all, I believe, and I'm not
your County Attorney, could determine that this is the proper process
to go through because whatever considerations you wish to provide
to the existing property owners, you could indicate that they were in
good faith taking certain steps, based upon the actions of the county
staff, but that from henceforth out, anybody in a similar situation
needs to go through this process. I think you all have that -- I don't
mean to speak for Mr. Weigel, but I believe you have that discretion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But they've met all the setback
requirements?
MR. PIRES: To the best of our knowledge, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. We need some direction,
probably, from the attorney here.
MR. WEIGEL: What Mr. Pires has indicated is correct, I think,
in regard to the discretion you have, the interpretation opportunity
before you today.
Ms. Student, do you wish to assist?
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, Assistant
County Attorney.
As I explained to staff, the provision of the code in 1.8.11, you
know, has some ambiguities in it, so it's up to the Board listening to
the presentation by staff and Mr. Pires, we believe, to, you know,
make the determination.
And I concur that it's entirely appropriate that if for future
reference you want to direct that the code be clarified and direct a
process, that that's entirely appropriate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I -- well, I -- I have some great
Page 36
December 16, 2003
concerns here, and I've got to bring them up to you now. We have an
interpretation from staff that's -- generally says, you know, that the
status quo works.
My concern goes past this one issue. There are hundreds, if not
thousands of homes now, mobile homes that sit on agricultural land
and the repercussions that would come from this. I can't in any way
support this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I was just going to say that we
wanted to make sure -- if I were the homeowner, I'd want to make
sure that I was legally building my place there. I would want to
make sure that I complied with everything. And being that our laws
are ambiguous, maybe we ought to vote on this in favor of the
petitioner so that we don't have this ambiguity continuing. So I
would motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, I'm not going to
accept a motion until we hear from the public.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, we have speakers? I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll wait.
MR. PIRES: Thank you all very much.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have one speaker-- I'm sorry,
did you wish to say something.
MR. WEIGEL: No, go right ahead, and then I'll talk.
MS. FILSON: Maureen, and I believe it's Schoch?
MS. SCHOCH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not sorry that Ms. Shock is here
to speak.
MR. WEIGEL: At this point prior to her speaking, I would ask
that the Board may wish to exercise prerogative to have Ms. Schoch
sworn in.
Page 37
December 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. This is a full blown hearing?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's a Board of Zoning Appeals petition,
which isn't a quasi-judicial decision in and of itself, but under our
county procedures ordinance the Board has the ability to have
anyone and everyone sworn, if they wish to. Mr. Pires, speaking as
an attorney, is not required by law to be sworn in, but I would
suggest that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte communication?
MR. WEIGEL: It's not required by law to report. It's fine if
you do on this particular item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ma'am, would you raise your right
hand and the court reporter will swear you in at this time. (Speaker was duly sworn.)
MS. SCHOCH: My name is Maureen Schoch. I live at 6167
Adkins Avenue. And my -- I and my husband are the homeowners
of the subject property that is under discussion.
I brought a packet here of documents that relate to this,
including photographs of the old house and the new house, and I
would like to submit them.
I would like to say that we were totally unaware that this appeal
was going forward. No one informed us until we suddenly received a
letter the day before yesterday from Mike Bosi. We didn't even know
anything about it having been heard on December 2nd. I think it
seems like quite an oversight that the person who is the subject of
something like this is not even informed until the very last minute.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ma'am, were you here the last
meeting?
MS. SCHOCH: No. We didn't know it even was happening.
We didn't even know the Orschells had appealed the previous appeal.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. SCHOCH: First the area. This property, as you know, is
Page 38
December 16, 2003
an ag zoned area. But it is a very sharply delineated pocket
neighborhood off County Barn Road. It's completely and totally a
different world from the subdivisions, apartments and commercial
enterprises that surround it on Davis, Rattlesnake Hammock and 951.
It's an old neighborhood, by Naples standards, with many homes
from the Seventies. Lot sizes vary from one to five acres, with two
and a half acre lots predominating. Some parcels are still vacant.
Most of the roads are still unpaved.
The people who live here, despite the agricultural zoning, few
residents here engage in agricultural pursuits. The majority of
residents in our neighborhood are similar to those in Golden Gate
Estates, the worker bees of Naples. Many own a small business or
work in the building trades, but the point is, it's mostly working
people, not retirees.
Most of the homes are under 1,500 square feet, and many are
under 1,000 square feet. There's a wide variety of home styles and
building materials, with numerous framed dwellings, as well as
concrete block. Most are site built, but there are quite a few mobile
homes too, including one right across the street from us.
The subject property. There has been a completely legal, duly
permitted, continuously occupied mobile home on this two and a half
acre parcel for 33 years. The original single-wide was permitted in
1971 and occupied until 1997. It was replaced by a double wide,
which was permitted in '97. The current home is the third mobile
legal home to be placed on this property. The first home was a
single-wide.
The first known building permit for this property was issued to
an Ed Johnson on January 10th, 1971. He got a permit to install a
1971 single-wide mobile home. This original mobile was occupied
by a variety of families during the next 26 years.
In July, 1997, my husband and I bought the property and moved
Page 39
December 16, 2003
into the existing single-wide. A few months after moving into the
original single-wide, we applied to replace it with a newer 1981
double wide.
We carefully followed standard procedure. The existing septic
and well were inspected and passed all then current codes. We
requested and received all necessary permits, paid all required fees
and passed all inspections, receiving our CO for the first replacement
mobile on March 10th, 1998.
After receiving our CO on the double wide, we demolished and
removed the original single-wide. For the next five years, we lived
full time in that replacement double wide while we saved for a larger,
better built home.
On January 14th, 2003, we applied to replace our 1981 mobile
with a new Wind Zone III home, to be located on the same exact spot
as the existing mobile. Once again, we followed standard procedure,
just as we had in 1997. This time there were much more stringent
requirements, but we met each and every' one.
After receiving our building permit, we vacated the existing
mobile home, the replacement double wide, demolished and removed
it from the property. We had to because the new mobile home was
going in the same exact spot. We then had the new mobile home
brought in and placed where the old one used to be. We used
licensed contractors for all trades. Current codes demanded a newer,
larger septic, so we put one in. Once again, we complied with all
county requirements, paid all the fees and passed all the inspections.
We received our CO on April 7th, 2003 and immediately moved
in. The subject home cost $111,000. With its 168-foot setback, the
home is barely visible from the road; however, it's very attractive,
with natural cedar log siding and extensive landscaping. It's very
well built, not only meeting all applicable Wind Zone III codes, but
exceeding them in many respects.
Page 40
December 16, 2003
The cost of the home itself was 62,000, but with sales tax,
transportation, setup, permits, grading, texturing, painting, ceramic
tile and the new septic, the total cost was over $111,000, excluding
the cost of the land itself.
On September 4th, 2003, in accordance with the new Florida
law, we retired the mobile home title and converted the home to real
property. Axles and wheels were removed and all requirements were
met. Legally the home is now real property.
We believe that we have complied with everything the county
requested. We put in our new home totally in good faith, relying on
the county. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. I have some questions
for our staff. Thank you.
MS. SCHOCH: Not for me, the questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. Do you have any questions,
anybody, questions? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. SCHOCH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: County's review on this is a
nonconforming use is what I read? MR. BOSI: The--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name, for the record.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, the Department of Zoning and Land
Development review.
The objection to the -- or the request for the interpretation
focuses upon the legality of the building permit. The use was not in
question, it's a conforming use. What it is is a nonconforming
structure. It was originally permitted as a single -- as a dwelling unit,
it continues as a dwelling unit. That is the use. It's the structure that
is nonconforming in the agricultural zoning district as the agricultural
Page 41
December 16, 2003
zoning district's regulations has been changed over the years.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The nonconforming structure,
when did it become nonconforming? What year did we change the
code to make it a nonconforming structure?
MR. BOSI: Changes to the agricultural district in 1992
rendered mobile homes no longer an allowable use or structure
within the -- within the agricultural zoning district. And the defi --
the current definition of the single-family dwelling unit has been
further refined to specifically -- to distinguish or exclude mobile
homes from a permitted use, specifically because it was the desire of
the community to no longer permit mobile homes within residential
or agricultural zoning districts, and that's why the distinction has
been made. But we contend that the use has along been a residence,
and that has never changed, it's the structure type that is
nonconforming.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just a minute, please.
The -- so the second home that was brought on the property is
the one that became a nonconforming structure. And the -- and the
new structure on there is in question. So my question is, the former
double wide was how many bedrooms?
MR. BOSI: I'm not sure of the bedrooms. What the -- the
square footage was 1,000 square feet.
MS. SCHOCH: It was two bedrooms.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please, ma'am?
MS. SCHOCH: It was two bedrooms.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, the one you just replaced was
two bedrooms. What's the existing structure? How many bedrooms?
MS. SCHOCH: Well, it's hard to say because there are
additional rooms that we would call a den and so forth.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you got one den and how many
bedrooms?
Page 42
December 16, 2003
MS. SCHOCH: There's really technically one bedroom.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. SCHOCH: And then there's a music room we call, and an
office and a spare room. I guess you could say there's two bedrooms.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Two bedrooms.
MS. SCHOCH: Really, still.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I'm viewing this as the existing
structure is the same size, same bedrooms, so it's not a larger
nonconforming structure or use, Commissioners.
Somebody had their hand up. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When does the structure change
from being a mobile home to a manufactured home?
MR. BOSI: The Building Department has guidelines that draw
the distinction between what a mobile home is and what a
manufactured home is. And based upon the evaluation from the
manufacturer's specs within this particular model, it fell within the
guidelines of an actual mobile home, even though when you look at
it from the outside, it does appear to be a manufactured. But based
upon the building permit -- the Building Department's criteria, it met
the mobile home requirement and not the manufactured home.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because a lot of times, when you
-- as soon as you take the wheels off, you place a permanent
foundation or whatever else, then it becomes a permanent structure.
And a manufactured home, even though it may eventually -- you
transported it there with wheels, but then you took the wheels off,
you placed it on a foundation, and then of course now it becomes a
manufactured home. It seems to me when somebody pays $111,000,
that this -- there's got to be a stipulation here between a mobile home
and a manufactured home.
MR. BOSI: And as I said, there is a distinction, and -- in the
eyes of the Building Department, and they have a --
Page 43
December 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what is that?
MR. BOSI: -- guideline.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What is that stipulation?
MR. BOSI: Not working for the Building Department, I am not
sure what the exact classification in specifics of the manufacturing
design is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You need some help here.
MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, Department of Zoning, Land
Development review.
The distinction would be who registers the home. If it's
Department of Community Affairs, then it's considered a modular
home, if it's Department of Transportation, it's a mobile home. If it
was originally -- and I don't know, Mike can verify this, but if it was
originally registered by the Department of Transportation, it's
considered a mobile home throughout its life.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I was just -- I was really
going along the same path that Commissioner Halas was. If the
wheels are taken off and it's planted in the ground, is it still a mobile
home? Because that was what it was originally permitted in '71.
MR. BOSI: The Building Department, once -- as you state,
once the wheels are taken off, I guess the building department can
recertify the structure from the original certification of the mobile
home and certify it as a manufactured home.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, then we can
make it a legal -- what -- I think what the Orschells are trying to do is
just make sure that it's legally -- it's legally on that lot. And that
would -- if the Building Department then changed the determination
of what this house that has a foundation now is, then they would be
Page 44
December 16, 2003
legal; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: As I understand, that would be correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it's important to define
the difference between legal and nonconforming, because we're
starting to lose the drift of this. We're assuming that if it's not legal
that it's illegal. And that's not correct, is it? Nonconforming doesn't
mean illegal, does it?
MR. BOSI: Nonconforming means at one point in time it was
legal, but changes to the zoning regulations have now made it
nonconforming.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to get that
clarification of the terminology in place before we get messed up
with the idea that because it's no longer legal that it's illegal.
MR. BOSI: And the -- and the specific task of the Board today
is to determine whether the interpretation that was offered by the
Planning Services Director was correct, meaning that the 1.8.11 is the
section that you should follow when you deal with a mobile home, a
nonconforming mobile home within an agricultural zoning district.
And that's really -- that's the focus in question today that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And if this motion fails,
that's the motion that I would make at the time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, there is a motion by
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not yet.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. I wouldn't accept her motion
because we have a public speaker.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I still want to jump in
front of Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'd just like to make an
Page 45
December 16, 2003
observation, perhaps before Commissioner Fiala makes a motion. I
know that she's expressed an interest in doing so.
It appears to me we've got two problems here: One is we have
the obligation to protect the people who are living in a neighborhood
in conforming structures. And secondly, we've got a problem with
how we identify nonconforming structures, because -- particularly in
this particular category, because of the ease with which one can
remove the wheels and the axles and put it on a foundation and it
becomes permanent. I don't believe that our Land Development
Code -- at least it doesn't appear to adequately address those issues.
There's another problem and that's one of notification. I think
the owners of the home apparently were not properly notified. I
think that could be rectified if we did require that nonconforming
structures under these circumstances come before the Planning
Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to grant an
exception, if such an exception is deemed advisable.
So I think that -- I would hope that we would be able to
recognize the right of this family to live in their home after they've
gone through the proper procedures to get -- at least in their opinion,
proper procedures, and the staff granted them approval to do that. I
would not like to do anything which would force them from their
home or impose any penalty on them. But I do believe that for
actions in the future, we need to clarify our guidelines and make sure
that we go through the proper processes, rather than just granting
permitting approvals.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I -- can I respond to that?
Going one -- through one of these nonconforming uses before, my
impression is as long as the nonconforming intensity doesn't
intensify, that it's, you know, equal or less, that it's still
nonconforming. And that's why I asked the owner, you know, how
many bedrooms there are. Because in my opinion, you know, it
Page 46
December 16, 2003
could be up, down, equal or whatever. And even though the question
is, is the said structure replacement is bigger, the actual use of that
would be the same or less. So I'm particularly not in favor of
bringing this back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that wasn't my observation. I
don't think we bring this back. Like I said, I think that the residents
of the home went through the process they believed to be correct. It
was approved. They should not be penalized in any way.
But with respect to the overall issue itself, I would say to you
that the number of rooms in that structure that are being used as
bedrooms should not be used to determine whether or not there's an
intensification of the structure. There could be three or four rooms in
that structure that could be used as a bedroom. And it's merely a
matter of how you use the space. So it in fact was larger.
And just as if someone who has a boat dock that is
nonconforming wishes to rebuild it or repair it, they can't make it
bigger, and they can't change it to accommodate more boats.
So I'm getting a little off track here, but to summarize, my intent
would be to let the people who have put this mobile home there live
peacefully there, we don't want to force them -- have any penalties of
any kind. But we also want to make sure in the future we have a
better understanding of how we categorize these homes, and also that
we follow the proper processes for nonconforming structure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you for that clarification.
Commissioner Coletta, then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you very much. My
concern goes past just the homeowner that's here today. This
interpretation is going to affect the lives of thousands of people out
there. We're going to take people that have been on this land for
many, many years, in some cases a couple generations, and we're
going to reduce their status to second class citizenship, because of the
Page 47
December 16, 2003
fact that they don't have a dwelling made out of cinder blocks or
wood frame anchored to the ground. They were there before anyone
else.
I say that we defer to this fact and we grant them the same
considerations that we give the rest of the public out there. To heap
on them new rules and regulations over and above what they
originally went in with is just such a detriment, and it's such -- it's so
unfair that I could never support it in any shape, form or matter.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I feel the same way, and I'd
also like to basically add to what Commissioner Coyle was stating,.
and that is that these people followed the rules of the law that we
presently have by county staff-- from the county staff. But I feel
that maybe what we need to do is look at nonconforming structures
and make a determination whether we need to address that or what
we need to do in the Land Development Code for future instances so
that we don't continually fall under this trap. We either make a
decision that we're going to have structures of this nature or we're
going to try to one way or another to accommodate them, and maybe
you'll have to put it in different areas of the county or whatever else.
But I think it's something that needs to be looked at.
MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, may I?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You may.
MS. MURRAY: Thank you. Susan Murray, for the record,
interim Director of the Department of Zoning and Land Development
review.
I think Commissioner Halas hit it right on the head; the decision
that's before you now will impact -- and also Commissioner Coletta
-- everybody in the zoning district, the agricultural zoning district
that has the same circumstance that Mike described, a conforming
use in a legal nonconforming structure, meaning the structures were
Page 48
December 16, 2003
in place before the zoning code was amended to remove the right to
have that structure under -- unless you were under the two
circumstances that Tony Pires described to you, which is correct.
I think in this case, and I guess that's what I want to point out is,
your direction today or your decision today on this interpretation will
affect the way we do business in terms of anybody wishing to replace
a mobile home.
To that end, if you wish to maybe consider giving us -- sticking
with the former Planning Services Director's interpretation, and then
perhaps at a later date in time considering what you want to do with
these nonconforming structures in the ag. zoning district, that would
be perhaps my recommendation. Because it is an issue. And there is
portions of the code that are ambiguous in the circumstances, and this
is how we've applied the code in this circumstance over -- since
1991. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, at this time,
would you like to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd just like to hear what
Tony Pires has to say. He just is stepping up.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Commissioner
Fiala.
Just briefly, once again, if anybody is trying to paint a portrait
that we are saying that these people should be disposed of their
ability to be there, I think I made mentioned of the fact that the board
has the ability to say they can go henceforth with what they have.
We're also not trying to say that anyone who has a mobile home
in an agricultural district is a second class citizen. What we're saying
is there is a process in place for them to apply; not the permitting
process but a review process that has detailed criteria in that. That --
it happens in all the nonconformities. Whenever you all adopt a new
regulation you create nonconformities; you adopt a new setback,
Page 49
December 16, 2003
there's a nonconformity; you change uses, it's a nonconformity. And
those people have to go through similar processes. Thank you very
kindly. So we ask for your favorable consideration that the process
be utilized as an existence and not be ignored. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, this is tough. You know,
these people built their -- or brought in their third home, mobile
home, checking with county government, following all of the rules
that they were provided, and you don't ever want to take that home
away from them. You want to make sure that they have their home,
they have their lot, they're taking care of it.
On the other hand -- and also, by the way, as Commissioner
Coletta said, for the thousands of other people who also want to
improve and upgrade their property and follow the rules.
But -- and the same hand, you want to make sure that the rules
are in place to guide them correctly so that we don't have another
loophole as we have here.
So what I would like to say is -- and I agree with Commissioner
Coyle when he said we don't want to penalize these people, you
know, we don't -- we don't want to have them charged for anything,
and we want them to stay in their home. It looks like a very nice
home.
So what I'm -- I'm going to make a motion is (sic) that we have
staff take an in-depth look at the rules here and see if they can come
up with something that's a little more definitive so that we don't have
this process happen again.
We thank the Orschells and Tony Pires for bringing this to our
attention so that this -- we don't have this coming before us in the
future, and people will have a more clearly defined role -- or
direction when they're -- when they're replacing their mobile home.
So at this time I think my direction is to county staff, go back
Page 50
December 16, 2003
and take another look, tighten up the roles just a little bit so that this
doesn't happen again.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Commissioner, I'm not going
to accept that motion. Let's deal with the topic on hand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Isn't that it.9
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. We need a motion to either
accept staffs interpretation of the code by the Planning Director --
we need to deal with this issue first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, can we deal with that?
Because I don't accept it. And yet at the same time, not charge these
people any dollars and not remove them from their home, but just
make sure that we tighten that up.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I was going for.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. I'm going to make a
motion to accept staffs interpretation of-- Planning Director staff
interpretation of the mobile home issue in the agricultural district. Is
there a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I do second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas seconded the
motion. All in favor of the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I have a discussion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Am I to assume that there
is an opportunity for a follow-on motion that would require --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, exactly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. Very well.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Before you is an appeal, and so I think that part
of your motion would be to deny the appeal and then the rest of what
Page 51
December 16, 2003
you had just stated.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Part of my motion is to deny the
appeal and recognize the rest of my motion. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Any further discussion on the
All in favor of the motion, signify by
Any opposed?
Commissioner Fiala brought up a
second motion which I didn't recognize, but I will recognize a motion
at this time. Will not support that motion, because I feel that the
nonconforming uses is well covered at this time. But go ahead with
your motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you just said you would not
accept it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I will vote for it -- I'm sorry, I won't
vote for it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to make sure we don't have
this happen again. We have -- in this particular area there is all
agricultural land and some of it is pretty nasty looking. And what
they're trying to do really is bring the area up a little bit by not
replacing things like this. So I think that we do have to address this.
Page 52
December 16, 2003
So my motion is to ask staff to please go back, take a look at
this particular code and see if we can't tighten it up so that we don't
have something like this again with ambiguities coming before us.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it. And I'll tell you
why. It's very clear to me that we don't have a good definition of
what constitutes a mobile home, particularly if you can take the
wheels and axles off and put it on a foundation. What does it
become? Is that a permanent manufactured home then? I think we
need to fine tune that. I don't know that we have a really good
procedure. And I would like to see Commissioner Fiala's motion
supported from the standpoint that we need to adjust this procedure
so that we can more effectively administer these kinds of situations.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I have great concerns
once again. It's the direction we're going. Even though we found in
favor of staff on this particular finding, we're going right back to
saying well, we're going to let it go by this time but we want to come
back for review so that we can make a determination if mobile homes
are something that are suitable in Collier County, or how they're built
in the future--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I and know that. But I
mean, I'm just scared of the language of the whole thing, that the
message is out there that we have a serious problem with mobile
homes. In the majority of Collier County, we do not. They're very
well policed, they're staffed, the code enforcement keeps them up to
pace. They meet the needs of some of our lower -- of our lower paid
citizens, our retired people. And I just -- I got great fears that we're
opening a can of worms here, that the direction's going to be that
we're going to take and eventually get to a point where the only way
Page 53
December 16, 2003
they can get an improvement done to a mobile home in the
agricultural district is to go through an appeal to the Commission
itself.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Coletta --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Totally unfair. That's what I'm
concerned about.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know what? We -- in my
district alone, we have 80 percent of all the mobile homes. I mean,
and it's -- they're wonderful places. I think you're distorting this just
a little bit. I know that you're protective over -- over a certain area,
but what we're trying to do is make sure that people don't remain in
substandard. We want to encourage them to replace and upgrade.
Nobody's trying to prevent that. And I think maybe you're taking
that wrong.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm not. I apologize for
that part. But I -- 80 percent that you're talking about, Commissioner
Fiala, has to do with PUD's that are mobile parks --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- that are deeded for. We're
talking about mobile homes on agricultural land. Totally different
scenario than in the mobile parks. They're pretty well addressed in
our zoning and everything else. We're not talking mobile parks, we're
talking agricultural land. And when it comes to that part, you have
only a small percentage of them, Commissioner Fiala. I probably got
97 percent of them. And believe me, those people are going to fill
that room if we ever bring it up for discussion.
I don't know where we're going with this, but it still gives me
great concern about second-hand-- second class citizenship, you
know, for people that have this mobile homes in agricultural land.
So that's the reason why I couldn't support the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Everything's a class envy issue.
Page 54
December 16, 2003
Jesus.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well -- that's, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The other commissioner wants
you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. County Manager Jim
Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, if you would be so kind, if-- if the
motion on the floor is for staff to come back with the definitive -- to
define it, tighten it up, and things like that, there's really two ways
that this can go, okay. And it was obvious by the arguments that
were given by Mr. Pires and staff that there's one that says if you're
going to replace a mobile home in an agricultural zoned area, then it
needs to be a nonconforming to go in front of the Planning
Commission, from the Planning Commission then going to the Board
of County Commissioners. That's one process.
Or there's another one where we tighten up -- we tighten up the
language in the code and make it very definitive so there is no
ambiguity whatsoever, that basically says, if it's a replacement
mobile home in an agricultural zone, then staff could do the permit
process like it did in this particular case at 6167 Adkins.
And I really would like some direction. If you tell me the
definitive process, I'm coming back with two alternatives to you, and
it creates a lot of--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's part of your motion,
Commissioner Fiala? Which one of those processes do you want to
do?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I think the easiest one would
be the second one, where staff decides what the rules are to replace a
mobile home in an agricultural area. Right now they're rather loose.
And that way it would save much of the procedure and a lot of
dollars.
Page 55
December 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's a Land Development Code.
Thank you for the clarification. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, that's exactly the point
here. We obviously have a code that is confusing; otherwise, we
wouldn't have a petitioner coming here challenging the decision. Do
we want to have this happen hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of
times throughout Collier County? No.
The way to solve it is to tighten up the code so there is no
ambiguity and that doesn't -- should not work against anyone's best
interest. It should work for the best interests of everybody to have a
clear code that everybody understands and does not result in the kind
of conflict that we have today.
This characterization that we're somehow trying to oppress
people who live in mobile homes is so distorted that I can't believe it
continues to be repeated here. This is an issue of a Land
Development Code clarification. So let's -- let's get the ambiguity
out. We'd say the same thing for any other Land Development Code
where we saw that there was -- there was some ambiguity. So let's
knock off the specious arguments and get down to the actual issue
here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. And pretty soon we'll have
to get the sheriff in here to arrest everybody.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We've already got him.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We got one here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We got the sheriff. And he's on
my side, by the way. I already checked with him.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have any --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Last comments? Yes I do. It's
got to be a closing statement, though, right? Okay. I'll do it.
Once again, ambiguity aside, we're talking about possibly
Page 56
December 16, 2003
making the people in these particular dwellings who've enjoyed a
certain quality of life that's equal to everyone else in Collier County
go through a process that's going to require them to come before the
Planning Commission, probably spend hundreds of dollars in
additional fees to get --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that isn't what we said at all.
We said we're not going to do that at all.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, it's just giving specific
guidelines --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- on replacing a nonconforming
structure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. So if it's -- if it's a
permanent residence -- you know, just specific guidelines. We said
not coming before the Planning Commission, not coming before the
Board and not spending any extra dollars, just tightening it up so they
understand what they can and cannot do.
Sorry to interrupt you. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. In that light,
Commissioner Fiala, I don't mind discussion taking place on it. But
excuse me if I seem to be so defensive, but when we're talking about
a so-called problem that's not really a problem that is 95, probably 95
percent in my particular zoning area, district that's going to be
affected by zoning changes, of course I'm going to be very defensive.
I have no problems with open discussion, I just want us to be
very guarded with the kind of directions we give staff so they don't
come back with a -- other than maybe giving us a rundown of the
possibilities of maybe we have to do it to make the code read in such
a way that's more understandable.
I'm not saying that code should be so-called strengthened to
eliminate these particular procedures, but if you want to strengthen it
Page 57
December 16, 2003
in such a way that the clarity is there, I can support that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly what we're doing,
yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But I just want to be
very, very careful that we don't take away their rights.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We don't want to prevent anybody
from having a home that they can afford. Some of these places are
the only thing that they can afford. And that isn't the point at all.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Commissioner Fiala, of all
the Commissioners up here, you are the most considerate when it
comes to the homeless needs, I know that for a fact. And I know you
wouldn't do anything to be a detriment to that. But if I in any way
offended you--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No more kissing, let's vote on this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no. No, no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Merry Christmas, by the way,
in case I haven't said it before.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's election year.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You got another two years
away.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
All in favor of the motion, signify by
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Aye.
Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner Henning dissenting.
I don't see it's broken, but that's fine, we'll get a chance to take a
Page 58
December 16, 2003
look at it.
Item #7B
RESOLUTION 2003-462 RE CU-2002-AR-2354, WILLIAM
HOOVER, AICP OF HOOVER PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT, INC., REPRESENTING PASTOR ROY SHUCK
OF FAITH COMMUNITY CHURCH REQUESTING
CONDITIONAL USES 3 AND 4 OF THE ESTATES DISTRICT
TO ADD A CHILD CARE AND PRE-SCHOOL TO THE
EXISTING CHURCH LOCATED AT 6455 22Nr~ AVENUE NW-
ADOPTFD WITH CHANGES
Next item, Commissioners is a 1 O-minute item. Court reporter
wants a -- you can handle that? Commissioners okay to go through
this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it's Item 7(B). This item requires
that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided
by the Commission members.
It's conditional use 2002-AR-2354, William Hoover, AICP, of
Hoover Planning and Development, Inc. representing Pastor Roy
Shuck of Faith Community Church, requesting conditional use 3 and
4 of the "E" Estates district to add a child care and preschool to the
existing Faith Community Church located at 6455 22nd Avenue
Northwest, further described as part of tracts 15 and 16, the Golden
Gate Estates Unit 97.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, before I ask ex parte
and swearing in of the person wishing to participate, the community
has really worked this out. This has been on the agenda for many a --
many a meetings. It's been continued. And I think we have a
Page 59
December 16, 2003
resolution to everything.
So with that, I ask everybody to rise who wants to participate in
this discussion, raise your right hand, the court reporter will swear
you in.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Ex parte communication.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I spoke with Mr. Hoover, Mr.
Yovanovich and also our staff in regards to this. And I have received
many e-mails.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, likewise. And I have
everything in my folder for anyone that wishes to view it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I myself have talked to the petitioner
and the Oakes Advisory Board, received numerous e-mails, including
but not limited to Barbara Hooper, and many a phone calls.
Commissioner Coletta -- Carter -- Coyle? I know it started with
aC.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I should have taken the break.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about hey, you?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, likewise, I have had
meetings, I've got correspondence and e-mails in the file. They're
available for review if anybody wishes to take a look at them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I've had a meeting with Rich
Yovanovich and Dwight Nadeau on this subject. I've also received
many, many e-mails that I will file here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. If we can go to public
speakers, I think we can knock this out real quick.
Ms. Filson?
Page 60
December 16, 2003
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have two public speakers, the
first one being Pastor Roy Shuck. And he will be followed by Karl
Fry.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The Pastor is actually part of the
petitioner, so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Fry?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're waiving at this time.
Mr. Fry?
MR. FRY: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission and
county staff, good morning. My name is Karl Fry. I am president of
the Oakes Estates Advisory, and I'm here to issue a statement on
behalf of our Board of Directors and members.
I do have a rudimentary audio visual for you.
Oakes Estates is the name that we use for our part of Golden
Gate Estates, made up of approximately 500 multi-acre single-family
residential properties located along Oakes Boulevard, which you can
see is our spine road through the center of the diagram, along with
eight intersecting avenues bordered on the south by Vanderbilt Beach
Road and on the north by Immokalee Boulevard -- Immokalee Road.
Oakes Estates Advisory has approximately 200 members who
have voluntarily paid dues to establish a unified voice to preserve our
area as a quiet and safe residential neighborhood. We've worked very
hard to build a partnership with the county, rather than always taking
an adversarial role when confronting issues of growth and the
inevitable changes it must bring. Part of that process has been to
open lines of communication with our county officials, including our
Commissioner, Tom Henning. In doing so, we always strive to
consider the much broader big picture, rather than just our insular
interests.
Your most recent contact with our advisory council was in
Page 61
December 16, 2003
approving the renaming of all eight of our east-west avenues. Prior
to that, it was our support last year for the Logan Boulevard
extension, even though it will run adjacent to our eastern border.
That support is worthy of note, as it represents a significant trade-off
for our residents to have yet another major road immediately beside
US.
We hope you'll view that as an indication of our fair mindedness
and just how important it is to our residents that we reduce traffic on
Oakes Boulevard and eliminate it from the long-range master plan to
have it four-laned in the future.
Faith Community Church, as you'll see from the diagram, is
located on one of our avenues at the far western edge of Oakes
Estates, surrounded primarily by homeowners from our
neighborhood, except for a canal on its western border. Their
original application and the compromise proposed by the Planning
Commission both met with very strong opposition, not only from our
board members but from residents alike.
However, I'm here to inform you today of our board's support
for this compromise that you have before you, assuming there is
adoption of all four of the major terms outlined in your package.
We do want to state for the record that this in no way implies
our support for any future applications by this church or any other
church. We reserve the right, as you do, to evaluate each application
based upon its unique circumstances and impacts on our
neighborhood.
We also think it important, because this has been a very decisive
issue, that you understand the context of our support. My standing
here today in support rather than vigorous opposition reflects the
distance that has been covered by Faith Community Church in
amending the terms of their application. It also reflects the efforts of
Russell Budd, who may or may not be here, an Oakes resident and
Page 62
December 16, 2003
Chairman of the County Planning Commission, in actively
facilitating an acceptable compromise. Mark Strain, also from the
Planning Commission, volunteered a good bit of his time also toward
this effort. We'd like to acknowledge and thank both gentlemen for
their, for their efforts here.
You need to understand that our residents and our board
members are still highly divided on this issue. We are all hesitant to
accept additional traffic when we feel gridlock is already the norm in
our neighborhood. And there is a significant contingent that would
not be disappointed by a BCC decision today to reject this
application.
As a board, however, we have strived to consider not only the
obvious negative impacts of additional daily peak hour trips on an
already congested spine road, which is Oakes Boulevard, as well as
the tiny side street where the church sits, which is formerly 22nd
Avenue Northwest, now renamed to Hidden Oakes Lane.
We also have tried to weigh the potential positive benefits to
families in our neighborhood and elsewhere who are in need of child
care. A narrow majority of our board felt the benefits outweighed
the negatives, based on the revised terms before you today.
On behalf of those who oppose this application, we did promise
to state one primary objection for the record and for your
consideration. It is traffic access; the way in which traffic gets to the
church.
The only traffic access to this church's facility is through our
neighborhood. To many of us, this seems to contradict the intent and
purpose of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, which defines a
transitional conditional use as a transitional use between a
nonresidential and residential area. Doesn't common sense imply
that the traffic also should be through the nonresidential property?
The newest interpretation of the master plan written by the
Page 63
December 16, 2003
restudy committee refers to this area as a buffer between a
nonresidential and a residential area. How can it make sense that a
buffer is served only at the detriment to the neighborhood? And that
is exactly the case in where this church sits.
In this case, the nonresidential property that allows the church to
exist is across the canal from the church, while the traffic burden
falls entirely on the neighborhood.
While we support this very limited child care facility, even with
the current traffic access, we do not believe the issue of the intent and
purpose of the master plan has been adequately resolved to provide
clarity on future applications.
If you do decide to support this application, we would like to
extend our best wishes and support to Pastor Shuck and his
membership team, his leadership 'team and the mission ahead. On
behalf of all families who will entrust the care of their children, we
ask that Faith Community Church take proactive steps to ensure the
highest levels of quality child care be provided. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Mr. Yovanovich, before I close the public hearing and make a
motion to approve, do you have any corrections?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I just need to quickly get the four points
on the record that we've agreed to, if you'll give me a second to do
that.
What we've agreed to with the residents is that we would give
first priority to students that are church members or regular
attendees. Second priority would be to students of the residents of
Oakes Estates, which is the area he just described. Then priority
would be given to anybody else.
We also agree that we would not apply for an increase in the
conditional use for the day care and preschool for a period of five
years after the completion of Logan Boulevard, Livingston Road and
Page 64
December 16, 2003
951 from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road. So there
would be a five-year window where we could not even apply to try to
increase the day care or the preschool.
And we agreed that there would be no additional mm lanes on
Oakes Boulevard related to the operation of the preschool, which I
believe your staff agreed -- agrees to as well.
So those are the four conditions that Mr. Fry was speaking
towards, and we wanted to get that on the record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any questions, Board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I do also want to thank Planning
Commission Chairman Russell Budd for many hours dealing with
this issue after the Planning Commission approved it. It is truly a
service to the community, so thank you.
Close the public hearing. Commissioners, I make a motion that
we approve this petition with the one -- one corrections (sic) in the
stipulations that Mr. Yovanovich put on the record.
Even though, Commissioners, this doesn't fit the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan, which is part of the Golden -- or the Growth
Management Plan, I feel that it is a community benefit, not only to
the church but the residents in the area, being that the church has
allowed, after providing for the needs of the -- their membership, to
reach out to the surrounding Oakes area. So I commend you for that.
And all my statements is part of the record.
Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Everyone.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta. Any
Page 65
December 16, 2003
discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would like to add my
appreciation to you, Commissioner Henning, as well as to the
community leaders and to Pastor Roy Shuck for getting together and
solving this problem.
There's a lesson here. That's the way these things are supposed
to be done. I think it's wonderful that you've taken the time to work
through it. You're to be commended for getting involved and
participating in this process to try to reach conclusions that are in
your mutual best interests. When you bring these issues to us and we
sometimes have to split the baby, it never turns out all that good, and
I'm delighted that you've done this. And I just want to make sure that
Commissioner Henning is recognized for his efforts in getting this
resolved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hear, hear.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimous. We're
going to take a 1 O-minute break.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #9H
Page 66
December 16, 2003
DECISION RELATING TO CHARTER COUNTY FORM OF
GOVERNMENT- DENIED. MOTION TO APPOINT A
CHARTER COMMISSION WITH SET DOLLAR AMOUNT IN
COOPERATION WITH SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO BE
PI,ACF, D ON 2004 GF, NF, RAIJ F,I~F, CTION lqAIJ~OT
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take their seats, please.
The Board of Commissioners are going to deviate from the items
today. We're going straight to 10(H) (sic). MR. MUDD: 9(H).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 9(H), I'm sorry. The Board of
Commissioners items for discussion, public input and consideration
of the decision related to charter government form -- charter form of
government.
Commissioners, I think we know the issue. I think the public
speakers know the issue, so it would be my recommendations to go
right to public speakers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll buy that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Filson, please call up the first
speaker.
MS. FILSON: The first public speaker is Bob Murray. He will
be followed by Nick Hale.
MR. MURRAY: Good morning again, Commissioners and staff
and members. My name is Bob Murray and I'm speaking on behalf
of the East Naples Civic Association this morning. And this is about
the proposed charter government.
The East Naples Civic Association at one of its luncheons
hosted the group proposing to form a charter government they say is
suitable for Collier County. We listened carefully to their proposal
and asked many questions. A number of important questions,
though, were unsatisfactorily answered.
Page 67
December 16, 2003
The group proposing this no doubt -- is no doubt enthusiastic
and earnest to effect change they see as being necessary. But it is our
strong view that they have gone beyond the reasonable and into the
truly questionable.
In the simplest matters, they complained of the need to be heard
and they seek to overcome limitations of access. Fact, there is
always going to be a time management problem, time available to
meet with representatives outside of Commission meetings is limited,
and five minutes to address an issue at Commission is short, but if
worked at can be effective.
With essentially two heads of state will access improve? Would
the County Manager grant more time at the podium? Would
Commissioners .find more time to meet with petitioners somehow?
They desire to have an elected manager, who I believe will
actually become a head of state, as a balance against the Commission
of five. One more likely to respond to the needs of the citizenry as
they reason it.
Fact: We are fortunate to have Mr. Mudd as our County
Manager currently. His background and education are important
keys to his good work. These are gifts that are immeasurable when
speaking of efficiencies he can initiate because he understands the
workings of government. Elect him to office and he will soon begin
to delegate considerable work to another, as he will find his
newfound political career taking some significant time away from his
directing day-to-day activities.
Okay, maybe he can do it all. But an election or two down the
line, when Collier gets a politician-only capable candidate as its
manager, you will see a hiring from outside this county of a -- you
decide the title -- de facto county manager, as excellence and
competence with direct government experience will very likely be
lacking in the talents of many of those living here who may wish to
Page 68
December 16, 2003
run for that office. This is not a criticism. The field is very limited
in this respect. It is simply a fact which must be appreciated.
Their desire to see an elected county executive creates a de facto
head of state, but one purportedly balanced by a Commission which
could at some point negate any decisions made by the then elected
county manager through a super majority vote. This causes us to
shiver at the prospects of meetings that could become little wars to be
won or lost as the balance of power shifts.
It may not result in calamity immediately, but it would certainly
manifest soon enough in very public dissension, as one
Constitutional body is pitted against the other, each vying for public
appreciation of its respective position. Checks and balances, if
sought this way, cannot be realized. Inertia, always a claim against a
failed government, would surely become a true statement in Collier.
There is and should be a fear that after awhile the hated terms,
deals and back room politics would likely be heard, as there will
come a time when issues must be resolved, and unpleasant
compromise just to get the moment's job done will prevail.
And yes, this too could become real, even under the Sunshine
Laws we so treasure under a charter government.
Hard decisions, those sought by most citizens in matters relating
to development, economic viability and infrastructure throughout our
communities, cannot effectively be made should perceived
intimidation be the weapon of the masses through a few who would
direct the power.
Referenda cannot run government. Look to the events in
California and the resultant changes, and even here in our state
regarding trains, schools and for gosh sakes, even pigs.
One could be -- one could be led to believe that all is lost in
government. I for one do not believe that to be the truth. But it is
fair to ask, would a charter form of government provide a cure for
Page 69
December 16, 2003
conditions if they knew -- were to exist, how?
