BCC Minutes 01/13/2004 RJanuary 13, 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, January 13, 2004
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 goveming board(s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Tom Henning/Donna Fiala
Fred W. Coyle
Frank Halas
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Jim Mitchell, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
January 13, 2004
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
January 13, 2004
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
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. December 2, 2003 - BCC Regular Meeting
C. December 9, 2003 - BCC/Tourist Development Council Workshop
D. December 10, 2003 - BCC/Land Development Code Meeting
E. December 16, 2003 - BCC Regular Meeting
F. December 19, 2003 - BCC/AUIR Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS
e
PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation to designate the week of January 18-24, 2004 as Purple Martin
Week. To be accepted by Jerry Glasson, President of the Purple Martin
2
January13,2004
Be
Society of Collier County.
Proclamation to designate the week of January 25-31, 2004 as Catholic
Schools Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Miss Paula Lombardo,
Principal, St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School.
PRESENTATIONS
A. SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN
B. Presentation of Distinguished Flying Cross to Charles Bishop by Senator
Burt L. Saunders.
e
PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Mr. Richard Lydon to discuss Master Plan for
Vanderbilt Beach Beautification M.S.T.U.
e
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Ae
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition number VA-
2003-AR-4768, for an 1.8 foot after-the-fact variance from the required 7.5
feet and 5.7 feet for the existing shed on the north side of the property and a
7.3 foot after-the-fact variance from the side yard setback requirement of 7.5
feet to 0.2 feet for the existing pool and screen enclosure on the south side of
the property in the "MH-ACSC/ST" mobile home zoning district with an
area of critical state concern/special treatment zoning overlay, on property
hereinafter described in Collier County, Florida.
Be
This item continued from the December 2, 2003 BCC Meeting. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members. CU-2003-AR-4524, James B.
Malless, AICP, of Wireless Planning Services, LLC, representing Pinnacle
Towers Inc., requests Conditional Use # 13 of the "A" Rural Agricultural
Zoning District for the purpose of a 700-foot guyed communications tower
per Section 2.6.35 of the Collier County Land Development Code. The
property to be considered for the conditional use is located in Section 3,
Township 51 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. This property
3
January 13, 2004
ge
10.
Co
consists of 14.55+ acres.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2003-AR-4525
for: A variance of 690 feet from the minimum separation requirement from
residential zoning of 1,750 feet to 1,060 feet; a variance of 450 feet from the
required maximum height limitation of 250 feet to 700 feet for towers in an
agricultural side yard setback to 24 feet for a single guy anchor point in an
agricultural zoning district on property hereinafter described in Collier
County, Florida.
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Library Advisory Board.
B. Appointment of members to the County Government Productivity
Committee.
C. Appointment of members to the Citizens Advisory Task Force.
D. Appointment of members to the Code Enforcement Board.
E. Appointment of members to the Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee.
F. This item to be heard at 10:30 a.m. Intent to motion to obtain Board
reconsideration on usage of Federal Aviation Grants. (Commissioner
Henning)
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Discussion of access to Eatonwood
Lane and Livingston Road from the Hiwasse Property, located at the
northeast comer of Livingston Road and Eatonwood Lane, east of
Kensington Park PUD, in Section 13, Township 49 south, Range 25 east.
(Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development)
4
January 13, 2004
11.
De
Ee
Fe
This item to be heard immediately foilowine 10E. Receive an update and
provide input for the County Road 951 Project Development and
Environment (PD&E) Study, from Immokalee Road to Alico Road in Collier
and Lee Counties. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
Alternative road impact fee calculation for Shelton Jaguar/Land Rover
dealership replacement facility. (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services)
Adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by condemnation, if
necessary, of perpetual, non-exclusive road right-of-way, drainage and/or
utility easements, which will be required for the construction of roadway,
drainage and utility improvements for the Golden Gate Parkway/Airport-
Pulling road Grade Separated Overpass Project (Project No. 60006). Fiscal
impact: $4,500,000.00. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation
Services)
This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. Authorize the expenditure of budgeted
funds for the development of Best Friend Park. (John Dunnuck,
Administrator, Public Services)
To approve the purchase of a 50-acre parcel of land located in the northeast
quadrant of the intersection of Goodlette-Frank Road and Golden Gate
Parkway for the purpose of providing for drainage improvements,
transportation improvements and environmental protection. (Fiscal impact:
Up to $20,000,000)
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14.
15.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
5
January 13, 2004
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
Ae
Be
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Request to grant final approval of the roadway (private), drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Habitat Village",
the roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained,
the water and sewer improvements will be maintained by Collier
County.
2) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS THE
3)
4)
S)
6)
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. To approve the
change of the designated payee for previously approved out of pocket
expenditures related to the Bayshore Christmas Walk Art Festival.
Petition AVESMT2003-AR4693 to vacate, renounce and disclaim the
easement for public road right of way recorded by separate instrument
in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Located in Section
35, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
Petition CARNY-2003-AR-5175, John Yonkosky, Treasurer, Collier
County Fair and Exposition, Inc,. requesting a permit to conduct a fair
from January 30 through February 8, 2004, at the Collier County Fair
Grounds on Immokalee Road (CR 846), North Golden Gate Estates.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Sabal Bay
Commercial Plat Phase Two" and approval of the Standard Form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the Performance Security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Delasol Phase
Three", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Performance Security, and accept the County Park Dedication
Agreement.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
6
January 13, 2004
Ce
1)
2)
3)
Recommendation to award Bid No. 04-3591 - "Furnish and Deliver
Five (5) Crew Cab Flat Bed Dump Trucks" to Wallace International
in the amount of $279,950.
Approve the transfer by deed of a portion of property owned by the
Collier County Water-Sewer District ("District") to Collier County, a
political subdivision of the State of Florida ("County"), and approve
reimbursement to district in an amount equal to the pro-rated purchase
price paid for the property by district for the construction of a six-lane
section of Vanderbilt Beach Road (Project No. 63051). Estimated
fiscal impact: $12,381.
Adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift or purchase of
perpetual, non-exclusive road right-of-way, drainage and utility
easements, and temporary construction easements, which will be
required for the installation of signal system mast arm assemblies and
control boxes at intersections at SR 29 and Immokalee Drive, at SR
29 and 1 st Street in Immokalee, and at the intersection of Golden Gate
Parkway and Tropicana Boulevard. Estimated fiscal impact: $5,100.