Today the county manager is responsible to the commission.
Tomorrow he could be directly responsible to the entire electorate.
Sounds good. But which process would be more efficient and
effective?
Throw the bum out sounds good. Fact is, citizens need to be
involved, participating and poking around, no matter what form of
government we have. By the time we get to yell throw the bum out,
it's too late anyway. Nothing beats being involved. Nothing beats
citizenship.
Some form of charter government may one day prove
appropriate for Collier County when it is needed. It isn't needed
now. Our anchor Board passed a resolution that found against this
charter proposal unanimously, and it was clear to the anchor that this
proposal is unsuitable to our county's needs. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nick Hale. He will be
followed by Rosemarie Strother.
MR. HALE: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nick Hale, for
the record. Mr. Murray has given a very eloquent statement in praise
of Mr. Mudd, and I agree with that, but fearing that future elected
managers would not be as good. He doesn't want them to be
politicians. So I am going to talk to five politicians and see if I can
come up with a contrary view.
I serve as a member of the charter development panel which
wrote the sample charter which you have seen and which appears on
our website and on several others.
Charter concept here began with a relatively small number of
people. Every Florida charter county began the same way. But
when a commission was appointed, charter popularity increased and
the voters later approved it.
Page 70
December 16, 2003
I've heard objections voiced that this would be spending a
quarter of a million dollars to satisfy a small number of people. I
don't know where the quarter of a million dollars came up, although
that's been very much in the minds of many people, because that's the
exact amount of money that was wasted over the Dover-Kohl study
at Naples Park. Those things stay with you.
The sample charter, and that's what it is, is the result of our
study of the existing charters of 20 other Florida counties and
discussion with a number of public officials in Florida and elsewhere.
Now, 20 is a minority of the number of counties in Florida. But a
few years ago, the number was zero. So I should think this might be
a trend. Zero to 20.
This is the only county -- this is the most populous county that
does not have a charter. I think that tells us something, that counties
are growing up. The sample charter is the result of our studies of 20
other charters in Florida and elsewhere. We talked to public officials
in Florida and elsewhere.
The purpose of this charter is to demonstrate to Collier officials
and citizens how charter government can differ from and be an
improvement upon the existing county government. It is not a
finished document, it is simply a document that gives everyone
concerned some idea of how government can be different. We do not
expect that a charter commission would simply copy this document
and rubber stamp it and give it to you to hand out to the voters.
There will be a lot of discussions, there'll be a lot of things that
will be brought in, a lot of things that will go out. This is simply a
sample. We do not have this to take to the voters, because we have
not written a charter. We have just given some examples of what can
be done.
When Mr. Stone presented you with our charter petition in
November, a motion was made to place it on the agenda for future
Page 71
December 16, 2003
discussion prior to a vote. Another commissioner suggested it was
important enough to be referred directly to the voters, and referred to
the statutory provision permitting us to get signatures of 15 percent
of the voters in order to put it on the ballot. Twenty counties in
Florida have adopted charter. We can find not one of these counties
in which the commissioners denied the citizens this right and instead
forced petitioners to seek signatures. Not one. The board was later
reminded that it must vote our petition up or down. This is where we
are today.
Commissioners, you do not have a charter to either vote upon or
to refer to the voters. The state statutes require you to vote upon the
concept of charter government for this county. Per our petition.
Should you approve this concept, you must then appoint members of
a charter commission who will then write the charter in the Sunshine
over the ensuing months. At that time, the finished charter, having
been thoroughly debated, up to 18 months, will be presented to the
voters.
Commissioners, you will vote to allow the citizens of Collier
County to have a draft charter prepared for the examination and
discussion and vote, or to deny them this opportunity. If you vote
yes, you will then appoint the charter commissioners. After these
commissioners write their charter, the county voters will decide
whether to adopt it or not.
I don't need to remind you that you present -- presented your
candidacy to the voters. You all stressed your leadership potential.
Today you demonstrate that leadership or its absence.
Should you disapprove our charter, it is -- our petition, it is then
our option, our choice as to whether or not we choose to collect
18,000 signatures. Their signatures will be to approve the concept
and the appointment of a charter commission to write the charter.
Should all this ensue, it will then be our choice, according to the
Page 72
December 16, 2003
statutes, to present these signatures to you and to decide who should
appoint the charter commission, county commissioners or our
legislative delegation. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. HALE: Any questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions?
(No response.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Rosemarie, and I'm not sure
what her last name is. She will be followed by Victor Neiditz.
MS. STROTHER: Good morning. My name is Rosemarie
Strother. I'm a citizen of Collier County.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, over 200 years ago our
forefathers created a government of the people, by the people and for
the people. We have come a long ways since then, and we seem to
have strayed afar. Ours seems to be a government of special interest
groups by special interest groups and for special interest groups. We
the people seem to have been left out, and the time has come for us to
regain the voice we seem to have lost.
Citizens in Collier County already have the right to petition
their commissioners on issues that are important to them, but the
final decision on these petitions rests with the commissioners. That's
what we need to change. We the people have no way to challenge
such decisions, nor can we amend or repeal them. We also cannot
bring issues directly before the voters.
For these reasons, we need the power of initiative and
referendum whereby citizen groups can go directly to the people for
their opinion on newer issues or unpopular ordinances already
passed. We also need to be able for the people to recall an elected
official for abusing their office without having to petition the
governor to do so.
One of the main ingredients of charter government is the power
Page 73
December 16, 2003
of initiative, referendum and recall given to the citizens. Petitions
which have received the necessary number of signatures get placed
on the ballot without the Commissioners making the decision as to
whether certain issues should be brought before the voters. Elected
officials who abuse the power of their office can be recalled within
90 days, instead of the people having to wait for the next election to
vote them out. Nineteen counties and all the citizens in Florida
already have the charter form of government. I ask you, why should
we in unincorporated Collier County be denied the privilege already
enjoyed by our neighbors in the city?
I urge you to approve the citizens for charter petition and
appoint a commission of representative citizens to study charter
government and to give us, the people, the opportunity to decide
whether we want a government of the people, by the people and for
the people.
Let me close with a quote from President Woodrow Wilson. I
believe in the initiative and referendum which should be used not to
destroy representative government but to correct it wherever it
becomes misrepresented. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Victor Neiditz. He will be
followed by Bob Stone.
MR. NEIDITZ: Good morning, gentlemen, Ms. Fiala. My
name is Vic Neiditz, I'm a resident of the City of Naples and a voter
in Collier County, and I'm speaking also for the Taxpayer Action
Group of Collier County.
I'm here today to urge you to correct an injustice to my
neighbors in the unincorporated areas of the county who have fewer
citizenship rights than I do.
You may ask, how does this inequality come about? The
answer is simple. It comes about because the City of Naples has a
Page 74
December 16, 2003
mini constitution called a charter will spells out the rights of its
citizens. Among these rights are the rights of initiative and
referendum. These are rights which I as a resident of the City of
Naples have, but which my neighbors who live in the unincorporated
areas do not have. And here's how you can correct this inequality.
According to Florida statutes, there is a process which permits
you to appoint a charter commission to study and draft the charter.
Place the product of the charter commission on the ballot and allow
the voters to decide whether they want the proposed charter or to
keep the status quo.
This request -- excuse me, this process will not only dispose of
an inequality, but it will also ensure the attainment of a goal which
we all cherish and believe in. That goal is having a government of
the people, for the people and last, but not least, by the people.
This request is not radical, nor does it stem from a disgruntled
minority. About 87 percent of Florida's residents enjoy charter
government. All the cities in Florida have it and about one-third of
the counties either have it or are in the process of achieving it.
Florida state law provides for it and spells out how to do it.
I understand Collier County had such an initiative a generation
ago and that the voters -- and that the voters rejected it. The
population today is probably triple what it was then. It is time to
give the voters another crack at it.
In closing, let me quote from an editorial in Sunday's Naples
Daily News. Quote, we have yet to see a perfect local government.
We probably never will. Still, Collier County owes it to citizens who
pay the bills to do what's best. And a means of improvement is on
the table. I urge you-- I urge that it be seized.
When the opportunity to rewrite the rules to suit local values
and empower the public to reign in government power, that is in the
public interest. County Commissioners can make that happen by
Page 75
December 16, 2003
naming an advisory board to write rules that would be put to voters
as early as next year.
The editorial closes with this comment: A yes for a charter
review committee and a spirited mix of advisors to make the exercise
worthwhile will cap the year 2003 on an up note for the County
Commission. It would show a reconnection with the people, end of
quote.
On behalf of the Taxpayers Action Group of Collier County, I
thank you for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next speaker? Bob
stone, followed by --
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bob Stone, he will be
followed by Fred Tarrant.
MR. STONE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record
my name is Bob Stone.
Commissioners, there are a lot of eyes on you this morning.
The civics teachers in all of our schools, the students in all of our
schools. This is an exercise in civic government, not only in our
county but in a lot of counties that are watching what Collier is
doing.
Commissioners, today I come before you to ask you not to vote
in a majority, but to vote unanimously on a resolution to allow the
formation of a charter commission for the study and writing of a
charter document for our county in accordance with the petition we
have presented to you. I ask you to do this because I strongly believe
that this is in the best interest for our county.
Commissioners, the constitution or statutes of the state do not
require that the Board of County Commissioners be assured that a
majority or any specific number of citizens are in support of or
against this petition before you today. There's not a mandate from
citizens required today. That mandate would come when they vote
Page 76
December 16, 2003
on this issue, if you allow this petition. State statutes only require
that you adopt this resolution or deny the petition.
If you deny the petition, you will force citizens to obtain the
required signatures in order to have a charter commission seated.
I ask you what purpose that would serve when that is not
required by our constitution or statutes? The boards of county
commissioners in all of the charter counties established under the
1968 change to Article 8 of our constitution have not refused to adopt
a resolution to form a charter commission when presented with a
petition by citizens.
Commissioners, we believe that citizens deserve to have the
commissioners they have elected to office to serve our county be the
leaders in our county in investigating ways in which our government
can better function. We believe that a study of the charter form of
government would show that there are better ways in which our
county government can be organized and can better function with a
charter form of government. This is proven to be true in the charter
counties that have been established to date.
We can only petition you today in accordance with state statutes
to allow the citizens of the county to have this study made, and then
allow the citizens of the county, by their majority vote at the ballot
box, to decide if the charter form of government is best for our
county.
I urge you today to vote unanimously to adopt the resolution
asked of you in this petition. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Fred Tarrant. He will be
followed by Jeff Provenzano.
MR. TARRANT: Good morning, Chairman Henning, County
Commissioners.
Page 77
December 16, 2003
The Taxpayer Action Group wishes you all a very Merry
Christmas and a healthy and prosperous and happy new year.
I am here to represent the Taxpayer Action Group of Collier
County, and I'm happy to report that the board of directors have
discussed this issue in great detail and have voted unanimously in
support of the charter government process.
I'm not going to take up your time by repeating what has already
been said. And the speakers who came before me addressed this
issue I think in very eloquent words and very good detail. I will only
echo what Mr. Victor Neiditz said, because as a 20-year resident of
the City of Naples, I feel very, very fortunate that we do have charter
government in the City of Naples. It has not always gone in the
direction that I had hoped or wished, but overall I think it provides a
flexibility and a protection for the residents and the people in the city
that we would otherwise not have.
We have availed ourselves in the City of Naples of the charter
government opportunity on numerous occasions, and overall ! think
it has been very beneficial to the city.
I encourage you, as the other speakers have, to seize this golden
opportunity to go forward with the appointment of a charter
committee and let that process work itself out and then of course
before anything can be finally decided again, the people will have to
examine the issue, look at the negatives and the positives of the
whole process, and vote yes or no.
That is the American way. That is the real democratic way that
we address problems in this country. Because no elected body is
perfect. The charter government process is not perfect, the
government that we have in place at the present time is not perfect.
We are simply searching for an opportunity to make the Collier
County government more responsive to the people. And I believe, as
has been stated, that this is the opportunity for you to do that, and I
Page 78
December 16, 2003
sincerely hope that you do not drop your candy in the sand, as
happened in Naples Park.
Thank you, Commissioners, for your good work, and I hope for
a happy result. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jeff Provenzano. He will be
followed by Bill McDaniel.
MR. PROVENZANO: Good morning. My name is Jeff
Provenzano.
I think all the speakers pretty well covered what I said, so I can
be real short, maybe even a little bit shorter than Fred.
The only thing I ask is today you're not voting for charter,
you're not voting against charter. But if you vote as commissioners
who we elected, every one of you, including myself, somebody up
there on the board right now, have disagreements. But if you don't --
if you just say, okay, let them go out and get the signatures, what
you're telling the people, you're telling the people of Collier County
that you're not going to give the people a chance to look at this.
Because you're not -- that's what you're saying.
If you do vote today to go ahead and take this, in your hands, in
your direction to give it a chance to look at it -- and there's nothing
set in concrete stone of anything that we wrote in that panel, and I
was on that charter panel. We had a lot of ideas, we wanted to get a
lot of minds going, and we were provocative and that was our
intention. And it's called a wake up, and we're hoping that the
Commissioners will follow with the citizens today. That is
democracy. Give us a chance to vote. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bill McDaniel -- oh, that's
the wrong one. Marie Sourbeer. She will be followed by Barbara
Bateman.
MS. SOURBEER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name
Page 79
December 16, 2003
is Marie Sourbeer. I'm a 34-year resident, permanent resident of
Naples Park. I've been actively involved and been in this
commissioner room as many as any of you, I'm sure, at different --
for different issues that have been involved with us.
Today I'm here, I'm not going to go through what they've just
said because I have the same feeling. I feel that we need to look into
this possibility of a charter government. We've been in a mess up
there in north Collier for all these years. I've been a 1 O-year past
president of Naples Park Association, I've been 13 years as a
recording secretary for District II. We've never been able to rehire or
revote for the county commissioner in District 2 over all these years,
starting with Arnold Glass. Do you remember him? Any of you been
around long enough for him?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
MS. SOURBEER: Well, then you know what I'm saying.
We've asked for a lot of things from the county and we've been
ignored, we feel, in a lot of issues, like height, density, beach access.
I won't go through that line either.
But I do wish that you would consider giving us the opportunity
to hire or to provide us with a commission to look this charter
government mess over and see if we can't do something. Maybe we
won't want it. But it would be an opportunity for you people to save
face. Because the county commission has really had a bad name for
a while. We don't think you have done the best job that you could,
because we're really swamped with everything. We've been on water
rationing, we've been on -- well, we won't go to that point either.
But if you would be so kind as to try to support us and let us
find out where we are with what the possibilities would be with the
county charter government, we'd appreciate it very much.
And I do want to wish you all a Merry Christmas. I think you
try, I really do. I think you try to do, but you're -- you've got a big
Page 80
December 16, 2003
job on your hands. So Merry Christmas and we'll hope for the best.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Barbara Bateman. She will
be followed by Gilbert Erlichman.
MS. BATEMAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners, and happy
holidays to you as well. My name, for the record, is Barbara
Bateman and I'm a 28-year resident within Collier County.
And I believe charter government is the direction Collier
County needs to consider. And I'm here today to lend my support and
ask the Commissioners if they would move forward and appoint a
charter committee, make that decision today and then down the road
let the people decide. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Gilbert Erlichman. He will be followed by --
Mr. Erlichman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He's not here.
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by Mark Gerstel.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And he will be followed by?
MS. FILSON: And he will be followed by Cindy Kemp.
MR. GERSTEL: Hi. My name is Mark Gerstel, resident of
Collier County. I've attended several meetings over the past few
years and have observed one consistent character: Frustration.
Frustration by the citizens to be heard or appreciated. Perhaps this is
due to the large number of topics that you the Commissioners are
required to address, but it still leaves the citizens frustrated,
depressed and eventually apathetic. Charter government may
remedy this problem by giving the people a more active voice in their
government.
Commissioners, all I'm asking is to support the idea of setting
up an advisory board to bring the idea of charter government to the
citizens for a vote. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Page 81
December 16, 2003
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Cindy Kemp, and she will be
followed by Donald Spanier.
MS. KFJMP: Good morning. Cindy Kemp.
With the recent capturing of Saddam Hussein, one reflects on
our blessings of living under a form of government known as a
constitutional republic. Many will debate its origins; however, I
believe it to be inspired. Our freedoms should not be taken for
granted, but sadly are by those who do not understand the thoughts
and the work that created this great nation.
As with the forming of this country, it is just a few of the people
who at first come up with an idea for something better, a change that
will make a difference.
Just imagine the uproar when the idea of a government of the
people, by the people and for the people was first unleashed upon the
early colonies. In a time when apathy runs rampant, what a delight
to see citizens who are concerned and want to participate in the
decisions their government makes.
Isn't this striving for something better always the American
way? Empowering the people, that is what charter government will
do for the citizens of Collier County.
Many speakers have given the statistics of how many cities and
counties in Florida operate under a charter, and the details of its
working. But all I'm here to say is this is what the people want.
Please proceed with naming an advisory board to take the idea
of charter government to all the citizens of Collier County. Let's
create the opportunity where all take an active role to make Collier
County one where all government is truly local.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Donald Spanier. He will be
followed by Deborah Arnason.
MR. SPANIER: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Donald
Spanier. I'm a resident and property owner in Pelican Bay.
Page 82
December 16, 2003
I'm not here this morning on behalf of any organization, but I
think I speak quite knowledgeably for myself and the 12,000 people
who live in my community. I say that by virtue of the fact that I sit
on the Pelican Bay Public Service Division Advisory Board, for
whom I am not speaking this morning, and I'm an active participant
and a leader in the Oakmont Property Owners Association.
My purpose in adding my few comments to the many that have
gone before me is to urge you, to urge you Commissioners, to seize
what I see as a historic opportunity, an opportunity that comes rarely
to a local government body.
In the less than a decade that I've lived here in Collier County
and been active in the community, I have seen a semi rural
community with 50 or 60,000 residents explode into an urbanized
area, reaching almost to Fort Myers, and having quintupled its
population. I've looked at the vast congeries of programs which
require a billion dollars or more of local residents' and taxpayers'
money. And I've applauded the impact on the area I live in, while
having real compassion for the leadership and the staff heads
operating in a thoroughly antiquated structure that has not been
reexamined in the light of today's realities.
My purpose, therefore, is to urge you to permit me and many
others in the community to spend a thoughtful year or so
reexamining the many strengths and some of the weaknesses of our
present form of governance, to call before us those people from the
academic community, the political community, the cormnunity
organizations and the general population who reflect the diverse
interests of the county, to hear their thoughts on what could be done.
I think I'm reaching the end of my allotted time. I thank you for
it and wish you happy holidays. And again, join me in a historic
mission. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Page 83
December 16, 2003
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Deborah Arnason. She will
be followed by Lou Vlasho.
MS. ARNASON: Hi, I'm Debbie Amason and I live in Naples
Park and I'm a voter in Collier County. I'm going to read just an
editorial letter that was printed on Saturday, November the 15th in
the Naples Daily News.
As voters in Collier County, we now have an opportunity to
change things for the better by signing the petition for charter
government. Eight-seven percent of Florida has this form of
government, including the City of Naples. It simply allows voters to
have a direct say in decisions that affect them to assist our elected
officials in legislative matters.
With charter government, never again will our Commissioners
be so mislead by a handful of people about the wants and needs of a
neighborhood such as Naples Park, that they spend a quarter of a
million dollars on an expensive redevelopment plan which would
cost residents 10,000 plus per lot. Never again will they spend an
additional 18,000 for a push poll designed to push residents needing
drainage into approving parts of that plan.
A community poll, yes-no poll, taken on October 14th showed
residents opposed by 10-1.
At the September 23rd meeting, our Commissioners said they
would have welcomed better input on where to spend the $250,000
plus. Charter government is also their golden opportunity to work
with the voters of Collier County.
I had planned to take off from work on Tuesday, November
18th, and I thought at that time this would be brought up. I
understand it wasn't. I think God has a sense of humor, because my
husband had surgery on that day and I had to be there instead, and
I'm just as glad it was postponed until today.
I would love -- I urge to you join us to achieve charter
Page 84
December 16, 2003
government. We don't want to go over your heads, we want you to
be part of this, and we want -- will remember you, we certainly will
remember you at election time. Thank you so much for your open
minds and cooperation.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Lou Vlasho. He will be
followed by Ken Drum.
MR. VLASHO: For the record, Lou Vlasho. Good morning,
Commissioners. I'm here this morning, almost noon. You know, I
always get a little dismayed that people don't have the opportunity to
express their will in front of you, but everything that's scheduled for
earlier in the morning always seems to run into the midday or into
the evening so people do have an opportunity.
I'm here representing the Naples Better Government Committee
of which I'm the president.
As you know, we have advised you and the public that after
extensive research we do not feel that a change in our form of
government is needed at this time. The small guy is represented,
they have every opportunity to be involved.
Last week we met with the leaders of the Citizens For Charter,
had a very good discussion. At the conclusion of that, we decided
and we agreed to disagree. And that's good. That's what our system
is based on.
Listening to the speakers this morning, a couple of things came
-- come to attention. The -- Mr. Murray said all the right things, so I
won't take a lot of time talking about the charter form of government
and why we're against it.
We talked about appointing the members of the commission and
who should do that. The veiled threat that if you don't approve this
petition, they will go over your heads and appoint -- ask that the
legislative group be the appointers. The Taxpayer group has spoken
on two occasions here, and-- the Taxpayer Action Group has spoken
Page 85
December 16, 2003
-- and they should be talking about the need at this time to expend
effort, dollars, energy on an issue that has come before the voters of
this county three times and been defeated; the last time being
defeated 4-1.
My good friend Don Spanier says that he represents -- or
thought he reflected the feeling of the 12,000 people in Pelican Bay.
Don, that's a stretch, I don't believe you speak for the 12,000 people.
I live in Pelican Bay, and I know at least one of those 12,000 he
doesn't represent.
The issue this morning is not charter government as a form of
government. The issue is should you set up and establish a charter
commission. We, the Naples Better Government Committee, have
not seen a groundswell for setting up this commission.
The petitioner has had the right to request that you set up a
commission. You represent all the residents of the county. And the
most difficult thing you have to do is to ferret out the difference
between the small vocal major-- minority that has an idea that -- you
represent all the voters and the constituents in this county, and you
have to vote what you feel they want.
Recently at a debate I heard a discussion about that and
someone said how do you-- how do you as an elected official
represent the silent majority? Difficult. And you do it by your
exposure in the community. In this particular case, the only way you
can know that there is a real interest in this, other than the well
meaning good people who have presented their idea, is to deny this
request and allow them to use the petition forum and get 15 percent
of the electorate. Only then will you have an indication that the
constituents want you to set up the commission, charter commission,
and expend the time and energy. Three times on the ballot, defeated
three times, the last time 4-1.
On behalf of the Naples Better Government Committee, which
Page 86
December 16, 2003
was established in 1991, its 19-member board of directors, and its
entire membership, I request that you deny this petition at this time.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ken Drum. He will be
followed by your last speaker, Paul Van Stone.
MR. DRUM: Good evening -- or good afternoon. My name is
Ken Drum. I'm president of the East Naples Civic Association.
Proponents of charter government often use the issue of it's the
ultimate form of democracy; that is, you can vote on every and
perhaps all issues that become (sic) before the county board.
They also say that removal of public officials during their term
would also be a more democratic approach, as well as some have
advocated an elected county manager.
I have spent about 30 years of my working life in close contact
with government. And if I had not, I would have believed it, too.
But it isn't true. If people want representative government and we
live in a republic and they don't like what the county board decisions
are, they ought to do it the right way and vote the people out of office
rather than circulate a petition that may or may not be the reason as
to why they're petitioning in the first place. In other words, you can't
get at the real issues with a petition, you have to have people who
represent you who have the time and the expertise to study the issues.
But we're not here today to debate charter government. We're
here to decide whether or not the Board should grant a commission to
study the petition. My feeling is this: That if you can't get enough
signatures on a petition out in the community, you're probably not
going to win the election anyway. And so I would urge you to reject
this request, which then would require people to gather petitions,
which probably is a better exercise in democracy than appealing to
five people on a commission. And then if they get the required
Page 87
December 16, 2003
signatures, then we'll have a public debate and we'll have an election.
And then we'll see how it comes out.
So I urge you to reject this request. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Paul Van Stone.
MR. VAN STONE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My
name is Paul Van Stone. I've been a property taxpayer in this county
since -- over 41 years, and I've been a resident for over 10. I live out
in the county, not in the city itself.
Commissioner Coyle enjoys the benefits of charter as a resident
of the City of Naples. Should he vote against charter, he deprives
those of us the benefit that he and over 85 percent of Floridians
enjoy.
The purpose this morning of this proposal is not to have you
decide whether you want a charter form of government or not. It's
whether or not you want to let the people decide whether they want
charter government or not.
The county is a lot different today than it was 10 or 12 years
ago, the last time this issue was discussed, and there's a lot of people
who have been -- who have been met with, who have talked about
this and understand now what charter government will do. So those
of us who don't have charter government are asking you to 'give us
the opportunity to try to sell the idea to the people once you have
selected a committee to look into it. All we're asking is that you
participate in the determination of whether or not the citizens of
Collier decide.
If you require this group to get the 18,000 or so signatures
needed, it's an awfully big job, it's going to take thousands of man
hours. But if necessary, it will be done.
Hopefully you'll make the right decision and vote unanimously
to give the people the right to say how the county is going to be run.
Page 88
December 16, 2003
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Our staff is not going to
weigh in on this issue, right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, give us a recommendation,
Mr. Mudd.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Commissioners, questions?
Comments? Direction?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got some concerns. And
nobody really, really touched on the subject. I'm trying to figure out
what is really broken. And if I had some ideas on the items that were
broken, maybe those could be addressed. We've gotten a lot of-- and
then of course the discussion of Naples Park and they felt that --
some of the people felt that they were disenfranchised. Well, believe
me, after the county spent a great deal of money on this whole thing,
the citizens came forward, there was a group of citizens that felt that
their voice was not heard, so the county took on that added expense
and went out there and had the people come up with a survey, or we
came up with the survey, had the people go out there and vote on it.
I think everybody realizes what the results were.
So we listened to you and as your elected representatives.
You're the one that put us in this position because you felt that we
would listen to your voices, and I think we did that. All of us
commissioners listened to you.
And so I guess what we really need to know is we need maybe
to have a study. And if we're going to go forward with this -- with
this study on a charter, are we going to include all constitutionals?
And that incorporates all the other five.
So I think we need to look at the whole picture if we're going to
look at a constitutional government. Clerk of the courts, supervisor
of elections, property appraiser. What else --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tax collector.
Page 89
December 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- tax collector and of course the
board of county commissioners. So maybe what we need to do is
institute some type of a study for a year, tell us what is broke and
come back and tell us so that we have some idea also. Maybe my
fellow Commissioners can add to this discussion also.
I think we've had some problems in the past, but I think that
presently I feel that we have a form of government here that is for the
people. And we are elected by you and you are our -- you represent
-- or we represent you, because you basically tell us what concerns
you.
So at that, I'll just see if there's any more comment from any of
my fellow Commissioners.
But I think we really need to know what is broken, and so that
we get some idea what's happening here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'd like to draw a parallel, if I may,
because it's been brought up several times, is Naples Park, the fiasco
up there, and even was quoted in the editorial. I think we had three
or four residents of Naples Park speak for 3,000 residents in Naples
Park saying that we want a study for redevelopment. We got here
today 13 residents speaking for 300,000 residents saying that we
want to change our way of governing, and I think that's how we get
into trouble. And my perspective is, it's always good to check into
the residents to see what we need to do as in this case how we govern
here in Collier County.
My recommendations would be let's put on the ballot of-- and
asking the voters whether we should appoint -- the Board of County
Commissioners appoint a charter commission and expend a certain
amount of money for them to get expertise to write a charter.
And thinking that -- whole other charter counties spend quite a
bit of time in trying to get experts, so something like 300,000. That's
what I would be in favor of. And that way, you know, I hear of
Page 90
December 16, 2003
concerns of citizens out there that they don't want to spend all that
time getting signatures to -- whether the Board of County
Commissioners should appoint a charter commission. And I think at
the last meeting we were talking about 15 percent. Why don't we let
all the citizens weigh in on this to whether the Board of
Commissioners shall appoint a charter review committee?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, the Collier County
government has an opportunity to initiate a project that is going to
take some period of time, a year, 18 months, going to require a lot of
people, consultants and others gathering information, and
considerable expense. And then we're doing this because a group of
concerned citizens have approached us to ask us to do that.
Am I talking about charter government? No, I'm talking about
Naples Park. It's exactly the same thing. And I'm amazed that the
irony isn't understood. You're asking us to spend taxpayer funds,
you're representing that this is what the people want. How do you
know that? That's what people who came to us from Naples Park
and told us, this is what the people want.
You said never again should we let elected officials be misled
by a handful of people. And I agree with you, you know, we did the
wrong thing in Naples Park. Why would we commit this much time
and money without at least letting the people have a voice? I mean,
that's what you want.
You're saying that people have been disenfranchised, they don't
have a voice in Collier County government. But yet you're saying
don't let them have an opinion about whether or not we spend their
money on this project, don't let them have an opinion about whether
we have a year or 18 months studying whether or not we change the
form of government. The very things you're asking for and the
things that you allege to be broken, you're actually advocating. What
Page 91
December 16, 2003
harm can come from having the voters express their opinions about
what they would like to have happen with their government?
Goodness knows, there's a lot of things that can be improved. But
you know, they can be improved whether you do a charter or not.
We have a productivity commission that works year round,
consisting of concerned citizens, and they help us improve things in
Collier County government. And as far as access is concerned, I
didn't see anybody who came forward to speak today who has ever
asked to speak with me who didn't have a chance to do so. We have
e-mail, we have telephones, we have personal meetings, we have
public comment. Everybody has an opportunity to comment and to
seek counsel with their commissioners. So I don't know where this
disenfranchisement comes from, but I have a feeling it is more of an
issue that you're dissatisfied that we don't agree with you on certain
issues. And that's always going to be the case, whether you have
charter government or something else. We're never going to agree
100 percent of the time.
But Commissioner Henning, I think, or Halas -- Halas, one of
you -- you didn't speak yet, did you?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pay back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 'O1 what's his name said that --
wanted to know what was broken.
You know, Dade County has a charter government. Are they a
better county than Collier County? I don't know. I sort of doubt it.
What efficiency resulted in Dade County? How much money did
they spend? How much were their taxes reduced when it became a
charter government? What did the charter government do to improve
those things? I don't know, okay. I'd like to know. And I think we
can begin to find out some answers to those questions. But is -- are
the counties that have charter government better than Collier
County? Do they spend taxpayer money more wisely? Do they get
Page 92
December 16, 2003
better decisions? Do they listen to their people more than we listen
to the people here? I don't think so. But if they do, let's find out what
we need to change and get it done.
But ! have a feeling that we're rushing into a charter government
project without really understanding what it is we're -- you're angry,
we know that. We've seen a number of you here before. We didn't
do something you wanted us to do and you're angry. That's not the
way to design government. Government must be designed on the
basis of efficiency and responsiveness.
And I'll tell you, I've lived in 1 1 states and 17 cities and four
countries, or more, and I have never in my life seen a government
that is more responsive to its people than Collier County government.
You go into Chicago and want to talk with the county manager there
about a setback problem? They'd probably throw you out on your
ear.
But the point is that we bend over backwards to do these things,
but yes, we know that you're frustrated on occasion because we don't
do what you ask us to do.
And that brings me to leadership. A number of you talked about
leadership, and then you said just do what all the other counties have
done. That's leadership, right? That's not the way I define
leadership. I define it in a different way. And I'm sorry if you think
that in order to demonstrate good leadership we have to do what
everybody else has done, even though we all know that the State of
Florida is beginning to rethink its charter form of government,
because of the debacles with the train and the class size and the
pregnant pigs. People are beginning to rethink this process. It has
gone probably too far.
But in any event, I would be delighted to have somebody come
to us and say here are some things you can do to make it better. You
don't need a petition to do that. All you need is to talk to us, get to
Page 93
December 16, 2003
that podium and tell us, this is what you can do to make things better,
this is what you can do to reduce costs. And we'll listen to all of
those things.
And the final thing is, one of the speakers says the objective was
to make people understand that government can be different. I don't
want government to be different, I want it to be better. So tell us
how it can be better, not just different. And if we have some
evidence to suggest that we can improve certain things, then let's get
on with it, let's work together.
I'm also struck by the packet that many of the people who have
come here to speak today have been here before, there's just a small
number who have ever really involved themselves in any of the
advisory boards we have for citizens. We have almost 60 advisory
boards. We have hundreds of citizens who work with us all the time
to try to get things changed. And I had one of those say recently at a
meeting that -- and this was an environmentalist who said it is
amazing to me what change has occurred in Collier County in just
the last three years. It's because we've gotten people on advisory
boards, it's because we've been able to get access to commissioners
and we have gotten a more balanced managed growth approach. And
that's becoming obvious throughout Collier County.
So those are the ways to make government better. And I
appreciate your frustration. I don't mean to be argumentative,
because I know you want to make things better. But we do, too.
We're not obstructionists and we don't think government is perfect.
It's far from it. We need improvement. And I think we'll all be happy
to do that if you'll proceed.
But in conclusion, my feeling is that if you want people to have
a vote, let people have a vote. That's the way we ought to do it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Commissioner Coletta,
Commissioner Fiala.
Page 94
December 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He said it all.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So the motion is?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Put it on the ballot and let people
tell us what they want.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I want to go ahead and make a
motion. Whether I get a second or not, that's another thing, but at
least we're moving on.
I'm going to make a motion to put on the '04 general election
ballot and some words like this: Shall the Board of Commissioners
appoint a charter review commission and expend up to $300,000 for
expert witnesses? That's my motion. And we can craft that -- bring
it back and craft it. But a general is, let everybody decide whether
we should change government by appointing a charter commission.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'd like to say that we'd also
like to have some input from the citizens and tell us what is broke so
we can figure out what's happening here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me just interject for a little bit.
And David, help mean here as we go along.
If you make the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Decision.
MR. MUDD: There's a petition in front of you, okay? And if
one of the things you're going to have to do is either approve or deny
the petition, okay? If you do another subsequent motion like the one
you're talking about, putting it on the general election ballot in
November, then it doesn't preclude this group from still going out
and getting 18,000 signatures and coming back and forcing the issue
too at the same time. I just wanted to make sure that's clear.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I want to withdraw my motion and
entertain a motion to -- on the petition, I'm going to make a motion to
Page 95
December 16, 2003
deny the petition. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, a little clarification,
please. In other words, you want to deny their ability to go out and
do a petition?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, no, no, they have every right to
do that. What they're asking to do is appoint a charter commission.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I understand what you're
doing now. Forgive me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
All in favor of the motion, signify by
Aye.
Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Motion is to direct staff to bring back a ballot question to -- for
the board to consider, asking the voters of Collier County whether
they should appoint a charter commission, and with a dollar amount
allocated to that commission. Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
Page 96
December 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And yes, the county manager is
correct, the citizens always have the right to petition, and in this case,
petition their legislators to put it on their agenda to appoint a charter
commission. And if you would like any assistance on a petition and
what it should state, you always have the supervisor of elections to
assist, and the Board of Commissioners can give direction to assist
you in that.
Any other discussion on this issue?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKF. R: Commissioner Henning, could I
make a brief statement?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Could I make one brief
statement, please? Less than one minute.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, public speakers already spoke,
and you're more than welcome 'to. We're going to take a lunch break,
and we'll be back at 1:25. (Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take their seats, please.
Board of Commissioners are back in session.
Item #1 OB
CHANGE OF HOURS OF OPERATION FOR CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITIES INCLUDING EXCAVATION OPERATIONS-
Page 97
December 16, 2003
DENIED. STAFF TO REVIEW HOURS OF OPERATION ON A
SITE-BY-SITE BASIS WITH COUNTY MANAGER
RF, GARDING SAFF, TY AND NOISF, ISSI IF, S
We are at item 10(B).
MR. MUDD: Which is time certain.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Provide information to the Board of
Commissioners on hours of operation of construction activity,
including excavating operations.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My
name is Stan Chrzanowski. I'm with development services,
engineering review department.
And the item you have before you is called hours of operation.
But if you check out most of the references in the code, they sort of
refer to noise control. And if you've read the executive summary,
you'd see that noise control has a few ordinances that refer to it. We
have the noise ordinance. And in the noise ordinance, we have a
definition of noise, and I'm going to read it word for word.
Noise: Any sound which annoys or disturbs humans or causes
or tends to cause an adverse psychological effect on humans.
Same code, the noise ordinance, defines construction as any site
preparation, assembly, erection, substantial repair, alteration or
similar action, but excluding demolition for or on any public private
right-of-way structures, utilities, or similar property.
Again, that same ordinance also has a section about construction
noise. I'm not going to read the whole thing, but it basically talks
about construction equipment operated near residentially zoned areas
on a 24-hour basis must be shielded to reduce the noise from 6:00 to
7:00 and it says 65 decibels is the limit you can reach.
And it talks about existing facilities that are probably already
violating the noise ordinance and sort of grandfathers them in.
Page 98
December 16, 2003
Well, aside from the noise ordinance, I guess somebody decided
that wasn't enough for construction, because we have another
ordinance called the building construction administrative code. It's
got a lot of the construction administration facets. And in there, the
section entitled noise control says construction activities are
permitted only during the following times: 6:30 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.,
Monday through Saturday. No work is permitted on Sundays. And
then it names holidays. So that's 6:30 to -- 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
If you go into the Land Development Code, Section 1.5.5 says
exactly the same thing. And then it also says any person that wants
to -- any person that has an emergency can go and get, limited to 15
days, a need for an emergency permit to do construction activities in
violation of that 6:30 to 7:00 rule.
And then in the excavation ordinance itself, we put a -- and this
is only recent, in the last few years, and it had to do with all the
excavations that were going on in Golden Gate Estates. Because
those commercial excavations are fairly near residential uses. And
we have said that those are -- if you're within 1,000 feet of developed
residential property, shall be limited to operating hours between 7:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Hours of operation of
private type 1 and 2 commercial excavations shall be limited to 7:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Now the type 1 and type
2 commercial are the ones in the estates. The others are just general
commercial excavations. If you had a project like -- I'm going to go
over to the maps over here for a minute.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Somebody borrowed the mic.
Whoever borrowed the mic., please bring it back.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, if we had a laser, maybe I could
get that. Let's see how steady my hand is.
If you look at this project over here, that's Winchester Lake.
Winchester Lake is surrounded on three sides by the Estates. On the
Page 99
December 16, 2003
fourth side, the east side, it has -- agricultural zoned. There's nobody
there. But the three sides are surrounded by Estates.
If you were to dig within 1,000 feet of the Estates, you'd be
limited to this time. But the site is a mile across, 5,000 feet, so the
middle 3,000 feet, you could dig any time, you know, by the other
part of the ordinance.
I'm going to go through some examples here with these
excavations. This here is the Florida Rock excavation. It's now
Heritage Bay. It was rezoned recently. They've been around for
maybe 30 years. I've been here 20, they had a hell of an excavation
going when I got here.
It's about three or four months ago we got a complaint that they
were digging at night. So we sent an inspector out. And actually, the
pit is locked at night. They don't haul, they just dig. And we told
them, well, you can't dig at night. And they said well, we've been
digging at night for 15 years, we got two rigs out there, nobody ever
told us we couldn't dig at night. We see the place is locked and we
don't have inspectors driving around in the middle of the woods at
night, at least they shouldn't be. So we didn't know they were
digging. So was any harm done? No. But we shut them down,
because we got a complaint.
Now, they turned around and they said, well, what if we went
back to -- one of the reasons that we caught them is they started
digging in another area closer to somebody. They said well, can we
go to another area that's farther away? And we said no, now that we
know you're digging, we can't let you dig at all. You know, it's a
typical bureaucratic answer, but we really don't have anyplace in the
code to allow it. And probably for no good reason. As you can tell,
15 years of digging, 24 hours a day, there's no harm done.
Now, what we did was we got one person who was being
bothered by the noise, and we satisfied him, but we threw two
Page 100
December 16, 2003
operators out of work. I'm not sure that's good or not.
This project right here is the SR 846 excavation. They're
digging just north of the Estates. We never have any problems with
them.
The Winchester Lake, the one here, Shaggy Cypress, is the
reason all this started. They have traffic that comes out of their pit
first thing in the morning, enters onto on Oil Well Road and starts
heading west. And there's a school right there that opens up early
enough so that traffic from the school and the school buses and all
the trucks are hitting the front of the school at the same time.