4)
Approve modification to correct a Scrivener's Error to Contract
Amendment No. 1 with Apac-Southeast, Inc., regarding Immokalee
Road Improvement Project; Project No. 60018 (no fiscal impact).
5)
Approve selection committee ranking of firms for contract
negotiations for RFP #04-3587 "Engineering and Design Services for
Roadway and Capacity Improvements to County Barn Road from
County Road 864 to State Road 84", County Project No. 60101.
6)
Approve Work Order Amendment No. 1 for a decrease of $33,924 to
the contract for consulting engineering and inspection services by
KCCS for the Davis Boulevard and Collier Boulevard Intersection
Improvements, Project No. 60170.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Approve two easements to be deeded to Florida Power and Light
Company to provide new electric power service to the North County
Water Reclamation Facility, Projects 739501 and 739502, at no cost.
7
January 13, 2004
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Approve a Budget Amendment from Solid Waste Operations to Solid
Waste Capital Projects to design recycling and hazardous waste
collection centers, Project 59003, in the amount of $375,500.
Approve a work order, under Contract #01-3271, Fixed Term
Professional Engineering Services, for Coastal Zone Management
Projects, with Taylor Engineering for Caxambas Pass dredging and
South Marco Island beach renourishment, Project 90500, in an
amount not to exceed $206,000.
Authorization to participate in a demonstration project with the
National Biosolids Partnership and approve a Letter of Understanding
between the Collier County Wastewater Department and the National
Biosolids Parmership at no cost to the county.
Approve Work Order ME-FT-04-02 with Metcalf and Eddy for
professional engineering services for the North County Regional
Water Treatment Plant Emergency Generator Switchgear Upgrades
Project, Contract 00-3119, in the amount of $247,438, Project 70069.
Approve a Tourist Development Category "A" Beach
Renourishment/Maintenance Grant Application, a Budget
Amendment, and an Engineering Services Work Order to seek
modification to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Permit for maintenance dredging of Wiggins Pass, Project 90522, in
the amount of $15,000.
Adopt a resolution approving a policy governing the sale of reclaimed
water to the Unincorporated Area of Collier County.
De
PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Approve an amendment to an agreement with Stock Development,
LLC, for the installation of upgraded sports field lighting at Eagle
Lakes Community Park at no cost to Collier County.
2)
Approve Work Order #SC-02-57, Contract 02-3349, in the amount of
$77,247 to Surety Construction, General Contractors, for the
construction of a screen porch addition at the Marco Island Library.
8
January13,2004
Ee
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
Report to the Board of County Commissioners concerning the sale
and transfer of items associated with the County Surplus Auction of
December 13, 2003, resulting in $9,482.90 in net revenues.
2)
Recommendation to award RFP No. 03-3568, County-Wide Exotic
Vegetation Removal (estimated value $500,000.00).
3)
Approve and authorize the execution of a temporary lease agreement
with Sarasota County and pay for office services not to exceed
$3,000. The office space will be occupied for a two-month period by
the Special Prosecutor of the State Attorney's Office during the
proceedings of State of Florida v. John Calhoun Norris and Robert
Paul Hardy in Sarasota County, Florida.
4)
Approval of a resolution granting limited settlement authority to the
Risk Management Director under the County's Property, Casualty,
and Workers' Compensation Insurance Programs.
Report and ratify staff-approved change orders and changes to work
orders to Board-approved contracts.
6)
Authorization to add two position classification titles to the Fiscal
Year 04 Pay and Classification Plan.
7)
Award a contract to Schenkel and Shultz, Inc., for architectural
services for the Naples Jail Center, revised Contract Number 98-2867-
2004, in the amount not to exceed $845,510.00.
Fe
COUNTY MANAGER
1) Approval of Budget Amendment Report - BA #04-080 in the amount
of $8,415 for unanticipated renovation expenses for the main house at
Robert's Ranch.
Ge
He
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
9
January 13,2004
Je
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of
whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the
Detailed Report of Open Purchase Orders serve a valid public purpose
and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said
purchases. A copy of the Detailed Report is on display in the County
Manager's Office, Collier County Government Center, 2nd Floor, W.
Harmon Turner Building, Naples, FL.
17.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Authorize the payment of planning fees in the Lawsuit styled Collier
County v. G JR of Naples Inc., et al, Case No. 02-2212-CA
(Immokalee Road Project #60018).
2)
Approve the agreed order awarding attorney fees relative to the
easement acquisitions of Parcels 114, 115 and 116 in the lawsuit
styled Collier County v. Centex Homes, et al, Case No. 02-1602-CA
(Goodlette-Frank Road Project No. 60134.
3)
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
Parcel 129 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. James R. Colosimo,
Trustee, et al, Case No. 00-0138-CA (Pine Ridge Road, Project No.
60111).
SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
10
January13,2004
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
Petition RZ-2003-AR-4080, Hibiscus Church, requesting a rezone from
"GC" Golf Course to "CF" Community Facility for a church for property
located at the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Doral Circle,
in Section 19, Township 50 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
Be
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CUR-2003-AR-3776
request by William L. McDaniel for a conditional use re-review of CU-98-
12 for property located at 4125 Oil Well Road (CR 858), further described
as Section 16, Township 48 south, Range 28 east, Collier County, Florida.
Ce
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition
AVPLAT2003-AR4700 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the county's and
the public's interest in a portion of the 15 foot wide county utility easement
located in Tract "D", according to the plat of"Riverchase Shopping Center"
as recorded in Plat Book 18, Pages 19 through 20, Public Records of Collier
County, Florida. Located in Section 22, Township 48 south, Range 25 east.
De
A resolution by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, requesting the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to extend
the termination date of the County's CDBG Award Agreement for a
Community Development Block Grant under the Economic Development
category that provided for a portion of the construction of the Manufacturing
Facility II at the Immokalee Regional Airport Industrial Park.
This item requires that ~!! participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PE-2003-AR-4261,
Doug Schroeder, Executive Director of the Cocohatchee Nature Center,
requesting a parking exemption to allow off-site parking via a shared
parking agreement, pursuant to LDC §2.3.4.1.2.C., between the Cocohatchee
Nature Center and the Pewter Mug. Access between the properties will be
via a proposed pedestrian walkway under the U.S. 41 Bridge over the
11
January 13, 2004
Cocohatchee River. The Cocohatchee Nature Center is located at 12345
Tamiami Trail North, in Section 21, Township 48 south, Range 25 east,
Collier County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S 'OFFICE AT 774-8383.