Now, we went out there, Greg Garcia from transportation and I
one morning about 5:30 and started videotaping. And it would be
nice if all the trucks were out of there before the school buses got
there. I have no problem with that. I don't think staff has a problem
with that. But what that means is the pit would have to open a lot
earlier.
Sunnyland Pit, the one off of Route 29, there is nobody around
there. They could dig 24 hours a day and haul -- I guess one of the
things we worry about is they're hauling to neighborhoods where the
people are still asleep. But it takes a good 45 minutes to get from the
Sunnyland Pit to an occupied neighborhood, except maybe in
Immokalee. So I don't know, is it a problem with them digging?
We have the Florida Rock Pit over in -- not Florida Rock, this is
Bonness' (phonetic) Pit, Willough Run. They -- we never have any
problems with them. But we have a couple other small pits in town.
Jessie Hardy down here, if he keeps going, he's going to -- he's not
near anybody that he's going to disturb.
You can tell -- well, the new one, we just permitted one --
there's Lake Trafford. I guess Immokalee is up here. And Stewart
Mining has a pit right up here. He's totally surrounded by farms, two
miles of farms that are going to start work at 4:00 in the morning.
Page 101
December 16, 2003
This guy's not going to be able to start until 6:30. We don't see the
logic behind that.
I guess where I'm going with this is we have a rule, and the rule
started out as a noise control rule and now it's just an hours of
operation rule.
We have a motion by some citizens to change it, but staff
doesn't think -- if you look at staff's recommendations, we gave you
some pros and some cons, and I think our recommendation was that
the Board should discuss it and do whatever you want, because staff
-- we're going to get the complaints from either side, whatever we do
one way or another. If we allow early construction, we'll get
complaints from that side. If we let them run too late, we'll get
complaints from that side.
Every one of these pits is different. I don't think there should be
any one rule that governs them all. But I guess we're going to have
to make a rule, and I don't know how we're going to do that. And I
know we have a bunch of pit owners and maybe some members of
the public that want to discuss it. If you have any questions, I'd be
happy to answer them before I sit down.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions for Stan? Commissioner
Coyle? Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, Stan, I was thinking exactly
what you said, that circumstances are so different from these. Can
we design rules that would permit certain of these to operate without
a lot of restriction, as long as they're not causing a problem with their
neighbors? And even maybe take a look at those pits where
operations might run into a lot of local traffic and discuss different
hours of operations just for those, and work out something that might
be acceptable to the pit owners? Can we make those kinds of
judgments with respect to the differing circumstances with all these
pits?
Page 102
December 16, 2003
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We sort of do that anyway with the
new ones, but a lot of these are real old. They've been around a long
time. We'd have to visit all of them and come up with -- well, we'd
have to talk to every pit owner and then probably have to have it
come up in front of the Board and have the local -- see, a lot of these
-- well, Florida Rock's out of business now. They're Heritage Bay.
Winchester. Shaggy Cypress is getting people more and more people
built around there all the time.
What we decide now might be different five years from now, 10
years from now. It might -- 30 years from now there might be people
living around Stewart. So we may have to revisit these every few
years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would be --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I can, if you remember
correctly, you just renewed that particular pit down there, and you
really constrained the hours of operation because of the traffic
impacts on 41.
Stan, do you know when the pits come in for permits, do their
pits come up on a renumerous basis in order to take a look at the
hours of operation at that time?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's an administrative renewal. They
just give us a cross-section of what they've dug, how much material
they've dug out and what the cross-section looks like. But we don't
even visit the part about what was built on the neighborhood or
hours.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, with respect to the proposed
changes that we are considering, would those proposed changes be
applicable to all pits, or would they be applicable only to pits where
we are renewing a permit?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's why staff left it up to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we do that? Can we just
Page 103
December 16, 2003
apply it to any pit that already has a permit, or must we apply it only
at the time when the permits are up for renewal?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think Dave Weigel might be a better
one to answer that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's no point making a rule if
we can't implement it.
MR. MUDD: David, if I can help a little bit. The petitioner,
when he first came forward, asked to change the hours of the runs for
the particular trucks, and he was talking in a very overall broad-brush
approach to every operation, unless you particularly constrain them
in, you know, like that small one down there just a couple of weeks
ago. It wasn't for a particular operation or anything like that. He was
talking about a ordinance change that would impact them all.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we can do that, even though
they have an approved permit right now? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can just arbitrarily change
everything?
MR. MUDD: Yes sir. Would you arbitrarily change it by
changing the law? I wouldn't call it arbitrary, but you'd have to
change several of your wordings on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, but in some cases a change in
hours of operation for a pit might be arbitrary because it
accomplishes nothing good to change the hours of operation if the pit
isn't disturbing anybody. If they're far enough away from
civilization, then changing hours of digging probably doesn't have
any positive effect on anybody.
So I guess I'm trying to figure out if we can take into
consideration things like the proximity to neighbors and traffic
congestion in the vicinity of the pit and apply rules under those
circumstances, rather than just blanketly applying the rules across the
Page 104
December 16, 2003
county, which I think might be arbitrary in some cases.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I may, just one more piece.
What you have right now for pit operations and whatnot are you have
several ordinances that talk about the time periods that they can
operate. If you as a Board are going to constrain those hours of
operations, you're constraining them within the present ordinances
that we have.
If you want to get out of those particular time constraints, of
those windows, may it be 7:00 to 5:00 or whatever it is, and you want
to make it earlier and, you know, and you want it to cease earlier,
then you're going to have to change those ordinances -- the overall
ordinance to let you have that kind of latitude.
But David knows it better than I do.
David, did I misspeak?
MR. WEIGEL: No. And I guess we need to think of the
parallel tax here. One is noise on the site itself and the other is
operation in the streets and the areas from the facilities where the
digging is occurring. And our separate noise ordinance provides a
limitation, 55 decibels, DBA is the symbol, 24 hours a day from a
measuring point, immediately -- the closest measuring point
immediately off the site of the property where construction is going
on.
And I believe that one could consider, of the activity of digging,
loading or digging without the loading even, as construction, a type
of construction, construction activity. And so we still have the noise,
the separate noise ordinance that comes into play in terms of
enforcement from that standpoint.
In regard to -- if you're asking the question of operations of
trucks moving off property, things of that nature, impacting streets
and safety, that's -- that's a separate item. And as Jim indicated, it's
addressed generally in the ordinance right now. And to be altered
Page 105
December 16, 2003
would have to be addressed generally in the ordinance again,
although in addressing that general feature, that kind of average
feature that law typically has, we could put in some parameters,
based upon physical aspects of-- that go with sites that are remote
and not so remote, and I think put in some standards there. If the
staff were to be directed to bring something back along that line, I
think they could.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I think quite a few
interesting facts are starting to come up. And I'm glad you brought
this up, Stan, that we have a -- we have an area that varies so much
from one extreme to the other. We have some areas that greatly
impact their neighborhoods, then there's others that are so isolated
that their production schedule would have no bearing upon the
general population, as far as the digging goes. Truck traffic would be
another thing.
I'm hearing all these different things, and I think to try to write
an ordinance that's going to cover everything and also take care of
the variables that's going to take place, like some of these smaller pits
out there that are going to have populations growing up to them over
a period of time. Each one would have to be addressed separately.
Is there a possibility that we could come up with something in
the form of a variance where we take a look at each one of them
individually as they come to us and they want changes made? In
other words, there's an overall scope that covers them all in general.
And then on top of that we could have a variance procedure. So if
they want to have a difference in hours of operation or be able to
send their trucks out a little bit earlier, they come forward in a
variance. Is something like that possible?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Sure, we've got plenty of time on our
Page 106
December 16, 2003
hands.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I understand that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Hey, we need to have a staff
reduction.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Merry Christmas.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we're getting off the track
here. I believe that what we're supposed to be looking at is the
operation of starting trucks on the highway and then where they're
going to end their load, drop their load at.
I have concerns at starting at 5:30 in the morning. The area that
I represent, right now I catch a lot of flack because we have
construction workers starting at 6:30 in the morning. I have garbage
pickup at 6:30 in the morning. And there's an awful lot of people in
District II that are not very tolerant of trucks traveling around on the
streets at this time in the morning.
So I think what the original issue was is starting trucks early in
the morning. And that also entails additional support people. It's
going to entail additional support people at the mine and then the end
result is where that load is going to be dropped, you're going to have
additional support people.
So we're not talking about the truck leaving at 5:30 in the
morning and going to point "X" to drop the load. It's the idea that
they have support people at the mine earlier in the morning and then
you have the truck on the road, and then when the truck ends at its
destination, it's got support people there to tell them where the load's
going to be dropped.
So these people, maybe instead of the trUck getting there at a
quarter to six, we're going to have people at the site dropping the
load or to help support of the dropping of the load at around 5:15 or
something. And I'm not for this.
Page 107
December 16, 2003
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Excuse me, what's happening now is
that we have trucks coming out of Lee County earlier than that, and a
lot of these drivers, they pick up the load last thing at night, 5:00, and
then they go home with the load and then deliver it first thing in the
morning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's the other thing --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: There's -- there's no way to stop that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. And I think the other thing
we're going to have is where -- I think the proposal is to start at 5:30
in the morning and the last truck would be on the highway -- they'd
be off the highway by 3:30. Who's going to police this? We have a
hard time now policing the traffic -- traffic laws that we have in the
county here because we don't have enough -- whether it's enough
sheriff's deputies out on the highway just to take care of red right --
people that are running red lights or traveling at high rates of speed,
who's going to police this after 3:30 in the afternoon?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Commissioner Coletta has a good idea.
We could permit all these separately and every one of the pit owners
could come back in separately. It would just involve more
paperwork.
But also, the policing, I'm not sue we have enough inspectors to
stop every truck on the road and say where did you come from.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The end result is we've got a noise
ordinance, and I don't think we should be in violation of that noise
ordinance any sooner than 6:30 in the morning than we presently
have.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Let me say something before I go
back to Commissioner Coletta. Commissioner Halas made a good
point, several good points, but the one really is what's driving this
issue. And there is one pit operation near a school that's really
driving this operation, as I understand it.
Page 108
December 16, 2003
So if we can be more narrative on our-- on our thinking, maybe
we can fix the problem. After receiving an e-mail last night about
construction activity before 6:30, I have concerns on what we might
-- we might set up here.
So Commissioner Coletta, and then if we go to Commissioner
Fiala and public speakers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know if we could ever
address everyone's concerns. This all came about because of the
concerns with the constriction of Immokalee Road and Randall and
Oil Well Road in that area. An impossible situation exists in the
morning with all the trucks leaving the pits at the same time. And we
were trying to -- trying to address an issue that's really a local issue.
Maybe we should look at something as far as a variance procedure
where we can weigh this situation, you know, pit by pit.
I still think it's got some merits to put the trucks out before the
school buses get going, so we can disperse a large number of them,
and also end them earlier in the day. Now, are people going to obey
the law? Well, that's another situation. If they're not obeying the
present law, then they won't -- they won't obey the next law.
But the whole thing is all we can do is put the mechanisms in
place to try to make things a little bit better and trust our -- trust that
our code enforcement and our sheriff deputies will do what they are
supposed to do. I am still for doing this. I do have reservations about
countywide now, though, I really do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I also have reservations about
countywide. I can't see restricting pits that, you know, that nobody
even knows are operating because they're so far out because of one
pit that's close in. And I think it's a great idea to address them each
individually. And I know that's a lot of extra work for you, but it
Page 109
December 16, 2003
seems to be a little more fair.
And of course my second concern is the school children who are
on their way to or from school. And I really worry about kids,
especially in the Estates standing all out there -- of course I've got
grandchildren in the Estates so I would worry about that. And with --
you know, kids, kids are kids, they run after a ball or they shove each
other around or whatever, and if there are big trucks going in and out,
how safe is that?
So I know that you'll take that into consideration too as you with
address these pits.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We've got five public
speakers.
MS. FILSON: The first public speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Bill
McDaniel. He will be followed by Joe Apple.
MR. McDANIEL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is William L. McDaniel, Jr., and I am the owner of
Big Island Excavating.
And on one side I want to offer my apologies for stirring this
can of worms. On the other side, I'd like to point out some positive
attributes that have come from us discussing commercial vehicular
traffic in our community.
There's been a huge public awareness about commercial
vehicular traffic in our community. Collier County Sheriff's
Department, in conjunction with the mining industry, in conjunction
with county staff, have allowed the public to become aware that there
are methods for complaints for people that see commercial vehicular
traffic violations. It wasn't ever publicized before.
Two, we've implemented and have had two voluntary safety
inspections for the haul trucks. They have come to the mining
industry in that geographical area that I've been talking to you about
for quite some time. And we've taken several of the -- I don't want to
Page 110
December 16, 2003
say non-functional but not as well functional dump trucks off the
highways and provided a lot safer environment for those trucks to do
their business.
Three, we got the right lane only ordinance implemented, which
has helped the traffic flow on our multi-lane highway systems.
And four, we've also -- and I've had personal compliments from
residences (sic) in the area that are directly affected by this --
reduced the utilization and the noise of Jake brakes throughout
residential communities in that particular area.
Commissioner Halas, you brought up a very good point with
respect to haul trucks showing up to job sites prior to particular
times. And as Mr. Chrzanowski pointed out to you, other
communities, other counties in our area don't necessarily maintain
the same hours of operation that we put on our industry here.
Theoretically a vehicle could show up 24 hours a day, seven days a
week, especially with the lack of aggregate materials that our local
community has available for the construction industry that we're in
fact requiring.
One thing I would like to make clear: It was never my intent
throughout this whole process to have a negative impact on other
operators. We have, as Commissioner Coletta pointed out to you, a,
relatively speaking, site specific area. Infrastructure within the
Immokalee corridor from Randall and Oil Well Road is hugely under
-- or overutilized. There's just not enough there. We all know that it's
being six-laned now.
And the suggestion that I had brought to staff, or I thought that I
had brought to staff, was that we implement this for that area, that
geographical area where our mines are current -- where those --
where my mines are currently located and do it for a trial period,
work with code enforcement -- I know Michelle's around here
somewhere -- on a case-by-case basis with respect to the potential of
Page 111
December 16, 2003
the noise issues, the -- that could arise from the amending of our
hours of operation. It wasn't my intent to negatively impact other
operators.
You have in the past, recently in the mining approvals that you
have put out, site specifically dealt with hours of operation for the
new permits that have come out. The mines that I'm talking about
have been there for quite some time and are regulated by the existing
LDC.
Now, Mr. Mudd, and you're the one reading the bible there, our
LDC, all the time. There is a specific paragraph within our LDC that
I recall allows for the Director of Development Services to designate
and amend hours of operation site specifically or necessarily
geographically for different areas, if he perceives or if there is a
community need for safety, health issues, traffic issues and whatnot.
And that was kind of the direction that I was heading. I wasn't
necessarily looking for a revamping of our whole noise ordinance
and LDC in that regard, I was more necessarily concerned with the
geographical area that's out there.
I happen to currently serve as the -- as president of an advisory
group for all of the homeowners associations of District 5 to
Commissioner Coletta. And that organization, which makes up a
geographical area out there that is directly affected by what we're
talking about, has unanimously approved this trial period. Put it in
place and see if in fact the greater good is in fact going to be served.
Deal with the individual complaints of noise as they may arise on a
case-by-case basis. Questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Questions?
Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Bill, if you would,
please, if we were to go to something like a variance procedure, is
that something that would work for you where we deal with site
Page 112
December 16, 2003
specific?
MR. McDANIEL: Potentially, Commissioner and again, as you
eluded, your staff is hugely, hugely overworked as it is right now.
And I'm going to share this with you. I mean it's -- this issue, we
believe that the suggestion that we've brought to you with respect to
amending the hours of operation out there is a good idea for the
circumstances that currently prevail. When the six-laning of
Immokalee Road is complete and the four-laning and/or six-laning of
846 to Immokalee and 858 out to 29 for the new taxing districts that
you folks have voted in are all in fact in place, we probably won't
need this, because there will be infrastructure in place to support the
overload of traffic that is there.
So yes, a variance process could work, but I think there's a
mechanism in place that's a lot simpler.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once more, what is that
mechanism?
MR. McDANIEL: That's the paragraph that I was discussing
with the County Manager with --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I have authority to do 15 days,
okay? And if you want to do this as a trial period on a specific -- on
a particular mine, his mine, it's off of Oil Well Road, and let's say we
do it when the kids get back to school after Christmas break and start
it then for a 15-day period of time and see how it works and have our
code folks out there, take a look at (sic) it's going, and then we'll see
if we're getting any complaints from constituents about early hours,
and we'll try to track the dump truck to what mine it came from. And
we can take a look at that over 15 days and then we can report back
over that as a test period. That's doable, and it's within the code and I
have the authority to do that. But only up for 15 days.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That might be realistic. In
other words, instead of doing a 60-day -- 90-day or 60-day, where it
Page 113
December 16, 2003
might run past the time limit that we want to consider, this --MR. MUDD: If we want to add up all the complaints,
Commissioner Halas could get a lot grayer if we don't get going.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We may -- we have -- may
have none. I would-- I could go for that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You want to start your trucks at
5:30 in the morning?
MR. McDANIEL: That's the proposal, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so they're going to end up in
my district at 6:00 in the morning.
MR. McDANIEL: Depending on traffic flows--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If they're going to be there at 6:00
in the morning, I've got problems right now with Waste Management
trucks starting at 6:30 in the morning.
MR. McDANIEL: Yes, sir, and concrete trucks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other questions for Mr.
McDaniel?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. McDANIEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Question for the County Manager.
Did I understand you last time, last time we discussed this, to say
that the county does not have any time limits with respect to starting
and stopping construction at sites?
MR. MUDD: No, that's not -- that's not the case. We do have
that in our code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You do have.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So, in those cases case
where someone shows up before the acceptable starting times, you
Page 114
December 16, 2003
can actually cite those people, can't you? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if Commissioner Halas does
encounter those kinds of problems, you can actually site those
offending trucks, but yet they can go to other sites where they're not
subject to those same kinds of problems. So what I'm really saying
is, they have the flexibility to go places where they can start earlier,
but if they go to some of the areas where they're going to disturbing
residents, they're likely to get cited, even though they're able to leave
earlier. But that would give Commissioner Halas some protection for
his residents, at least, that he can enforce this noise ordinance to keep
them from showing up there too early.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Let me -- let me kind of take you -- take
just a piece. Let's say it's at 5:30 and it's at Mr. McDaniel's pit, okay,
and they leave at five -- they leave at 5:30 in the morning and they
do a complete turnaround going back to the pit, and they get to the
pit at a quarter to 7:00, load up and they're moving at 7:00 again.
You didn't gain anything because that truck's moving at 7:00.
So -- and that's just an instance. Maybe there will be another
truck that takes a little bit longer. You know, I can't -- I can't
determine what his turnaround times are and what the big jobs are
that they're delivering to. He can do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're saying that even if you
start them earlier, it doesn't solve the traffic problem.
MR. MUDD: You have the potential of them being on their
second run at 7:00.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that makes sense.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let's get back to public
speakers.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Joe Apple. He will be
followed by Tracy Hayden.
Page 115
December 16, 2003
MR. APPLE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Joe Apple,
representing APAC, the Golden Gate Quarry, and we are opposed to
changing the hours of operations. We have very site specific
regulations over us, hours are 7:00 to 5:00 now and we'd like to keep
them that way. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Tracy Hayder (sic). She will be followed by
Nick Stewart.
MS. HAYDEN: Good afternoon. For the record, Tracy
Hayden, the Florida Rock Industries here, representing Sunnyland
Quarry.
I apologize, number one, I haven't had the opportunity to speak
with staff regarding this proposal, as I just got word of it yesterday.
But we would also be in favor as being in Sunnyland, where we're
out in the middle of nowhere, we would be more in favor of looking
at this on a case-by-case basis, rather than across the board.
Just for your education, and this may be something that staff has
already discussed, but my concern with just leaving it as a blanket
hours of operations is in a crushed stone operation, there's many
types of operations. And I know that one of the main concerns is the
hauling, of course. But you also have your excavation, you know,
taking the material out of the ground operation, and then you have
your maintenance operations as well. And in a crushed stone
operation, most of your maintenance is done in the evening hours.
So if we went to something that would blanket hours of
operations, I would urge the Board to be a little bit more specific in
that.
Also, I would just like the staff to know that we're willing to
work with them in any way that we need to. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Nick Stewart. He will be followed by your final
speaker, Butch Kent.
Page 116
December 16, 2003
MR. STEWART: Good morning. I'm Nick Stewart, president
of Stewart Mining. And recently we have got a permit to mine sand
at 82 and 29.
And what I would like to point out is that there are distinctive
differences between mines and where the material is flowing to. A
lot of fill materials, which I think is in kind of in question today, are
going to neighborhoods for fill materials for residential house pads.
Our material, the majority of it, will be sent to concrete plants
for the production of concrete. Concrete trucks -- plants normally
open about 7:00 a.m. in the morning and they're ready to -- excuse
me, 5:00 a.m. in the morning and they're ready to receive sand at that
time.
Most of the sand mines in the state try to take advantage of early
hours, and usually they're in remote places that are then going to
concrete plants that are located closer to where the work is.
The -- most of the trucks that we would be loading would be
tractor-trailer type trucks that are transporting into the concrete plant.
The concrete plants like to take advantage of the early morning hours
because of the moisture or humidity or the rainfalls so that they can
get the concrete out.
In other counties where we have mining operations, they are site
specific. When we go in for mining permits, the hours are requested
and then the neighbors, if there is any neighbors, have an opportunity
to voice their complaints about it, you know, at that time.
I would be in favor of variances for each mining location and
how it does impact the surrounding neighbors that are there. I think
that there should be also perhaps two different types of allowing us to
work extended hours if we're not allowed to load out at extended
hours.
Mines that sell different types of products where we may be
selling an overburdened material for fill material that would go into
Page 117
December 16, 2003
neighboring -- to neighborhoods, you know, we could certainly
police that to stop, you know, or not allow that load out of that
product until, you know, a certain time. But the commercial sand we
would, you know, like to have extended hours on.
We're in an orange grove. We will still be operating an orange
grove in that the trucks can run 24 hours taking the citrus out of it.
But we can't -- you know, we won't be able to haul out of it. And
everywhere around us there, you know, will be truck activity, you
know, coming from it. So thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Final speaker is Butch Kent.
MR. KENT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Butch Kent with Southern Sand and Stone, Winchester Lakes and
Better Roads.
The one thing I'd like to point out to you gentlemen is that if
you were to blanket this entire thing, the fast-track road building
program for Collier County, both the Collier County and Department
of Transportation would come to a halt, because if the asphalt trucks
can't run at night, which the people want the work done at night, the
aggregate's got to flow at night to the asphalt plant and that will all
come to an end very quick. But if it was on a case-by-case basis,
that's very possible.
But the other thing, there are so many complaints that come to
these mines which are not legitimate complaints. And it's hard for
staff to figure out which ones are and which ones aren't. And that's
something that needs to be addressed first so we can determine, is
this a legitimate complaint that this mine's making noise or doing
whatever, or is it some disgruntled employee, a mad vendor just
creating noise. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Direction from the Board? Commissioner Halas, then
Page 118
December 16, 2003
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we got two problems here.
One is -- and I thought the original idea was to address trucks
leaving the mines at 5:30 in the morning to -- and then cease
operation at 3:30 in the afternoon. That was my understanding of
what we were voting on.
Now we're bringing the mine operation in here. I think it's --
that's two different subjects. So I think what we ought to do is
address the truck issue about trucks leaving the mines at 5:30 in the
morning. Now they leave at 7:00 in the morning and they're off the
road by 5:00, I think, or 6:00, whatever the time is.
So all we're trying to do here is -- and we're not trying to stop
commerce. I think commerce still -- we're provided with all the
necessary materials that we need to generate the building here.
There's been some talk about operations at night of hauling asphalt
for the roads. That's not the question because that's a special case,
and I think that's addressed on a special case incidence. If they're
building roads like U.S. 41 or 75 and it's the middle of the night, I
think there's special cases for that.
The issue that I have is starting a mine operation at 5:30 in the
morning and having those trucks come into neighborhoods. And this
one gentleman just said that the majority of this material ends up in
residential areas or site plans for building homes. And I can assure
you that constituents in my area will not put up with any trucks
arriving any quicker than 7:00 in the morning or 6:30, whatever the
law is presently. And I feel that-- that's how I feel and how I stand
on this issue.
As far as addressing if we did propose that the trucks start at
5:30 in the morning, who is going to address the issue of whether the
trucks are going to be off the road for 3:30?
Seems to me, and I thought that the County Manager brought up
Page 119
December 16, 2003
a good subject here, is the fact that the trucks leave one hour early or
two hours early, that the truck is going to be on its next return trip
back into the urban area here to a site plan around 7:00 in the
morning. So you really haven't done anything as far as trucks versus
school buses or whatever else that we've been trying to address here.
I really can't go along with this plan. I know that I have a lot of
constituents that complain about the times that delivery trucks
presently get to Publix and the rest of these places where there's
business taking place and also Waste Management trucks. So -- and
that's what our laws are at the present time. So that's where I'm at.
But I think we need to address the mine issue on a separate
subject. What we're here today to address on is whether -- the start
and stop time of the delivery trucks from the mines.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I agree with
Commissioner Halas, it appears we're not gaining anything by doing
this. I would be willing to make a motion that we drop this idea and
to authorize the County Manager to take a look at traffic safety and
noise problems as they occur by site, and use his authority to
experiment with potential solutions for 15 days and thereby develop
some positive recommendations with respect to how we might be
able to solve these problems on a case-by-case basis. Because I don't
think we can do it here.
And so that would be my motion, let's just reject this particular
change in hours and ask the County Manager to take a look at noise,
safety, traffic issues on a site-by-site basis as they arise, and make
some proposals to us sometime in the future.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Fiala. Discussion? Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. This
Page 120
December 16, 2003
has been a very interesting discussion, I'll tell you. I started to see
some things a little bit differently.
One of the things that were brought up that I thought was very
interesting was the fact that in some places we don't have any impact
at all, some very remote areas. Then there's the question also of how
we're going to get our roads built, and the asphalt plants and how
materials go back and forth.
And I agree with Commissioner Coyle, that the County
Manager does have the ability to see through the very clear issues
and be able to move on them on a need-by-need basis.
The original reason this went forward and received so much
support in the community, because they were treating -- we were
treating it as a local issue. Maybe it was a little selfish but truth of
the matter was is that the truck traffic, where it comes down Oil Well
Road and Immokalee Road, because of the construction and all the
pits being in that one little area, or a majority of them, is pretty
horrendous. And the residents there have been asking for some
relief. And thanks to this Commission, they have received some
relief in the form of new traffic regulations and signs and the
encouragement for voluntary compliance. So there's been a lot of
headway made. But I understand now better how the impact would
be once the trucks do leave. The last thing I'd want to do is impose
an undue burden to the rest of Collier County. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, great.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
Page 121
December 16, 2003
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 5-0.
Back to our regular agenda.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2003-67 ADOPTING THE 2003 CYCLE 2
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS AND
TRANSMITTING SAME TO DCA
MR. MUDD: Brings us to Item 8(A), and that's a public hearing
for the 2003 Cycle 2 Growth Management Plan amendments, and
Mr. David Weeks will present.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Which material are we working
from, Mr. Weeks?
MR. MUDD: I would suggest you use the binders that were
distributed to your office the middle or latter part of last week.
For the record, I'm David Weeks of your comprehensive
planning staff. Commissioners, let me give a very brief overview of
the process, and then we'll move right on into the amendments.
These Growth Management Plan amendments are here for
adoption today. This is where you'll take your final action on these
items. You previously saw them on July 29th when you approved
them for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs.
The next step, after you adopt these amendments in whatever
form, is to send them back to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs. They will have 45 days in which to review these petitions,
and then they will take their final action to either find these
amendments in compliance or not in compliance with Florida
statutes.
Page 122
December 16, 2003
If found in compliance, then there's a 21-day challenge period.
If no challenge is filed, then the amendments go into effect.
This is a legislative action, not quasi-judicial, so there is no
requirement to swear in participants or to offer notice of ex parte
communications.
I do need to mention that pursuant to Florida statutes, we have
provided out in the hallway on the table right next to the agenda
notebook a courtesy signup sheet. This is where any person who is
interested in receiving a courtesy notice from the Florida Department
of Community Affairs as to what their compliance finding is
regarding these amendments, that's -- Department of Community
Affairs will send a notice to any person that signs up.
I need to put on the record that these amendments have been
properly advertised and in fact we have exceeded the advertisement
requirements of state statutes.
As I mentioned, you've seen all of these petitions before. All six
of them have some changes since the transmittal hearings, but only
two of them have significant changes which will require a little bit
more lengthy staff presentation. For the other four, we intend to be
very brief.
We do need a separate vote on each of these items. And unless
each individual staff member comes up, suggests otherwise, I would
recommend that we go to the second tab that's immediately behind
your executive summary. That's the CCPC recommendations tab.
As far as referencing the -- each of the amendments as we go
through them and seeing what changes, that document shows all of
the changes that have occurred since the transmittal hearing. That
reflects both staff changes with a double underline -- or double strike
through, and then the Planning Commission changes are reflected in
a yellow bold. Again, we're trying to make it easy for you see the
steps that we've gone th)ough in the life of the petition.
Page 123
December 16, 2003
And the last thing would be to say, as we usually do, is ask if
you would, please, leave your binders with Ms. Filson or someone
else in your office and we'll pick those up tomorrow to reuse those to
send to the state agencies.
And of course the objective is for you to review these
amendments and then either adopt, not adopt or adopt them with
changes.
The Florida Department of Community Affairs issued their
ORC report, Objections, Recommendation and Comments, based
upon their review of these amendments as we transmitted to them at
your July 29th hearing. They only had one comment regarding the
Manatee Protection Plan, but regarding your Transportation
Concurrency amendment, Petition CPSP 2003-8, they had about
eight pages worth of objections, recommendations and comments.
So that item in particular will take a little longer for staff to walk
through.
Regarding the fiscal impact of these amendments, I would point
out -- make three points. First, some of these amendments will
require Land Development Code changes, but existing staff resources
will be used for those.
Secondly, Petition CPSP 2003-4, this is regarding the school
siting criteria that implements the interlocal agreements adopted by
this Board and the School Board in May of this year, will require in
the future, as the school board acquires future sites, will require the
county to amend its future land use map to identify those sites. And
of course there's a cost for doing that.
However, as we note in the executive summary, Growth
Management Plan amendments, just as these today, are usually done
in a cycle with a batch of petitions, not a single amendment petition.
The result is the cost is shared amongst those various petitions, so the
maximum impact for a single petition for advertising costs alone
Page 124
December 16, 2003
would exceed $16,000. However, we would expect to be far less than
that, again because it would be shared with other petitions.
Finally, Petition CPSP 2003-5, this is regarding mixed use
developments, primarily from your community character smart
growth committee. Also includes some changes to the recreation and
open space element. And those changes include the requirement that
parks plans be developed for regional, community and neighborhood
parks.
Well, as you probably know, regional and community parks are
already a requirement of our Comprehensive Plan. We have adopted
level of service standards, we use impact fees, at least in part to
prepare those. But neighborhood parks are not covered by impact
fees, so there would be some fiscal impact, some general revenue
funds necessary to prepare park plans for neighborhood parks.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'11, if you'd like, go ahead into
the first petition specifically.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Thank you.
MR. WEEKS: This very first petition is CPSP 2003-4, and this
is the petition that implements the interlocal agreements adopted by
the School Board and the County Commission in May of this year.
Primarily what it requires is that we adopt a map, part of the
future land use map series, that identifies, number one, all of the
existing school sites and school support facilities.
Secondly, adopt a map that shows the sites that have been
acquired by the School Board for future schools and support
facilities. That is, there's nothing there presently but their site has
been acquired. And that is in part a way of putting the public on
notice that there will be a future school or support facility here.
And also, significantly, this amendment provides for where
schools and support facilities are allowed by zoning district, or not
allowed. And it specifically dictates to our Land Development Code,
Page 125
December 16, 2003
so we will have subsequent Land Development Code amendments to
reflect that as well. That is, such and such zoning district allows
schools by right, by conditional use or not at all. And the same thing
for support facilities.
As far as changes since you last saw this petition, there's been
two. And again, if we will refer to the CCPC recommendation sheet,
those changes are reflected on page -- the second page and the third
page.
Specifically regarding notice requirements, as you transmitted
the language when the school board is about to hold hearings on
acquiring a site for future schools or support facilities, the language
said that adjacent property owners would be provided a notice. The
Planning Commission has recommended instead that we use the
same notice requirements for a rezone, and that is notify property
owners within 500 feet if within the urban area, and if you're outside
the urban area, then notify owners within 1,000 feet.
Also the burden has shifted. Instead of the county sending that
notice, it will now be the school board staff sending that notice.
Another change that is reflected on Page 3 of the Planning
Commission recommendation document, you'll see that educational
plants are permitted by right in all zoning -- all other zoning districts,
after going through which ones were excluded. However, for a high
school to be located within a residential zoning district, there is a
certain process you have to go through. Well, the Planning
Commission recommended that the Estates zoning district also be
included within that process. That is, that you could not simply go
out and build a high school within the Estates, you would have to go
through the same process as you would for -- which is a
compatibility review process -- as if within a residential zoning
district.
The other change is very minor, and that change has to do with
Page 126
December 16, 2003
the rural land stewardship area. That area is treated differently as far
as schools go. We had to add that exception within the text.
And by a vote of 8-0, the Planning Commission recommended
adoption of this amendment with these changes as staff identified.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
MS. FILSON: I have --
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Okay, any questions for our staff?.
Any speakers on this item?
Maybe Amy Taylor? No?
MS. TAYLOR: We're in agreement.
MS. FILSON: I have four speakers, but they don't actually
indicate which--
CILIAIRMAN
HENNING: Tell me their names and I'll guess
whether they were --
MS. FILSON: David Ellis.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
MS. FILSON: A1Zuleki (phonetic).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Zukella (phonetic).
MS. FILSON: Zukella, I'm sorry.
Ken Drum and Reid Jarvey.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I suspect they're all here for the
concurrency, Petition Number 8.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to approve as
Planning Commission's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor--
Page 127
December 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is only on CPSP 2003-4?
MR. MUDD: (Nodding.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Next item.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, the next petition is CPSP 2003-5.
This is the amendments -- these are the amendments to the
recreation and open space element and to the future land use element
that is recommended by the community character smart growth
advisory committee that this Board has appointed.
You might recall at transmittal hearings, there was significant
staff comment about the state of this petition. We had a lot of
concerns about the way it was written, the lack of clarity, the
difficulty of implementing it as it was written.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you tell us which one this is?
Is this 2003-5?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Staff had recommended, however, that you go
ahead and transmit the petition, recognizing that it was a work in
progress, so that we could keep the process going and not delay the
ultimate adoption of this amendment.
Planning Commission had recommended, I believe, by a vote of
Page 128
December 16, 2003
4-1 not to transmit because they shared our concerns, but even more
strongly so. But this Board did in fact transmit. And the version that
you see before you now is significantly different than what you
transmitted.
Essentially what staff did was, number one, we deleted the two
goals and their subsequent objectives and policies. They were the
significant cause of the lack of clarity and lack of ability to
implement.
Secondly, we modified these one subdistrict, traditional
neighborhood design that the committee proposed to amend and we
also added a third subdistrict.
For the most part, this petition deals with promotion of mixed
use development. And there's two ways that occurs, or two
scenarios: The first is a residential project that has a commercial
component, and then the other is a commercial project that can have
either a residential component within, or the more typical scenario is
a residential component above commercial, your traditional
residential units on top of a commercial development.
There's two different ways that the residential project with a
commercial component might develop. Now one is that it may be a
freestanding, I'll call it rather isolated in the sense that the
commercial is located within the core of the residential project, in
which case it would probably tend, the commercial, to serve
primarily that residential development.
The second scenario would be that the commercial component
would be located on the outer edge of the residential project, right on
the abutting roadway, most likely an arterial or collector. Which
means it clearly would be serving far more than the development that
is located within. And that's fine. From the staff perspective, from
the committee's perspective, we're trying to promote commercial --
mixed use development, but we're also trying to address need -- an
Page 129
December 16, 2003
unmet need for some neighborhood commercial. And you'll see part
of the criteria is some spacing criteria, separation between existing
zoning.
I won't walk through all of this, Commissioners, I'll wait for you
to ask questions on it. But I will note that in the staff report to the
Planning Commission, we did provide the rationale, the explanation,
the support for why we have made these changes and why we and
ultimately the Planning Commission, as well as the committee itself,
have recommended that these be adopted. The Planning Commission
did endorse these changes by a vote of 8-0.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'd like to thank the County Manager
for providing David Weeks and his staff to work with the committee,
work out those issues. And I think it's a great product. Mr. Murray
is on the committee also, and the Planning Commission agrees. Any
question?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else, Mr. Weeks, on this
item?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I apologize, there is. I need to
get on the record.
Under the recreation and open space element changes, in most
of the policies a specific reference is made as to who will take a
certain action. The Parks and Recreation Department will investigate
or will prepare the parks plans and so forth. In a few cases it is not
identified who. The County Attorney's Office has recommended we
insert the words "the county" in those cases where it's not identified,
so that the county will take such and such action. Otherwise, it's just
Page 130
December 16, 2003
left open-ended who's supposed to do this. With that one revision,
that's all.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got a question, a couple of
them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mixed use neighborhood
subdistrict under item number two, future land use element. Could
you be a little more specific as we get to, let's see, 8 -- I believe it's
8E, no single tenant in a commercial component shall exceed 15,000
square feet of gross leasable floor area except that a grocery store or
supermarket shall not exceed 45,000 square feet. Could you be a
little more specific on --
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. The rationale here is that most -- for
neighborhood commercial uses, the literature that we researched
shows that most of these retail uses tend to be actually less than
10,000 square feet. There were a couple of exceptions. I believe
drugstore was one. But grocery stores or supermarkets typically far
exceed the 15,000 square feet. And we gave some examples in the
staff report. They varied from a little bit under 45,000 square feet to
probably 60 or 65,000 square feet, significantly above the 45,000
square foot figure.
The intent here is to provide neighborhood commercial, more of
your neighborhood goods and services. But if we capped the square
footage at 10 or 15,000 square feet, that would in -- realistically
would preclude a supermarket from locating here. And a
supermarket or grocery store is the typical anchor for neighborhood
commercial development.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, to further expound
upon that, didn't want big boxes at the comers, but recognizing the
need for some areas would-- would need shopping centers. So we
Page 131
December 16, 2003
want those small restaurants mixed in with -- if that kind of makes
sense. Sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's okay.
I just wanted to bring to the attention of the public here, and this
is on number three, future land use element: Establish commercial
mixed use subdistrict in the urban commercial district. Under three,
you talk about residential density is calculated based upon the gross
commercial project acreage for property in the urban residential
fringe subdistrict, and then you go on to say density shall be limited
by the subdistrict. For property not within the urban residential
fringe subdistrict but within the coastal high hazard area, densities
shall be limited to four dwelling units per acre. Is this the first time
that this shows up in the Growth Management Plan, or is this
something that's been there prior?
MR. WEEKS: This is the first time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is the first time, okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We heard you, Commissioner.
MR. WEEKS: If I can comment on that briefly. One thing that
we recognize, we as staff and I think the committee, but particularly
staff, we're very well aware of a couple of issues that the Board has
seen or will be seeing in the near future regarding the coastal high
hazard area and density.
Staffs position was let's go ahead and put that cap at four units
per acre here, realizing that we're going to take a global view or
review of density in the coastal high hazard area during the
evaluation and appraisal report process, which will be coming up in
the early part of next year. So we're going to be revisiting this issue.
But rather than leave this floating or unspecified, we decided to go
ahead and cap it at four. We may or may not recommend a change to
that number, as part of our global review.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hopefully lower.
Page 132
December 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Can I have a motion again
please?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Halas to approve with the amendments by
the County Attorney's Office.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Any opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next petition is Petition CPSP
2003-6. Petition requests the adoption of the county Manatee
Protection Plan and the amendment of the goals, objectives and
policies of the conservation and coastal element in the future land use
element to establish the Manatee Protection Plan.
MR. MURPHY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Darren for
the record, Comprehensive Planning.
I'm here to talk about the Manatee Protection Plan petition, and
it's relatively short. There's only one concern by the DCA and that
was the fact that the data was kind of dated. And right now, as we
speak, we're working on updating the Manatee Protection Plan -- the
way stakeholder -- manatee stakeholder group. Other than that, there
hasn't been any changes, per se.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
Page 133
December 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Question by -- motion by
Commissioner Coyle to approve, second by Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Coyle -- Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. A question on this
Manatee Plan. How would that affect our plan some day to have a
boat facility on Dolphin Island out there on Marco Island?