12
January13,2004
January 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Welcome all to the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County's regular meeting. Today is January
13th, 2004.
Our invocation will be given by the county manager, Jim Mudd.
Followed by that would be the Pledge of Allegiance led by the
Honorable Senator Burt Saunders. 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 as we start this new year, we are especially thankful for
your dedicated elected officials, staff, and members of the public who
are here to help lead this county as it makes the important decisions
that will shape our community's future.
We pray that you will guide, lead, and direct the decisions made
here today so that your will for your county will also be done.
These things we pray in your holy name, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
REGULAR, SUMMARY AND CONSENT AGENDA-APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Attorney David Weigel, do
you have any changes, additions, or deletions to today's agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. The County Attorney Office has one change, an
add-on for 12(A), which Mr. Mudd will pick up with the general
changes, generally, as he reads through them, please.
Page 2
January 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
County Manager Jim Mudd, would you walk us through the
change list?
MR. MUDD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Agenda changes to Board of County Commissioners meeting,
January 13th, 2004.
The first item, continue item 10(F) to January 27th, 2004, BCC
meeting. To approve the purchase of a 50-acre parcel of land located
in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Goodlette-Frank Road
and Golden Gate Parkway for the purpose of providing for drainage
improvements, transportation improvements, and environmental
protection.
As the commission will remember, Mr. Passidomo, representing
the Fleischmann property, sent us, the commissioners, a letter on the --
a letter earlier in the end of November, first of December, that
basically said that we had to have an agreement on this parcel by the
19th of January.
We have talked with Mr. Passidomo and Mr. Scott Cameron,
who represents the Fleischmann family, and they have agreed that we
could continue this and get all the finalizations, the written appraisals.
We have it in verbal, but we don't have the written documents yet, to
get the contract fully completed and staffed through them and have it
for the board on the 27th. They were okay with that particular change.
The second item is an add-on which is item 12(A), and it's a
recommendation that the board consider and reject Aquaport,
plaintiff's, attempt to alter terms of the settlement agreement between
Aquaport, plaintiff, and individual commissioner defendants after the
fact, at least to the extent county funds are at -- an issue, and that's at
staff's request.
The third item is to withdraw item 16(A)(1), and that's to request
to grant final approval of the roadway (private), drainage, water, and
sewer improvements for the final plat of Habitat Village. The
Page 3
January 13, 2004
waterway (sic) and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained, the water and sewer improvements will be maintained by
county staff, and that's at staff's request.
And the reason for that, because some grants were given that
basically talked about this road being public, okay? And so we don't
want to give away something where they would void grants and then
we have issues. So we're researching that, and that's why we
withdrew it.
The fourth item is to move item 16(C)(6) to 10(G), and that's to
approve a tourist development Category A beach
renourishment/maintenance grant application, a budget amendment
and an engineering service work order to seek modification to the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection permit for
maintenance dredging of Wiggins Pass, project 90522, in the amount
of $15,000, and that's at Commissioner Halas's request.
The fifth item is to move item 16(E)(4) to 10(H), and that's
approval of a resolution granting limited settlement authority to the
risk management director under the county's property, casualty, and
workers' compensation insurance programs, and that's at
Commissioner Coyle's request.
And then we have some time certain items.
Item 9(F) is to be heard at 10:30 a.m. and the intent, to motion to
obtain board reconsideration of usage of the federal aviation grant.
The next item is 10(A) to be heard at 11 a.m., and that's a
discussion of access on Eatonwood Lane and Livingston Road from
the Hiwasse property, located at the northeast comer of Livingston
Road and Eatonwood Lane, east of Kensington Park PUD, in section
13, township 49 south, range 25 east.
Item 10(B) to be heard following 10(E), and 10(E)'s at one p.m.
But 10(B) is to receive an update and provide input for the County
Road 9 -- 951 Project Development and Environmental PD&E Study
from Immokalee Road to Alico Road in Collier and Lee County.
Page 4
January 13, 2004
And then item 10(E) to be heard at one p.m., and that's to
authorize the expenditure of budgeted funds for the development of
Best Friend Park.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Fiala, do you have any additional changes to
today's agenda or any ex parte communication under the summary
agenda?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
No, I have no additions, and I have one disclosure on 17(A),
which is the Hibiscus Church, and I received a call on that one.
And I have no disclosures on any of the others on the summary
agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Excuse me. I have no disclosures
on the summary agenda, but I have a couple of comments concerning
agenda items.
Agenda item 16(D)(1), there's no point in pulling it if the board
would merely concur in my suggestion that we give guidance to them
to make sure that the direction given to the contractor to screen those
lights will be adequate for the residents surrounding that park.
They're saying that the original proposal was not -- is not really
sufficient, or the original proposal could not be implemented because
the light bulbs would not handle the load of the redesigned lights.
So we're going to put screens on the lights. I'm merely saying that
I would hope that we would design the screens in a way that will solve
the problem.
So if that guidance is acceptable, I'd like to add that.
The other item is one --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we get clarif-- which item is that
again?
Page 5
January 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's 16(D)(1).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: David one?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: David, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Delta.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Continue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the other -- other item has to
do with item 10(E). And I don't know how the board wishes to deal
with this, but this is a proposal by our parks and recreation department
to expend the budgeted funds for the development of Best Friend Park
in Naples Park. I don't know why that's on the agenda.
We don't have an expression of a majority of approval of the
people in Naples Park to build this park. I don't know why we should
get back in the business of trying to dictate what's going to be there
unless the people have taken a vote and can demonstrate they have 50
percent plus one. And I don't know why we're spending the time on it.
And I would suggest that it be continued until somebody presents
a survey, a valid survey that suggests that 50 percent plus one of the
people in Naples Park, or within some defined radius of that park
really want it.
We're going to spend hours debating something, and we have no
idea how many people really want it.
So I don't know why we want to have it on the agenda, and I
would suggest it be continued. But if you don't do that, I guess we can
-- we can sit here and debate it at one o'clock this afternoon.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the only thing is -- I
understand exactly where you're coming from, Commissioner Coyle.