MR. MURPHY: I guess we have to comply with it. But it's
going to be changing. As we speak the stakeholder group is
incorporating the views from the marine industry and environmental
groups. But we have to comply with it, as we speak right now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So this is putting additional
rules and regulations over and above the state and federal?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. This is -- you have a Manatee -- let me
help .you. You have a Manatee Protection Plan right now in
existence. It's been in existence for a number of years. It's never
been put into our Growth Management Plan or even mentioned in it.
And this is the time where we're mentioning it in the plan.
And you remember when Bill Lorenz and crew briefed you and
came in with the plan and you basically told him to start -- to go back
and get the stakeholders to start from square one, we'll leave the
protection plan as is, and if we're going to make an amendment,
make sure that we've got the whole community involved in any
changes and bring it forward back to the Board as a change.
So this is to get the Manatee Protection Plan recognized within
our Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And this has been -- one of the
players in this was also the Marine Industry Association? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All right. Thank you, that's all
I need.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anymore discussion on the motion?
Page 134
December 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask Commissioner Coletta,
being that I can ask in a open meeting? I never heard of this Dolphin
Island thing on Marco --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is it Dolphin Island? I'm sorry,
have I got it wrong?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's Wally World.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, out in there in Marco
Island, the island we purchased -- that the county purchased for two
some million dollars?
MR. MUDD: It's on Goodland. Are you talking about our--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, the Goodland --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Goodland, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, Goodland. Yeah, okay. Thank
yOU.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Goodland, Marco, you know,
you think of them as one thing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Coyle, Halas, Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Carter.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
five
Any opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
We're going to change out our court reporters. We'll just take
minutes.
MR. MUDD: Take five minutes.
Page 135
December 16, 2003
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take their seats, please.
Thank you for your patience, Mr. Weeks.
MR. WEEKS: Certainly.
MR. MUDD: And again, this is petition CPS-P2007. The
petition requests the adoption of new economic development
element, including goals, objectives, and policies to the Growth
Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: What triggered putting this language
in the Growth Management Plan?
MR. WEEKS: A grant application from, I think, two or three
years ago, from the former Housing and Urban Improvement
Department. And part of the requirements of that grant will be that
the county adopt an economic element.
An economic element is not a required element under state
statutes. But, again, under that agreement with -- tied with the grant,
that's why we're having to adopt it now.
One thing I'd point out, and I think we discussed this, perhaps,
at transmittal hearing -- I know Planning Commission did -- is the
fact that this element does not have mandates in it.
Now, there's a lot of language in here about the county will
support certain things, but we view it as -- in a very generic sense of
what supports means. We don't necessarily view that as the county
will provide money. It could just be an, "'at a boy," you know, good
job, glad to see you doing that, and that's how we view it, not a
strong mandate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What -- what grants in particular was
it? Is this the Immokalee Airport?
MR. WEEKS: CDBG. I don't know what location of the
county, but Community Development Block Grant.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does anybody know?
Page 136
December 16, 2003
MR. WEEKS: The area of the county?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or CDBG grants --
MR. WHITE: Assistant county attorney, Patrick White. I'm
sorry, Mr. Chairman. No, I do not know what particular area of the
county it pertained to, but I do know that we had received the money
with the understanding that this provision did exist in the our
comprehensive plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you ask the question once
more so we understand?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, if it was tied -- if the grant was
tied to a specific improvement -- that was the question. What was
the improvement, what was the area, so on and so forth.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Was that the sidewalk over on
Linwood that they --
MR. WEEKS: I'm sorry, Commissioner, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Because they -- they took
that money back, the CDGB funds back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well -- yeah, okay.
MR. WEEKS: I know that's not the case. The money was
received and the county had spent it. It was in the neighborhood of
three quarters of a million dollars. Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. BAKF~R: For the record, Denny Baker, director of
financial administration housing. It's not been tied to any particular
grant.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great.
MR. BAKER: It's tied to the entire program.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One thing, if I may note. If I
remember correctly, this item didn't pass the Collier County Planning
Commission by 8-0. It was 6-2, if I remember.
Page 137
December 16, 2003
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. I appreciate that, you pointing
that our. Commissioners Strain and Abernathy were opposed to this
motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is one of your-- what I
consider, damned if you do, damned if you don't. But as -- you
know, as long as we're not obligating the Board of Commissioners
for the tax dollars. And you're saying this is just general?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. Very much a general policy
element.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
approve.
I'm willing to entertain a motion to
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Next item.
MR. LITSINGER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record, Stan Litsinger, comprehensive
planning director.
This petition, number eight, is the second round or your
two-year concurrency overhaul and revision of the methodologies
with which we use to measure concurrency and how we apply our
Page 13 8
December 16, 2003
capacities.
As David noted in his opening presentation, the entire ORC
report from the Department of Community Affairs consisted of eight
pages of objections or concerns relative to this, what is a very
innovative approach to the way we manage traffic and concurrency
in Collier County and coordinate that with available facilities in that
we are approaching the TCMA, transportation concurrency
management area, and transportation concurrency exception area,
and we're first, as we usually are.
Both of these mechanisms -- and it's a traffic management tool
-- are provided for in the statutes and in rule 9(J)(5), and we would --
had proposed to implement those here in Collier County as a
methodology as we move towards real-time concurrency for
transportation availability as we approve development orders.
Now, the eight-page ORC, I'd like to summarize very briefly.
The DCA had raised some questions, and I can tell you that as
recently as last Friday we had some very long conference calls with
the technical explanation. As you can see, we provided a very
detailed 36-page staff response to each of the individual ORC issues
that were raised.
To summarize, their concerns were, the size of the TCMA.
Because of the size, we had to justify with data analysis, the multiple
modes of transportation, north, west, east, south alternatives as
methods of transportation with each TCMA or to have a system-wide
level of service standard. We believe we have done that.
We believe they're also comfortable with the explanations that
we have given them as preliminary data and analysis and which we
would propose or ask for you to adopt today and transmit.
We had similar demonstration of data and analysis, how our
future land use element and all of its policies relative to infill and
redevelopment and promoting use of urban lands before we sprawl
Page 139
December 16, 2003
was implemented and forwarded by these Transportation
Concurrency Management Areas and the Transportation Exception
Area.
I can tell you that, as you know, we had proposed at your
direction to rely on only the first year of our schedule of capital
improvements as far as capacity available to approve new
development orders in each period prior to update of our concurrency
management data base.
We believe that we have demonstrated with our data and
analysis that we can sustain that system and that it is financially
feasible, but I must admit to you that the department seems to be
somewhat uncomfortable with their ability to sustain a one-year
system.
I would also like to report to you that the board -- the Collier
County Planning Commission forwarded this to you with a
recommendation of adoption as proposed by staff with staffs
responses to the department with one exception, and within the trans
-- excuse me -- the capital improvement element 15.3, they had
proposed that we -- you adopt the first or second year of the schedule
of capital improvements as a more viable system in order to approve
development orders that provide some latitude for unforeseen
circumstances which might develop over the year.
With that, I would open up to questions, or we can go through
each policy and show you the changes since transmittal and the
rationale behind our response.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me -- right now we're at a
three-year --
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- currency? And the Planning
Commission recommended two years.
MR. LITSINGER: That's correct.
Page 140
December 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: DCA, Department of Community
Affairs, is comfortable with two years?
MR. LITSINGER: I believe that is a correct statement, sir; yes,
sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So if the board adopts one
year and we still have objections to the -- from the DCA, where are
we then?
MR. LITSINGER: The response from DCA in the event that
you should adopt one year, or as you transmitted, would be that they
have two choices. They can either find it in compliance and we move
forward with the one-year program, or in the event that they do not
feel that we have substantiated with data and analysis that you can
sustain that system, they can find the comp. plan not in compliance,
and then we would enter into a negotiated settlement or we would go
into an administrative hearing with the Department of Community
Affairs.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I've seen other cases where
communities wanted to do something different -- comes to mind a lot
of charter communities have valid initiatives that, this is what the
community wants and has passed, but it is found that it's not
compatible with statutes or the Constitution, and the -- 9(J)(5) is
under the Constitution?
MR. LITSINGER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's where -- they're having
objections with, correct?
MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. Being very clear that the
department acknowledges that a three-year is provided for in
transportation. You are not obligated to have a three-year system,
but it has been demonstrated relative to the lead time in providing
transportation facilities that it is a reasonable standard.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
Page 141
December 16, 2003
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The one-year that we're talking
about, one-year concurrency, is actually the data that's encompassed
in that whole area. That's 18 months though, isn't it, correct?
MR. LITSINGER: In reality what we refer to is the first year
following each AUIR, we update the schedule of capital
improvements. And as you know, this Friday you will have your
2003 AUIR, and as a result of your direction, we will amend the
schedule of capital improvements usually in the September or
October transmittal.
So if-- effectively, you are relying on the facilities that you
currently have available today plus the first year in your next
schedule of capital improvements and which also would be in your
annual budget that came before you in the spring.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that's 18 months?
MR. LITSINGER: At least.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And if we look at two
years, we're actually looking at 30 months out? MR. LITSINGER: Very close, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And do you think that staff
would have a difficult time with the information after an 18-month
lead time?
MR. LITSINGER: We responded to the department's ORC
response from the standpoint of demonstrating the viability of your
transmitted amendment, which was the one-year or eight-month in
actual application. We believe we have demonstrated that it is
viable.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My concern is, when we
get out to three years, we're looking at about 42 months then --
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir. If you went-- if you went for three
years after your AUIR, you'd be looking at longer than three years,
Page 142
December 16, 2003
and then I would have to raise the question whether that made the
9(J)(5) requirement of three years.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, we have tried now
twice to get DCA to agree to use the first year of the five-year plan
for the purpose of the concurrency determination, and both times
they've turned us down.
And in view of what we have done to deal with the issue, I'm
convinced it doesn't make any difference anymore, and I'll tell you
why. The year of the five-year plan doesn't really have anything to
do with anything.
The only thing that is important -- well, two things are
important. One is, when does the project have an impact on the
infrastructure, and, number two, when is the infrastructure
improvement going to be available?
Give you an example. If today is the first year of the five-year
plan and a project comes before us that will not be completed for five
years, who cares whether it's the first or second year that we use for
the purpose of facility development? Our real concern is to make
sure that the infrastructure is available at the time of the impact of the
development.
MR. LITSINGER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And there are two things that
permit us to get there. One is, we passed a resolution a year ago that
said we will make sure that infrastructure is developed concurrently
with the impact of development.
Number two, we move back the collection of impact fees so that
we collect 50 percent of them at the -- at the time of site plan
submission or approval --
MR. LITSINGER: Or plat.
Page 143
December 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or plat. And what that does, it
gives us an additional two and a half to three and a half years to work
on the infrastructure problem.
So whatever DCA determines with respect to the five-year plan
probably doesn't impact our ability to deliver the infrastructure in a
significant way.
And I've noticed, every time we have a PUD come before us,
one of the first questions a member of this board asks -- well, maybe
multiple members ask-- is how does this impact the infrastructure?
Are we going to have the road capacity to deal with this.
And if we are not comfortable with it, what has happened is, we
will phase that construction. And we will say, okay, you can only
develop so many units until such and such a time, and that gives us a
time to develop the infrastructure.
So my point is that it is my sincere belief that whether we use
one year, two years, or three years doesn't make a lot of difference as
long as we understand that we've made a commitment to provide the
infrastructure concurrent with the impact of the development.
Now, is that a reasonably accurate and complete description of
our situation here?
MR. LITS1NGER: In financial analysis, Commissioner, it's a
matter of community resolve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. LITSINGER: And the issue of dealing with the
Department of Community Affairs and satisfying their understanding
of our system really comes back to what you folks are going to do,
ultimately.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we've committed ourselves by
way of a resolution that says, we're going to have infrastructure
concurrent with the impact of the development. That does not mean
we will have the infrastructure at the time somebody comes in and
Page 144
December 16, 2003
proposes a development. It means we will have the infrastructure
before that development is completed and has an impact upon our
roads or water or sewer.
And I believe we have been conducting ourselves that way for
pretty much the last 12 to 24 months; is that fair?
MR. FEDER: Norman Feder, for the record, transportation
administrator.
Commissioner, yes, it's more than fair. I think the critical part
to that is to understand -- first of all, as you pointed out, last cycle,
although we couldn't make all the changes we wanted to, we were
asked to go back and do more data collection. We've done that.
It's not only the 50 percent at final plat or plan that allows us to
start providing that infrastructure faster-- and that's significant -- it's
also the fact that now, with these actions, hopefully, we'll be in a
position we're not going to go annual, rather we're going to take that
information from the vested units. And when you ask us what the
implications of the roadway are, we know what has been approved.
And we're not going to give adequate public facilities beyond what
that facility can handle at that point in time.
In our balance, we feel that whether you go one or two years,
that we'll be in a position to provide the facilities. And I think it's
critical, even noting that, as Commissioner Halas (sic) pointed out,
that when you say one year, you're not necessarily talking 12 months
-- I think that was important -- because until the board has the chance
to look at it through the new AUIR, and that still is going to occur,
what you have for your situation and what you program in your first
year, second, third, of the work program, that establishes your
program as your base. So there is that little bit of lag time to that
year.
But having said that, the state still allows three years, and they
allow three years pretty much for what you said, Commissioner
Page 145
December 16, 2003
Coyle, because that's about the time that impacts start to really be
seen.
We're still promoting, if this boards moves on two, coming in in
a tighter fashion in the state, getting the dollars earlier, and moving
on them earlier, and going based on not consideration of just the
traffic that's out there, but also that vested development based on a
seven-year build-out, and then evaluating that annually to see
whether or not that seven years is either occurring faster or slower,
and adjust accordingly, annual, as we get the annual reports in.
So I think we've got a very tight process. I think we have one in
the discussions, as Stan pointed out, with the Department of
Community Affairs, that, in fact, they now understand and are
accepting, I think, of what we're doing and understand where we're
trying to go with it.
I think their hesitation, though, is to go all the way from three to
one, and so that is probably the biggest issue we have in front of us
right now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, in summary then, I'd just
like to state that it appears to me we have a very conservative
concurrency management process.
MR. FEDER: We will have a management process, and a
conservative one, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it gives us a good head start
on dealing with the infrastructure problems.
There is one other thing that the board must be aware of, and
that is that a lot of our assumptions with respect to infrastructure
requirements in the future are based upon building units that have
been approved in the past, and we have quite a backlog of those.
MR. FEDER: Vested units.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Vested units. And as we look at
those, as we look at that backlog of vested units, we're beginning to
Page 146
December 16, 2003
see that many of them will never be built. MR. FEDER: As a--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And as we begin to go through
those and clean out that backlog, then our assumptions with respect
to how much infrastructure and the location of the infrastructure
might very well change, and that provides us better management
control over infrastructure development. MR. FEDER: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're doing a lot of things that
deal with this issue no matter what DCA says with respect to the use
of the first or second or third year of the five-year plan.
And as I deal with that more and more, I find it is irrelevant
except for one thing, and that is, what can the developer depend upon
with respect to our construction schedule. And that's all it is. It's a
planning tool for the developer who can look at our five-year plan
and say, okay, this -- this particular road is scheduled for
improvement three years from now, so if I own some property there,
I can reasonably expect to be able to build something at that point in
time.
And as far as I can determine, that is the sole impact of that
determination.
MR. FEDER: And, Commissioner, just to highlight exactly
what you're saying. First of all, what I'll tell you is, when I came
here three years ago, we established, with the help of this board and
with the funding of this board, a very aggressive five-year work
program.
Each year we've completed, and I'm pleased to say for three
straight years; the first the program added a new fifth.
So I'd rather state that generally, the development community
can rely on the community in general in all five years of our work
program, and we're going to hold to that and continue to move
Page 147
December 16, 2003
forward.
To the other point -- you made it very valid -- we've got quite a
few developments that had the ability to develop 699 or whatever
units, have already built out and built nowhere near that number of
units, but we still had to assume those under the vested determination
until we can get those issues cleared off the books. So if anything, as
you're pointing out, we've very conservative.
Also today, we bring to the Lely development a contribution
agreement as a follow-up to the extension of Santa Barbara and those
issues. Already they've -- giving up a thousand units of their vesting
over there in Lely. So we will be seeing more of that.
But right now, again, we're taking the conservative approach,
and we look at all vested units that could build out over seven years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, then
Commissioner Fiala, the Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we're down to the point
that we have to make a decision as far as the amount of years. And I,
myself, agree that there's no sense in pursuing this if we're going to
be running the Department of Community Affairs on this, and I can
stay with the two years, go with the two years.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I can, too, but I did have
another question that I spoke to Norm Feder about yesterday, but I
wanted to bring this matter up, and that is, we were talking about the
TCEA on South U.S. 41, and I asked Norm why -- why the
exemption would include affordable housing or it was for affordable
housing when it wasn't in any of the other areas, and I know that the
building community would like to see that exemption offered to all
areas of the county.
Also, what really concerned me the most about this is, when
Page 148
December 16, 2003
roads are already impacted or constrained, why would we offer an
eight-unit density bonus for affordable housing when you've already
got a constrained road? That doesn't make any sense to me.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, let me hit the second part, and
then Stan will give you the good news on the first part of the
question.
On the second part about what do we do relative to
transportation, part of what we're looking at in our transportation
system is the way we've developed in a very low density and in a sort
of separation of our affordable and somewhat higher-end housing
situation is that we have longer trip lengths. Just like we were
talking before about bringing our commercial and our residential
closer to each other, especially neighborhood commercial, try to
shorten trip lengths to provide opportunity for other modes or trips to
be taken other than to getting on (sic) your car and going out straight
onto the arterial system.
So you'll find that when you have workforce housing closer in,
closer to the jobs throughout the county -- and you'll hear that in a
minute -- then you have done some things to reduce some of the
demand, and it's seen as a way to reduce the demand for trips and in
the length of the trips.
And I'll let Stan address the other part of the question if I've
answered your second part.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe I'm not hearing it right --
MR. FEDER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but I'm still wondering why we
would -- on a constrained road, why we would offer the eight units
more density bonus for affordable housing when you've already got a
constrained road. I -- did you answer that and I not hear it?
MR. FEDER: I hope that I did, and I'll try to be even clearer if I
didn't. But essentially what you will find is, as you increase some of
Page 149
December 16, 2003
your density and you provide for a mix of level housing types, we
tend to reduce both volume and definitely length of trips, and we also
promote other modal trips just as you were trying to do with
commercial and residential mix.
So having an increased density for affordable housing, which is
throughout the county and will be cited as you'll hear shortly in the
TCMA areas as well as TCEA, is just a recognition when we set up
those districts, as allowed by statute, we had to define how we're
going to implement those and what provisions we had within our
comp. plan to bring about that urban infill and that mix of
residential/commercial and reduction of trips.
So that was cited in there as one of the techniques that's already
in our comprehensive plan and it also -- I'm stealing Stan's thunder
now, but he'll tell you how he's going to do it -- also is going to be
included in the TCMA areas because it obviously should have been
in there as an example of how we can promote that infill and utilize
the TCMA, or the transportation concurrency management areas,
excuse me, as well as the transportation concurrency exception area.
I hope I answered your question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: TCMA is a little bit confusing.
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just didn't -- I'm still
having a problem with more density on a constrained road, but --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that comes to us on a case by
case basis.
MR. LITSINGER: If I can try to add to Norm's explanation of
the concept behind a density bonus for affordable housing with the T
-- within the TCEA, which is acknowledging you have a failing from
the standpoint of link by link concurrency segment that otherwise
would stop all development in that area.
And what we're proposing with the TCEA in following all of the
Page 150
December 16, 2003
guidelines within the regulation 9(J)(5) is, number one, 90 percent of
the property is built out within the TCEA. So you're looking at
complete, totally infill development or in some cases redevelopment.
And under this -- under this scenario, the exception to the
transportation concurrency issue would be provided if the TSM,
transportation TDM policies were met for those, and if those are met,
then there would be the opportunity for the density bonus for
affordable housing also.
And having heard of this concern, we did look at our language
that we had proposed for density bonuses, and we have revised the
language, which we would hand out to you today on page 30 of our
response to the ORC report that does provide for an additional
density bonus for affordable housing and TCMA, also of one unit.
So effectively, what we're doing is we're encouraging infill and
redevelopment within the areas where we are trying to manage our
transportation network holistically by providing up to nine units of a
density bonus for affordable housing.
So we are providing additional incentives for the potential
developer to consider in working out his pro formas and the cost of
development within the -- in these areas.
And I -- if you would permit, I'd let Glen hand out the proposed
language change that we would have you consider on density
bonuses.
You already have it, okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I think Commissioner Coyle
and my fellow commissioners, we're all very conscious of the fact
that we're trying to make sure that we are observing concurrency.
And I think this was all brought about by the group that was here
earlier this morning whereby they were looking for another form of
government, because in the years past, there was a time when there
Page 151
December 16, 2003
was no roads being constructed, there was no infrastructure being put
in place.
Yes, we have a very conscientious commission at this point in
time, but what's to say what may happen down the road another eight
years or 10 years or whatever else. So I think what we're looking for
right now is we're looking for the language to put in there so whoever
supersedes us, they have a guideline to realize that they have a
commitment to the citizens of this county.
And I think that's all it amounts to, whether it's.one-year
concurrency or whether it's a two-year concurrency, what we need to
do is make sure the language is there so that we don't run into the
situation we ran into a few years ago whereby we weren't concurrent.
We were behind on wastewater, on freshwater, and on roads, and I
think that's all we're trying to address here.
And the other thing that -- just to touch briefly with
Commissioner Fiala, and that's in regards to increasing density on a
constraint road. I have some concerns about that, especially when it
comes to evacuation of our residents.
So I guess I need some more clarification on that, and hopefully
at a later date I can pick up that information.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The -- you know, I think
what our goal has always been is try to tighten this up, and -- MR. LITSINGER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- you know, my concern is if
Tallahassee's not going to accept what we submitted in the first place,
we're going to go back to where we were before we started, and that
is my true concern. So I can support the two-year concurrency on
that.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Halas has raised an
interesting point, and I wonder if there's a way we can address this.
Page 152
December 16, 2003
It's very, very clear that this board has committed itself to
concurrency. We passed a resolution and we all signed it last year.
Is there any way to make some general statement in this
particular element that says it is our -- is the intent that we will have
infrastructure concurrent with the impact of development?
MR. LITSINGER: Taking all of your comprehensive plan
amendments relative to concurrency and your Land Development
Code, which is coming back to you again to implement this, we have
made that statement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. LITS1NGER: You have made a commitment in that you
do not issue a development order unless certain standards are met,
and in return, you collect a very significant amount of money, and
which I would note, I don't know if there's anywhere else in Florida
that is as stringent as you do (sic).
I think from the standpoint of policy, each year you reconfirm
your commitment to your AUIR process and the update of your--
both your annual budget and your schedule of capital improvements,
which is binding by statute.
The way the statutes are written, if, as through this process, you
have projects in the first or second year if you so choose, or three
years as the state permits in your schedule of capital improvements,
any reliance on those projects, in good faith, you permit the issuance
of development orders, you are bound to go forward with those
developments, I mean with those improvements.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With the improvements, okay.
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So there is in the overall plan a
statement of intent to maintain concurrency, and concurrency is the
availability of infrastructure concurrent with the impact on the
infrastructure of development?
Page 153
December 16, 2003
MR. LITSINGER: And-- yes, sir. And yes, we defined that
much more stringently last year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good, good, good. Okay.
In that case, I would like to make a motion that we approve this
particular section as written.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: By the Planning Commission's
recommendations, or--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With the inclusion of this?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I wasn't going to include this,
the density bonus issue. I was merely going to approve what is in the
folder here, okay? I mean, that's my recommendation, that's my
motion. I would be open to any revisions, but I hate to talk about
concurrency on the one hand and then talk about density bonuses for
areas that are overburdened on the other.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's already in here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I don't think so, not for the
transportation concurrency exception area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it is.
MR. LITSINGER: For the manage -- the exception area, yes,
sir, we do make reference to density bonus for affordable housing,
once the other requirements to be accepted from a concurrency issue
are met.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. In my copy --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you'd take a look at your
overhead just for a second. If you go down to the fourth box, in your
-- in your plan, everything talks about one year, okay. The Planning
Commission recommended that the one-year be changed to two
years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And it goes through a series, not only in
the fourth box, but if you go to the fifth box where it's got level of
Page 154
December 16, 2003
service -- where it's got level of service and all those particular
issues, it talks about one year, and then it shows up again, as you
move this down just a little bit, where it says 50 percent, and that's
when they start collecting those dollars for impact fees.
And so are you asking -- are you -- is your -- is your motion
one-year or two-year? I think that's a big issue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What my document says, that the
necessary facilities and services are in the first or second year, and it
says that on two different paragraphs. And so what I'm assuming is
you have updated this document.
MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. That is the Planning
Commission's recommendation, first or second --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that's the one I'm working off
of?
MR. LITSINGER: -- year. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So first year or second year means
we can use --
MR. LITSINGER: First two years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The first two years.
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that's what I'm-- I am
recommending that we approve. I have not included in my
recommendation the revision or proposed revision to density bonus
number seven because this proposed revision adds the transportation
concurrency exception area and a density bonus for that. That is not
in the document that was approved by the Planning Commission. So
I have not included that in my motion.
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did I clarify that for everybody?
Page 155
December 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No? I'm--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, not on the last part. I
understand that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The handout that you were
just given a few minutes ago is a revision to number seven of the --
the so-called concurrency program, and it adds the transportation
concurrency exception area and the bonus for -- density bonuses for
that particular area.
I am not suggesting that we approve a density bonus for an area
than is already overburdened and is being burdened. MR. LITSINGER: Neither have I.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So I'm going with what's in
the CCPC recommendation, the document in front of you, which
says, we'll use the first or the second year of the five-year plan, and
that's pretty much the only revision that exists in there.
MR. LITSINGER: That's the only change --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. LITSINGER: -- the Planning Commission made to what
was transmitted as a response to the ORC. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't we have to be specific
between the first and the second?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
MR. LITSINGER: First or second year, first two years. The
language there is fairly benign.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: On the transportation issue it says
-- this is under policy 5.9, and it's under D, and it says, no impact will
be de minimis if it exceeds the adopted level of service standard of
Page 156
December 16, 2003
any affected designated hurricane evacuation routes within a TCMA.
Hurricane routes in Collier County are shown on map TR7. Any
impact to hurricane evacuation routes within a TCMA shall require a
proportionate share payment provided the remaining level of service
requirements of the TCMA are maintained.
My question is, in my particular area, I'm concerned about this
de minimis because it deals with anything less than one percent, and
it deals with -- it's not counted if you add homes that are not in a
PUD. It's just a site -- just certain sites that you put a house on,
whether it's in the Golden Gate Estates or in my particular area,
District 2.
And then what it does is it also triggers a flag saying, well,
what's the present level of service for Pine Ridge, let's say, from 41
to Airport, and what's the level of service for Immokalee Road from
U.S. 41 to 1-75, and then what is the level of service for 1-75, and
how does this de minimis play an active role into this?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, they're two different things. First
of all -- again, for the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator.
When we talk about de minimis, it's less than one percent
impact, which is typically not a single-family residence, up to a
quadraplex. But when you're talking about hurricane evacuation,
your standard is not the same thing. It is not volume to capacity or
time delay. It is the number of hours it takes to evacuate. So you've
got a different type of standard when you're looking at a de minimis
standard relative to hurricane evacuation.
Don, do you want to add anything more to that?
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning.
The Regional Planning Council, when we're talking about
hurricane evacuation, is dealing with how many hours does it take to
evacuate a certain area, and they have a standard. I don't know what
Page 157
December 16, 2003
-- like 18 hours or whatever that standard is. And that's essentially
what we're looking at for hurricane evacuation routes.
It's hard to apply that on a case by case basis for each of the
roadways as a-- we discussed this issue with DCA and also the
Regional Planning Council, because that was raised at one of the
Planning Commission meetings, and they're saying you're mixing
apples and oranges. You need to look at how long does it take to
evacuate a certain area. Does it meet that standard.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how do you determine that?
And this would go along with what Commissioner Fiala's concern is,
how do you determine those -- the time frame that it's going to take
to evacuate?
MR. MUDD: Now, before -- before you answer that, Dan --
Don, Dan Summers briefed the board the other night when you did
the Vanderbilt Beach overlay study, and he specific basically said,
the time frame on a certain road, depending on the road and
depending on the circumstance. If it has to be done in 18 hours, he
can move that timeline up sooner and start evacuation earlier because
hurricanes have a tendency to have a predictability type standard to
it.
I mean, we can't get it the exact minute, but we can pretty much
get it within a six-hour period of time when it's going to hit landfall,
so basically described to the board how that window of time is
planned on, and when we give the, you must evacuate this particular
area, and people start to move out.
So it's not an exact science, and I think he specified that last
night. I mean, it isn't, everybody goes at the same time. The coastal
folks would go a little bit sooner. If it looks like it's going to be
category four-- and I'm talking about hypotheticals here, okay,
knock on wood. I never want this to happen to Collier County.
If it's a category four, a category five hurricane, looks like it's
Page 158
December 16, 2003
going to be devastating all the way out through 951 and into the
Estates areas, he would start moving those people and start
marshalling them out on evacuation routes at different times in the
cycle that he has to make sure that they're moving on a road segment.
If everybody goes at the same time the State of Florida,
Commissioner, I promise you that every interstate will be so backed
up we'll never see daylight.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's some of the concerns that I
have in the background.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I -- that's why I was just
looking at the big picture here, finding out what the -- how many
people you can move in a concern period of time on a road to fit into
the de minimis project here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, there's public speakers.
Do we have a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nope.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nobody liked my motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think your motion was just
fine, Commissioner Coyle, I just --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we just -- can someone
read it back to us what the motion was?
MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman, I think the motion was to
approve the Planning Commission's recommendation with the one
change to staffs proposal both in what you transmitted and in our
response to the ORC with additional policies and language. And that
would be just the change from the first year to the first or second
relative to dependence on the schedule of capital improvements.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And also the elimination of,
what was it?
MR. LITSINGER: The changes to density bonus number seven.
Page 159
December 16, 2003
You did not propose that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm still terribly concerned
about the density bonus, and I'm thinking, now we'll combine it with
the hurricane route. I don't understand why we would allow a
density bonus in a constrained area -- and here we have it written
right here. Here we have an exception for a constrained -- for a
constrained area already that includes affordable housing.
And I'll give you a prime example. I'm going to talk about U.S.
41 just past 951. And we had a Haldeman Creek thing right there,
and we knew that the road narrowed down to two lanes and it wasn't
going to be widened. There was no plans for widening it. Yet -- and
so they had to take off one unit per acre. So instead of four it was
three, yet we added another eight units per acre to that even though it
was in a constrained area. And we're allowing this to happen.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on, hang on. You're working
-- we're supposed to be working out of this book, not your --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here it is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- big book.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here it is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What page?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Page -- policy 2.4, third para -- one
here, and then it's again -- excuse me -- over here. Right there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two point four, and then density
rating system A, B, one traffic congested area. Right there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But we did take the density bonus
out of the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think the area that is the concern
Page 160
December 16, 2003
is the transportation concurrency exception area --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- is that right?
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, Mr. Coyle. The area that we provide
for the density bonus for affordable housing, after all the other
standards are met in order to get the exception for concurrency, is the
transportation concurrency exception area, U.S. 41 South.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, that is not included in future
land use rating system number 7(A), density bonus. The TCEA is
not included in that density bonus paragraph.
MR. HEATH: It is not inc -- excuse me, I'm Glenn Heath with
comprehensive planning. It is not included in the one that's in your
notebook, but it is included in the handout.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, but the thing that is causing
confusion for all of us, and Commissioner Fiala, is that a TCEA and
a density bonus is apparently included in paragraph B. Wait. No,
that's density reduction. That's a density reduction. So I think that
we've take care of the density increase, density bonus issue.
MR. HEATH: What the statement is is that in the -- I would
have to refer you to two different places.
Within the transportation concurrency management area, what
we were staying is if you meet all of TDM requirements and you can
get certified under the provisions of the policies here and you have
affordable housing, then you're not subject to an existing reduction
that's already in the Growth Management Plan that reduces by one
unit the entitled density in the traffic congestion area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me see if we can cut to
the bottom line on this one then. It's -- I believe -- I know it's my
intent, and I believe it's Commissioner Fiala's intent, that we not
provide a density bonus for a transportation concurrency exception
area.
Page 161
December 16, 2003
Now, my motion essentially said that, no density bonuses for a
transportation concurrency exception area because it's already a
problem area, right?
Now, if you were to accept-- if the board were to approve my
motion, does that deal with all of Commissioner Fiala's concerns with
respect to density bonuses for a transportation concurrency exception
area?
MR. HEATH: Well, we can make the changes, sir, then there
would be no density bonuses for the exception area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
Does that meet your acceptance?
Yes.
All right.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's go to public speakers. I
apologize for the long discussion here. So if you're not available to
speak when we call your name up, I apologize. And if you want to
waive, that's perfectly fine, too.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is David Ellis. He will be
followed by A1 Za--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Zichella.
MS. FILSON: I can't believe I did that. Zichella.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a good Irish name. I don't
understand the problem.
MR. ELLIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name's
David Ellis. I'm with the Collier Building Industry Association. And
I'll try to be brief, but I do want to touch on a few things.
We actually started this discussion May 14th, 2002, when we
actually came in and this whole concurrency issue came to a head.
One of the things I want to point out is there's a lot of good
ideas in this document, a lot of good things have happened as a result
of that meeting and the resolution that you joined in together.
Page 162
December 16, 2003
In this document, the document you're considering, the TCMAs
and the TCEAs are seen as very dynamic and very positive planning
tools. Also, what you've been doing, looking at vested development
and actually getting everything into the spreadsheet so we know
what's happening and when it's going to happen, and also the PUD
monitoring process, what you've done to tighten up that process so
that we know what's happening now on a very regular basis, all of
those are very positive.
Commissioner Coyle, you really alluded to that. Even if we
didn't do anything, we've done a lot already. And with this
document, I think we really take it into a further -- another plane of
potential.
A couple of things I want to look at. The main point of
contention -- this has obviously been the three-year, two-year,
one-year thing, and we've talked about that a lot.
Last year DCA rejected our deviation from that normal
three-year approach. 9(J)(5) as we've talked about allows us to use
that three-year window, not as a grace period, but really as an
acknowledgement that that's how the system works.
You'll approve a development, you've approved many
developments this year. We won't see dirt turning on those for years
to come. And to think that we would actually require the community
to pay for infrastructure long before the impact happens really isn't
very practical and in some cases wouldn't be justified.
The reliance on the three-year system relied on something that
we -- I want to talk about at the end of my comments, but you relied
on the fact that we'd actually deliver the roads. Commissioner Halas,
you alluded to that. What got us into trouble wasn't the planning
process. It was getting the roads built.
But I think we're really looking at those, and there's some good
examples of how we're doing much, much better, and even Norm's
Page 163
December 16, 2003
acknowledgement today that three years in a row we stuck to our
plan and actually did what we said we'd do, delivering the roads for
the people of Collier County.
I do want to point out that through this process, one thing that's
come forward for the people that I represent, the building and
construction industry, we've made a number of important concessions
to help the county do what they need to do.
When we come forward now, we're actually being much more
proactive as part of the planning process, but far beyond that, we pay
half our impact fees 90 days after a development approval. That's a
significant financial investment to make sure that that infrastructure's
there, and we're required to pay the other half after three years, and
honestly, regardless of whether or not the development goes forward.
We're not moving forward on developments that are paper
developments. They're being -- we're moving forward with what's
going to happen. And a lot of positives will come from that, and it's
an important thing to acknowledge in this process.
But we still like that provision, by the way, to build roads, and
once again, I'll talk about that for a second at the end.
There are several significant concerns. DCA didn't like this first
time around. They actually rejected it. The second time around they
didn't like it again either. They had many questions about the
one-year approach.
Your Planning Commission, the first time around, actually
endorsed sticking with the three-year plan. Now, the second time
around, they actually moderated the approach back to this three-year
AUIR. I think they really made the acknowledgement that they had
to -- they wanted to tighten the system up, and at the same time they
acknowledged that they didn't want to do something that wasn't
workable for the citizens of Collier County and for the industry, and
really acknowledging that we really weren't looking at the right end
Page 164
December 16, 2003
of the horse in this whole process.
From a recommendation point of view, if you asked me, Dave,
what works, I'd say, let's stick with the three-year plan, much like
Commissioner Coyle said, and let's focus on the things that make the
plan work. But I'm also a realist, and I understand to get to
consensus on this, we're probably going to need to look at doing
something different.
So in the spirit of resolution and with the knowledge of DCA's
deep concern over the one-year plan, I'd recommend that you go with
your-- endorse your Planning Commission's recommendation to rely
on the two-year funded plan.
Now, anytime I talk about this -- and we've been talking about it
a lot over the last couple of years -- I always like at the end to talk
with, once again, it's never been -- and maybe at first a little bit it
was -- an idea of the funding was a challenge. We solved that.
You're collecting impact fees at the highest amount we can in the
state, and we're collecting them earlier than anybody else in the state.
We solved that money issue as it relates to growth.
The second thing is, it's a planning issue. What kept us from
building roads before? It wasn't a planning mechanism at all. We
had plans. We just didn't execute the plan. That's where the rub has
always been.
Commissioners, I really exhort you as you look at roads in the
future of Collier County and the different mechanisms we'll use to
move traffic, that we be resolute and we move forward with those
things.
The one thing that's missing in this, there's no language that
actually says you'll have to execute your plan.
Now, you've got good staff that's doing good work in making it
happen. It's really your resolution to yourselves that you're going to
make sure that the roads get delivered in a timely fashion that's going
Page 165
December 16, 2003
to make it happen.
So again, I commend -- and again, in the spirit of compromise
and hope that we can actually move beyond this and really focus on
that construction process, that we go with that two-year program.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: A1 Zichella. He'll be followed by Ken Drum.
MR. ZICHELLA: For the record, A1 Zichella. I'm here today on
behalf of Collier Building Industry Association and the WCI
Communities. Thanks for the opportunity to speak.
I'm going to echo briefly and try not to echo too many things
that David has said. He said them very well.
DCA, in fact, did have some problems with this twice already.
We would like to see a concurrency plan go forward that everybody
can get behind and which DCA can accept.
I've been before all of you before preaching that three years is
necessary, that it was the accepted criteria that was used by the state,
and I did, in fact, and still do think that that is a correct and true
statement; however, we've bee down this road a long time.
I think the compromise that's before you now is an appropriate
one and one that will -- we ca somehow live with.
The whole -- our whole perspective on this -- and Commissioner
Coyle, you said it exactly correctly -- it is our reliance on permitting
that this is important for, for developers and builders, small and large
alike, we -- before we can make the kind of investment that we do in
both the land and the infrastructure and commit our resources, our
people, our treasure to going forward with a project, we need to
know that we, in fact, can do that.
And the tool that we've always used to judge that was whether
or not this project was in the road plan and could we get credit for it
in permitting. And this is a direct correlation to the amount of time it
takes for us to development a property, put cars on the road and
Page 166
December 16, 2003
impact the infrastructure.
We are embracing the two-year compromise post AUIR,
following the AUIR. We think that we can live with that; we can
make that work. It's not quite three years, it's not quite two years, but
we think it's appropriate in the spirit of cooperation. As David said,
we would very much like to see this process go forward.
I think staff has put a great deal of earnest effort into this. I
think your commitment to the community a little over a year and a
half ago was the appropriate one, frankly, but I would like to make a
comment about that at the end as well.
We will support the two-year compromise, people in the
industry. We will -- we believe you have now constructed the most
stringent concurrency management plan in the state. I think that that
is de facto. No one does what we do.
And by the way, we were -- I think the industry side of the table
was very instrumental in a lot of these things coming forward.
We've been pointing out to you today that we pay half our
impact fees up front. That was our idea. Nobody bent our arms and
made us do that.
We said to Norm Feder, what do you need to build roads? What
do you need to do your job better? He said, we need the money
sooner. So we sat down and we made this compromise. That is
unprecedented in the state. Frankly, people laugh at us around the
state. What are you doing that for? We're doing it because we're
good citizens.
We know that we've built a great place here, despite all the
complaining by certain limited groups, some of them who were here
before you today earlier. This is a terrific place to live. Yeah, we've
grown, but let's face it, we're on the coast.
You know, taxes are favorable here. People are coming. That's
how we handle it. And I think we've done a very good job by and
Page 167
December 16, 2003
large, except for a four-year period where we didn't build roads and
we wound up at everybody's throat.