I've been getting a fair amount of positive email, I've also gotten
some negative email, and maybe that's the best way to go about this.
But I'm looking at our future citizens that are going to vote.
Page 6
January 13, 2004
When you look at the idea that there was a project in school there for
these students to come up with a name, and they came up with Best
Friend's (sic) Park, it seems to me that these students were very
excited about the possibility of getting a park. And, of course, we're
going to have to probably disappoint them.
But I think we're -- maybe you're on the right course here, that
we'll have the residents come up with a survey, and if they've got 50
percent plus one, then we'll make a decision that way.
But I just hope that this isn't the way of the furore. I feel that
we're here as county commissioners, and sometimes we are put in a
situation where the decisions we make are difficult, and we hope that
we make the right decisions for the furore of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Board's wishes on the
clarifications on 16 David (1) with the lighting.
Commissioner Coyle has made certain suggestions of giving staff
direction. Is it the consensus of the board that that's the direction,
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commission Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have one question
though. I don't know if it should be a resident making the survey.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay. We're talking about--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're talking about the lighting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, that. No, I have no problem
with that, if we're going to incorporate the other part.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It is the consensus of the board, that is
the direction.
The next item is?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, Commission Henning, could I
just comment on that one too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When you brought this up,
Page 7
January 13, 2004
Commissioner Coyle, one of the things I wondered was why, when the
county installed the lights in the first place, we didn't install them to be
sensitive to the neighboring community. And maybe that would be
something as we design future parks, that we -- that we could take into
consideration when installing the lights.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's my only comment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
The other question is, is about continuance of the expenditures of
the moneys to develop Best Friends (sic) Park in Naples Park.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would-- I would consider
continuing it. I would -- and I would think that the residents should be
responsible to take the survey, not me, not us. I mean, we shouldn't be
paying for that.
I just wonder if it's people who -- if it's families, young families,
who are opposing this who have the children and have no way to get
their children to a park, or if it's people who are retired and own a lot
of homes in that area.
But anyway, we'll see that. I would go along with continuing it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The -- you know, I'm
concerned of the action that we're being asked. Although I do agree
with it in this case, I definitely don't want to run government by
referenda.
The issue about the residents doing surveys, you're going to have
-- you have two sides of people on this issue for and against. We have
an advisory board for parks and rec. If we're going to do a survey, I
would suggest that we do it from the advisory board, which is made
up of citizens of Collier County. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I agree
with you. I don't -- there's two factions when it comes to the residents
Page 8
January 13, 2004
on this, those that are for and those that are against. Who would be
the faction to determine the survey? I don't think that would be right.
Your suggestion with using the parks and rec. advisory board, I think,
is a good one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think I pretty much stated
my case. I also feel that there's been some information that's been
disseminated throughout the neighborhood there where people are
going to have to pay each year anywheres from $30, and each year it's
going to go up $30, $40, $50, and there's no charge to the residents.
This has already been funded by taxpayer dollars of all Collier
County, and this was to hopefully better the communications between
adults, because obviously, in a lot of cases adults take their children
down to the park, and that's a good time for adults to get together and
talk about what's going on in the neighborhood.
But if this is what the citizens desire, not to have a park, then --
but I think the end result should be that the county with the advisory
board should have the final say in this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I would just like to add
that East Naples would be happy to take that park money and use it in
East Naples, and same with Isle of Capri. They're looking for a
second park.
And one other comment. Naples Manor built the tiniest little
park -- the county put a tiny, tiny little park in there in Naples Manor,
and they've been very happy as the adults bring their children down
and congregate there with one another, and that park, along with the
other parks in East Naples, have been very successful.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm not hearing any clear
direction, so once I get the -- any changes and ex parte
communication, I will ask for a separate vote on this item by the
Board of Commissioners for the -- before we adopt the agenda.
I have no ex parte communication on today's summary agenda,
Page 9
January 13, 2004
nor do I have any changes to today's agenda. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no changes to the agenda,
however, under disclosures to summary agenda, I have talked to staff
on all items. And item 17(B), I have talked at some distant time in the
past with Mr. McDaniels, the petitioner, on that particular agenda
item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I only have one ex parte, and that's
on 7(B) in regards to antenna heights in Commissioner Fiala's area.
I don't have any other changes at this time with the agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Okay. I asked for a motion on the
item, 10(E).
MR. MUDD: 10(E).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: On Naples Park.
MR. MUDD: And that's to continue the item on Best Friend
Park.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Entertain a motion at this
time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other direction in that motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ask that the staff have our advisory
board do a survey to find out if 50 percent plus one really want the
park.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Residents of Naples Park?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: There's a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion on the motion?
Page 10
January 13, 2004
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Entertain a motion to accept today's agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have speakers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you very much.
We have one speaker on today's --
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Mr. Bob Krasowski would like to speak
on item 16(C)(2).
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Bob
Krasowski with the Zero Waste Collier County Group.
I'd like to request that item 16(C)(2), which is on the consent
agenda, be moved onto the regular agenda so that I and the public
might hear what the item is.
I've read a bit about the history of the item, and it's proceeded
through the consent agenda, and this public discussion hasn't been
afforded.
There are some positive things in there I'd like to comment on
and haven't had the opportunity. I'm always up here complaining
about things done in regards to recycling. I'd like the opportunity to
address some of the more positive things in that -- in that item, so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Krasowski, would you like to
Page 11
January l3,2004
comment on the item now, therefore, there's maybe a possibility that
either you get to speak twice or you can go on your, you know, daily
business.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Merry way. Okay, sure, Commissioner. If
you'd allow me to do that, I'd appreciate it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. KRASOWSKI: The item regards the expenditure of
$375,000 to refine and improve what we have now as recycling
centers in four locations, in Immokalee, Naples Airport, Carnes Town,
and Marco Island.
This improvement would accommodate a better collection of
hazardous materials being brought to the site. And I certainly think
it's a good project that the county's involved in, because many of the
buildings we have there now are temporary and not of-- great quality
structures.
My -- a concern or an issue that I believe we have an interest in,
and I hope the county, and I expect the county Solid Waste
Department is considering, is that on January 27th, you'll be
considering the extent that you want to become involved in a
nonresidential recycling ordinance.