I would like to say, let's do something together for once. I agree
with this compromise. It's not what we want. We'll do our best to
live with it yet again.
When you raised impact fees -- they're the highest anywhere in
the state by double for transportation. Okay, yeah, we squawked a
little bit, but we settled on something that is by far and away the
highest in the state.
I just want to point out, echoing what David said, we're stepping
up to the plate, as corporate citizens and as citizens. I've lived here
18 years. And what -- we're doing what we think is -- and I would
urge you to please entertain -- as it looks like we're going to by the
motion and by what I can tell, and thank you for that.
I think it's about time that we stop polarizing this community
and working together on what is sensible. We employ a lot of people
here. We'd like to keep those people employed. I think that was the
basis of your commitment originally; I think it was in May. And
again, we thank you.
One more thing. I notice that the people who started this whole
ball rolling on concurrency who wanted real-time concurrency at
permit -- you wanted the infrastructure in place at permit. And as
Commissioner Coyle said, that's unrealistic. It's not what the law says
and it's not the intention of the code.
Well, none of those people are here today, are they? They
throw the bombs, then they disappear, and we're left sorting it out
amongst ourselves. I think we've done a rather good job.
I'd like to commend staff, and thank for your attention and thank
you for the opportunity to speak to you here today. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ken Drum.
MR. DRUM: Pass.
Page 168
December 16, 2003
MS. FILSON: Pass, okay. And the final speaker is Reed Jarvi.
MR. JARVI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Reed Jarvi, and as you know, I'm a professional engineer in the area.
And I'm not going to reiterate all the stuff that A1 and David just
talked about, with one exception, and that is the fees that we pay, and
we have been part of the process that brought the unprecedented
impact fees to the area.
And the one portion I have a concern with and I think we should
readdress is policy 5.9(A), specifically. It's on my page five at the
top. I'm not sure I have exactly the same document you have, but it's
part of the transportation policy 5.9, transportation element 5.9.
It talks about proportionate share calculations. And when we
originally talked about this back in the late summer, we had a
sentence in here which has been since strucken, struck, which says,
proportionate share payments shall be calculated using formula
established in rule 9(J)2, et cetera, with credit for the full recovery
rate of the impact fees in effect at the time, and that would be
acknowledging that the people who -- the developments are paying
their impact fees, which are set to pay for impacts caused by their
projects.
This is asking for a proportionate share calculation above and
beyond the impact fees on projects in that they've already paid or will
be paying their impact fees, and now to pay another fee on top of it
again on what is already the highest fee in the state seems
unreasonable to me, and I would request you consider a change to
that aspect. That's all I have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Jarvi, what I understand is, when
we collect the 50 percent, if we raise the impact fees in the interim,
that we're going to the raised amount, and that's what you're
objecting to?
MR. JARVI: No, sir.
Page 169
December 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. JARVI: No, this is a -- what this is saying is that if you are
in a TCMA and you impact a deficient or constrained system, yet the
TCMA still functions within the 85 percent and all that -- all the
other qualifications, that you shall pay a proportionate share above
your impact fees, that the impact fees rise. That's an accepted
statement or accepted practice.
But this is a -- so effectively, you could pay, you know, an
impact fee, and you could pay what is equivalent to another impact
fee on top of that when it's already the highest in the state, that our
impact fees should be set and they are set to mitigate the
transportation impacts a project is causing.
And we went through that last summer when we went through
all the calculations, and we came to an agreement that these impact --
that a project's impacts are X dollars, and we had a new fee schedule,
and it was recently updated. We went to an indexing situation so
everybody would know ahead of time what the impact fees will be in
the future, or could at least project them in the future, and now we
are asking for another fee on top of the impact fees, and I think that's
unreasonable for this pro -- or for projects, so I request that you
consider changing that back to what we had originally agreed to,
which was the credit from -- credit for the full recovery rate of the
impact fees. That's what I would like.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, again, for the record, Norman
Feder, transportation administrator.
This provision recognizes the fact that what we're providing for
in the TCMA, or transportation concurrency management area, is
that for like movements north/south or east/west within that area, that
Page 170
December 16, 2003
you're basically averaging those lane miles and stating that at least 85
percent of them must operate at an acceptable level of service
allowing some limited, up to 15 percent, of the lane miles not to meet
your standards and yet not stopping the development from
proceeding.
But what this says is, is that, if, in fact, let's say you had 90/10
and 10 percent of your lane miles was not meeting a standard, that
development could proceed. Yes, they would pay their impact fees
as they would anywhere in the county, but within the TCMA, if they
have more than a de minimis impact on that part of that 10 percent of
deficient lane miles, then they would pay a fee towards operating
subsidy for transit, intersection improvements, other issues of the sort
that are not things you can use your impact fees on, recognizing that
they would have more than a de minimis impact to a deficient lane
mile, and while they're proceeding, that we need to go back and do
operational items or go at reduced demand and demand management
through transit and the like to try and make sure that we continue and
maintain operations even on those deficient segments.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Great. Any further
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any question on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying any.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
Page 171
December 16, 2003
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I should have asked my
question if-- should we just say that we were taking that density
thing out. I just wanted to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- keep that on the record. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
We've got a number of the public here, County Manager.
MR. MUDD: I don't know if you're finished yet --
MR. LITSINGER: We have one more, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MUDD: -- but you have petition CPS 2003-9, and then
you have a four o'clock time certain on the beach renourishment
policy.
This petition is petition requesting change to overlays and
special features of the land use designation description section of the
furore land element and revisions to the furore land use map to
amend certain noise contours to correlate with the noise contours
previously changed by a Land Development Code, LDC amendment,
adopted on June 14th, 2000, and LDC amendment scheduled for
adoption in January, 2004.
MS. KENDALL: Good afternoon. Marcia Kendall,
Comprehensive Planning Department.
The only update to this is that another amendment will be
occurring through LDC amendment in January, 2004, where they're
going to implement at the north contour map to go along with the
language change. That's the only thing that's changed since
transmittal.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 172
December 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Fiala to approve.
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:
MS. KENDALL:
Any opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
Thank you.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2003-66 PUDZ-2003-AR-3905, TERRY KEPPLE,
PE OF KEPPLE ENGINEERING, INC., REPRESENTING
STEWART MARCUS, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RSF-1
TO PUD TO BE KNOWN AS THE CARLISLE REGENCY
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF ORANGE
BLOSSOM DRIVE AND YARBERRY LANE - ADOPTED WITH
CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you want to take the four
o'clock time certain -- or you've got another land use element, and
that would be 8(B) -- that would be 8(B) at this particular time, and
that is--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we've got two. Another came
off the summary.
Page 173
December 16, 2003
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and that's 8(C), and that's old 17(D).
This one is -- this item, if we're going to do 8(B), it's a PUDZ
particular item. Let's give it a try and see what happens,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: This is 8(B). This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
This is PUDZ-2003-AR-3905, Terry Kepple, PE, of Kepple
Engineering, Inc., representing Stewart Marcus, requesting a rezone
from RSF-1 to PUD, planned unit development, to be known as the
Carlisle Regency PUD.
The project will consist of a maximum of 35 residential
dwelling units located at the southeastern comer of the intersection of
Orange Blossom Drive and Yarberry Lane in section 2, township 49
south, range 25 east, Collier County, consisting of 11.7 plus acres.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All wishing to participate in this
item, please rise, raise your right hand, and the court reporter will
swear you in.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Ex parte communication by
the Board of Commissioners, starting with Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: None.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: None.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: None from myself.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One second, please.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: None.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: None -- wait. I stand
Page 174
December 16, 2003
corrected, 8(A), no --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: B.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: C.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: B.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'll figure it out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have none also.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Kepple?
MR. KEPPLE: Good afternoon. Terrence Kepple representing
the petitioner this afternoon.
I'll provide a brief overview of the project. The project's located
at the southeast comer of Orange Blossom Drive and Yarberry Lane.
It consists of an 11.7 acre parcel of vacant property currently zoned
RSF-1.
We are proposing a rezone to a residential PUD for a maximum
of 3 5 units. The project will be an age-restricted development, and it
will be interconnected with the Carlisle directly to the east of this
project.
Now, the homeowners of this PUD project will have -- be able
to obtain services from the adjacent Carlisle retirement assisted living
facility. Such services being such as cleaning, maintenance,
recreation, those types of interrelated facilities will be available to
this project from the Carlisle.
Access to the site is currently planned from Yarberry Lane at
the request of the Transportation Department. We had originally
proposed it off of Orange Blossom, and after discussion with the
Transportation Department, we did move that main access to
Yarberry Lane.
The area's also an interconnection with the Carlisle, a physical
vehicle connection, which will also allow traffic to enter and exit this
property through the Carlisle to Airport Road, so we do have two
points of access.
Page 175
December 16, 2003
There were a couple of changes requested by the Planning
Commission. They were generally cleanup type items. We did make
some adjustments in the side yard setbacks, restricted the building
height to a single-story building and added language regarding
setbacks for the garage at the Planning Commission's
recommendations, and we had no objection to those.
County staff and the Planning Commission have both
recommended approval, and I don't believe there's been any
objections from the public; however, I do believe there's a couple
neighbors here who would like to speak regarding this project.
The only other item that I'm aware of is a couple of neighbors
were concerned about visibility along Yarberry, that we don't create a
big walled-in community, and that's not our intent. If there is any
type of a fence or wall, it will be landscaped on the exterior to
provide a landscaping buffer between it and Yarberry Lane.
That's the end of my presentation at this point. If there's any
questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you going to also have an
access road out onto Airport Road?
MR. KEPPLE: There is currently an access, interconnection
planned with the Carlisle which has an acc -- current access point
onto Airport Road, so we will have use of that, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And have you done any traffic
studies, impact studies for the county?
MR. KFJPPLE: We did a -- yes, we did do a traffic study. Due
to the type of community and the limited number of units, the traffic
impact is extremely minimal.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions?
Mr. Reischl?
MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Fred Reischl,
Page 176
December 16, 2003
planning serv -- zoning and land development review.
I just wanted to verify Mr. Kepple's statement of the Planning
Commission additions and state that assistant county attorney Patrick
White and I are currently working on nonsubstantive legal
sufficiency changes to the document that you have before you.
Asides from that, we recommend approval.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Let's call up the public
speakers, please.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have two public speakers,
Willie Anthony. He will be followed by Orsie Anthony.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Anthony, thank you for your
patience today.
WILLIE ANTHONY: I was going to bring that matter up. I
came here at 8:40, and I guess I'm still here because it got bumped.
But I think that my being here was a experience that I -- it's
probably helped me in terms of watching how you-all operate and
how the staff operates in certain situations.
But I want to -- I want to express my -- how -- I came before the
adv -- the Planning Commission, and I'm going to relate to you what
happened there.
Now, I didn't -- even though I have property in here, I didn't
receive this notice, but I'm not complaining about that, because I
found out about it. But what bothers me about what happened there
is that the entrance/exit was changed without any -- any discussion
with any of the neighbors or the residents. It was changed overnight,
is my understanding, by Mr. Kant, whoever that is, and what
relationship he has to the county, I'm not absolutely sure. But it was
changed.
And what happened in the meeting, what was even more
disturbing, is that the lady who was here who was from the county
attorney's office -- I think they call her Audrey -- said that the
Page 177
December 16, 2003
purpose of the staff meeting with the community was to inform them
of the process.
Now, I thought the purpose was to allow the community to
participate, you know. I mean, I think that there could have been
some alternative suggestions had the residents known that the
entrance/exit were going to be changed. I think that there would
have been more people here had they known it was going to be
changed.
I hope that it wasn't done for the purpose of not having people
come to express themselves, and I hope that the purpose of this staff
meeting with the residents is not to inform them of the process,
because I, as an individual, know the process. I thought -- you know,
I would hope that it would be for them to have an opportunity to
participate.
I think that the church's experience with the Oaks residents was
a prime example of the residents participating in the discussion and
coming up with some fruitful results.
But I think in this situation, the way it was handled and
supported by the county attorney saying that that is the way the
ordinance is, maybe that's the reason they make these snap decisions
and don't -- and cut the residents out of the discussion in certain areas
because maybe they don't have respect for the residents.
I don't know, but I think it's wrong to proceed in this fashion and
to not allow residents who are being impacted by this not to have
their say. And in this case, that's what happened.
And the chairman of the commission -- I don't recall his name --
but we had a chat outside. He agreed that he was going to have a
chat with this -- the lady just here dressed in red. I don't know her
name.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Marjorie Student?
WILLIE ANTHONY: Yeah. Was going to have a talk with her
Page 178
December 16, 2003
about how she explained how the staff should operate with residents.
I don't know if he did or not. She's not here now. But that's kind of
how the staff operated in this position is if residents didn't count in
terms of how they changed things around, and I think that that -- that
shouldn't take place in that manner.
Now, the gentleman mentioned about the fence, I think that the
-- I think that what he's proposed and what the staff told me that the
new law is, it's probably the acceptable way it should be done
because the existing fence around existing Carlisle has no vegetation.
You know, it sits out there naked by itself.
And if, in fact, the new rule said that you're going to buffer it
from the outside instead of no buffering at all, I think that's
acceptable. I don't think a lot of people is opposed to this, per se. I
think that they -- they understand that some development is going to
take place.
But what is happening at -- there's residents that's been there for
over 20 years, before the Carlisle got there or anything else. And
what is happening to those people is that the Arbour Walk has been
put in, the Bear's Lake's been put in, and all those -- those other
developments to the -- to the west has been put in.
And the purpose of all these PUDs, as far as I'm concerned, is to
change the density. That's one of the reasons, let's put it that way.
Because the density everybody else has got to suffer with is one unit
per acre.
It would seem to me that you got, what, maybe 25 acres left,
why do those people have to operate on a one unit per acre density
when everybody else all around them who came in later has been
allowed to at least go three units per acre, and maybe in some
instances even higher, but at least that, and everybody else who has
not come in to say -- requesting their changes are still stuck with the
one unit per acre.
Page 179
December 16, 2003
And I think that that is part of the problem of even my feelings
about this, even though I don't object to it per se, is that these people
are being allowed this, and I'm stuck with one unit an acre. And
there's a whole lot of dynamics and property changes about density.
This is what drives value and everything else in certain
situations, you know. And when you block people in like that, it's --
I don't think it's -- I don't think it's fair and I don't think it's right. But
I think the reason it's being done is just like the staff, and I turned
and told the Planning Commission, is that you ca make these
decisions out of view of the residents. And I think that that's
something that ought not be -- it ought not be portrayed to the
residents that that's the case. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Don't go away. How far do you live
from this proposed site?
WILLIE ANTHONY: Well, it's -- let's see. My property's -- I
would say probably -- well, like -- a gentleman by the name of Fred,
I called him, Fred Reischl.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Reischl.
WILLIE ANTHONY: And he said I should have received one.
So I'm -- I don't know. I'd imagine, I guess, I must be in the 500 feet
if he said that I would -- I should have gotten one. And he sent me
one. I'm not complaining about that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I am, I'm going to.
WILLIE ANTHONY: Well, I mean, he sent me one, and I
guess I just got missed, and I can live with being missed. But what
bothers me how -- how the issue was handled before the Planning
Commission and how changes were made and residents weren't
allowed to participate.
I mean, that could have been -- internal traffic system could
have tooken (sic) place. On Orange Blossom, my thing is stacking
lanes and everything. How you going to stack traffic on Yarberry
Page 180
December 16, 2003
with that narrow street? I mean, you already opened it to Arbour
Walk. All those residents come through there. Not all of them, but a
lot of them, because Orange Blossom has turned into an extremely
busy connector, because it connects Goodlette Road for Airport
Road. I use it a lot.
But what I'm saying is, is that, if you open up all that, these
people there, what are you going to do with the traffic when they pull
off of Orange Blossom onto Yarberry and they got to make a left
turn? They got to sit in the traffic lane until such time as it clears.
And on Orange Blossom, that in itself would not be the case.
And they indicated it was because of the development. It would
probably only be a few cars using it. It seems to me there could be
another alternative, but the residents weren't allowed to even discuss
that because it wasn't brought up, because the change hadn't bee
made until the night before, I was told.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
WILLIE ANTHONY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I just wanted to ask
Mr. Kepple, you had said that you would landscape the outside of
whatever you put in, whether it be a fence or whatever -- MR. KEPPLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- so that it would be more
pleasing. And my experiences are -- my observations, let me put it
that way. My observations have been that the landscaping that has
been installed on the outside of walls is never very good and not only
that, but it seems to die because it's not cared for, not watered, and
then it-- then it just becomes trashy looking.
And I was wondering what assurances you ca give these people
Page 181
December 16, 2003
that that's not going to happen.
MR. KF~PPLE: Part of your experience is the same as mine, but
my experience along that line is the landscaping that's provided
outside of walls next to adjacent property isn't cared for. My
experience is where there's landscaping outside of a wall or fence
around the perimeter next to a road, it is -- it is normally cared for
because that gives the perception of the community within it.
However, to answer your question directly, it will be irrigated.
It will meet at least the minimum county standards, and I've been
assured by the developer it will meet in excess of the county
standards.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many feet of landscaping is
that going to be?
MR. KF~PPLE: A minimum of six feet from the wall or fence.
And I'm told that it will -- almost assuredly it will not be a wall. It
will be some type of a fence so it doesn't give the appearance of a
walled --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And not like a chain linked fence
where it looks -- if it's something like that, it would have a softer --
MR. KEPPLE: If it's -- we have not decided on the type of
fence at this point. Whatever type it is, it will have to meet the
county standards. I believe the maximum height is four feet in that
yard. That's considered a front yard also since it would abut a road,
and we would put vegetation in it too, between the entire fence.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we go back to public speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have one final speaker. Orsie Anthony.
ORSIE ANTHONY: Good afternoon. My name is Orsie
Anthony, and I live to the south of the property, the very next lot to
the south.
There's a -- what do you call it -- a water retention pond that
Page 182
December 16, 2003
was installed probably 12, 18 months ago, or maybe a little longer.
And there was a meeting also called last December, a public
informative type meeting up at the Carlisle building. I was at that
meeting, and one of my first questions was, where was the entrance
going to be? They said that the entrance was going to be on Orange
Blossom Drive.
One of my other questions was, was they -- was it an assisted
type living community? And they said, no, it wasn't. It was an
upscale community, approximately quarter million dollar homes.
They also interjected that they were looking at -- at that meeting
looking at leasing the water retention pond from the county to
beautify their property or use it as a selling point or whatever.
But at the planning meeting, they had changed the entrance
from Orange Blossom to Yarberry, decided to table the pond
discussion until later, and I have a good -- pretty good, strong feeling
that eventually they probably will come back to the county to talk to
them about leasing the lake, and if that happens, I have some
concerns as to what's going to happen to the south side of the lake,
because this property's on the immediate north side of the lake. I live
on the immediate south side, and I was also under the impression that
my property was sort of like lake front property, too. I do not want
to see a berm, a fence or anything.
The county told me before they put the lake in that they had
gotten away from fencing in water retention lakes or ponds.
And this is not a part of the PUD, but I have a strong feeling that
it's probably going to become a part of this Carlisle Regency effort
later on in terms of trying to lease this lake from the county.
And there's nothing -- everything is pretty vague here. There's
nothing in the -- in the presentation he just made about the type of
entrance, whether it's going to be like a gate at -- on Yarberry Lane,
whether they're going to upgrade it any.
Page 183
December 16, 2003
My only way -- actually, sometimes -- a lot of times I cut
through and come through Arbour Walk, but it's coming out through
Yarberry Lane out to Orange Blossom and either going north -- east
or west.
And it would seem to me that at least they could put maybe
another -- another lane that went through that property on the west
side of that property, so when they come out, they could just come up
to Orange Blossom or-- coming in and they wouldn't -- actually it
would be like three lanes for that little section.
I don't see where it would be fair to us to just come out there,
just tap the whole road. There's no streetlights, there's no speed
bumps, there's no markings or anything. And it's difficult sometimes
getting out onto Orange Blossom Drive. All of the communities in
that area has entrances on Orange Blossom.
And if-- initial planning, they was planning on doing the
entrance on Orange Blossom. Why would the county department
recommend or talk them into or suggest that they use Yarberry Lane?
That's beyond me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
ORSIE ANTHONY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'll find that out.
Mr. Reischl?
MR. REISCHL: Ed Kant said he had another engagement that
he had to go to, but I -- before he left, I asked him the traffic
situation. He said that with 35 residences and being an age-restricted
community, that his calculations for the peak hour were 10 to 15 trips
during a peak hour, which he said does not warrant turn lane or
anything similar to that. That was his statement on the traffic.
Plus this community also interconnects to the Carlisle to the
east, which has an access on Orange Blossom and on Airport. So
basically this community has -- for 35 residents, this has three --
Page 184
December 16, 2003
access to three roads.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What about the notification?
MR. REISCHL: I spoke with Mr. Anthony on the phone, and
he was on the list. He was mailed a notification. We're not required
to do a --
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
MR. REISCHL: No, a--
A second notification?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Registered letter?
MR. REISCHL: -- registered letter. So, you know, once it gets
into the post office hands -- and I don't want to blame the post office,
but I -- you know, he was mailed one, and Mr. Anthony and I spoke
about that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who's got the phone?
MR. MUDD: Scrambling in the back, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'll take care of that, if you
want.
So did he get notified before the meeting?
MR. REISCHL: Before the Planning Commission?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before the --
MR. REISCHL: We spoke before the -- somehow he got notice,
but I don't know how he received the notice.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What about the neighborhood
meeting?
MR. REISCHL: This was one of the last neighborhood info
meetings that occurred before submittal to the county. One of the
reasons that the rule was changed was so the county staff has to look
at the project.
And in this case, Mr. Kant would have said no, the access has to
be on Yarberry, and we would have known that at the neighborhood
info meeting. But because this was one of the last ones where the
neighborhood info meeting occurred before it was submitted to us,
Page 185
December 16, 2003
we had no plans to look at, so that's why the information was --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I see.
MR. REISCHL: -- not what you see before you today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's one of those that got caught in
the old system, that's what you're saying, the old Land -- MR. REISCHL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Development Code where
notification wasn't as wide as what we're doing today.
MR. REISCHL: No, it was -- it was a neighborhood
information meeting, but under the old code, the neighborhood info
meeting was before it was submitted to the county.
So when he said -- Mr. Kepple stated at the meeting that the
entrance was going to be off Orange Blossom, that's how Mr. Kepple
submitted it. After the first round of review, Ed Kant said it's got to
be off Yarberry.
Under today's system, then we would have had the
neighborhood info meeting and we would have been able to tell the
public, access is going to be off Yarberry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. Any --
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there any chance that we can
get that changed from Yarberry to Orange Blossom, the entrance?
MR. REISCHL: Mr. Kant said that he strongly advised having
it off of Yarberry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if they can't make a
left-hand turn and are not going to construct a left-hand turn off of
Orange Blossom onto Yarberry, seems to me that might be a problem
for -- how many residents are we talking that are living south of this
project?
MR. REISCHL: Probably in the neighborhood of 20. It's
RSF-1, so they're single family.
Page 186
December 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we have 20, and the we're
going to have an additional what, 35? MR. REISCHL: Thirty-five.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. This -- doesn't that
constitute -- and that's pretty narrow in there at that point in time,
Orange Blossom.
MR. REISCHL: I don't know. It appears from driving on it that
it's narrow. I don't know the measurement though.
But again, this is an age-restricted community. And, again, Mr.
Kant's tables show that in age-restricted communities that -- and
especially ones where they're going to share facilities with the
adjoining Carlisle, that a lot of the driving will be between Carlisle
Regency and the facilities at the Carlisle. Now, I'm not saying that
people are never going to leave this facility, but not as much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So this is basically going to be an
age-restricted area?
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So there's going to be
probably a lot of service trucks going in this area, too?
MR. REISCHL: As many as most single-family neighborhoods,
I would think, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You've got the lawn care and pool
service --
MR. REISCHL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and all this other stuff. Okay.
So maybe we ought to take a look at this and see about putting
an access point off of Orange Blossom into this -- into this
community, and, of course, then they've got the other one that will
take them out to Airport Road. But I think that since we've got 20
other families down south of there, and then we've got -- it's either
that or we come up with a left-hand turn lane.
Page 187
December 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator.
Commissioner, the other section of Carlisle has access already
on Orange Blossom to Airport. That is probably one of the reasons
for the recommendation that this section come off of Yarberry. If
that's not the desire of this board, we can work with off Orange
Blossom, but I think the issue was in providing interconnection and
alternatives.
If this comes off of Yarberry, it's not a lot of trips, but it's
beneficial to have that open to all directions such that both this
section and the other can go either to Airport, to Orange Blossom or
to Yarberry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, like I said, I'm concerned
about the residents that are south of this project. Then, of course,
we're going to have probably a lot of service personnel that are going
to probably ingress and egress from this project.
MR. FEDER: I would imagine they'd be coming off of Airport
or onto Orange Blossom, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yarberry is pretty narrow, isn't it?
MR. FEDER: Yes. It wouldn't be the area of choice to come in,
I'm sure. But the idea was to reduce the impacts on Orange Blossom
as well. There's already an access point that exists today on Orange
Blossom and Airport. But, again, we'll respond by pleasure of the
board. If their feeling is that that access to Yarberry is problematic to
the neighborhood, we can work with it on Orange Blossom.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we ask the petition to -- I
mean, if you have 1 O-foot lanes, why don't we ask them to improve it
to 12-foot lanes or something like that.
MR. FEDER: On Yarberry?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
Page 188
December 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So at least -- and the we get some
relief, and also the people that want to turn south off of Orange
Blossom, that maybe we should have them construct a left-hand turn
lane, too.
MR. FEDER: Yeah. I don't think your volume requires a
left-hand turn, but I think that the concern in your volumes and
access off of both, if we could require that they expand that to a
12-foot lane, might be very beneficial.
I also was pleased to hear that our retention areas are being built
well enough now that they are becoming lake-front property.
But yes, I think that if we can go to 12-foot lanes -- and I do
apologize. I think the gentleman that came to you had a very definite
concern which, as you heard in the policy now, will know of our
issues and our input so that that's not a surprise to somebody later on.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Great. Any further
questions?
Mr. Weimer, you done with your phone calls?
MR. WEIMER: I apologize, Commissioners. I turned it off,
put it back in the bag, and the button hit the side and opened it again.
I do represent the petitioner also, if I could make a couple
comments to address your questions. I represent the Carlisle.
This is a very low traffic. These are folks going into retirement
homes as part of the Carlisle Extended Care Facility. Dining
facilities, et cetera, are located all in-house.
The outgoing traffic, I think, will be much, much less than
anybody estimates. Do they have the ability to have automobiles in
the garages, yes. Do they have a need to go out for a lot of the care
packages, no; that's why we're building this particular type of
facility.
The residents on Yarborrow (sic), we're happy to work with
them either way. We're -- we got caught in a bind, either/or. Staff
Page 189
December 16, 2003
wanted one way. Planning Commission wanted different ways.
Everybody's going different ways.
We'll put the entrance wherever you say to put it. It makes a
difference of one unit to us in there where the entrance is. We just
ask to be able to move forward. We'll put the entrance wherever
everybody's happy with it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weimer, you're representing --
MR. WEIMER: The Carlisle, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you a registered lobbyist?
MR. WEIMER: No, I'm not a registered lobbyist.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. WEIMER: I work for them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You say you get paid --
MR. WEIMER: I'm employed by -- yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Kepple, is your client
willing to -- if the board's considering approval, to enhance
Yarborrow-- Yarberry Lane?
MR. KEPPLE: If I could get a clarification on what we're
talking about enhancing, widening it to the 12-foot lanes?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. KEPPLE: Up to our entrance or through the -- just so I'm
clear on whether it's up to our entrance or to the frontage of our
property.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'd like to get some direction
here from transportation here, if we could. They being in the
transportation field, they could probably give us, hopefully, some --
enlighten us here.
MR. FEDER: Well, I'd like to see it throughout. I think it's
reasonable to say, if they went from Orange Blossom through their
entrance, and then phased down. And what they could do is add,
Page 190
December 16, 2003
obviously, four feet on one side and modify the center line, but they'd
have to extend that down to then relate that back over if they had it
on one side, otherwise they have to do it on both sides two feet and
keep the center line where it is today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is your recommendations to
Anthony Court or to their entrance or to their southern property line
MR. FEDER: To the southern property line.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Southern property line.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. We're getting ready to
close the public hearing.
Mr. Kepple, do you have anything else?
MR. KEPPLE: No, sir, and I don't believe that would be a
problem with widening the road as requested.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Close the public hearing.
Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion for approval,
with all the stipulations that we mentioned as far as the widening --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Widening.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- Yarberry Lane for the full
length. I'm sorry, was that correct?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Down to their southern --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Southern property line.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- property line --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Southern property line, right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to 12-foot.
MR. REISCHL: It was 12-foot lanes to the entrance and then
taper down to meet the existing at the property line.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
Page 191
December 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And also, too, I would imagine
to include all staff's recommendations and the Planning
Commission's recommendations.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
You okay? Go one more item?
Item # 1 OK
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX CATEGORY "A" FUNDING
POLICY FOR BEACH RENOURISHMENT AND BEACH PARK
FACII,ITIES- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is a time certain for four
o'clock. This item was continued from December 2nd -- this is item
number 10(K).
It was -- the item was continued from the December 2nd, 2003,
Page 192
December 16, 2003
BCC agenda, and the reason it was continued was so that you could
-- you could discuss it during the Tourist Development Council
Workshop, and that was accomplished.
And the item is, approve a Tourist Development Tax Category
"A" Funding policy for beach renourishment and beach park
facilities. Mr. Wert will present.
Commissioners, to make it short, it's the same policy that we
presented, the cross-outs in those three particular -- or the four
particular areas, they're crossed out now and the policy reads based
as we briefed it to you at the -- at the TDC workshop.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And all the Commissioners were
there except for Commissioner Coyle.
Commissioner Coyle, you need any briefing on --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I understand it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Public speakers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree with it; I understand it.
MS. FILSON: Would you like me to call them now, sir?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MS. FILSON: I have two public speakers. The first one is Gary
Galleberg. He will be followed by John Arceri.
MR. GALLEBERG: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm
Vice Mayor Gary Galleberg. I'm here today on behalf of the City of
the Naples. And this issue has been much discussed and much
debated, so I'll be very brief. I know you have a very long day today.
And that is that our -- at our meeting yesterday, the Naples City
Council unanimously endorsed approval of this policy as
recommended by staff.
We believe that it strikes the right balance of preserving the
intent originally envisioned by your Coastal Advisory Committee,
but also recognizing the need for efforts to increase public access and
explicitly laying out the use of those funds.
Page 193
December 16, 2003
I think your staff and the Coastal Advisory Committee, of which
I'm chair, and your Tourist Development Council, all did very well to
work together.
And finally, I want to commend you and say that I appreciate
your decision two weeks ago to continue this, because the result is
that the various advisory boards and municipalities and so forth, I
think, collectively, feel that everyone's had their input into this
process and that we've ended up at the right place. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Mr. John Arceri.
MR. ARCERI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. John Arceri,
for the record, representing the City of Marco Island.
The City of Marco Island unanimously approves of the staffs
recommendation. I think you've seen our resolution on this, issued
on December 1st unanimously approving of it.
It's been a difficult process getting here, but I think the end
result was one in which both sides listened to each other and we
ended up with a balanced policy in my justification.
Just two comments that I want to make about the policy though.
One is the resources to fund this policy. I think staff in their
executive summary talks about the fact that there is not adequate
funds in the long term to fund this policy.
To be a little bit more specific about it though, if you look at last
1 O-year budget that the Coastal Advisory Committee submitted to
you back in May, which they gave you 1 O-year budget projections, if
you look at that budget projection and now try to finance the
additional funding required for this policy, it's okay till about 2008,
and then we start running a little negative in 2009 and have to start
drawing on reserves. That was based on the Naples projects for
renourishment, costing about nine million back in May.
The latest estimate could be as high as 17 million. So if that's
Page 194
December 16, 2003
true, that definitely would create some shortfalls in shorter than 2008.
I think the concern, of course, is that in the policy the mandated
reserves and mandated expenditures for beach park facilities may not
leave adequate funding in the long term for all of the renourishment
work.
Now, I think additional resource funding has got to be looked at,
and I think you talked about at the workshop the increase in tourist
development tax of one percent. That would bring about 1.2 million
into the category A. It may not be adequate to close the gap.
You may have to look at more debt financing. I mean, the
Coastal Advisory Committee is probably going to be given the task
of coming up with a revised budget, and debt financing may be part
of that in order to be able to do all of this and still have a balanced
budget.
And third, the Advisory Committee has always been looking at
this interest on tourist development funds. These funds are usually
complected and not spent for several years. And the interest on those
funds, on those tourist development funds, which amount to about a
half a million a year, go to the county's general fund not back to the
tourist development. It would be nice if we could see that resource
go back to the tourist development fund rather than to the county
general fund.
The only second comment, in our resolution we mention the fact
that the city strongly recommends the eligibility for its northern
beach known as Hideaway Beach. We recognize the fact that that
beach has to improve its access through a public pathway, from a
public street, also for the first time in 12 years, this policy will
require significant cost sharing by the residents of the Hideaway
area.
So we're just, with our expectation, that this policy will lead to
some funding on a minimum basis for the northern beach.
Page 195
December 16, 2003
Also, as you know, there's a lot of projects in progress right now
to save that beach. Everything from the temporary T-groins to be
replaced with permanent.
We would hope that some agreement between the county and
the city and the residents of Hideaway could be worked out so those
projects could proceed rather than seeing the beach disappear and all
of the negatives associated with that that all of our reports have
shown while we work out the pathway, while we work out the taxing
districts, which the city is setting up right now, to collect the funds
from the residents.
Again, I think is a -- I listened to a little bit this morning about
the discussion on charter. And like you were talking about, the
Naples project that gave you a lot of trouble, I think this is another
one that ended up the right way.
Yeah, I mean, a lot of feelings back and forth, a lot of emotions,
but I think in the end -- and that's really what really counts, eve
though it took a couple of months, I think it ended up with a balance
program where at least I felt there was listening on all sides.
So I thank the commission for that process of not making a
decision until all of the inputs were there.
And I repeat what Gary said, I think going back to the Tourist
Development Council was a excellent idea. I think it closed any kind
of divisiveness that maybe existed between you and the advisory
committee.
So again, I want to thank you, and Marco is fully supportive of
this policy. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we need to thank the
municipalities for their participation. And I -- going through this
exercise, I recognize we need to renourish the public beaches,
people's beaches, foremost before access, so we might have to, you
know, case by case basis, tweak the ordinance or take a look at, like
Page 196
December 16, 2003
you said, the interest moneys that are accrued and some other ideas
that are coming forward. But the people's beaches are number one.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I just want to thank
everybody in Marco and the City of Naples for working with us and
for coming up with a nice compromise, and I just hope that you'll
come back on board with the CAC group.
MR. ARCERI: If I'm asked, Commissioner, I said I would
come back, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Great. Same with Ron
Pennington, who's sitting out in the crowd there, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You stole my thunder.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I really want to thank
everybody that was working with this. I know there was some
concerns being that I represent the north area, and so there was some
concerns in my district, too, but I believe this all worked out for the
better of all of Collier County, and I want to thank everybody that
got involved in this.
MR. ARCERI: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Entertain a motion.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to
approve the recommendation from the -- from the TDC -- or from the
staff, I'm sorry, but then was confirmed as -- by the City of Marco
and the City of Naples as acceptable, and I'd like to ask staff if they
would work with the City of Marco on their request to further
explore renourishing some of the beaches that could affect the
beaches farther on down on Hideaway.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I think that's a good thing for the CAC to
do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good.
Page 197
December 16, 2003
MR. MUDD: You want to keep it -- you want them to entertain
that particular issue with both cities.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, very good.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Manager, aren't we also --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on. Let me recognize the --
the motions.
Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle
(sic).
Commissioner Halas and then Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aren't we also looking at
possibilities of working with both state and federal to get state and
federal grants to hopefully replenish -- I know it's going to take time,
but we're going to put that in motion also, and hopefully that --
maybe we can add the additional one percent to the tourist
development tax, but also the idea of getting state and federal money
down here.
MR. MUDD: Sir, that one percent item, based on the TDC
workshop was going to be heard at the TDC, and it was going to be
dialogued at that particular forum before this board acted upon.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, yes, please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the whole key to this.
I'll be honest with you, the present proposal we got, I still feel falls
short of what we really need to come up with a balance for beach
access. That's one of my biggest concerns.
However, if I know we're moving forward on the one percent,
which is going to give us the extra dollars for tourism, $3 million a
year for promotional tourism and can free up that $1.2 million to be
added to our present amount of beach access money that we're
coming up with, that to me would be a solution going in the right
direction.
Page 198
December 16, 2003
I can see a win-win situation where the tourist industry out there
would benefit greatly with $3 million of advertising money, which
they get a return of $7 for every one spent, and the citizens of Collier
County that don't have access to their beaches in certain areas
because of the fact that the access has been denied to the private
beaches, this will give us the money we need to maybe make
corrections to that as time goes along.
And so, with that, I am going to vote in favor of this motion, but
I really do think that we have to make a real sincere effort to come up
with more money for beach access so we meet all the needs of
Collier County residents.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I agree.
Any discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Any opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
Let's take a seven-minute break. And in the interim, can we
kind of see what's out there? We have a lot of general public here
want -- still here, so if we can get them moved up, I'd appreciate it.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Everybody take their seats,
please. Take your seats, please. We're going to move the agenda
Page 199
December 16, 2003
around.
And Sue, which item did that -- we have a number of speakers
on, Sue.9
MS. FILSON: We--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's Lely --
MS. FILSON: Number !0(A), we have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
MS. FILSON: The rest of them we have one speaker; public
comment we have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let's take ! 0(G) next, and
that is --
MR. MUDD: That's to approve a development agreement with
Stock Development, LLC, which among other things, resolves a
long-standing issue involving the Lely Resorts PUD and
development order, and which agreement includes, one, the
conveyance to the county, at no cost, of needed right-of-way along
Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road and for certain
intersection improvements.
Number two, allows for needed stormwater management
projects.
Number three, requires developer to construct, in place of a
six-lane roadway, a four-lane roadway from Rattlesnake Hammock
Road to Lely Resort Boulevard.
Number four, requires developer to construct sidewalks and
provide bicycle tracks and easements for county bus shelter.
And there's two fours in this, so there's -- number five would be,
requires developer to pay county $200,000 for county's overlay of
Lely Boulevard.
And number six requires the county give final acceptance for
the maintenance of certain roadways which were previously
preliminarily accepted by the county.
Page 200
December 16, 2003
Mr. Feder will present.
MR. FEDER: Again, for the record, Norma Feder,
transportation administrator. I'll try and be brief. I realize we're in
the later hour here.
But we had come to you some time ago, as you know, in
addressing the issue of alignment of the extension of Santa Barbara
Boulevard and the issue of six lanes through the center of Lely
Resorts.
This graphic here just displays what came out of those
discussions, and that was the decision to go four lanes from Santa
Barbara at Davis on down to Rattlesnake basically along the Polly
alignment.
As part of that discussion and in agreement to limit to four lane
collector road within Lely Resorts, there are a number of issues that
we addressed, all of those included in this agreement, as well as a
few other issues. And I'll just try to highlight them very quickly and
see if you have any questions.
As you see here in the second graphic, you have a provision for
drainage easements, as was already identified, right-of-way
provisions on Rattlesnake road, stormwater provisions for 951, and
right-of-way being provided at intersections and the provisions for
four lanes along Lely Resort, Friendlywood Drive and Lely Cultural.
Again, in the next picture you see here is, again, the intersection
right-of-way to allow 951 to operate well. Again, the developer may
install noise wall and berm at their choice. They are providing no
additional accesses to 951 other than the three that exist today as part
of the agreement.
They're also providing for provisions for their CAT, Collier
Area Transit system. As you see here, plus new sidewalks being
developed within the community. That is new to the agreement from
what we discussed previously, was added to the agreement.
Page 201
December 16, 2003
Additionally, going on with CAT, sidewalk along Celeste,
which was an agreement to allow us to restrict the right-of-way and
develop the six lanes in a controlled access. 951 they're taking the
sidewalk internal to the community along Celeste, that was in the
prior agreement, plus adding additional sidewalks within the
community, and, again, providing for the transit system and other
sidewalks.
The last issues deal with road maintenance. We had
preliminarily accepted a number of roadways back in 1995. Never
formally accepted them. Through this agreement, you are now
formally accepting those items, 200,000 towards resurfacing of those
roadways is being provided by the developer in the current estimate,
about 400,000 that will be needed in the next few years to resurface
those roadways.