Now, if you go with a -- one program, you'll be expanding the
recycling to businesses at the business location. If you go another
route, most of the businesses will be bringing their materials to these
facilities, so we'll have to know based on that what size to make these
facilities. So that -- that's an issue. I don't know how -- today was just
asking for the money to improve this, but, you know, so.
And then also, I -- I'm always an advocate of having these issues
on the regular agenda so there are presentations and the general public
hears about what we're doing in regards to recycling.
Because this is a small part of a very big issue. There will be
tens of millions of dollars spent on recycling, waste collection,
contracts are going out, request for proposals, competition for the
Page 12
January 13, 2004
contracts. The more that item is in the public eye, the better it is for
everybody, as far as I'm concerned.
And that -- I guess that pretty much covers my comments on that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. If it's important to you--
and I do recognize the fact that you put a lot of time into this. And
you have certain knowledge that I have always respected when you
passed it on to me.
And this case, I would like to have it pulled for further
discussion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That item will now become --
MR. MUDD: 10(I)
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: 10(I). Thank you.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'd like to recognize the honorable
Sheriff Don Hunter.
Entertain a motion to accept today's agenda as amended --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So move.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: -- regular agenda, consent agenda,
and summary agenda.
Motion by Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
Aye.
Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 13
January 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 14
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
January 13, 2004
Continue Item 10F to January 27, 2004 BCC meeting: To approve the purchase of
a 50-acre parcel of land located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
Goodlette-Frank Road and Golden Gate Parkway for the purpose of providing for
drainage improvements, transportation improvements and environmental
protection. (Staff request.)
Add On Item 12A: Recommendation that the Board consider and reject Aquaport
Plantiffs' attempt to alter terms of the settlement agreement between Aquaport
Plaintiffs and individual Commissioner defendants after the fact, at least to the
extent County funds are at issue. (Staff request.)
Withdraw Item 16A1: Request to grant final approval' of the roadway (private),
drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Habitat Village", the
roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained, the water and
sewer improvements will be maintained by Collier County. (Staff request.)
Move Item 16C6 to 10G: Approve a Tourist Development Category "A" Beach
RenourishmentJMaintenance Grant Application, a budget amendment and an
Engineering Services Work Order to seek modification to the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection Permit for maintenance dredging of Wiggins Pass,
Project 90522, in the amount of $15,000. (Commissioner Halas request.)
Move Item 16E4 to 10H: Approval of a resolution granting limited settlement
authority to the Risk Management Director under the County's Property, Casualty
and Workers' Compensation Insurance Programs. (Commissioner Coyle request.)
TIME CERTAIN ITEMS:
Item 9F to be heard at 10:30 a.m. Intent to motion to obtain Board reconsideration
on usage of Federal Aviation Grants.
Item 10A to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Discussion of access to Eatonwood Lane and
Livingston Road from the Hiwasse property, located at the northeast corner of
Livingston Road and Eatonwood Lane, east of Kensington Park PUD, in Section
13, Township 49 south, Range 25 east.
Item 10B to be heard immediately following Item 10E: Receive an update and
provide input for the County Road 951 Project Development and Environment
(PD&E) Study, from Immokalee Road to Alico Road in Collier and Lee Counties.
Item 10E to be heard at 1:00 p.m. Authorize the expenditure of budgeted funds for
the development of Best Friend Park.
Item # 2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, & #2F
January 13, 2004
MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 2, 2003 REGULAR BCC
MEETING, MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 9, 2003
BCC/TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL WORKSHOP
MEETING, MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 10, 2003 BCC/LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE MEETING, MINUTES OF THE
DECEMBER 16, 2003 BCC REGULAR MEETING, AND
MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 19, 2003 BCC/AUIR
WORKSHOP MEETING- APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Entertain a motion to accept the December 2nd, '03, BCC regular
meeting; December 9, '03, BCC Tourist Development Council
workshop; December 10, 2003, BCC Land Development Code
meeting; September (sic) 16, '03, BCC regular meeting; and December
19, '03 --'03 BCC/AUIR workshop.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So move.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
(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?
Page 15
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Item #4A
January 13, 2004
Motion carries unanimously.
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF JANUARY 18-
24; 2004 AS PIJRPIJE MARTIN WEEK - ADOPTED
Go right to proclamation. This first proclamation will be read by
Commissioner Fiala. This proclamation is to designate the week of
January 18th through the 24th, 2004, as Purple Marlin (sic) week. To
accept this -- by Jerry Glasson, president of Purple Marlin (sic)
Association. And we do have some other folks here to accept that.
Would you please come forward in front of the dais, please.
Right up here, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning. That's the toughest
part, to stand there and look out at the audience while we read the
proclamation, isn't it?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, martin, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me.
Whereas, in very short time, thousands of our beautiful feathered
friends, the Purple Martins, will return from their winter home in
Brazil; and,
Whereas, these birds will be searching for suitable housing to
enable them to nest and rear their young; and,
Whereas, the Florida legislature has designated Collier County
the Purple Martin Capital of Florida; and,
Whereas, the Purple Martin Society of Collier County is desirous
of urging the public to erect proper housing for these very valuable
winged creatures by placing said houses on their property; and,
Whereas, during the period of January 18th to 24th, 2004, the
Purple Martin Society of Collier County will endeavor to alert the
Page 16
January 13, 2004
public to how valuable these birds are in helping to diminish the insect
and mosquito population.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of January
18th to 24th, 2004, be designated as Purple Martin Week in Collier
County, and urge all citizens to join with the Purple Martin Society of
Collier County to show their concern for these valuable and friendly
winged creatures and learn to protect and preserve them.
Done and ordered this 13th day of January 2004, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning,
chairman.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Coyle.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
yOU.
yOU.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Any opposed?
Motion carries unanimously. Thank
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
We also want to get a picture with
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hello, Mr. Glasson. This is great.
MR. MUDD: Sir, can we get a picture?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If you'd like to say a few words,
Page 17
January 13, 2004
you're more than welcome to, sir.
MR. GLASSON: Well, I'd just like to thank--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: From the microphone, please.
MR. GLASSON: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'd like to
thank you for acknowledging the week as Purple Martin Week.
They're not only a beautiful bird, but they're useful. They help eat
those flying little things that bite you.
So we encourage -- when you're involved with them you really
get caught up in it like anything else. And we could use some warm
weather to bring those little biting things back out. Thanks again.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. I always use Deet. Now
I'll have to carry some birds around with me.
Item ~4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF JANUARY 25-
31, 2004 AS CATHOLIC SCHOOLS WEEK IN COLLIER
COl JNTY - ADOPTF, D
This next proclamation will be read by Commissioner Coletta.
The proclamation is to designate the week of January 25th through
31st, 2004, as Catholic Schools Week in Collier County.
To accept this proclamation will be the principal, Paula
Lombardo, and assistant principal, Mary Lynn McGregor.
Would you please join us along with your students, please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And also the parents of any
students that are here today, would you please come forward. Right
up front here.
And I'd like to have my fellow commissioners recognize one
little lady here in the bunch. This little one right here is my
granddaughter.
Page 18
January 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very special little child, of
course, they're all special children.
Whereas, Catholic schools throughout the United States of
America will celebrate Catholic Schools Week on the last week of
January; and,
Whereas, approximately 2,000 students in Collier County are
currently enrolled in Catholic schools, which include St. Elizabeth
Seton, St. Ann's, St. John Neumann, and Royal Palm Academy; and,
Whereas, Catholic education in Collier County now also includes
post-secondary studies with the new arrival of Ave Maria University;
and,
Whereas, the National Catholic Education Association has
announced this year's theme to be a faith-filled future; and,
Whereas, students enrolled in area Catholic schools devote
numerous hours of service towards the improvement of our
community..Students develop leadership qualities and a sense of
responsibility to others.
They come to know that their actions can make a significant
difference in their community, their nation, and in the world; and,
Whereas, the goal of Catholic education is to educate the mind,
the heart, and the moral character of every child; to instill in every
child a sense of self-worth and accountability; and,
Whereas, the tremendous effort of Catholic school students,
parents, and teachers continue to play a key role in promoting and
ensuring a brighter, stronger future for all.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that the week of January
25th through January 35th (sic), be designated as Catholic School
Week in Collier County, Florida, and urge all citizens to remember the
impact that Catholic education has had in our area and encourage
everyone to join all Catholic schools in this celebration.
Page 19
January 13, 2004
Done and ordered this 13th day of January, 2004, Tom Henning,
chairman.
I make a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
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. Thank
you. (Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Okay. Who's got the proclamation?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you want to give them the
proclamation so they can hold it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, yeah. That's a great idea.
You thought I was going to -- I was going to charge you for it. MR. MUDD: Okay. Who's holding it?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Center. The lovely young lady.
MR. MUDD: In the front, just hold it just like that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. LOMBARDO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hi, my name is Tom Henning. I'm a
very good friend of your grandfather's.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Count your fingers.
Page 20
January 13, 2004
Item #5A
COMMISSIONER FIALA SELECTED AS CHAIRMAN AND
COMMISSIONER COYI,E SEIJECTED AS VICE-CHAIRMAN
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is one of the most
important things that we have on today's agenda, that is selecting a
chair and a vice chair to lead the Board of Commissioners for the year
of 2004.
At this time I'll accept a motion for the chair of the Board of
Commissioners for the year 2004.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I nominate Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would be my honor to
nominate Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There is --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that was the third, and I'll do
the fourth. Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner
Coletta.
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.
Entertain a motion at this time to accept the nomination for vice
chair for the year --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I nominate Commissioner Coyle.
Page 21
January 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- 2004. There's a motion by
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning, before you
leave that seat, I just want to tell you what a pleasure it's been working
with you this year, not only myself, but all of the rest of the
commissioners, and you have led us beautifully, and if I can only
conduct the meetings as smoothly and as efficiently as you, I'll be
successful, I know that.
And from all of us on the county commission, I would like to
present this to you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why don't we get a photo op.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not going to give you a hug,
but --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Excellent.
Page 22
January 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, thank you.
And let's take five minutes to congratulate Commissioner Fiala,
and Commissioner Coyle for vice chair. (A brief recess was taken.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Well, thank you very much for this
honor, and the meeting will come back to order again.
I'm a little nervous right now, so have a little patience with me.
Item #5B
CHARLES BISHOP PRESENTED THE DISTINGUISHED FLYING
CROSS FlY SENATOR FII~RT 1,. SAIJNDERS
Next we have Senator Saunders at the podium to present the
Distinguished Flying Cross to Charles Bishop.
SENATOR SAUNDERS: Thank you, Madam Chairman and
Commissioners.
First I want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to be here
in your house to make this presentation this morning.
I want to congratulate Chairman Fiala and Vice Chairman Coyle.
Having served in both of those capacities myself, I know how
challenging and difficult the next 12 months will be for you, and I also
know how relieved Commissioner Henning must be right now to have
handed the gavel over to you. So I congratulate all three of you.
As a member of the Florida Senate, I've had a large number of
opportunities to have memorable things occur. This, perhaps, is the
most important and, perhaps, the most inspiring opportunity that I've
had as a member of the Florida Senate, and that is in presenting the
Distinguished Flying Cross to Sergeant Bishop.
Our World War II generation has been accurately described as
our greatest generation. They selflessly served our nation in the most
extreme and dangerous circumstances imaginable.
Page 23
January 13, 2004
Once they completed their military service, they returned home,
and proceeded to make the United States the greatest economic and
military power in the history of mankind. They did so without
complaints and they did so without seeking recognition for their
achievements.
Thousands of World War II veterans die each day. This is a great
loss for our nation, but their service and heroism will forever serve as
a standard for all future generations of Americans.
Before I ask Sergeant Bishop to come forward, I want to describe
just what the Distinguished Flying Cross is, first in terms of a
description of it.
It consists of a bronze cross pate on which is superimposed a
four-bladed propeller, one and 11/16th inches in width, five rays
extended from the reentrant angles forming a one inch square. The
medal is suspended from a rectangular shaped bar.
What is the flying cross? The Distinguished Flying Cross was
established in the Air Corps Act, act of Congress, to July 1926, public
law, 446, the 69th Congress. This act provided for the award -- and
I'll quote from the act-- to any person while serving in any capacity
with the Air Corp of the Army of the United States, including the
National Guard and the organized reserves or with the United States
Navy since the 6th day of April, 1917, has distinguished for who, after
the approval of this act, distinguishes himself by heroism or
extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight.