And, again, this shows you, again, in yellow, the ones that are
being brought on that were preliminarily accepted. The ones in red
have already been previously accepted onto the system.
And that's a very quick overview, other than to tell you that the
agreement mirrors everything we had discussed previously, and adds
in the addition of taking on those preliminary accepted roadways for
operations and maintenance by the county.
Now, that is the roadway and the roadside drainage, but it does
not include the landscaping. That will still be done by the CDC. And
it does include additions of sidewalks and provisions for the Collier
Area Transit which weren't in the other previous. Are there any questions by the board?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions by the board?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Feder, I think you've
negotiated a wonderful settlement of this issue. It seems to please the
residents, as well as everyone else and works in the county's best
Page 202
December 16, 2003
interest, and I will make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Fiala. Public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have one public speaker, Mr.
Ken Drum.
MR. DRUM: I have a new hat. This is Lely Resort Task Force.
But I want to thank everyone that has -- it's been a five-year
problem, which has now come to resolution, and with this -- with the
help of several of the commissioners, and particularly Norm Feder,
who really set the framework for this settlement, and, of course, our
own commissioner, Donna Fiala, who started way back before she
was a commissioner trying to help us reach a resolution on this. So thanks again.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I just -- I've got to make this
observation, Mr. Drum. At least three times today, maybe four
times, we've had people come here and express their appreciation at
how well things have worked out through the efforts of the county
staff and, perhaps, a developer.
You know, it's such a wonderful contrast to people who come
here and allege that they have no voice in government and that they
have no access to their government. So I'd like to thank you for
getting involved and working constructively with the staff and
making good things happen.
MR. DRUM: Thank you very much. I can't -- five years is a
long time to enjoy something, but today's a good day for us. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Thank you.
Page 203
December 16, 2003
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, if I could add -- three things I
need to bring to your attention as well.
In the document you have, it still shows 10,150 vested units for
Lely Resorts. This is what they were originally vested under the
DRI. As part of the Wentworth PUD, they had said that they would
remove 1,000 of those vesting units, and we have the modification
that we're going to be giving you for the signature in that agreement
to reflect 9,150 as the current level of vesting.
The other thing is, as a reference, I believe it's to 4(A), it should
have been 14. We're going to make that minor scrivener change.
And also in the right-of-way being provided, they are providing
right-of-way, and then a slope of easement, a portion of it's an
easement, so that will modify a little bit the maps that you have in
there, but nonetheless, it gives us what we need for the transportation
improvement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, two things, if I may, Mr.
Feder.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Should we include the
thousand reduction in the motion; do you think?
MR. FEDER: Yes, I'd ask you to recognize that, if you take the
action, those three areas of change, and we'll be providing that to you
as a modification to what you have in your package.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The other thing is, what
safeguards are in place to assure that they will comply with these
promises as far as the roads go?
MR. FEDER: Well, first of all, this is a-- this is a developer
contribution agreement specific. They have to follow a number of
things. First of all, they're committing to development of the
Page 204
December 16, 2003
four-lane all the way up to Rattlesnake by 2008, if not sooner if we
develop the extension of Santa Barbara. If we're earlier than 2008,
they're committing to their four-lane at that time.
Their issuance of future building permits would be tied to their
continued maintenance of the agreements as set forth in this DCA, or
developer contribution agreement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So it's within our power, if they
do not fulfill the obligations of the contribution agreement, that we
could stop issuing building permits for the development?
MR. FEDER: Very definitely, and our intent is very definitely
to monitor it, as we've been doing, particularly recently.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And Commissioner Coyle,
that's -- Mr. Feder's comments are in your motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, they are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And into the second.
Any discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #8A
Page 205
December 16, 2003
ORDINANCE 2003-67 ADOPTING THE 2003 CYCLE 2
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS AND
TRANSMITTING SAME TO DCA
Commissioners, I was to asked that we need a motion to
transmit to DCA item 8(A) for all the growth management plan
amendments, ordinance number 2003 whatever.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So move.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So move.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 2003-469 RE PROCEEDING WITH FINANCING
REQUIREMENTS TO PURCHASE A 49.81 ACRE PARCEL OF
LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE
INTERSECTION OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD AND
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY, PROVIDING FOR DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS, TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS AND
ENVIRONMENTAIJ PROTECTION - ADOPTED
Page 206
December 16, 2003
Next item is 10(E), authorize staff to proceed with financing
requirements to purchase 4.9 -- 4. -- or 49.81 acres of parcel (sic),
location (sic) northwest quadrant of the intersection of Goodlette
Road, Goodlette-Frank Road, and Golden Gate Parkway.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. MUDD: The -- this is a resolution to basically put the
financing in place in order to do it.
Mr. Mitchell from the clerk's office needs 45 days to get the
commercial paper product there so we can have the short-term loan
in order to -- in order to move along this project.
Mr. Feder has got two appraisals ongoing right now, neither one
are complete with the final numbers yet. As soon as we get those, we
will go over to Mr. Passidomo and Mr. Scott Cameron, and we will
start negotiating a buyer/seller arrangement.
You know, they've got an offer out there how much they want,
now you've got to get into negotiations -- just like buying a house --
within our appraisals, and then hopefully we'll come back to this
board on 13, January with a -- with a deal that both parties can agree
to, and then we'll start finalizing the dollar amounts on this loan.
But Mr. Mitchell needed some lead time in order to get it, that's
why the amount Jim and I talked about, less than or up to $25 million
on the loan amount, and we can -- and we can adjust downward
accordingly based on appraised values and what the final agreement
is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
Any questions by the commissioners?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Have we had any input with any
partners in this buying of this land?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have -- we have talked to the
Page 207
December 16, 2003
South Florida Water Management District, and outside of the $1
million we get from the Big Cypress Basin for the South Golden
Gate Estates properties that was negotiated earlier, that's the only
amount forthcoming that they've identified at this particular time.
We get that one million dollars for a 20-year period of time, if
you remember correctly, according to that agreement, or until such
time as they take over our secondary system, which I heard the other
day is looking less and less promising. And they've been directed not
to do it.
The next -- the next issue, we've got -- Norman has identified up
to $2.7 million that he can use impact fees for to do -- to do that road
segment in blue that's on -- that's on your computer screen right now.
We've talked to the City of Naples. They have not been
forthcoming with any promise of aid at this particular juncture.
So what we have right now is $2.7 million worth of impact fee
money and a $1 million annual contribution from the Big Cypress
Basin that we can put up against this, and the rest will have to come
out of non-ad valorem proceeds as per the resolution that you have in
your packet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could Commissioner Coyle
maybe talk about this with the people in the City of Naples? Because
this will be very beneficial for them also, especially with the
upcoming -- what do they call it, TDMLs, or -- yeah, that we're going
to have to address here in -- by year 2006, 2007, and it sure would be
nice if they would help us out, because it's going to affect them as far
as stormwater being dispensed into Naples Bay there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have talked with them about that
in the past. I will do so again. I -- just yesterday I talked with
representatives of the Conservancy about the property to the south
side of Golden Gate Parkway, and there are meetings proceeding
about that.
Page 208
December 16, 2003
Whether it develops any interest for this particular property, I
don't know yet, but we'll continue to work on that. But I will talk
with the City of Naples, the city council, some more about this issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: By the way, please don't -- don't
underestimate the impact of the chairman's letter to the Green Space
Committee, Conservation Collier. Although it was not on the
recommended list, the reason for that was that what they had before
them for consideration was a entire 50-acre parcel, so they didn't
rank the 50-acre parcel as one of their top items, but clearly, when
this particular parcel becomes something less than a 50-acre parcel, I
have the feeling that Chairman Henning's request to them will -- will
break some money loose with respect to that one also.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good. Would you like to make a
motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I'll make a motion that we
approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
I just wanted to make a little comment during discussion. At
this holiday time of year and with the Fleishmanns owning so much
property where -- millions and millions and millions, don't you think
it's a wonderful time for them to gift us with some of this?
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
know, would help us a lot.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
It would be wonderful.
Yeah.
Wonderful.
Just a couple million dollars, you
That's -- no, I won't talk about
We got public speakers, but I'm
Page 209
December 16, 2003
going to go to Commissioner Halas first.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm just concerned about --
because I think we're just about bonded out. Maybe the county
manager could give us some insight on that as far as where we're
going. And I know that we're going to have some real problems
looming in the not too distant future in regards to how we're going to
address our stormwater issues here.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is one of them.
MR. MUDD: -- Mr. Smykowski, your office of management,
budget -- your office -- your office of management and budget
director --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Getting late.
MR. MUDD: -- will talk about the bonding particular item, and
it's on your overhead right now.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Commissioners, for the record, Michael
Smykowski.
I've been working with our financial advisor. Given the recent
issuance o£bonds that pledged sales tax as well as gas tax, we're
looking at our available remaining capacity as it relates to this issue
as well as our ability to finance other projects.
The update that is in the draft that I received from Mr. Reagan
on Friday shows our estimated remaining bonding capacity at
roughly $208 million. But I will tell you, you have projects in the
pipeline that are either commitments for the road financing plan or
items that are approved in this year's budget or are in various stages
of design for future construction here on campus.
Just to name a few the courthouse annex, the initial three floors,
a campus parking deck, the emergency operations center, the north
regional park, the sheriff's special operations center which is
budgeted this year, the new fleet facility, which is budgeted this year.
Page 210
December 16, 2003
So you have projects thereabouts totalling some $178.4 million.
So on the sales tax side, that is the principal revenue source that is
typically used to finance general government-type operations.
Now, I also want to be clear, sales tax is not the sole remaining
bondable revenue. There's also a general basket of revenues that is
available of non-ad valorem revenues. That -- typically we use that
when we borrow funds on the commercial paper program. You
pledge available non-ad valorems.
But in the case of-- a recent example might have been like the
community development expansion. Obviously you're pledging the
pool of available non-ad valorem revenues, but the repayment
source, obviously we don't want to use sales tax to repay that because
that's solely from the community development functions, so we're
using building permits.
So while that basket of revenue provides some estimated
additional bonding capacity of $400 million, you also need to
recognize that those funds are used to fund current operations,
building permits, tax collector fees, the clerk of court's operations
and the like, so we want to be very judicious in our use of the basket
of revenues above and beyond our remaining sales tax capacity.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, long story short, it's tight. We
have -- we have -- we are bonding just about everything we have.
You have a little bit left on this slide. But if you have a problem with
an emergency or whatever, you need to have a little bit there that you
can go out and bond in order to bring those dollars about so that you
ca get stuff done.
We really would like to have those cost share partners step up to
the plate, bring their moneys to the table and help us with this
process. And if we could get it down to -- out of the county proceeds
-- we were paying some 50 percent of the purchase price and we
could get cost share partners to belly up to the table with their
Page 211
December 16, 2003
interest and help us with the other 50 percent, we probably have
something that's very doable.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just one question for Mike. Do
we have any bonds that are coming to their-- that are ending,
revenues that will be --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Those have been taken into account.
Over the last couple years, we have had some gas tax bond issues
that came to fruition, you also had a state revenue sharing bond issue
that closed, and you also had the parks general obligation bond that --
issue that closed as well, so -- and in regard to updating the debt
capacity, upon finalization of that, we anticipate bringing that back to
the board via separate executive summary to walk through that in
much greater detail so you understand specifically exactly where
we're at and where we plan to go in the future.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's very, very important
that we know where we're at and where we're headed for. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please call up the public speaker.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Jim MacArthur.
MR. MacARTHUR: Commissioners, I'm Jim MacArthur, a
citizen of the county, and I'm here representing the Fleischmann
family. We'd like to contribute this entire piece --just kidding.
Thought it was time for a little levity here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'll take it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Merry Christmas to you, too.
MR. MacARTHUR: I don't know whether you should purchase
this land or not. I'm not here today to advise you one way or the
other on the purchase of this land. My purpose is to make sure the
record shows why you are being requested to take a look at this land.
The agenda says that you're being requested to look at it to
provide drainage improvements, transportation improvements, and
Page 212
December 16, 2003
environmental protection.
And I'm reminded of what the actor Hugh Grant said when they
found the prostitute in the front seat of his car. They said, why Mr.
Grant, did you have the prostitute in the front seat of your car?
And he said, well, I enjoy talking to ladies with a broad
experience.
That's how I would place the sections about drainage
improvements and environmental protection, kind of like the Hugh
Grant comment.
This is being requested for one reason and one reason only,
because if you build an overpass on Airport Road, you have one
hellacious traffic jam at Goodlette. If there's one thing we all know,
it's that.
In the morning you have a gigantic traffic jam at Goodlette. It's
so bad that you should not build an airport overpass unless you can
get this piece of land and do the roadways that Mr. Feder has
proposed here.
But there's another side of that same coin -- and let me make
sure you understand that-- and that is this, that if you do not have an
overpass, then there is no problem at Goodlette in the year 2025.
Let me say that again. If you do not put a overpass in, there is
no traffic problem on Goodlette in the year 2025.
The only reason you need this land, this $20 million worth of
land, and let's say four or five, six million dollars to put the roadways
around -- the only reason is because of the overpass potential at
Airport Road.
Let me read you the numbers just so you don't take my opinion.
These are the same data now that the Metropolitan Planning
Organization uses to look long range. It's the same data that Mr.
Feder and the staff use to get the grant from Tallahassee. It's the
same date that justifies the thinking of the overpass, and here's what
Page 213
December 16, 2003
it says.
In the year -- in the current time in the morning, the waiting
time, worst morning traffic is one minute. In the year 2005 if we do
not build an overpass, it rises to 1.1 minute, 65 seconds, average
waiting time in the year 2005.
Twenty years later, it averages 1.6 minutes. That's how long you
have to wait if we don't have an overpass on Airport Road, doing
nothing to Goodlette, no purchase of land, no roads around the side.
Leave it the way it is. However, if you build an overpass, in the year
2005 the jam-up goes to 9.5 minutes average at Goodlette.
By the year 2025, the traffic jam is up at 12 plus minutes, and
they stop the computer simulation at that point. That's as far as it
could run.
If you don't have an overpass, you don't have a problem. If you
do have an overpass, you've got a gigantic problem at Goodlette, and
you've got to solve it with the purchase of this land. So far as I
know, there's no other solution.
If you look at the cost of the overpass, it's $27 million. But if
you believe what I just said, it's another 20 for this land, and let's say
another five, six, seven to build the roads around the bank. Now
you're talking $54 million only because of the overpass, and that's
not the biggest traffic problem. It's larger in the evening going
toward Livingston.
In the evening at Livingston you're going to have an even bigger
jam-up. And I know if you folks authorize the overpass and
authorize this work done at Goodlette, politically you cannot allow
that jam-up to occur at Livingston. You've got to authorize
something in addition to what Livingston has right now.
Now, we've got three more overpasses on the books. Not
specified, but this one wasn't specified back when we had it on the
books back in 1990, and we've got three more on the books.
Page 214
December 16, 2003
Let's say we put an overpass in at Livingston. Now that's
another 27 million. You've talking 75 --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have to wrap it up, sir.
MR. MacARTHUR: I'm the -- I appreciate that. I'm the only
guy who was here for the pledge of allegiance this morning, not
being paid, and still here. I would ask your indulgence. I'm within
two or three minutes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, you have to wrap it up. I mean,
we have some other speakers. I appreciate your time here today.
MR. MacARTHUR: Okay. One more --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have some people behind you, so
I thank you.
MR. MacARTHUR: This is -- I feel like I have been cut off in
mid-sentence. I have listened to a number of people that lasted more
than five minutes. I've got one more minute, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, I appreciate --
MR. MacARTHUR: Yes or no?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't allow that to take place
without Mr. Feder's responding to it. You know, there's so many
misfacts that were just quoted. This is not really related to the
subject matter, but this is -- it deserves a reply of some type. Mr.
Feder?
MR. FEDER: Mr. Commissioner, again, for the record, Norman
Feder, transportation administrator.
What I will tell you is on the 5th at city hall, we will be
presenting thorough review of the overpass, the whole corridor
analysis and the facts, a lot of issues that I might bring up now.
The issue at hand though is the Fleischman purchase. And the
one clarification that I do want to make is the impact fees for about
2.7 million is, that is all that we're talking about relative to a
Page 215
December 16, 2003
transportation item for a need that exists today at Goodlette-Frank
Road to a city that was talking about the need for an overpass, and
we told them, no, there is no need, that you can handle it at grade.
So what I will tell you is as you see on the graphic here, if we
don't buy this and it goes into development hands -- they are already
calling me and figuring out how we can work with them to develop
this roadway, so there are other options relative to the roadway.
The issue at hand is that we've got a -- major drainage concerns
along the Gordon River. We have no available land. Anyone taking
a look at a map sees very quickly the very limit parcels you have.
The concept here is to take the bulk of this purchase that is
upland, not the eastern section which is environmentally sensitive
and was already raised to be looked at further, but to take the rest of
that land, develop a large retention area allowing that to then go over
into the wetland areas and filter out long before it reaches Naples
Bay.
And so, this is a retention item. There is no subterfuge. That's
what the purpose is for. You specifically cited, and that's why we
identified that the road need issue was 2.7 million that would be
available in impact fees, and to all the other facts and items cited,
we'll be happy to discuss those on the 5th.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. This is strictly a retention
pond, and if we lose this, and obviously it will go into commercial
development, and then there'll be a heavier impact on that particular
road that we're talking about, and that's the Parkway.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You know, everybody is due
their time, and the issue on hand was something different than the
topic that the gentleman was talking about. And I actually moved
this item to arrange it so he can speak. But I appreciate his
comments.
Page 216
December 16, 2003
Any questions on the motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I see a little activity taking
place in this room with Dwight Brock walking in. And is there
anything, Jim Mitchell, that you have to add? MR. MITCHELL: Separate issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the issue, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2003-68 RE PUDZ-2003-AR-3665, VINCENT
CAUTERO, AICP, OF COASTAL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS, INC., REPRESENTING GATES MCVEY-
KNOPKE, LLC, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE "A"
RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT TO A "PUD"
KNOWN AS THE LEMURIA PUD LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD, ADJACENT TO THE
SOUTH OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CARICA ROAD WATER
STORAGF, AND PIIMP STATION- ADOPTF, D
Getting back to the regular agenda, that would be --
MR. MUDD: 8(C), which used to be 17(D), Mr. Commissioner,
and that is PUDZ-2003-AR-3665, Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, of
Page 217
December 16, 2003
Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing Gates Mcvey
cannot be -- LLC, requesting a rezone from the "A" rural agricultural
zoning district to a PUD planned unit development district to be
known as the Lemuria PUD.
This project will consist of 72 residential dwelling units for a
density of 2.976 dwelling units per acre.
The property to be considered for this rezone is located on the
east side of Goodlette-Frank Road, north of Orange Blossom Drive,
south of Vanderbilt Beach Road, and adjacent to the south of the
Collier County Carica Water Storage and Pump Station in section 3,
township 49 south, range 25 east, Collier County, Florida, consisting
of 24.21 plus acres. Mr. Cautero.
MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
I'm sorry, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We want to swear.
MR. CAUTERO: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All persons wishing to participate in
this discussion, please rise, raise your right hand. The court reporter
will swear you in.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Ex parte communication? I
know that Todd Gates provided a packet for me. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I received a packet also. It's
in the file.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I received a packet and a visit.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, likewise.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
Page 218
December 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Same here. I received a packet
and a visit.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. This was pulled off the
summary agenda because staff had concerns.
You want to address those concerns or do you want --
MR. CAUTERO: I'll let Mr. Reischl address that.
My understanding, it was pulled off the summary agenda
because there was one negative vote at the Environmental Advisory
Council, and other than that, there's been no comment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay, okay, great.
MR. REISCHL: It was -- it was a misunderstanding. I was out
for the day.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. REISCHL: Mr. Schmitt put it on the summary. And when
I came back, I told him there was one negative vote. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Thanks.
Mr. Cautero, you briefly describe this item before us.
MR. CAUTERO: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the
record, Vince Cautero.
As Mr. Mudd said in his remarks reading the title of the agenda
item, it is a planned unit residential subdivision consisting of 24.2
acres on the east side of Goodlette Road between Monterey -- Calusa
Bay to the south, Monterey to the east, the water plant facility to the
north, and a portion of the Pelican Marsh PUD preserve area to the
north, and Pine Ridge across the road -- Goodlette Road to the west.
We're recom -- we're asking for your approval of 72 units that
was approved by the Environmental Advisory Council,
recommended for approval by that organization as well as the
Planning Commission.
If you -- I put a map on the ledge, if you will, that shows the
tract densities which are somewhat higher than the proposed density
Page 219
December 16, 2003
that we're asking for of 2.9 units per acres to just show you that the
densities of Monterey in that particular area of five units per acre, in
Calusa Bay, it's six, although the total densities of those subdivisions
are a little bit lower. Monterey is just under 4.7 as a whole, and
Calusa Bay is exactly at 3.0.
As far as the land use overview was concerned, there will be
four land use categories with residential as the predominant category.
The predominant land use in the residential tract would be
multi-family and two-family units with model homes and
recreational facilities. There is a recreation and open space land use
table as well as a conservation area table and infrastructure.
I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the Board of
Commissioners?
Can you tell us why the descending (sic) vote in the DC -- or
Environmental Advisory Board?
MR. CAUTERO: The member who voted against it did not
give any reason.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All right.
Any questions of our staff?.
(No response.)
MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, if I could just make a few,
again, clarifications, since you didn't -- the Planning Commission
was at the last Planning Commission meeting, and you didn't get the
results. The Planning Commission did vote 8-0 to recommend
approval.
There were a few minor changes. Probably the most, if you
want to call it significant of all, was that they said there shall be no
septic tank within 100 feet of the City of Naples wellfield.
And, again, because of the short time between the Planning
Commission and here, Patrick White and I are working on
Page 220
December 16, 2003
non-substantive legal sufficiency changes to the PUD.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. REISCHL: And we also recommend approval.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Close the public hearing.
Commissioner Fiala made a motion to approve as --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- staff's recommendations,
stipulations, and also the Planning Commission's, second by
Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 4-0.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2003-463 APPOINTING JANE BEE AND
JULIANNE BALLARD AND REAPPOINTING JOHN POWELL
TO THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEF,- ADOPTFD
Goes to item -- now we're really back on track-- 9.
Page 221
December 16, 2003
MR. MUDD: 9(A), which is appointment of members to the
Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve all four
members.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
MS. FILSON: And Commissioner Fiala, this one you'll need to
waive --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes. Reappoint Mr. Pennell.
The limitations on two consecutive terms need to be waived.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second on the
floor.
Any discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2003-464 APPOINTING JEFFERY SCOTT CARL
TO THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES LAND TRUST COMMITTEE
- ADOPTF, D
Page 222
December 16, 2003
Motion to appoint members to the Golden Gate Estates Land
Trust Committee.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'd like to make a motion
that we approve the -- Jeffrey Curl.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 4-0.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2003-465 REAPPOINTING KAYDEE TUFF AND
VICKI CLAVELO TO THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY
CENTER ADVISORY COMMITTF, E- ADOPTED
Appoint members to the Golden Gate Community Center
Advisory Committee?
Make a motion that we appoint Kaydee Tuff and Vicki Clavelo.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And waive the terms of endearment.
MS. FILSON: For both of them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: For both of them.
Page 223
December 16, 2003
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And second by Commissioner
Coletta.
All in favor of the motion, signify by' saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2003-466 APPOINTING JOSEPH GAMMONS TO
THE ENVIRONMFNTAI, ADVISORY COl INCII,- ADOPTED
Appoint members to the Environmental Advisory Board.
I make a motion that we approve Joseph Gammons.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 224
December 16, 2003
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2003-467 APPOINTING WILLIAM J. VARIAN
AND REAPPOINTING BLAIR A. FOLEY, THOMAS MASTERS,
PETER VAN ARSDALE, MARCO ESPINAR AND BRIAN E.
JONES TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY
COMMITTF, F. - ADOPTF, D
Appointed members to the DSAC. DSAC has made
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the DSAC
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you like me to name each
one, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, not needed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #9F
Page 225
December 16, 2003
RESOLUTION 2003-468 APPOINTING JAMISON SAVAGE TO
REPRESENT THE EDC ON THE REVENUE COMMISSION-
ADOPTED
Next item is mine.
Commissioners, I spoke about this before. It's an idea about a
mitigation bank and asking staff to bring back to the Board of
Commissioners to consider --
MS. FILSON: You missed an advisory board --
MR. MUDD: You missed one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I did?
MR. MUDD: Yep. It's 9(F).
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 9(F).
MR. MUDD: Confirmation of member representing the EDC to
the Revenue Commission.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we accept
that name, Jamison Savage.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Motion by Commissioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 226
December 16, 2003
Item #9G
STAFF ANALYSIS AND DRAFTING OF AN ORDINANCE TO
REGULATE THE LANDSCAPING MITIGATION BANK-
APPROVED
Sorry about that.
But anyways, violators of hat racking and vegetation removal
going above and beyond the exotics removal, and developers have
deviated from their site plan and can no longer put any vegetation on
their present site plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I make a comment?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought it was a great idea, as a
matter of fact.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. I thought we'd get some
more money for our medians.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was thinking the same
thing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the whole point,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good thinking.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think there's a lot of money
out there to be had, and we might as well put it where --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, if we're losing
landscaping, we might as well put it where people will enjoy it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right. And not tax them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
Page 227
December 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 4-0.
CHAIRMAN TO DRAFT A LETTER TO MR. PENNINGTON
AND MR. ARCERI REGARDING THEIR RESIGNATIONS
FROM THE COASTAI~ ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Next one is--
MR. MUDD: Before we leave Board of County Commissioners
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. MUDD: -- we had-- this is an item that came up early,
and Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Fiala both mentioned it
when we were doing beach renourishment, and that was to maybe
offer Mr. Pennington and Mr. Arceri the opportunity to reconsider
their resignations from the Coastal Advisory Committee, and I just
need some direction to have staff draft a letter for the chair's
signature, and I think we can get two people back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: As long as it fits our ordinances, I
think you got a unanimous on that. MR. MUDD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we would like to direct you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So move.
Page 228
December 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's a direction.
MR. MUDD: Okay. I've got four nods, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great people.
Item #10A
APPROVAL TO AWARD RFP #03-3505, TRANSPORTATION
ROADWAY ASSET INVENTORY DATABASE AND
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO COMMENCE NEGOTIATIONS WITH
TRANSMAP- APPROVF, D
MR. MUDD: That brings us to 10(A) --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 10(A).
MR. MUDD: -- which is to obtain the board approval to award
RFP #03-3505, Transportation Roadway Asset Inventory Database
and authorize staff to commence negotiations. Estimated fiscal
impact to be $250,000, and Mr. Norm Feder and Steve Carnell will
present.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator. I'll be brief.
This is item that typically would be on your consent agenda. It's
part of our GIS, geographic information system. We're trying to
develop some layers to identify what we have in roadway
characteristics out there, our signs, our pavement, what condition
they're in so we can look at life cycle and improvements in the
future, what reflectivity they have, also pavement condition ratings
and other items of the sort.
In trying to seek the consultant to provide the services, two
consultants were basically viewed as the top two. The top consultant
was found to have a conflict of interest, and so we are selecting the
second.
Page 229
December 16, 2003
And I'll let Steve Carnell give you some more details. If you'd
like more information on what we're trying to collect on the data, we
ca give you a power point presentation.
But I believe the essence of the issue is probably for you to
understand why we're working with the second highest rated firm,
and I'm sure you probably understand what we're trying to do with
the data collection.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. CARNELL: For the record, Steve Carnell, your
purchasing general services director.
This RFP was developed by your transportation staff back in the
January, February, time frame. And at the time, we -- the county was
engaging the firm of Wilson Miller to provide GIS consulting
services to the county.
At the time the IT department was in the process of recruiting a
full-time permanent GIS manager, but that person was not onboard,
so we were using the services of Wilson Miller to assist us with a
number of facets and components of our GIS project.
And to that end, the transportation staff elected to include a
member of the Wilson Miller team, the project manager, if you will,
that they were providing us to help us with the overall GIS project, as
a member of the Selection Committee to evaluate these proposals
that Mr. Feder was referring to.
We issued an RFP, sent out some 250 notices, approximately,
and received four proposals. And at the time, the gentleman from
Wilson Miller, whose name is Mr. Will Walter, like I said, was
appointed to the Selection Committee, along with four or five county
staff members.
The proposals -- the RFP was issued on March 21 st, the
proposals were received on April the 25th. And the proposals came
in on the 25th, and that day they were distributed to all the Selection
Page 230
December 16, 2003
Committee members, including Mr. Walter.
About two weeks later, Mr. Walter resigned from the Selection
Committee, and at the time he cited a potential perceived conflict of
interest as one of the reasons why he was resigning.
I believe the essence of his concern was that the local consulting
community might perceive it inappropriate for Wilson Miller to be
making this -- to be part of a selection process. And again, this is
after the proposals have come in.
He also indicated that there really wasn't a need for him to
continue to serve in this capacity because we had hired a full-time
GIS manager by then, which that is a correct statement. A
gentleman, Mr. Burt Miller, came on staff in March, April time
frame. So Burt was available to step in and assume his position on
the Selection Committee.
The proposals, as I said, were received at the end of April,
distributed to the Selection Committee that day, April the 25th. Mr.
Walter resigned approximately two weeks later.
The Selection Committee then had its first actual meeting on
May the 28th and elected to, as Mr. Feder alluded to, focus on two of
the four proposers and invite them in for presentations to the
Selection Committee, and those presentations then took place in
June.
And in the June feet meeting, we had the two firms come in,
TRANSMAP and Space Imaging. And the issue that we're dealing
with here today arises in the fact that Mr. Walter had been a member
of the Selection Committee up until May the 8th, and then Mr.
Walter appeared in TRANSMAP's presentation as part of their
presentation team.
And the -- at that time, the Selection Committee, I think, was a
little taken aback by it. And to be honest with you, in 18 years of
doing this, I don't think I've ever quite run into this situation before.
Page 231
December 16, 2003
And if I could describe it to you simply, this is somebody who
started out as a judge and ended up as a contestant.
And the -- we looked into the situation of the purchasing
department. There was definitely some concern from the Selection
Committee members about the propriety of this.
I will tell you that the vendor involved, TRANSMAP, has been
very forthright and cooperative in terms of our discussions about
what occurred and what took place. And we had some discussions in
the month of July with TRANSMAP.
And what -- after looking through this and looking at all the
facts, I made the determination, subject to the action by this board at
the time of award, that there was an apparent conflict of interest here
involving Mr. Walter. And I did this in consultation not only with
TRANSMAP, but with the Selection -- after interviewing the
Selection Committee members and discussing this issue at length
with the County Attorney's Office.
The -- it is our position that this is not necessarily a legal issue.
We could not find any cases in Florida that defined conflict of
interest in an express and clear way. And we really don't come to
you saying that there's a violation of law here. It's rather strictly and
simply put, it's an appearance issue with regard to somebody who
was functioning in one role early in the process and then shifted to a
very opposite role later in the process.
Now, I will tell you that in researching this and in interviewing
the Selection Committee members and talking to the representatives
from TRANSMAP, that I haven't found any evidence that would
point to an explicit, or I'll use the word overt or actual conflict of
interest, in other words, some kind of evidence where, say, Mr.
Walter had talked to a committee member and tried to lobby them on
behalf of TRANSMAP. I don't see anything like that occurring in
the record, and I talked to each of the Selection Committee members.
Page 232
December 16, 2003
And the -- in addition to that, I think it needs to be clear, as Mr.
Feder indicated, we had these top two firms that were ranked very
closely. It was very competitive between the two of them, but it was
the clear consensus of the committee that absent and apart from this
issue, that TRANSMAP was considered to be the top ranked firm.
So in reviewing this again, we made that decision that there was
an appearance of conflict of interest. And, again, while I tell you I
can't find evidence that clearly indicates that Mr. Walter unduly
influenced the process, what I'm left with at the end of the day is
really a series of unknowns.
Mr. Walter did have an opportunity to comment on the RFP
before -- as it was being drafted back in February. He had an
opportunity to receive the proposals. He was having several
conversations with different Selection Committee members, perhaps,
and mostly about other items because he was working other aspects
of the GIS project apart from this selection.
But I'm in a situation where I can't look the five of you in the
eye and tell you I know what his influence, impact on the process
was. I can tell you I haven't found a clearcut smoking gun, but I can't
tell you that I can assure you that he had no influence whatsoever in
the thinking in the minds of the committee members.
What's unfortunate about this, I think, is that we -- the Selection
Committee members had no idea this was coming. Mr. Walter
stepped off the committee on May the 8th, and then he shows up on
June the 27th to participate and facilitate the presentation from
TRANSMAP with no prior notice to us and no opportunity to discuss
this or the possibility or prospect of this constituting a conflict of
interest.
So I -- in short and in summary, I'm frankly taking the position
that I don't know what Mr. Walter's actual impact on the process was.
I don't know how he might have affected the committee members'
Page 233
December 16, 2003
perceptions or impressions of the process or the RFP itself or the
evaluation process to follow and either before, at the point of the
RFP was issued, or later, at the point where proposals were in and
being evaluated by the committee.
I can tell you that he was off the committee within two weeks of
-- after the proposals were received. And again, I don't have
evidence that he spent a lot of time evaluating or influencing
committee members, but I also don't know when, in fact,
TRANSMAP and Wilson Miller really hooked up on this.
Now, they will -- they will tell you they know, and they will
explain that to you when they address you in just a moment. But
you're left in a position where you kind of have to take their word for
it. I don't know any way to independently corroborate it.
This is not an adversarial situation in the sense that I fully
respect these gentlemen from TRANSMAP and their firm, and I,
frankly, think TRANSMAP did not know and realize what was
happening until after if happened.
And so in that sense, this is a difficult call. But my
recommendation to you and the recommendation of your staff is,
kind of in the abundance of caution, that we perceive this and chalk
this up as a conflict of interest and that we move forward accordingly
with award to Space Imaging, which was the second ranked firm,
ranked very closely behind TRANSMAP in the process.
I can answer your questions or you can hear from the protester.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We do have some public speakers on
this item.
Questions by the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
MS. FILSON:
Luxloi.
Please call up the public speakers.
Roger Nielsen. He will be followed by Howard
Page 234
December 16, 2003
MR. NIELSEN: I'd like to have the reverse order.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Howard Luxloi. He will be followed by
Roger Nielsen.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, I must remind you, you only
have five minutes.
MR. LUXLOI: Okay, sir. Sorry about that.
Howard Luxloi, for the record, from TRANSMAP Corporation.
Appreciate the opportunity to speak to you Commissioners. I
think this is a difficult issue. And I think just as Steve Carnell
presented, we are in a thing here where you guys have no
information regarding this, and I'm trying to provide information
regarding this.
Basically the purpose of me being here, the primary reason
today, is to preserve our company's reputation in Florida.
TRANSMAP, we feel we've been unfairly disqualified on RFP 3035
based on an apparent conflict of interest.
We've operated throughout the United States, over 60 different
agencies over a nine-year period and have never been -- had any
issues with our record, have never been called for conflict of interest
before.
We have successful projects in Florida here. We've done
Hillsborough County, Martin County and Manatee County. In those
projects, we've bee able to show how an intelligent transportation
data base has yielded saving upwards of a million dollars per asset,
about 27 different assets across the county, so that's a significant
savings in Hillsborough County.
We think that's why the Selection Committee rated
TRANSMAP to be number one, and we think that's a very important
fact.
Page 235
December 16, 2003
Again, my name's Howard Luxloi. I'm a civil engineer. I'm a
professional engineer registered in the State of Ohio. My
background is with the Ohio Department of Transportation. I've bee
around this industry for nine years, and I've got a lot of experience
with transportation asset management. This is really not GIS. This
is really transportation data supporting engineers making decisions.
Roger Nielsen is here with me. Roger Nielsen's background is
10 years in the Air Force. He's been -- in the last 30 years he's been
doing IT consulting as an entrepreneur across America with high tech
start-ups.
Basically there's two questions to be answered here, why there
is no conflict of interest and why we think we were judged number
one on separate occasions.
Looking at the first page here, the chronology of events. Back
on March 21 st the RFP was released. March -- or excuse me. April
18th, TRANSMAP submitted our proposal with Dynatest, ESRI, and
TRANSMAP being the vendors on that proposal.
May 21 st, the first meeting of the Selection Committee,
TRANSMAP was voted number one overall. June 27th,
TRANSMAP was voted number one again overall. And in--
September 15th, third meeting of the Selection Committee, it was
reaffirmed that TRANSMAP was the number one vendor, even
though the obvious issues of the disqualification were out in front of
the team.
On November 14th, we did the public records examination, and
it revealed that TRANSMAP also provided the lowest -- the lower
price of the two vendors, just for the record.
Looking at issues. When we submitted our proposal, it did not
get changed after we submitted the proposal. Our first contact with
Wilson Miller, Will Walter specifically, was June 16th.
ESRI has a network of resellers across the country. They're --
Page 236
December 16, 2003
ESRI Corporation is a GIS software vendor. You guys have ESRI
software here in Collier County. The software is purchased through
authorized resellers.
Now, Wilson Miller, as we've heard Steve Carnell say, has worn
multiple different hats here in Collier County. And the issue has
become that Will Walter came to my presentation as my ESRI
subject matter expert. In fact, I talked to ESRI corporation. ESRI
Corporation said, Wilson Miller is our authorized reseller in
Southwest Florida. Bring those guys to your presentation to answer
any of your questions on ESRI, period.
Page number two, I have a letter here from Will Walter
swearing to the following items: Reference 3505, that Will had
requested to review the scope to ensure that deliverables were
compatible with Collier County's GIS system, that he did not -- that
he did comment that appeared to be compatible with the GIS
deliverable section, and had no direct influence on the preparation of
the RFP.
Second, at no time did he participate in developing of a bid
strategy or proposal preparation with any of the vendors. Can I continue?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your time's up, sir. You want to
wrap it up, please.
MR. LUXLOI: Okay. Again, TRANSMAP did nothing wrong.
We had no apparent conflict of interest. We had no advantage given
over any of the other vendors. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Roger Neilsen.
MR. NEILSEN: For the record, my name is Roger Neilsen.
Thank you for the time, Commissioners.
I'm going to do three things, very short. First of all, I'm going to
serve as a character witness for Howard who just talked to you.
Page 237
December 16, 2003
Howard's been with the company -- I'm, by the way, the board
of-- chairman of the board of directors, and we -- the board hired
Howard. Actually we hired him very early seven years ago, and he
came in at the entry level position in the company.
He has performed admirably well. He's worked with a number
of counties and cities across the country. He saves them millions of
dollars a year. Extremely high integrity, very conscientious. Never
saw him in any capacity where there was anything out of the
ordinary.
I mean, he's just an absolutely phenomenal guy. In fact, we
think so much of him, that two weeks ago we elected him president
of the company.
The second issue is, I guess I want to apologize to you for
what's happened here. This is not something that we meant to
happen. I'm not sure how we could have avoided it. I have started
an investigation to see what we need to correct to not let this kind of
thing happen again.
It appears to be a whole bunch of very unusual coincidences
because of the independent distribution arm of ESRI, the software
company, the fact that the only subject matter expert in the
commercial side of things in Southwest Florida happens to be Will
Walter. I mean, talk about coincidences.
You know, it just -- it's a real unfortunate situation. I don't
know what to do about it, but I'm going to figure out something.
I'm convinced that we gained, after talking to each of our
employees that was interested -- or involved in this project, we
gained no advantage over any other vendor, none whatsoever.
Everything that was done relative to the strategy and the proposal
was done well before, you know, the proposal went in, and nothing
was changed afterwards.
The only role that Will Walter played was to talk about the GIS
Page 238
December 16, 2003
system capabilities, the standard off-the-shelf stuff that ESRI
Corporation provides. It had nothing to do with our proposal.
I'm actually devastated that we even brought him into the
situation. I mean, it was that coincidental.
I know how much -- the third point, I know how much we could
save the county, millions of dollars a year. I heard all of your budget
discussions today. You can talk to our references in Florida. I mean,
we're saving Hillsborough $27 million a year in their maintenance
budget.
They're taking that money and increasing service levels, they're
using it for all kinds of different things, and it can't be done without
the innovative process that TRANSMAP brings to the table.
There's two ways to collect data, dots on a map to make a pretty
map, and an intelligent data set that can be used and serves as a
foundation for hundreds of applications that will save you money. If
you don't start out with the intelligence in your data, you will have to
recollect it later.