What are the criteria for the award of the Distinguished Flying
Cross? The Distinguished Flying Cross is awarded to any person
who, while serving in the capacity with the Armed Forces of the
United States, distinguishes himself by heroism or extraordinary
achievement while participating in aerial flight.
The performance of the act of heroism must be evidenced by
voluntary action above and beyond the call of duty.
The extraordinary achievement must have resulted in an
Page 24
January 13, 2004
accomplishment so exceptional and outstanding as to clearly set the
individual apart from his comrades or from other persons in similar
circumstances.
Awards will be made only to recognized single acts of heroism or
extraordinary achievement and will not be made in recognition of
sustained operational activities against an armed enemy.
At this time I'd like to ask Sergeant Bishop if he would come
forward. I will tell you he's a little nervous. And I think he would
rather have people shooting at him right now in an airplane than being
here this morning.
And Sergeant Bishop, if you'd stand up at center there. And
there are several people here I'm going to ask to come up to join
Sergeant Bishop.
First, his wife Shirley, Shirley Bishop; his son, Lieutenant Rod
Bishop, who is with the Collier County Sheriffs Department, and
Sheriff Don Hunter is here to show his respects to Sergeant Bishop
and his family; his daughter-in-law, Sandy Bishop; and very
importantly, their six-year-old granddaughter, Erica; his nephew and
his wife, Jerry and Sherry Suprenant (phonetic) from New Port Richey
have come here. Then I want to ask two other very special people if
they would come forward. Commander Wes Bates and Post
Quartermaster Ralph Balzaro (sic) from the Golden Gate -- oh,
Balzarano, I'm sorry -- from the Golden Gate VFW post, 7721.
A little bit about Sergeant Bishop. Sergeant Bishop served with
the Army Air Force from February, 1943, until August, 1945.
Between until April 13, 1944, and April 11, 1945, he served an
overseas tour of duty in the European theater where he flew on the
lead ship as a gunner in 30 bombardment missions. All of these
missions were over enemy territory under hazardous conditions.
Sergeant Bishop demonstrated his outstanding proficiency and
steadfast devotion to his duty in each of these missions.
Now, over 58 years later, President George Bush has awarded
Page 25
January 13, 2004
him the Distinguished Flying Cross for his extraordinary achievement
while participating in aerial flight.
Born Charles Roger Bishop in Toronto, Canada, on May 16,
1924, Roger moved with his family to the United States when he was
12 days old. He has since served his country admirably, earning the
Good Conduct Medal, the Air Medal, the Silver Oak-Leaf Cluster to
the Air Medal, the European, African, Middle Eastern Campaign
Medal with one silver battle star, the American Campaign Medal, the
World War II Victor Medal, Overseas Bar, and now, finally, will be
presented with the Distinguished Flying Cross.
Sergeant Bishop, I want to thank you for your service to our
nation and for your heroism under extreme circumstances from April
13, 1944, through April 11, 1944, (sic). You've served as an
inspiration to all of us, and I thank you personally for giving me the
honor, the high honor, of presenting this to you this morning.
(Applause.)
SENATOR SAUNDERS: There is also a plaque with the medal
that I would like to read. I'll read this from the podium.
The United States of America, to all who shall see these presence
greeting, this is to certify that the President of the United States of
America authorized by act of Congress, July, 2, 1926, has awarded the
Distinguished Flying Cross to staff Sergeant Charles R. Bishop for
extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight, 13,
August, 1944, to 11 April, 1945, given under my hand in the city of
Washington, 23 September, 2003. (Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Mr. Bishop, we'd love to shake your
hand. You make us all proud. Thank you very much, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir, for everything
you've done.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you, kindly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
Page 26
January 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm honored to be in your
presence.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you. I'm sure your family
members are extremely proud of you as well. Thank you all for being
here today. It's kind of hard to leave the job to get here, and we all
appreciate it, and I'm sure Mr. Bishop does the most. Thank you, and
thank you, Don Hunter, thank you, Senator Saunders.
SENATOR SAUNDERS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. And,
again, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to present
this to Sergeant Bishop under these circumstances. He was a
long-term resident of Collier County, has known me for a long time,
since I served as a Collier County attorney, and so this was a high
honor, and I appreciate it. Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. RICHARD LYDON TO
DISCUSS MASTER PLAN FOR VANDERBILT BEACH
BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. - TO BE PLACED ON 2/10/04
RF, GI HJAR AGF, NDA
We move on to public petitions. I hate to leave such a beautiful
note to talk into (sic) public petitions, but we must move on.
Public petitions, and we have today Mr. Richard Lydon. Mr.
Lydon, would you come up to the podium, please.
MR. LYDON: Good morning. What a great act to follow. I'd
like to join all of you and all the people out there, I'd like to join them
in thanking Sergeant Bishop.
Let me tell you, as a member of-- a fellow named George
Patten's, recognized recognizance outfit, we were always very, very
happy to hear those airplanes going overhead, because we knew it was
Page 27
January 13, 2004
going to make things up front a little easier for all of us. Thank you very much, Sergeant Bishop.
Mr. Henning, you done good. Thanks very much. We appreciate
it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. LYDON: To Donna Fiala, good luck. It's always nice to
see a Cleveland girl make good things happen. Mr. Coyle, your turn will come.
I'd like -- I'm here today -- I think I said my name is Dick Lydon.
I'm chairman of the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU, where
we collect about 16 and a half million dollars every year for the tax
duplicate, about five million of that comes directly into the general
fund.
In 19 -- or in 2001 you all were kind enough to establish the
beautification MSTU, and we are proud of the progress we've made up
until that time, up until now. If you want to take a look at it, drive
around Vanderbilt, up Vanderbilt Drive, over on Gulfshore. We think
we're doing the job, and we haven't hardly started yet.
We also want to thank the county staff, particularly Bob Petersen,
Val Princeton (sic), all their people, who have done a great job in
helping us get this underway. Probably should thank our original
chairman, some fellow named Halas who sits up there with you at the
moment.
My purpose today is to request your partnering with us as we
move forward. We've authorized a master plan that is presently
underway at an estimated cost of almost $80,000. We believe it is in
the best interest of all concerned that you share this cost with us since
it will do a great deal to help the quality of life, not only in Vanderbilt
Beach, but of all Collier residents.