I hope in the short-term we can earn your trust and become a
viable vendor. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand the concerns that this
corporation has, but the problem is, in the past we've ran into a lot of
problems in this county, if you've read any of our history, and
sometimes it's the perceived conflict of interest by the public.
The county tries to do the very best, but sometimes we run into
a buzz saw by not only the public, but also the newspaper here in this
community. So that's why -- and we've really tried to work diligently
to make sure that there is no -- doesn't seem to be any perceived
conflict of interest. And I believe that your firm is of high integrity,
but it's just the way things have kind of washed out here.
Page 239
December 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The -- I'd like to expand a little on
what Commissioner Halas has said.
We have very, very tough ethics guidelines here in Collier
County. If I were to go out to lunch with you, it no difference if I
pay for my own lunch and we don't discuss business. Anyone who
sees us will assume that there was something inappropriate going on
if you have a bid in to the county.
We have to be extremely careful here, and we are obligated to
avoid, not just unethical behavior, but even the appearance of
impropriety. And these are guidelines which go far beyond any that
you'll find in the private sector.
And I would urge you not to take this -- this decision as a
criticism of your company's integrity. I think the staff has clearly
indicated that you remain probably their top choice as far as
qualifications are concerned, and I certainly don't harbor any
reservations about your integrity here.
But a situation occurred, and, quite frankly, we would be
inviting substantial questions about the propriety of the process if we
did not deal with this issue in the way it's bee dealt with.
So I don't think we have any choice, as much as I respect your
interest in getting a contract you feel you're entitled to get. An
unfortunate circumstance occurred. It's not our fault, and it probably
wasn't directly your fault.
But I think Mr. Carnell has made the right decision. And as
painful as it might be for some of the people involved, I will make a
motion to approve it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Halas to approve staff's recommendations.
Any discussion on the motion?
Page 240
December 16, 2003
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by saying eye.
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.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, if I may ask, just to clarify the
record a little bit, this action today in no way, shape, or form, should
preclude TRANSMAP for bidding on work sometime in the future
with Collier County and try to avoid any conflicts --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely.
MR. MUDD: -- of interest with Wilson Miller or whatever,
correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely.
And by the way, this is exactly the situation that we have
discussed in the past which requires that we -- we put very thorough
conflict of interest clauses in all of our solicitations, and I think the
legal staff is working on that already.
So in addition to assuring that former employees do not come
back and lobby on behalf of people with the county, we have to deal
with those consultants also.
Item # 1 OD
INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATION REGARDING IMPACT
FEE ASSESSMENTS FOR CHANGES OF USE OR NEW/ADDED
Page 241
December 16, 2003
DEVELOPMENT/INTENSITY- MOTION TO CONTINUE TO
IJSE EXISTING PROCEDIIRES
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is 10(D), provide
information, clarification on the provisions set forth on the code of
law --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We did this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and the consolidated impact fee
ordinance 2001-13, as amended, regarding impact fee assessments
for changes of use or added (sic) development/intensity, and Mr.
Schmitt is here to present it.
MR. SCHMITT: Good afternoon. For the record, Joe Schmitt,
community development, environmental services division
administrator.
We'll make this short. This is something you asked to have be
brought back to you for discussion. I won't go over all the executive
summary, but in sum, basically the CIFO, the consolidated impact
fee ordinance, requires that the credits for prior land use be
calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time of new
construction. So for all intent and purposes, impact fees remain or
run with the land.
Let me run through -- you have examples in your book, but I'm
going to run through a fairly simple example. Shown on the
visualizer is -- let me get the chart right here, got the right one.
Shown on the visualizer is a display of what it would be for a
home -- this is a 2,000 square foot home, impact fees shown here,
1993 calculated under the '93 criteria.
We're going to go from a 2,000 square foot home to a 3,000
square foot home. We calculate the impact fees that would be in
effect today. So this homeowner would, based on the way I believe
you interpreted the code or the impact fee ordinance, they would
Page 242
December 16, 2003
have to come and pay $10,000 in impact fees.
Now, note that the $6,429 shown are the impact fees that were
assessed based on the 1993 impact fees that were in effect at that
time.
The way staff does it under the consolidated impact fee
ordinance is as shown. And what we have there is a 15,000 -- we
would assess or actually allocate the impact fees under today's rate at
a 2,000 square foot home, then the impact fees on a 3,000 square foot
home, and they would pay the difference. And that's the way the
impact fee ordinance reads, and that's the way that we implement the
program today based on the criteria that impact fees run with the
land.
I'll use another example, and that has to do with commercial
property, the same thing. Commercial property where you have --
this was -- would be a down zoning. You have a 5,000 square foot
general office building, converting to a 5,000 square foot retail
center.
The impact fees that are assessed show under 1993, if, in fact, it
was in '93 when the impact fees were paid, and the impacts fees at
today's rate for the new use, that developer would have to pay
$36,000.
In the way that we use the program, today that impact fee would
be zero because it is a down zoning. And this is, I believe, where
you-all have the problem in regards to how it is interpreted based on,
the impact fees are calculated at today's rate based on today's scale.
And in this case it would be 5,000 square foot general office at
$64,990, and the new impact fee rate would be 58,000. We do not
provide any type of rebate. They would -- just basically would not
pay impact fees.
I guess I can't make it any more succinct than that. I got -- open
and subject to your questions, Tom Palmer is here. And I believe
Page 243
December 16, 2003
Tom is here. I don't see him here. He's not here.
I'll have to defer to Mr. White and Mr. Weigel from the
standpoint of the county attorney in regards to the legal aspects of the
CIFO, and Amy Patterson, my impact fee coordinator, is here as well
to answer any questions in regards to the interpretation or the
application.
Now, you asked us to look at some, what I would call -- I won't
refer to it as a loophole, but you asked us to look at how these things
would be applied, and we went back and looked at it, and I can't be
any more succinct than what I have here, that basically we look at the
current use, we allocate today's rate, and you pay the difference.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where's the pixy dust?
MR. SCHMITT: Now, that's -- subject to your questions, I
mean, that's kind of where we're at.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I view what we're doing today
is that -- and I understand what you're saying. We're giving --
vesting on uses where we should be giving vesting on the impact fees
that are being paid, or that were paid.
MR. SCHMITT: We're vesting the use, and the impact fees are
increasing in value over the years that basically that use is -- that runs
with the land.
And we allocate at today's rate that impact, because that --
basically an impact fee is to pay for an increased demand on public
services. And it's evaluated at that rate.
I guess to even put it more simply, you're a homeowner and you
never paid an impact fee because it was prior to the impact fee
ordinance, and you want to add 500 more square feet to your
residence, and if they came into the building department today, we
would, based on the interpretation of what I believe you're looking at,
we would have to say that you're going to pay the 18 or $19,000 in
impact fees, when, in fact, all they're going to pay is the incremental
Page 244
December 16, 2003
difference based on today rate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What I was talking about
when I brought this item up is commercial, where you change the
use.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And it's my understanding that
impact fees that are paid are good for nine years, otherwise we're
illegally charging the impact fee. We really didn't need that impact
fee if we didn't spend it within nine years.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. If, in fact, they come back and claim,
but I don't believe -- Amy?
MS. PATTERSON: Seven years.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seven years?
MS. PATTERSON: Seven years.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that's all right. I'm just trying
In seven years, the use changes, so, I
to use that as an example.
mean --
MS. PATTERSON:
Those fees have bee expended-- it's based
on-- Amy Patterson, for the record.
It's a first into the fund and first out, so there's never been a case
where somebody's come back and claimed that those fees haven't bee
expended.
And in the case of residential, it also is a change of land use
when they jump from one size home to another. It constitutes a
change of land use on our fee schedule. So when we talk about
changes of land use, they are both residential and nonresidential.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. But the fee schedule -- I
mean, not to confuse the board. We're not changing the land use.
We're just changing the square footage of it. We might be adding a
bathroom, a bedroom, or whatever, and therefore you need to put
more fees on it.
Page 245
December 16, 2003
MS. PATTERSON: It increases the intensity of the use.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
MS. PATTERSON: The same as it would if you increase the
intensity of use retail to retail by adding square footage. It's not
necessarily changing the use of the land. It's just sort of a
terminology that we use because of the way that we have these tier
rate systems.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But the reason the impact fees are
increasing is because, the land values and the cost of doing business.
And we're creating a windfall to the people out there that are
changing uses in the commercial districts.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, the impact fees are increasing based on
-- as you all know, when we come back in for an adjustment to the
rates, they're based on what is -- let's say road impact fees, the cost of
a lane mile of road. So yes, the impact fees are increasing based on
the required monies today to provide the essential public services,
whether that's sewer, water, parks, all the other various impact fees
that we assess.
And so I guess from the standpoint of what you're asking -- I
believe what you're asking, is that we ought to allocate the impact
fees based on the year that they paid them and -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: -- and based on the use at the time they paid
them.
In summation, what we have is, that would not be legal, because
the rate -- the rate escalates and appreciates as -- with the land,
because it -- what it costs for a lane mile in 1993, for example when
this -- in this example, for a lane mile of road today, they have vested
that capacity, and that capacity increases in value with the property.
The commercial property is the same way, a down zoning, that
vesting -- that vested capacity is -- runs with the property and
Page 246
December 16, 2003
remains with the property.
I don't know if I'm making this clear.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: And we might just agree to disagree
on this.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, if I could-- if I could say one
thing real quick.
First of all, this is -- this is a good item for discussion to make
sure that we are charging the maximum amount of impact fees based
on your guidance that you've given to staff.
This has gone through several reviews at the county attorney's
office, because we've looked at this -- and I appreciate your concern
in the fact that we want to make sure that we're getting every dime
we can on impact fees, because the only other choice is you raise
taxes, okay?
The other piece is, we also went to the clerk's office as we did
the consolidated impact fee ordinance to make sure that our
procedures were correct in that process.
So we didn't do it in isolation. We tried to make sure that we
had a legal nexus and that we were charging the maximum amount of
impact fees that we could possibly -- that we could possibly get. And
I will also tell you, the clerk was very diligent in making sure that we
were getting every nickel that we could possibly get in this particular
case.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I -- it seems clear to me,
based upon what you've said in the attorney's opinion, that it is illegal
to do this as it is being proposed. And I would suggest that -- well,
I'll make a motion, that the staff continue to use the current
procedures for the purpose of assessing impact fees for circumstances
such as this, rather than changing them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
Page 247
December 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is this really a motion item or just a
direction or do nothing?
MR. SCHMITT: It was basically our recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners to direct staff to continue to follow
the existing procedures, and that's -- this was brought back based on
-- Commissioner Henning, on your request, sir, and it was more of--
a matter of discussion, and we're just -- again, it would be an
affirmation that we continue with the same procedure. I don't -- I
don't -- unless the county attorney believes, there's no requirement
for a motion.
MR. WEIGEL: No requirement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All I'm responding to is -- the
recommendation is that we direct staff to continue to follow the
existing procedure. So I make a motion that we direct staff to follow
the continuing procedures (sic).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weigel, the question, I guess, is
the vesting of property and uses. But when you change the use,
especially in the commercial districts, you change the use, what I'm
saying is, give credit where credit is due, but don't give a windfall of
credit where it's not due.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. I appreciate your statement.
What Mr. Schmitt has described is, there is no windfall or no
loophole that the payment -- prior payments of impact fees, for
whatever use or structure that gets a building permit, those payments
are made and they run with the land, and if the use shall change and
-- at a later point, therefore, require a greater impact on some or all of
the infrastructure, that land has already paid for the development of
infrastructure to a certain capacity, and it is only to additionally pay
for the increased capacity that an additional changed use would
bring.
Page 248
December 16, 2003
And in some cases, as Mr. Schmitt indicated, there can be a
change in use which actually has a reduction in the demand of
capacity for infrastructure that's already been billed and paid for by
that particular property, of which there is no refund made in that
particular case.
The opinions that the assistant county attorneys have provided
up to this point and continue with my review and absolute approval is
that we could not advise this board to go beyond what we're doing
and sign off for legal sufficiency on new law to achieve that end. It's
just not there.
And the outside consultant has, again, as Mr. Mudd indicated,
independently, but also working together in the process, we've all
come to those same conclusions. And so it's really just a question of
proper administration at this point and not -- and not filling in
loopholes, which would be a development of a legal process or
application that I couldn't sign off for legal sufficiency, and then
secondly, we could not successfully defend if challenged in court.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Mr. Mitchell, you and I discussed this issue, and I know that
there was concerns over on the clerk's side. The discussion today,
does that clarify or raise any concerns from the clerk's --
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir, it really does not. I think-- we
haven't had an opportunity to really -- we looked at certain issues a
couple of years ago in regard to impact fees, how they were being
collected in certain issues. This particular one that you and I last
talked about, I think it was Monday, I have not had a chance to go
back and look at the impact fee ordinance. But from what I'm
hearing Mr. Schmitt and also Mr. Weigel say, I don't disagree with
them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion.
MR. SCHMITT: Just to make sure to correct the record. In
Page 249
December 16, 2003
2001, the clerk did conduct a internal audit and verified all the
aspects of the current procedures and the policies in regards to
implementation of the CIFO, so it's a matter of record on a previous
audit.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
There's a motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by
Commissioner Fiala to do staffs recommendations, follow the policy.
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? Aye.
Motion carries, 4-1. And I'll--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- work through this later on and
maybe I can fully understand it.
Item #1 OF
BID #03-3529 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD RECLAIMED WATER MAIN, AWARDED TO
SOUTHWEST UTILITY SYSTEMS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$845,451
MR. MUDD: That brings us to the next item, which is number
10(F), and it's award a contract to Southwest Florida Utilities
Systems, Inc., for construction of the Vanderbilt Beach Road
Reclamation (sic) Water Main, bid number 03-3529, project 74034,
in the amount of $845,415, and Public Utilities Division will present.
And Ron Dillard will present.
Page 250
December 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Shall we take a break while you set
up?
MR. MUDD: It would be good to take about -- can we take a
couple-minute break while he gets that working? (A recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. We have a
hot mike, Commissioners. The meeting is called to order again.
MR. MUDD: Again, this is item number 10(F), and it's award a
contract to Southwest Utility Systems, Inc., for construction of the
Vanderbilt Beach Road Reclaimed Water Main, bid number 03-3529,
project 74034, in the amount of $845,415, and Mr. Ron Dillard,
senior project manager for Public Utilities Division, will present.
MR. DILLARD: Thank you, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Ron Dillard, senior project manager
of public utilities engineering department.
The purpose of this project is to complete looping of the north
reclaimed water system and increase flows to and from the reclaimed
water interconnect.
It is included in the fiscal year 2002 Wastewater Master Plan
adopted by the board on February 25th of 2003, and it's also included
in the fiscal year 2004 wastewater capital budget adopted by the
board September 18th of 2003.
Project scope. It provides a reclaimed water main along
Vanderbilt Beach Road which completes the looping of the north
reclaimed water system by connecting an existing main at Airport
Road to an existing main at Village Walk Circle.
Demand in the north area required expansion of the north
county water reclamation facility. The Vanderbilt Beach Road
reclaimed water main provides the capacity to carry that additional
flow generated by that facility to reuse customers and to alternative
Page 251
December 16, 2003
disposal sides.
The project location is circled on this map which indicates its
relation to the entire county reclaimed water system.
On July 31 st, 2003, seven bids were opened for the project.
Bids ranged from $723,401.85 to $1,379,590.
The apparent low bid was offered by Florida State
Underground, Incorporated. -The staff commenced bid evaluation
and identified certain issues concerning the performance of FSU on
previous projects. The staff submitted a recommendation to award
the contract to Southwest Utility Systems as the lowest qualified and
responsive bidder in the amount of $845,415, or approximately
$122,000 more than the apparent low bid, which is still somewhat
less than the engineer's latest estimate.
FSU then filed a formal protest of the recommended award
contending the county was not following its own award procedures
properly and that FSU was, in fact, the lowest qualified and
responsive bidder.
The purchasing director has reviewed the protest and issued a
decision rejecting that and in support of the staff recommendation.
The purchasing director will now address the bid protest.
MR. CARNELL: Again, for the record, Steve Camell,
purchasing general services director.
The recommendation formulated by staff was put together after
the bids had been opened on this project and the evaluation was
commenced. And it was really the culmination of a number of events
that have occurred on a series of projects involving Florida State
Underground over the last two, two and a half years, approximately.
And I think this is a product in part of, frankly, increased
coordination within your Public Utilities Division. Mr. DeLony has
been your division administrator now for going on a year and a half,
and one of the things that he has instituted is a project review board
Page 252
December 16, 2003
where his project managers meet and review all of their projects
collectively on a regular basis.
And after these bids were opened, there was discussion in one of
those meetings about the bid outcome and about the apparent low
bidder, Florida State Underground, and there were a number of
concerns shared from various project managers who had had --
encountered difficulties with this contractor over the last year and a
half.
So that led to some gathering of some information, and a
meeting with the president of Florida State Underground, Tom
McKimm, on September the 3rd in which a member of my staff and
Mr. Dillard went through those issues and discussed them with Mr.
McKimm and advised him that it was the intent of the staff to
recommend award to the second -- apparent second low bidder, or
what staff deemed as the lowest qualified and responsive bidder on
the basis that Florida State was not considered qualified to do this
work given the difficulties that we've encountered.
Florida State Underground submitted a intent to protest this
recommendation a few weeks later, and so we pulled this item off of
the agenda. It was going to be heard at the end of September.
And subsequent to -- in the protest submission, as Mr. Dillard
referred to, initially Florida State had flagged issues regarding our
actual process of bidding and had made the contention that we were
stepping outside the requirement to award this contract to the lowest
qualified responsive bidder.
And I reviewed their arguments and contentions, and I believe
it's very readily and easily supportable that we are, in fact, awarding
to the lowest qualified and responsive bidder and that we are, in fact,
using a competitive sealed process here.
The issues that have been brought forward by the staff regarding
actual performance were not initially addressed in any depth by
Page 253
December 16, 2003
Florida State Underground, in fact, hardly at all in their initial protest
submission. So I asked them formally to submit, in effect, a second
protest in which I asked them to point-blank address the issues that
had been discussed on September the 3rd with Mr. McKimm, and I
did get a response in October from Florida State Underground, and
the reviewed that with the staff members involved and went through
the bid record.
And to summarize for you, in essence, we have, what I would
characterize, five issue here with regard to failed performances that
would pertain to performing the work as called for in our technical
specifications on various contracts;
Failure to use proper means and methods in our construction site
and out in the field, which is the responsibility of the contractor;
A failure to comply with the general terms and conditions of
various contracts involved in these different projects;
A failure to deliver work timely, and -- versus the contract
schedule that was set forth in the original contract documents.
And then also there have been instances of violations of local
laws and ordinances in the conduct of work.
And just-- so in summary, based on those types of events and
occurrences that have occurred-- most of them occurring multiple
times over this period of time, the staff had recommended rejection
of this bid and award to the second low bidder. And in my review of
the matter, I upheld the staff recommendation and rejected the protest
that was offered from -- by Florida State Underground.
And so we are here today recommending award to Southwest
Utilities Systems. And I want to ask the board to consider that now
at this point in time. And I think your protester is registered to speak,
so you can hear from him at this point.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, just one more point. Some of the
Page 254
December 16, 2003
things that Steve doesn't know about. On 10, December, 2 -- this is
for the record. On 10, December, 2003, I received a letter from Mike
Piscitelli of law firm Vezina, Lawrence and Piscitelli, practicing
attorneys, basically said, this firm represents Florida State
Underground, and it basically says, be advised that you -- they had a
request that I appoint a hearing examiner.
And it basically said, please be advised, if you do not honor our
request to appoint an officer, we will consider that a deprivation of
due process subject to judicial action.
I replied to that firm, to Mr. Michael Piscitelli of that law firm
and basically said, I have reviewed the bid protest and the decision
by the purchasing director. In consideration of that information, I am
not electing to exercise the discretion afforded to me under section
18.G of the county's purchasing policy to appoint a hearing officer.
Hence the award of this contract remains scheduled for presentation
to the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, December 16th,
2003.
Upon receiving that information on December 1 lth or 12th, they
filed for a temporary injunction. That injunction was reviewed and
denied by Circuit Court Judge Lawrence Martin as of the 15th day of
December, 2003.
That's all I have to add.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Please call up the public
speakers.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Thomas McKimm. He is your only speaker.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. McKIMM: I have some handouts for the board.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record my name is Tom
McKimm. I'm the president of Florida State Underground. I'm here
to preserve our -- my interest and our reputation.
This is the last step in a protest process that is provided us
Page 255
December 16, 2003
through the -- through the -- afforded to us through the protest policy
that you have.
We weren't afforded the opportunity, as indicated in your
protest policy, to go before a independent hearing officer, and that's
why we're here. I think if that would have been afforded to our
company, it would not have got this far.
I'm here to request the board to award the job to the lowest
responsive responsible bidder, Florida State Underground.
The job, again, was bid on July 31 st. We are the responsive
bidder. We do perform quality work. We are a quality contractor.
A bond was posted on the project. We do a lot of work for the
county. We've worked in the county for 15 years. We do a lot of
private and we do a lot of public work, and we continue to do that, to
do so.
We are on -- we were at the time on your annual emergency
repair -- contractor on call for emergency work, and I request that
you do not award the project as indicated by the purchasing
department to the second low bidder.
Afford Florida State Underground a opportunity as indicated in
your protest policy to go before an independent hearing officer. A
unilateral decision for the recommendation was made by your
purchasing department, which is not consistent with the
recommendation of your consultants.
Florida State Underground's bid was $122,000 low, plus or
minus.
The recommendation for the second bidder arose only after
Florida State Underground initiated litigation on another current
project that is being performed for the county. That project was
substantially completed on time and saved the county $170,000.
Again, I am a local contractor. I live in Collier County.
The department stated their reason not to award to Florida State
Page 256
December 16, 2003
Underground is qualifications. I've been in business for 15 to 16
years, and I've been doing this type of work for 22 years.
I'm a state certified utility contractor. I'm prequalified with the
State of Florida in roadway construction. We also perform roadway
construction work. We provide water and sewer construction
services and storm drainage services.
I've worked on the county projects for 10 years, our company
has. We've been in business for 15 years.
Florida State Underground has all its same key personnel
they've had for the last 10 years. There is no change in our personnel.
Again, there's no change in the quality of construction that we
perform.
Please do not accept the staffs recommendation. Award the job
to Florida State Underground.
We are prequalified with the state.
Evaluation forms were produced by your county, the
departments, upon completion. We did Radio Road, for instance.
We were evaluated on Radio Road, and you'll see that in your
packets. We had -- we met all expectations on that job, and it's a year
and a half old. How can we not be qualified within a year?
We're performing work on Livingston Road currently. It's -- I
think it's because of the litigation on a project that we're currently
doing because of nonpayment is the reason that the staff is
recommending that we're not qualified. I think there's underlying
issues there. And again, that's why I would like to go in front of a
hearing officer, an independent officer.
I think the staff is being allowed to be selective instead of being
objective in the awards of the contract. Talk to your county inspector
that reviews all the private work. I do -- we've done Island Walk,
we've done Village Walk. We've performed that work for the last 10
years.
Page 257
December 16, 2003
You have county inspectors that go out and review our work as
the jobs are complete and during construction. And there's one guy
in specific, he's been with the county for 15 years, ever since our
company was formed, and he inspects the work. Ask people like that
how our quality of work is.
We have a high reputation. We've been in the business for
years, and we know what we're doing. When a job is difficult, we
even dive pipe in, dive underwater to lay sanitary sewer pipe. That's
the quality of type of work that we do, and we do high quality work.
We do projects large and small.
All work in the past and current has bee accepted by the county.
There is one -- your consultant engineer recommended us for
the award, which was Wilson Miller, did a review that's in your
packet, and they did recommend the award to go to Florida State
Underground as being the low responsive responsible bidder for
$723,401.
I am currently working on Vanderbilt. This job ties into the job
I'm working on, on Livingston Road. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Questions for our staff?.
The president of FSU stated that he is presently working on a
Livingston Road project. Is there any problems with the contractor at
this point?
MR. CARNELL: Yes. Let me clarify that. Florida State
Underground is working as a subcontractor to Better Roads on that
particular project. And, yes, we have some -- encountered some
issues, as you see in your backup that was delivered to you under
separate cover from my office prior to this meeting.
In the case of the Livingston Road project, a couple of issues.
That is an ongoing project. It's not done.
But we have encountered issues there specifically with regard to
Page 258
December 16, 2003
the testing of the chlorination process, and the pressure testing
involved was not done in accordance with the as-built design
drawings, and we also had an issue there where FSU broke and
repaired an existing water line without notifying county staff of this,
which is an ordinance requirement of this county and also something
that we would expect a contractor to tell a project manager regardless
of the law.
That incident sets off an obligation on our part to be sure that
the potable water is tested correctly and properly to be in compliance
with drinking water standards. And, in effect, what happened was
the construction inspector caught FSU in the act after the fact, and
we have pictures and photos of this pipe that was severed and fixed
by Florida State without any dialogue or communication to the
project manager or team. That was one issue -- that was another issue
with Livingston.
And then there was also another issue with a sampling station
that was used at that site being damaged, and it took Florida State
Underground several hours to respond to the call and to get the
necessary people and equipment on the job site. So those were some
of the concerns we had with that particular project.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I guess I'd have to ask the clerk, Jim
Mitchell, under Florida statutes, does the board have the latitude in
this case to go with staffs recommendations?
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner, that would probably be a
question that you may want to address to your county attorney.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: The requirement of law in the purchasing
policy of Collier County is to award a contract to the lowest
responsive qualified bidder, and that does allow for the staff to
review and provide recommendation, in fact, make decision in its
Page 259
December 16, 2003
presentation to the board.
And in the case of protest and the review and consideration of
award, you have that same -- those same qualities to look at, to make
a determination of, in this particular instance, who is the lowest
qualified responsive bidder. So the answer is, yes, that is the charge
to staff and the charge to you based upon the facts relating to this
particular transaction to be done.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
I'm very sensitive to local contractors doing work for the
county. I think there is a benefit to Collier County in general. But in
this particular matter, I'm a little bit concerned about the history and
what we're being told.
If there's no further questions, I'd entertain a motion to accept
staffs recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we accept
staffs recommendations for the next bidder up from Florida -- or
FSU.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
MR. CARNELL: If I could-- for the record, if I could
encourage you in your motion to make an award to the lowest
qualified and responsive bidder, which your staff has identified to be
Southwest Utility Systems.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
also.
Okay. I put that in my motion
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
Any discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
And second.
Okay.
Page 260
December 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #1 OH
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE APPROPRIATE MOTIONS TO
PURSUE THE RECOVERY OF FUNDS DEPOSITED WITH THE
REGISTRY OF THE COl IRT- APPROVED
Next item is 10(J) -- no. I'm sorry, 10(I).
MR. MUDD: 10(H), and that's -- Mr. Chairman, that's direct
county attorney to file appropriate motions to pursue the recovery of
funds deposited with the registry of the court, and Mr. Michael
Smykowski will present.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second that, and that's directing
the county attorney to take appropriate actions to go over these
funds, correct?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
Page 261
December 16, 2003
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. SMYKOWSKI: Point of clarification, too. We would like
to -- to avoid future accumulation of interest in a similar situation
from occurring. We discussed this with the clerk's staff, and they
recommend in the future that final orders related to eminent domain,
if they would address the distribution of accumulated interest
earnings therein, we could avoid this situation and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So move.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- future filings, so we'd like to include
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a part of your motion,
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And mine.
MS. CHADWELL: First of all, before you-all make a decision
regarding how we're going to handle these orders in eminent domain
proceedings, I'd like to first say that the statute dictates that 90
percent -- in fact, this is the language of the statute -- is 90 percent of
the interest shall be paid to the petitioner. There isn't any question
involved in where that interest goes, and--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Excuse me, excuse me. The
gentleman that just walked out, he's been here for quite a while, so
after this item, which will only take a few minutes, we'll get him up.
Page 262
December 16, 2003
I'm sure it's public comment or something. I appreciate it. MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry, go ahead.
MS. CHADWELL: At any rate, in my mind, I'm not sure that --
the clerk is -- I've talked to the clerk, and the clerk is of the opinion
that in order to get this interest released to the county, he has to have
a court order.
We're now in a position where we're going to have to jump
through some hoops. And I would like to get some order out of the
court determining if it's appropriate -- if, in fact, we need a court
order as opposed to just making a request on the clerk as to this
interest.
So while I think that that's a good idea that in the event a court
order is needed, that it be incorporated in a final judgment, I would
not like you to foreclose the opportunity for our office to get a
determination out of the court, if that's where we end up, as to
whether we really need to file a motion and get a court order or
whether we're entitled to that interest, and it should be disbursed just
like the interest to the clerk is disbursed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can I revise my order-- my motion? I
make a motion that you take whatever action is necessary to get the
money back, fast, okay?
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
MS. CHADWELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Yeah.
Whatever that is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And also --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And corrected in the future.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And also, I'd like to make sure
that there's an ongoing effort to make sure this is covered in the
future. I mean, this shouldn't be something that just comes up at the
last minute like this. But--
Page 263
December 16, 2003
MS. CHADWELL: No, but evidently--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There should be a routine process
for getting this as time goes by, okay? Right?
MS. CHADWELL: Yes. I would also like to point out that
there are -- in the list attached to your executive summary, it's not
clear whether all those monetary amounts are interest or not. So we
would like the board to authorize our office to take whatever steps
are necessary to recover the moneys to which this board is entitled by
statute or by law and to protect any other interest we may have and
any moneys such as if there's a -- deposits that are still on account
with the clerk's office or with the court's office.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Thank you.
MS. CHADWELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go get it.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's part of my second.
MS. FILSON: Are you going to take a vote?
MR. MUDD: Get a vote.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
Item #8A
Page 264
December 16, 2003
ORDINANCE 2003-67 ADOPTING THE 2003 CYCLE 2
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS AND
TRANSMITTING SAME TO DCA
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Let's do the Growth Management Plan.
We need to take a vote. Commissioner Coletta is going to leave
here shortly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well -- no, I'm not going to
make it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll stay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the -- as all GMP documents are
concerned, Mr. Chairman, they're always a little bit -- they're always
a little bit interesting and very detailed on the wording. And you
approved every piece of the amendments to the Growth Management
Plan.
You've got a motion to transmit. You have to have a motion to
adopt before you can transmit, okay? And I just got a little message.
So I'm going to read the recommendation, and from there I'm going
to need a motion, a motion and a second and a vote.
The recommendation is that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt, with changes, and transmit to DCA and other
required agencies the 2003 Cycle 2 Growth Management Plan
amendments, CPSP-2003-4, -5, -6, -7, -8, and -9, as noted above.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 265
December 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
If the gentleman in the intro --
MS. FILSON: Kenneth -- oops, I'm sorry. John Rigsby.
Item # 11
Pl IFIl.lC COMMENTS ON GENERAl. TOPICS
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Rigsby, please come to the
podium. Bring your son, if you'd like.
MS. FILSON: Are we going to take both public comments at
the same time?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's do that, let's take the public
comments.
MS. FILSON: Okay. And then after him will be Kenneth
Thompson.
MR. RIGSBY: I was going to say good afternoon, but good
evening. Happy holidays to you. For the record, my name is Steve
Rigsby or John Stephen Rigsby. I live in Wilmer hel -- Wilmer
Heights area of the Gateway Triangle and am a member of the
Freedom Triangle Association.
Today many of you have expressed to us, the voters, of how to
improve government, yet when the CRA was started in 2000, its
heart, I believe, was in the right place. Now it has taken many tums.
Grants, for one, six, to be exact, to help improve homes. One out of
Page 266
December 16, 2003
the six was granted, mainly because of the paperwork involved, it
was confusing and bureaucratic.
My question is, where is the remaining grant money set aside
now, and will there be more grants forthcoming?
I also would like to know why on my street, Andrew Drive,
where five new homes have been built in three years, you would
consider this to be a blighted area? The same street is less than 100
yar-- 1,000 yards from Shadowlawn on the west -- Shadowlawn
Elementary School on the west side, yet we have no sidewalks or
proper drainage. 98 percent of the homes in this Wilmer Heights
area are owned and lived in by those families. These homes now are
sold from 130,000 to 200,000 apiece and will continue to rise.
Many improvements like the removal of the Bel-Air Motel have
occurred. Property owners like myself have been involved in
cleanups organized by ourselves and taking place. We the voters are
trying and making a difference in this area.
We, the 100 members or so in this organization, do not wish to
be included in the Bayshore development. We are two different
developments, separate not only by 41 but by our wishes on how
money should be spent.
Storm drainage reinserted into the underground rivers that flow
through this area is a must, not a dream or research project. It is
imperative that we do something about this drainage problem for this
area, I mean the whole county. Properly cleaned first, of course.
We have firsthand felt the effect of red tide this summer because
of improper drainage systems. This is the first summer I can recall
ever having felt these effects of red tide in my 20 years of living here
in this town. My family has been in this town and lived in and out of
Florida since 1955.
In closing, yes, the Bayshore/Golden Gate -- I'm sorry,
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle has many challenges, but please let this
Page 267
December 16, 2003
community in which I live express its own name, not one that was
given to us by the Commissioners. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. And I think Mr. Gunther
is going to start a petition around and -- now, the word blight in some
cases can be good. In this case, what we're -- once we identify that
as blight, we can get special funds to do some of those stormwater
improvements. And we own -- we just bought some land in the
Triangle, and we're going to purchase some more in your immediate
neighborhood. I understood that we own something like an acre or
acre and a third or something like that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Something like that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- that does need to be improved for
-- received as stormwater was your feeling. And --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the other was like four acres,
wasn't it, that we just voted on?
MR. MUDD: We have close to four acres that we own already.
And we're purchasing almost -- about a million dollars' worth more,
so--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I found interesting and I
didn't know this, just for the sake of interest, that we were talking
about stormwater and, you know, and trying to handle the stormwater
runoff?. Well, in that particular area, they can't put it down because
they reach water. They have to put-- the reason they need the land is
they have to put it above level. So everything that they syphon off,
they have to put up into tanks in order to then cleanse it and get it
back out. I was quite amazed that this area is so different.
And the CRA, although Mr. Gunther is going to try and get a
petition to remove it himself, and that's fine, but right now the CRA
has voted to help financially handle the stormwater problem in there.
And, I mean, they wouldn't mind not donating the dollars, I'm sure.
But right now they have offered to donate the dollars, because they'll
Page 268
December 16, 2003
come from Bayshore mostly right now. But they need to fix the
stormwater problem. You can't -- the poor people there are stuck
with
MR. RIGSBY: I have a 70-year-old conch house, okay?
Tongue and groove ceilings, exposed beams, beautiful old home and
I've refurbished it. I don't even have proper drainage, other than a
ditch in my front yard.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a girlfriend who lives there
who can't even --
MR. RIGSBY: With no -- with no sidewalks. The other
problem is --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. You can't even park near
her home. She has to actually park in the street and walk through the
water. So I know what you mean.
MR. RIGSBY: The other problem is that we've in an
elementary school, Shadowlawn, we don't have sidewalks. Dozen of
children every day--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the sidewalks are going in on
Shadowlawn.
MR. RIGSBY: They're already in Shadowlawn. I'm talking
about on Andrew Drive. Andrew Drive is on the east side of the -- of
Shadowlawn School. And we have dozens of children every
morning that have to dodge traffic because -- we've come to you
before, Hector Cobbler (phonetic) a couple of years ago, is a
neighbOr of mine, came to you and asked for speed bumps and we
were sent to DOT and DOT said we didn't have enough of a traffic
problem to stop the cut between 41 to alleviate the light to get onto
Airport.
So here we have all these kids endangered. I've got a
three-year-old, wherever he is, you know, that's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's just a little boy.
Page 269
December 16, 2003
MR. RIGSBY: Yeah, he's just a little boy, but, I mean, we're
talking school age kids with their mothers that are walking, and
they're dodging traffic. And I see it every day. And it's just a matter
of time before a tragedy happens.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know Commissioner Fiala is very
much involved in the Triangle. And your comments are not going to
be taken lightly. And I apologize for your long wait because of the
lengthy agenda that we have today. But I do thank you for coming.
MR. RIGSBY: Well, the point is, this is why working class
people can't come to these things, because they have to go pick up
their day -- their kids at day care, which I had to do. And they have
to make a living, you know, keep one eye on you and keep one eye
on him.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He's fine. He's fine. Thank you.
MR. RIGSBY: Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't forget that you can
communicate with us by telephone or e-mail or by note. You don't
really have to come here to get our attention.
MR. RIGSBY: I thought it was important enough this time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is. But there have been a
number of people in that area who have solicited our help merely by
writing us e-mail. And we have responded and we have done some
things with respect to controlling traffic, particularly in the Brookside
area.
So there are a lot of things that are happening. So if you find it
difficult to come here and talk, you really don't have to do that to get
our attention.
MR. RIGSBY: Okay. Well, I thought in my heart that this was
the best way to do it this time. I appreciate your time. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Page 270
December 16, 2003
MR. RIGSBY: Happy holidays.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You too.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Mr.
Kenneth Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: I don't think I'm going to make this. I left
my wife at home sick. I'm Kenneth Thompson, 2831 Becca Avenue.
And Fred Coyle, you're absolutely a liar. I hate to do that to you,
but anymore, you people, to get your attention, you can't find you.
There's nowhere in the world you can find you. No way. And I
didn't even come here to talk to you. As a matter of fact, I don't want
to talk to you, you know.
I wish you would help me though, anyway. You got two people
that work out at code enforcement. You got two people that work in
code enforcement. Her name is Sondra DiNicola, the weekend code
enforcement. You got another one, Sonja Green. I like to see you
people give those two girls a $50 raise. If you are getting all the
money you're getting, you can give this lady a $50 raise apiece.
Because when you call, they answer. You can better believe it. And
you got the sweetest person running that place, it's Michelle Arnold.
And I got nothing -- I got a place here. I talked to Mr. Mudd
about it. Cross in front of me here. There's not -- I went through
living hell this weekend. I been in the hospital all weekend and I'm
telling you, I can't take it anymore. If you don't do something about
this place. It's one of the worst nightmares I have ever seen in my
life. It's -- you moved this funny people out of Olde Naples up to the
Collier County line. Schultz didn't want them up there, Sheriff
Schultz. And now you got them over here in Golden Gate Shopping
Center. How in the hell do you expect to keep up any grocery stores
all around with people like that?
And then I'm going to have to keep on going here. And then I
gotta -- you, Coletta. You know, that's been bothering me for a long
Page 271
December 16, 2003
time, you and your chocolate cake, you know. Yeah, your chocolate
cake, sir. I was told you was nothing but a pussy cat, but man, I'd
sure like to have you as a Tom, I'll tell you that.
You went over here to John -- John L. Norman here, where my
wife right there, sitting right there one day. And I don't -- I don't
know where you had him to put me on the Internet. He works for
Days -- this House of Representatives, Days Rivers (sic). And I
understand, I know for a fact you had me put in the computer. He's
got me in the computer. He's got another one in there, a Ken
Thompson, the lawyer. And you got me equaled as the worst
nightmare in Collier County.
Well, I got to tell you something, sir, I'm a democrat, I'm going
to die a democrat. I never had to change from a democrat to a
republican to get a job, like you did. And that's exactly what you
did.
But, you know, all -- when I leave here, I'm going to be a sick
person like I am now, because I'm going to have to polish that job,
see, somewhere down the road, what I'm telling you right now. And
you, too, Mr. Coyle.
But it is a hard way to get ahold of you. Try come over here and
get a hold of you. You can't even find ya.
And then Mrs. Donna Fiala, you know, I found out something
about you that I couldn't believe that was true. I'm going to leave
that right there. I'm going to let you figure that one out.
And then you got the Sheriff Department. I don't know whether
you'd call it Hussein or Don Hunter, I don't know which one. That
man, he has four-lettered the hell out of me for the last six to eight
years. My wife holds two state licenses, two county licenses, I ask
for help from Don Hunter, he then sends his gunslingers out. I can't
believe what happened to me the other night. And here I can't even
stand up hardly. Pulls his gun out, his laser gun out and scared me to
Page 272
December 16, 2003
death. I know what it is, but you don't have to point nothing at me
like this. It's the truth. Don -- I couldn't stay in the day -- if I -- it's a
yellow thing. I don't -- he kept telling me that this is their new guns,
you know, we use this to take care of the -- they -- what's them bums
you harboring over there in St. Matthews House? What you call
them, bums? That's what he says we use it on.
So you should just move people like that. I come here 43 years
ago, and I'm cutting -- my wife cut my hair and I married her 10 days
later. And man, I'm still with her. And a man like me can make it
good. I've been in every business you can imagine. And I sell it
until the man can't make it and I buy it back.
But it makes me so mad to have to come in and talk to you like
that. But you're wrong. Somebody ask you, you don't put your sign
up no more in front of a bar, will you? It took me a long time to get
it out and now it's gone. I hope you keep it gone. And wish you all a
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I feel sorry -- I feel bad, I feel left
out, you didn't pick on me.
MR. THOMPSON: No, you wasn't -- oh, I want to tell you, for
I -- if you give me a minute. I went and bought three pieces of
property in your area. That's why I shook your hand back there
today. And if you run again, brother, you're going to get three votes
from me, maybe 22. Believe me, I'm going to do it. I don't care if
you are republican.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
speakers?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Thank you. Any more public
Back to the agenda.
Item #101
Page 273
December 16, 2003
AGREEMENT WITH THE AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE
ADMINISTRATION AND NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE UPPER PAYMENT LIMIT
PROGRAM FOR SERVICES PROVIDED ON BEHALF OF THE
HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT, AND DAVID LAWRENCE CENTER TO
GENERATE AN ADDITIONAL $438,915 IN FEDERAL
MATCHING FIJNDS ANNI~AI,I.Y- APPROVF. D
MR. MUDD: We're at Item 10(I), which is recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve an agreement with the
agency for the health care administration in Naples Community
Hospital for participation in the upper payment limit program for
services provided on behalf of the Human Services Department,
County Health Department and David Lawrence Center to generate
an additional $438,915 in federal matching funds annually. And Mr.
Dunnuck will present.
Commissioner, if you remember correctly, you told us to go
back and work out a compromise with NCH. The next two items,
10(A) and 10(J) are basically those compromises. One is the upper
payment limit. They're willing to do the administrative piece and
submit for those additional dollars. Those will be dollars that will go
into your general fund and help offset some of the dollars that you
put into Department of Health programs and whatnot, one of which
was on your consent item today for $1.4 million for their annual
proceeds.
This is a rather good deal for Collier County, and we thank
NCH for their participation in the program and willing to administer
for us.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
Page 274
December 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Coyle.
Mr. Dunnuck, do you have anything?
MR. DUNNUCK: I'll only make one comment, that while your
executive summary mentions that it's 438,000, I wanted to point out
that that's for three-quarters of a year because we're into our fiscal
year. The potential for this program in following years is up to a
million dollars of federal matching funds, which is a good news item
for the county.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I just wanted to tell you
how much I appreciate the fact that you managed to broker this deal,
Naples Community Hospital being willing to come to the table and
solve all this. Good work, Mr. Dunnuck. MR. DUNNUCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anymore discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
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 unanimously.
All in favor of the motion, signify by
Item # 10J
Page 275
December 16, 2003
AGREEMENT AND PLAN TO PROVIDE OUT OF COUNTY
TRANSPORTS FOR NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
HF, AI,THCARF, SYSTF, MS FACII,ITIES- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Next item is Number 10(J) and that the Board of
County Commissioners approve --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Coyle to approve. Any discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Again, thank you.
All in favor of the motion-- all in favor of the motion, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #10L
CARNIVAL PERMIT CP-2003-09 FOR THE NAPLES JUNIOR
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL ON
NEW YF, AR'S F, VF,- APPROVED
10(L) is a permit to conduct a carnival. I make a motion to
approve.
Page 276
December 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Again, thank you, Mr. Dunnuck.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner just as a point. This is the JC's --
this is the JC's carnival permit and it's for New Year's Eve. It will be
held at Sugden Park and it will have a fireworks display that's part of
it. This is a little plug because they couldn't be here to do it.
MR. DUNNUCK: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Any opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
Item #1 OM
AGREEMENT BETWEEN SCHENKEL SHULTZ AND COLLIER
COUNTY TO ACT AS ARCHITECT FOR THE NAPLES JAIL
PROJECT AND RETA1N SERVICES OF TKW CONSULTING
ENGINEERS, INC., TLC ENGINEERING FOR ARCHITECT,
WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS AND GOETZ AND
STOPES LANDSCAPING RETROACTIVE TO DECEMBER 3,
Page 277
December 16, 2003
2003_ AFTER DECIJARATION OF EMERGENCY- APPROVED
Next item is 10(M), approve the interim agreement between
Schenkel Shultz and Collier County to act as the architect for the
Naples Jail Project and retain services of TKW, Consulting
Engineering, Incorporated.
Do I have to say anything else?
MR. MURRAY: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman this -- if you'll
remember, the Board on December 2nd terminated the agreement we
had with the architect for the Naples Jail Center, as that firm was
going out of business, and we have been scrambling, working very
closely, County Attorney, Clerk's, Finance Department and my
department, and the Facilities Management Department, to make sure
that we can keep this project moving forward without experiencing
any claims or delays on the construction side, and also minimizing
the exposure and offering continuity to the project as best we can.
We have been in discussions with Schenkel Shultz, which is a
firm that is under annual contract with the county already to provide
architectural services, and also, not ironically, was the number two
firm in the short listing process five years ago on this project.
Schenkel Shultz is a firm with considerable background on the
corrections-related design type work, and they have worked with us
very diligently too and are agreeing to step in on an interim basis to
enable the project to continue to move forward into January, and we
will be negotiating a permanent successor agreement for them to
assume the balance of the project administration through its
completion.
So we are asking the Board to approve this work order for
$99,000 and to authorize staff to move forward, based on the
recommendations that are here. And we'll be bringing back the
permanent agreement to you in January.
Page 278
December 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to
approve staff's recommendation, second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion on the motion?
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 unanimously.
Is there any other business?
Item #14A
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING AWARD OF
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION GRANTS,
ELIMINATING A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT, AND
RETURNING NET ADJUSTMENT TO THE GENERAL FUND-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to 14(A), which
used to be 10(C).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, there it is.
MR. MUDD: And it's to approve a budget amendment
recognizing award of Federal Aviation Administration grants,
eliminating a previously approved project and returning that
adjustment to the general fund.
Page 279
December 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
MR. VASEY: Just before -- before I begin, earlier, about an
hour and a half ago, a fellow said that he had been here at the pledge
of allegiance and he was the longest unpaid person? He was wrong,
he didn't even have it close.
I'm Dennis Vasey, by the way.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Vasey, you'll keep your items on
track to the discussion on hand, right?
MR. VASEY: It will be concise, Mr. Chairman.
By the way, I'm leaving right from here to go out to the airport
for our ceremony tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Has it stopped raining yet?
MR. VASEY: Where we're at with this pro -- and I'm really
pleased with where we're at, because with Mr. Mudd and the staff,
we've been able to recognize a lot of the procedure that wasn't being
done before. And where we find ourselves right now is we find
ourselves having only recently begun to fill in the blanks the way
they needed to be filled in.
I don't believe that anyone has ever appeared before you on the
agenda asking for a budget amendment. And this budget amendment
is -- hopefully it won't happen a lot, but when you have a cycle and a
time line that we have, we could, based on our strategic plan, come
back at any time, because we can't predict the rate that the DOT or
the FAA really approve grants. We apply for them and sometimes,
quite frankly, we're surprised when they show up at our doorstep.
But Collier County has a very long history of frontloading
aviation, as Collier County did with the first airport by signing up
with the City of Naples and creating that first airport, and also with
our own county.
So as I look at what we're doing, we've taken our strategic plan,
we've used our grant writer, we've applied for grants, and these are
Page 280
December 16, 2003
safety related items. These aren't the kinds of things that would add
anything superficial.
For the work that we're asking to be done, we're looking at the
design of safety features at Marco, Immokalee and Everglades Air
Park.
In the letter and spirit of the directive that you sent us, we've
looked at that as a long-range view, and we take the current
ordinance, that long-range view and then the interim agreements that
we have, and we're telling you that the safety of these airports will be
greatly enhanced, notwithstanding any other activities that take
place, and we would ask that you approve this budget amendment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any questions for the
chairman of the Airport Authority? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There was a motion by
Commissioner Coyle; was that correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To approve, right?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: To approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion on the motion?
That's just removing that one item? Okay. All in favor --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who was the second?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second, Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
Page 281
December 16, 2003
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, Duke, you waited a long time
for that.
MR. VASEY: It was -- it was fun, and I really appreciate the
opportunity to be here. But more important, everyone from the
airport wishes each of you a great 2004.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Thank you, that was
very nice.
Item # 15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GFNF. RA[~ COMMIJNICATIONS
County Attorney David Weigel, do you have any closing
comments?
MR. WEIGEL: None for the meeting. Best wishes over the
holidays. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager Jim Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, I do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: First we received a -- the Chairman received a
memorandum from the Collier County property appraisal, and this
had to do with the reduction and assessment of living quarters for
parents and grandparents, fondly known as the granny flats issue.
And, you know, we asked them for some fiscal analyses to be
done on what would happen, and it basically -- and it basically says
in his letter, at this time any fiscal impact resulting from the
implementation of this exemption in Collier County is indeterminate.
Currently Collier County has approximately 70,000 parcels with
homestead exemptions. How many of these parcels would -- could
Page 282
December 16, 2003
or would ever construct or reconstruct the property to provide living
quarters is unknown. In addition, 20 percent of the total assessed
value of the property that would qualify is another unknown at this
time.
As of October 20, 2003, there have been three counties that have
been approved -- have approved implementation: Leon, Duval and
Miami-Dade. There have been several issues raised about exactly
how the property appraiser in each county should administer --
administer the granting of this exemption. These issues are being
addressed and -- in proposed legislation for 2004. Attached is a copy
of the report prepared by the Senate Finance and Tax Committee.
Furthermore, the Florida Department of Revenue is drafting
rules for implementation to the property appraiser, which they don't
have yet. Any additional information I receive will be forwarded to
you immediately to assist with your decision. Please do not hesitate
to contact my office with any questions or comments. And that was
dated on December 4th.
We basically had it, we postponed it for awhile on the agendas,
waiting for-- we're still -- we're still in an unknown area on a brand
new law. Today was the last day to enact for this FY. I would
suggest that we postpone this till next year until we get the legislative
language and we also get the Senate to provide some rules on how to
administer.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. This is a very badly written
law, and there are going to be some changes to the legislation. And
it's almost unenforceable. I can't believe it got out of the legislature
in its current form, and I'd like to avoid it as long as we can. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman, I also received a letter dated 9 December from
Mr. Lee, the City Manager for the City of Naples. This basically -- a
Page 283
December 16, 2003
letter talks about two petitions, Petition No. PUD DA-03AR-4008,
which is the Pelican Bay PUD, and Petition No. DOA-O3AR-4777,
Pelican Bay DRI.
As you are aware, the city has become involved with the issues
of the amendment for the Pelican Bay PUD and expansion of the
Waterside Shops. A presentation was given to the City Council on
Monday, December 1st, 2003, followed by two resolutions that were
approved by City Council on Wednesday, December 3rd, 2003.
I have enclosed copies of two approved resolutions for your
information and action. Resolution 03-10288 is related to the city's
position for objecting to the opening of Crayton Road north of
Seagate Drive and requesting the establishment of improved
City/County procedures identifying, coordinating and processing
land use petitions that create the potential for a future -- a future
connection of Crayton Road to Seagate Drive.
I have -- I have separately on the phone to not only the Vice
Mayor but to the County Manager affirmed the fact that Crayton
Road is not a breaker in the Waterside Shops PUD or DRI, and the
staff is not advocating the opening up of that particular road.
The second resolution, 03-10289, is a request -- is to request a
60-day extension for the hearing of two petitions scheduled for the
County -- for the Collier County Planning Commission on December
18th, 2003, and Mr. Schmitt will present that resolution to the
Planning Commission to see if they want to abide by that resolution
and wait for 60 days or whatever. But I'd just let you know that that's
there.
And I will tell that you Mr. Lee and I are corresponding weekly,
daily in some particular cases, and at least we're going to sit down
every month and have a meeting to make sure that we communicate
between the county and the city.
The next item that I have is an item that's up --
Page 284
December 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Sir?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we get too far off,
Commissioner Coyle has a question on the item that you just finished
up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have an estimate when the
Pelican Bay PUD is likely to come before us?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, the second meeting in January.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, that quickly, huh?
MR. MUDD: The 27th of January, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right.
MR. MUDD: It's been -- it's been postponed now for almost
four months, so -- and I don't know what the Planning Commission
will do. But if they postpone it for 60 days, you're in February now,
you're not in January, depending on what they do here in a couple of
days.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: The next item I received is from -- it's one that's
addressed to Commissioner Henning, and it's basically notification to
the Board via certified mail, of the voluntary annexation of the
Ruffina site, 038X1-03-088, which is 605 Sandpiper Street, to the
City of Naples.
Of concern for us is the fact that there -- its partial city sewer,
county sewer, the majority county sewer, and we sent a letter back in
April to them basically saying that the county would want the county
sewer to be hooked up because they have to move their pump station
and whatnot. Commissioner Coyle has been aware of that particular
case. He was -- he asked lots of questions about that.
The second issue is Ruffina is in the Triangle, in the Bayshore
CRA. And we've been-- we've been in communication with the
County Attorney's Office to find out what the ramifications of a
Page 285
December 16, 2003
voluntary annexation is to an existing CRA, county CRA in that fact.
I would -- I would tell this Commission in my opinion that no
matter where the Ruffina property ends up, either in the county or in
the city, depending on this voluntary annexation-- and you don't
have a lot to say about a voluntary annexation into a municipality,
oh, by the way -- that we as a Board, if you so direct, that one of the
Commissioners carry the message tomorrow at the 1:30 time specific
in front of the Naples Council on this particular item, that no matter
which way you do it, we want to make sure that the taxable value of
that property above the TIF stays within that CRA and doesn't move
out, because it will be detrimental to that particular item.
This is the first hopeful project in that CRA that we've got out
there, and to see it get moved out of the CRA into the city is -- is not
very good as far as -- as far as the future prospects of that particular
CRA. And I think you heard two speakers today talk about how
they're trying to get their neighborhood squared away.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest
that Commissioner Fiala do that. I'm going to be tied up in meetings
tomorrow during that meeting with the City Council. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that fine?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's fine with me. I'd like to do
that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is that agreeable with the rest
of the Board on my right?
Thank you. Oh, you're on my right now.
MR. MUDD: And the last item, which is a -- which is a rather
good news item that I received is our grants coordinator informed me
that on 10 November that we received some $517,000 worth of
grants from the Big Cypress Basin board. That's about 75 percent of
their grant outlays. And that's really good news, and it's on about
eight projects that we have. So that's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Page 286
December 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Any of it going toward the Triangle
stormwater management?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry -- if I -- I have one more.
Mr. Chairman, this is your last-- this is your last Board meeting as
Chair under this year. And from a staff perspective, I'd like to say
thank you for your leadership this year. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, thank you.
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have nothing. And all I want to
say to the staff and my fellow Board members is I wish you all a
very, very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I would also like to share
that wish to everyone. The only other thing I would like to add is I
need to talk to Mr. Mudd, possibly Clarence Tears. I found it very
upsetting to find out that the Big Cypress Basin lost out to the
Southwest Florida Water Management District on their future plans
for expanding their authority over our second drainage issue. And
they were really serious about going for it. And at their last meeting,
their board of directors was looking to take on the Lely drainage
basin and they were very serious about it. They made motions to that
effect. They were moving forward. However, there is a power
dispute going on between the two entities and I'm not too sure how
we can ever correct that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think we all look forward to
you working with our staff to resolve those. And if there's any action
that we need to take, I'm sure you will continue to receive support.
Is there anything else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
Page 287
December 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, you've been great as
Chairman all year long, and you've set a fine example for the person
to step into when you finish. And it's been great working with you.
Merry Christmas to all of you. Merry Christmas to all of our staff
and Merry Christmas to everybody out there, and Happy New Year.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Thank you. Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Seasons Greetings to everybody.
And Commissioner Halas, I hope for your New Year's gift that Mr.
Thompson does move into your district.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have enough problems
now.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wide shoulders, Commissioner. I'm
very proud of you.
I'm looking forward to handing over the Chairman -- Chair to
the next person in line, with, you know, different styles and that. It's
been enjoyable working with all the Board members and the public.
There is one item that I have some concerns about. And, you
know, I don't know how much of a rumor it is, but I think it's a
reliable source that the State of Florida is considering making
Gordon River all idle zone. And as you know, we have residents on
both sides that -- up the river and down the river that it would affect,
you know, tremendous, you know, economic and so on and so forth.
If we could, with the Board's indulgence, direct staff to check on
this and verify it and anything that we need to do. I mean, if it's
science-based where it's going to affect the ecology, the estuaries, the
manatees or listed species and that, if there's science there, then that's
great, I hope that we can see it. But other than that, I just -- do it out
of a whim is not good. So if you would do that for us, please.
And I want to wish our community a very Merry Christmas and
Page 288
December 16, 2003
a Happy New Year, and thanks to our staff for a wonderful year.
And we'll see you, if not before, next year. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We are adjourned.
***** Commissioner Coyle moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16Al
RESOLUTIONS 2003-43 lA THRU 2003-449 :LIEN
RESOLUTIONS-CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NUMBERS:
2003050858/OLGA HIRSHHORN; 2003070722/AURORA BROS;
2003051051/BUITRAGO, ALVARO; 2003060548/COOK,
WESLEY; 2003070586/STONESTREET, WILLIAM;
2003060299/TSALACH INVESTMENTS, LLC;
2003060608/BARON, MIMON; 2003070986/LORA, BULFRANO;
2003070987/LORA, BULFRANO; 2003070985/LORA,
BULFRANO; 2003080288/CONDON, LELLY; 2003081510/CNC
INVESTMENTS LLC; 2003081093/SHELTON, RANDOLPH;
2003080966/RAMOS, LUIS & MARYORIE;
2003090114/GALLOWAY, BARBARA; 2003070674/DION,
CHERYL; 2003071414/TREMBLAY, CLAUDETTE,
2003080361/SEVA EST., ARMAND AND
2003080930/WIIJKINSON-MFJFFF, RT CONST. CO.
Item # 16A2
RESOLUTION 2003-450: PETITION AVESMT2003-AR4290 TO
Page 289
December 16, 2003
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE 10 FOOT
WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT CONVEYED TO COLLIER
COUNTY BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT AND RECORDED IN
OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1040, PAGES 1987 THROUGH 1993,
AND TO ACCEPT A 15 FOOT WIDE RELOCATION UTILITY
EASEMENT, LOCATED IN SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 48
SOIITH_ RANGE 25 EAST_ COI.IJIER COIINTY. FLORIDA
Item # 16A3
DIRECTION TO STAFF AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE TO TAKE ALL ACTIONS REASONABLY NECESSARY
TO AMEND THE STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND COURT ORDER PERTAINING TO SDP-88-93, DORSET
PARK, TO REFLECT APPROVAL OF THE CAPITAL CENTER
CONCEPTUAL PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF COACH
HOIJSE I.ANF, AND AIRPORT-PI JIJ~ING ROAD
Item # 16A4
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO_ 2002-030
Item #16A5
MODIFICATION TO UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 1448-40181-98-J-
021 TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE FROM
Page 290
December 16, 2003
SEPTEMBER 1_ 2003 TO DECEMBER 31. 2003
Item #16A6
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN MARSH
l INIT TWENTY SIX"
Item #16A7
COLLIER HMA TO CONTINUE TO UTILIZE THE NAME
"COLLIER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER" OR "GREATER
COLLIER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER" FOR THEIR
PROPOSED NEW HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE SITE ON
COIJJER BOIIIJEVARD IN COIJJFR COIJNTY
Item #16A8
RATIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL BUILDING PERMIT
ISSUED TO KELLY AND WENDY PAFFEL, FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL, DECK, AND CAGE
THAT ALLOWS FOR A THREE (3) FOOT ENCROACHMENT
INTO THE TWENTY (20) FOOT WIDE LAKE MAINTENANCE
EASEMENT IJOCATED IN PFiBFII.EBROOKE IJAKES
Item # 16A9
RESOLUTION 2003-451 :AUTHORIZING THE ENGINEERING
SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO PETITION THE SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO DELEGATE
A PORTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE
PERMITTING PROGRAM
Page 291
December 16, 2003
Item #16Al0
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 03-3473 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $337,466.00, FOR PLANNING SERVICES TO BE
PROVIDED BY HDR, INC., FOR A COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
OVERLAY FOR THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE
RFDEVF, I ~OPMENT
Item #16B 1 - Withdrawn
RESOLUTION WHICH PERMITS THE TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR TO ACCEPT ON
BEHALF OF THE COUNTY PRIVATE DONATIONS OF
PLANTS FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT, AND WHERE
APPROPRIATE, TO GIVE SUCH PLANTS FOR BUFFERING TO
PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAVE BEEN IMPACTED
BY Pl Il:ti.lC PROJECTS
Item #16B2
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE FOREST LAKES MSTU TO
TRANSFER $587,000 FROM RESERVES FOR FUTURE
CONSTRUCTION TO CAPITAL AND OPERATING
F. XPFJNDITI IRE BI IDGF. T
Item #16B3
TWO FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST, FLORIDA FOREVER
GRANT CONTRACT AGREEMENTS, ONE IN THE AMOUNT
OF $1,909,200, REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF
Page 292
December 16, 2003
THE BAREFOOT BEACH OUTPARCEL AND ONE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,100,000, REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE
PURCHASE OF MITIGATION LANDS FOR THE LELY AREA
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND
AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATE DIVISION
ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS IN
CONNECTION WITH EACH PROJECT, AS CONTEMPLATED
IN THF, AGRFJF, MF, NTS
Item # 16B4
REJECT ALL BIDS RECEIVED UNDER BID #03-3567 "PINE
RIDGE INDUSTRIAL PARK M.S.T.U. DRAINAGE
MAINTENANCE"- ALLOW FOR THE RE-SOLICITING OF
THF, SE SFRVICF, S AT A FIITIIRFJ DATF~
Item #16B5
PURCHASE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCELS 120 AND 121
REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF SANTA BARBARA
BOULEVARD AND GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY (PROJECT NO.
62081/. TOTAl, FISCAl, IMPACT: $6027808
Item # 16B6
CHANGE ORDER NO. 13 IN THE AMOUNT OF $234,015.51 TO
AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES, INC., FOR THE GOODLETTE-
FRANK ROAD PROJECT, FROM PINE RIDGE ROAD TO
VANDF, RlqII,T BF, ACH ROAD, PROJFJCT NO. 60134
Item # 16C 1
Page 293
December 16, 2003
ANNUAL BID #04-3575 FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY
SUPPLIES TO VARIOUS VENDORS IN THE ESTIMATED
AMOI JNT OF $1
Item # 16C2
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST
REAL PROPERTY FOR ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND
DIRECT THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RECORD SAME IN THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. FISCAL
IMPACT IS $66.00 TO RECORD THE LIENS-FOR ACCOUNTS
I~ISTF, D IN THFJ F, XF, CI ~TIVF, SI IMMARY
Item #16C3
RESOLUTION 2003-452 :APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $12.00 TO RECORD LIEN-
FOR ACCOI JNT NO. 82400
Item #16C4
RESOLUTION 2003-453 :APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
Page 294
December 16, 2003
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $12.00 TO RECORD THE
IJIEN- FOR ACCOI JNT NO. 119852
Item # 16C5
RESOLUTION 2003-454 :APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $12.00 TO RECORD THE
I,IF, N- FOR ACCOIINT NO. 23838
Item # 16C6
RESOLUTION 2003-455 :APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT
WHERF, IN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $12.00 TO RECORD THE
IJlF, N- FOR ACCOI JNT NO. 22392
Item #16C7
RESOLUTION 2003-456 :APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1995 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $12.00 TO RECORD THE
Page 295
December 16, 2003
I,IF, N- FOR ACCOI JNT NO. 23605
Item # 16C8
RESOLUTION 2003-457 :APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $12.00 TO RECORD THE
IJIEN- FOR ACCOI JNT NO. 26042
Item # 16C9
SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF CARTRIDGE FILTERS FROM
GEORGE S. EDWARDS COMPANY INCORPORATED IN THE
AMOUNT OF $164,000 - AT THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATFR TREATMENT PliANT (NCRWTP)
Item # 16C 10
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR COUNTY-WIDE SAND SEARCH,
PROJECT 90527: 1N TI-IF, AMOIINT OF $425:000
Item #16C 11
WORK ORDER, UNDER CONTRACT #01-3271, FIXED TERM
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR COASTAL
ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS, WITH COASTAL
Page 296
December 16, 2003
PLANNING AND ENGINEERING FOR RESPONDING TO
PERMIT AGENCY COMMENTS AND REQUESTS FOR
INFORMATION AS PART OF COUNTY-WIDE SAND SEARCH,
PROJECT 90527, NOT TO EXCEED $100,000 - ALLOW THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE THE
WORK ORDER
Item #16C12
WORK ORDER, UNDER CONTRACT #01-3271, FIXED TERM
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR COASTAL
ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS, WITH COASTAL
PLANNING AND ENGINEERING FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT IN SUPPORT OF A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
THE U.S. MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICES AS PART OF
COUNTY-WIDE SAND SEARCH, PROJECT 90527, NOT TO
EXCEED $50,000 - AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
ADMINISTRATOR TO CONCLUDE NEGOTIATIONS AND
EXECIITION OF THE WORK ORDER l~P TO THAT AMOI JNT
Item #16C13
WORK ORDER CDM-FT-04-02 FOR UTILITY ENGINEERING
SERVICES RELATED TO SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT LIME SOFTENING PROCESS,
PROJECT 70057, 1N THE AMOUNT OF $690,664- WITH CAMP
DRESSER & MCKF, F,. INC.
Item # 16C 14
Page 297
December 16, 2003
WORK ORDER HS-FT-04-01 FOR UTILITY ENGINEERING
SERVICES RELATED TO NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT WELLFIELD RELIABILITY,
PROJECT 71006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $622,350- WITH
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Item # 16C 15
WORK ORDER CDM-FT-04-01 TO CAMP DRESSER AND
MCKEE ENGINEERS FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
RELATED TO TELEMETRY AND SCADA UPGRADES FOR
MANATEE PUMP STATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $120,696
FOR PROJECT 70124
Item # 16C 16
WORK ORDER UNDER CONTRACT NO. 03-3427 TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC. (PSI) IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $375,500 TO ASSIST IN THE
PREPARATION OF CONCEPTUAL PLANS AND
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS TO UPGRADE AND
RECONSTRUCT THE FACILITIES AT THE IMMOKALEE,
MARCO ISLAND, NAPLES AIRPORT AND CARNESTOWN
RECYCLING AND HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION
CENTF, RS
Item # 16C 17
BLANKET PURCHASE ORDER WITH U.S. FILTER FOR
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF ODOR CONTROL UNITS AT
Page 298
December 16, 2003
BOTH THE NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY AND THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER
RECIJAMATION FACII,ITY: IN THE AMOIINT OF $163:231
Item # 16C 18
UTILITY FACILITIES REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH
SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 1NC. (HOME
CENTER PI~AZA~}
Item #16C19
CONTRACT 03-3517 WITH GREELEY AND HANSEN, LLC,
FOR "PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR WATER
MAIN PROJECTS" IN THE AMOUNT OF $889,999 FOR
PROJECTS 70151: 70152 AND 70153
Item #16C20
WORK ORDER WMI-FT-04-01 UNDER CONTRACT 01-3290
WITH WILSON MILLER INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $161,500
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH
REZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING FOR THE
SITE OF THE PROPOSED NORTHEAST REGIONAL WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY AND WATER TREATMENT
PLANT, PROJECT NUMBERS 70154 AND 73155 -
AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ADMINISTRATOR TO
F, XECI JTE THE WORK ORDER
Page 299
December 16, 2003
Item #16C21
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $47,100 FOR THE OPERATION
OF THE Pl IlalI.IC I ITTIJITIES OPERATIONS CENTER
Item #16C22
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO TRANSFER CARRY FORWARD
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $119,000 FROM THE SOLID
WASTE DEPARTMENT AND $189,000 FROM THE POLLUTION
CONTROL DEPARTMENT TO FUND THE OFFICE
RENOVATION PROJECT FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
OFFICES ON THE THIRD FT.OOR OF FII ITIJDING H
Item #16C23
SCOPE INCREASE TO THE PROJECT TO RENOURISH
HIDEAWAY BEACH WITH UPLAND SAND TO INCLUDE
RENOURISHMENT OF HIDEAWAY SOUTH POINT, PROJECT
90541 -AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE WORK ORDER
AMENDMENT WITH STD ENTERPRISES FOR UP TO $61,280
AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER TO
AUTHORIZE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT SCOPE UP TO
10% AlalOVE BI IDGET
Item #16C24
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO REALLOCATE FUNDS IN THE
Page 300
December 16, 2003
AMOUNT OF $253,000 FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION UPGRADES TO THE CHEMICAL FEED
SYSTEMS_ PROJECT 72008
Item # 16D 1
RESOLUTION 2003-458 :FOR TRAINING AND
MEDICAL/RESCUE EQUIPMENT THE FLORIDA EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES COUNTY GRANT APPLICATION,
GRANT DISTRIBI ITION FORM
Item # 16D2
WORK ORDER #PBS-02-33, CONTRACT 02-3349 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $67,940 TO PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS, GENERAL CONTRACTORS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A RESTROOM FACILITY AT ROBERTS
RANCH- IJOCATED IN IMMOKAI,F,E. FIJORIDA
Item # 16D3
SOLE SOURCE AGREEMENT WITH MEDTRONIC PHYSIO-
CONTROL FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND UPGRADE OF
LIFEPAK MONITORS FOR THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOIJNT OF $34~896
Item # 16D4
APPROPRIATION OF $15,474 TO CARRY FORWARD FOR THE
PURCHASE OF AUTOMATIC EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATORS
Page 301
December 16, 2003
(AED'S), WHICH WILL BE PLACED IN HIGH-VOLUME
COT.TilER COl INTY GOVERNMENT BI ITIJDINGS
Item #16D5
ANNUAL CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR
OPERATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT AT AN FY04 COST TO THE COUNTY OF
$1 _462_200
Item #16D6
RESOLUTION 2003-459: LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE
CHILDREN'S MUSEUM OF NAPLES INC., FOR VACANT
LAND AT THE NORTH NAPLES REGIONAL PARK AT AN
ANNIIAI~ RENT OF $100
Item # 16E 1
BID NO. 04-3580, ON-CALL ELECTRICAL REPAIRS AND NEW
INSTALLATION, TO BE USED BY VARIOUS COUNTY
DEPARTMENTS FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS.
(ESTIMATED DOLLAR AMOUNT OF $100,000)- AWARDED
TO EB SIMMONDS ELECTRICAL, INC. AS PRIMARY
VENDOR, AND PARAGON ELECTRIC, INC. AS SECONDARY,
AND SOl JTHWEST EI.ECTRIC. 1NC.
Item #16E2
Page 302
December 16, 2003
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A
$1,000 GIFT FROM WAL-MART STORES INC., FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF A COUNTY GOVERNMENT AND
MUSEUM SIGN AT THE SOUTH ENTRANCE OF THE US-41
MAIN GOVFiRNMENT COMPI,EX
Item #16E3
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, $102,917.65 FROM THE
GAC LAND TRUST TO PURCHASE PLAYGROUND
EQUIPMENT AND SUNSCREENS AT SABAL PALM
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL- LOCATED AT 4095 18TM AVENUE
NE IN GOI~DEN GATE ESTATF, S
Item # 16E4
2004 CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH CORPORATE BENEFIT
SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., FOR GROUP HEALTH
INSURANCE CLAIMS ADJUSTING SERVICES- AS DETAILED
IN THE EXECIITIVE SIIMMARY
Item #16E5
REPORT AND RATIFYING STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE
ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-
APPROVED CONTRACTS - REPORT COVERS PERIOD
BEGINNING ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 1, 2003 THROUGH
NOVF, MBER 30, 2003
Item # 16E6
Page 303
December 16, 2003
PURCHASE OF GROUP HEALTH EXCESS INSURANCE FOR
CALENDAR YEAR 2004 - TO PROTECT THE PLAN FROM
CATASTROPHIC LOSSES WITH THE PURCHASE OF THE
CAPCOST/BOSTON MUTUAL EXCESS INSURANCE
PROGRAM
Item # 16E7
REPORT THAT THERE WERE NO INTEREST PENALTY
PAYMENTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA PROMPT
PAYMENT ACT DURING THE FISCAL CYCLE BEGINNING
OCTOBER 1, 2003 AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2003
(COMPI.IANCE WITH THE Pl IRCHASING POI.ICY)
Item #16F 1
RESOLUTION 2003-460: DESIGNATING THE TOURISM
DEPARTMENT, WHICH OPERATES AS THE GREATER
NAPLES, MARCO ISLAND, EVERGLADES CONVENTION
AND VISITORS BUREAU, AS THE OFFICIAL COUNTY
TOI ~RISM PROMOTION AGENCY
Item # 16F2
BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT- BA #04-073 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $25,000- ENGINEERING FEES FOR
VANDERBII.T BEACH FIEAI ITIFICATION MASTER PI.AN
Item # 16F3
Page 304
December 16, 2003
AWARDING BID #02-3392, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC SAFETY WIND PROTECTION PROJECT, TO
TERAGRAM INC D/B/A ALLSAFE SHUTTERS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $82,000 TO PROVIDE WIND PROTECTION TO
EIGHT (8) PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES IN COLLIER
COl INTY
Item # 1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE-FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 305
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
December 16, 2003
FOR BOARD ACTION:
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
mo
Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners-for
the period:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Disbursements for October 18, 2003 through October 24, 2003.
Disbursements for October 25, 2003 through October 31, 2003.
Disbursements for November 1, 2003 through November 7, 2003.
Disbursements for November 8, 2003 through November 14, 2003.
Disbursements for November 15, 2003 through November 21, 2003.
Disbursements for November 22, 2003 through November 28, 2003.
Minutes:
Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Minutes of September
25, 2003.
Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. -Agenda for November 18, 2003;
Minutes of October 21, 2003.
J
Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Agenda for
November 19, ~003; Minute~ of October 22, 2003.
Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. - Agenda for November
19, 2003; Minutes of October 15, 2003.
Pelican Bay Services Advis ~r¥ Committee - Notice of Cancellation of
Public Meeting - December 3, 2003; Budget Sub-Committee - Agenda
for November 13, 2003; Regular Agenda for November 5, 2003; Minutes
of October 1, 2003; Clam Bay Sub-Committee Minutes of October 1,
2003.
.. Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority Advisory Board -
Minutes of September 22, 2003.
H:Data/Format
Co
Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda for November 5, 2003;
Minutes of August 6, 2003; October 1, 2003.
o
Collier County Planning Commission Advisory Committee Agenda for
November 6, 2003; November 20, 2003; Minutes of September I8, 2003;
October 2, 2003 and October 16, 2003. '
o
Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Board - Agenda for
November 12, 2003; Minutes of October 8, 2003.
10.
Collier County Citizen's Corps Advisory Committee - Agenda for August
21, 2003; Minutes of August 21, 2003.
11.
12.
13.
.Coastal Advisory Committee - Minutes of September 11 2003.
Collier County Airport Authority Advisory Committee - Agenda for
November 10, 2003; Minutes of,October 13, 2003.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for November 19, 2003;
Minutes of October 15, 2003.
14.
Lely Golf Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for November 20,
2003; Minutes of October 16, 2003.
15.
Other:
Historical & Archaeological Preservation Board Advisory Committee -
Agenda for November 19, 2003; Minutes of October 15, 2003.
1)
Florida Department of Revenue -Letter to Guy Carlton, Colliet' County Tax
Collector,regarding budget amendment for the final salary, FICA~and
retirement benefits.
H:Data/Format
December 16, 2003
Item # 16J 1
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE PURCHASES OF
GOODS AND SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED
REPORT OF OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A VALID
PUBLIC PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF
COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID PURCHASES - FOR THE
PERIOD NOVEMBER 14. 2003 THROIIGH DECEMBER 5. 2003
Item #16K1
AUTHORIZING THE MAKING OF OFFERS OF JUDGMENT
FOR PARCELS 806, 106, 111 AND 115B IN THE IMMOKALEE
ROAD PROJECT (WILSON TO COLLIER BOULEVARD #60018)
- AS DETAII,ED IN THE EXECI ITIVE SIIMMARY
Item #16K2
AUTHORIZING THE MAKING OF OFFERS OF JUDGMENT
FOR PARCELS 117, l18A, 130, 114, 121 AND 122 INTHE
IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT (WILSON TO COLLIER
BOULEVARD #60018) - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SI IMMARY
Item # 16K3
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 218 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
Page 306
December 16, 2003
COLLIER COUNTY V. KATHRYNHANKINS, ETAL, CASE NO.
99-1296-CA, GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD PROJECT NO.
63041
Item # 16K4
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 203 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. DOUGLAS TERRY, ETAL, CASE NO. 00-
1297-CA, GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD PROJECT NO. 63041
-AS DETAIIJED IN THE EXECIITIVE SIIMMARY
Item # 16K5
RETENTION AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES ON AN
"AS NEEDED" BASIS WITH THE LAW FIRM OF NABORS,
GIBLIN AND NICKERSON, P.A., TO MEET COUNTY
PURCHASING POLICY CONTRACT UPDATE
REQUIREMENTS - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SIIMMARY
Item #16K6
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 119A, 119B AND 719 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. DANIEL F.
JOHNSTON, ETAL, CASE NO. 02-1446-CA (GOODLETTE-
FRANK ROAD PROJECT #60134) - AS DETAILED IN THE
F. XF. CI ITIVF. SI IMMA RY
Page 307
December 16, 2003
Item #16K7
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS TO PARCEL 194
IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ROBERT W.
PIEPLOW, ET US, ETAL, (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT
60018) TOTAL COST $44,275- AS DETAILED IN THE
F, XF, CI ~TIVE SI ~MMARY
Item # 16K8
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED
INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO
THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 117, 133,717A, 717B AND
733 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
CALUSA BAY MASTER ASSOCIATIONS INC., ET AL, CASE
NO. 02-2040-CA (GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD PROJECT NO.
60134~- AS DETAIl,ED 1N THF, F, XECI ~TIVF, SIIMMARY
Item #16K9
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION ON PARCEL 326 IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. A GNALDO DELIMA, ET AL,
(GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD PROJECT)- AS DETAILED IN
THF, F, XECI JTIVE SI IMMARY
Item #16K10
Page 308
December 16, 2003
ACCEPTING A CHILD DEPENDENCY GRANT-IN-AID OF
$43,952.76 FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION (JAC) AND CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN THE AGREEMENT AND APPROVING THE ASSOCIATED
BI IDGF. T AMF. NDMF. NT
Item # 17A
RESOLUTION 2003-461 :PETITION AVPLAT2003-AR3673 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE 10 FOOT
WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE REAR
OF LOT 23, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "THE LODGINGS
OF WYNDEMERE SECTION ONE" AS RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 13, PAGES 8 THROUGH 12, PUBLIC RECORDS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 19,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOl ITH_ RANGE 26 EAST
Item #17B
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN DELETED
Item # 17C
ORDINANCE 2003-65: AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 72-1, AS AMENDED, WHICH CREATED THE
COLLIER COUNTY LIGHTING DISTRICT; TO ADD TRADE
CENTER OF NAPLES, TRADE CENTER OF NAPLES REPLAT
OF LOTS 44 AND 45, INDUSTRIAL VILLAGE, INDUSTRIAL
VILLAGE NO. 2, KATHLEEN COURT, LOT 155 J & C
Page 309
December 16, 2003
INDUSTRIAL PARK, AND J & C INDUSTRIAL PARK TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY LIGHTING DISTRICT; BY DELETING
IMPERIAL GOLF ESTATES UNIT 1, IMPERIAL GOLF
ESTATES II, IMPERIAL GOLF ESTATES III, IMPERIAL GOLF
ESTATES I ACCESS ROAD, IMPERIAL GOLF ESTATES 4,
IMPERIAL GOLF ESTATES UNIT 5, AND RAILHEAD
INDUSTRIAL PARK FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY
LIGHTING DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN CODE
OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING CONFLICT AND
SFJVERABIIJITY: PROVIDING AN F. FFF. CTIVF. DATE
Item # 1 7D- Moved to Item #8C
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:10 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
TOM"~I~I~G, Chmllrnan ~/93/~¢
Page 310
December 16, 2003
ATTEST'
DWIGHT:I~?BROCK, CLERK
At,est a~ ~:~Chat~,8
~Th~se..minutes approved by the Board on
as presented ~ or as co~ected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS AND CHERIE
NOTTINGHAM
Page 311