The goal -- this dual goal that we are trying to accomplish will
add to the esthetics of our neighborhood, increase the property values
affording a larger inflow than the 16 and a half million that we're
Page 28
January 13, 2004
already sending into town.
MSTUs are proven very successful as a way of making Collier
County a better place to live. Bayshore, Golden Gate, Immokalee,
Radio Road, and Lely, are all examples of success. In some of those,
you have agreed to partnering, and that has been beneficial to all
concemed.
Our master plan will be done right. We have done mailings, we
have held meetings, to determine the wishes of our residents. Our
MSTU board consists of officers and members of our two
associations. Updates to all of our residents are provided through the
newsletters and general meetings of those associations. That process
will continue as we proceed to finalize this plan. In simple terms,
we're all on the same page.
Highlights of our study will include burial of utilities lines, traffic
problem resolutions, and we do have some. Sidewalks on the east side
of Gulfshore Drive is vitally important. It is, at the moment, a safety
problem as well.
Landscape plan review, including Bluebill along Baker Carol
Point, including the turnaround, which some day we hope to have
beach access just south of Delnor-Wiggins Pass, and we would be
delighted to assist in the landscaping and maintenance of that.
Many of these other projects will be determined in the future and
will qualify for reverse partnering. And by reverse partnering, I mean
this, I can envision Norm Feder coming to us and saying, hey, Dick,
we'd like to do thus and so over in Vanderbilt, but we really don't have
enough money to do it right. Can you help? That's what we call
reverse partnering, because we wanted to be sure that we continue to
live with the motto of Vanderbilt Beach, which is Vanderbilt pride.
We'll pledge to you full community involvement in every step of
the way on this project. We believe the incorporation of this plan,
with the work that the county staff has done in the last two years in
Vanderbilt Beach, will bring about a basis for the future of many
Page 29
January 13, 2004
things, good things, in Vanderbilt Beach.
We've not filled the hall today to ask for your support, but I can
assure you the support will be here if you will place this matter on the
agenda for your January 27 or February 10 meeting in order to make
your formal declaration of our -- of support. I thank you very much.
Questions?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Lydon, the -- is it true, my
understanding, the MSTU will construct and fund things like
sidewalks in the Vanderbilt Beach area?
MR. LYDON: We're working -- and this is what I'm saying, it's
a partnership thing, as I see it, Mr. Henning. We will -- the county
will be involved, we will be involved.
What we're concerned with is doing it and doing it right. And,
yes, we are very happy. I'm not going to make a commitment to you
that we're going to pay for the whole sidewalk, but I will say that we
will do everything in our power to use the MSTU money to assist in
that project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before we use general fund
money?
MR. LYDON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm all in favor of
bringing it back on -- putting it on a future agenda.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd just like to add--
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS' -- I think this is maybe a good idea
to bring it back, but I also believe that with an MSTU that's presently
up there, that the reason that was established is because the citizens up
there wanted to make sure that their neighborhood was such that we
could bury power lines, we could take care of all the necessary
landscaping, but -- and I mean that that's what the MST (sic) was
established for.
Page 30
January 13, 2004
But I do go along with the idea of us partnering with the county
on certain items, and I think one of the items that the county should
get involved with is the turnaround there at the end of-- right next to
Delnor-Wiggins State Park.
And I think that's a benefit whereby, not only for the community
of Vanderbilt, but also the whole county of Collier where people can
have access.
We've got this beautiful parking lot there that a lot of times is not
fully utilized, and I feel that with the advent of a turnaround area,
people that maybe are not as capable of motivating (sic) to that
location, we can drop them off,~and then the other person, the driver,
then can park the car.
So I feel that we should bring this back and discuss certain items
of this MSTU whereby the county should partner up. MR. LYDON: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Mr. Lydon, would you elaborate a little bit about the beach
access issue that we spoke about in my office the other day? MR. LYDON: About the what, sir?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Beach access issue and how this
would be a positive thing for that, for all the residents in Collier
County?
MR. LYDON: You know, we've been put upon in Vanderbilt
Beach from time to time by people saying, hey, you don't want
anybody else on your beach, and that's just not true.
We worked very hard to get that parking lot that will park some
87, if we ever get the other seven or eight back, and we're working
very hard with parks and recreation.
The thing that we want to do with the beach access, as it is
determined, which of those various beach accesses can be used up
there. We want to work with parks and rec. to make them all look
Page 31
January 13, 2004
good and be something that we in Vanderbilt can be proud of and
something that the people who come to those beach accesses can be
proud of.
Yes, we are very interested in beach access, and we want to see
the people get to the beach, and we want to see you-all make sure that
that beach keeps looking good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you would be willing to
incorporate some language in this document that would so state that?
MR. LYDON: Yes, that we would be partnering with you in the
landscaping area of parks and rec. as whatever they're determined.
You have a -- you have a project going on the south end of the
parking garage. I think that's all -- that's all covered. But we want to
be sure that all of this is up to a standard, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, just to -- I think where
Commissioner Coletta was going, just so he understands what the
tasks are that the MSTU is working on, and that is right next to Delnor
-- in fact, the entrance road into Delnor-Wiggins State Park, we're
trying to work presently with the state and hopefully that we can get
some -- something -- some coming up (sic) resolution there whereby
we can come up with a turnaround area so that people can be dropped
off, and that's right next to the Vanderbilt Inn, where Vanderbilt Inn
presently state-- sits.
But just north of that there's that turnaround area, and we feel that
there's an easement there that we've been trying to work with the state
in regards to obtaining this easement, and the MSTU felt that -- the
Vanderbilt MSTU felt that this would be a great area to have
additional beach access that would be open to the residents and to the
tourists here that visit in Collier County. So that's what we're looking
at at the present time.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
Page 32
January 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I make a comment?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, or if you'd like to, would you
like to just continue it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we're going to bring it
back.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good. Not continue it, I'm
sorry, put it on the schedule.
So, County Manager, would you--
MR. MUDD- February 10th, ma'am, I'd like to bring it back.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: February 10th.
MR. MUDD: That way we have time for staff to talk with Mr.
Lydon and work through the plans and come back to the board with --
with some kind of plan.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good.
MR. LYDON: Thank you very much.
Item #9F
MOTION TO RECONSIDER BOARD USAGE OF FEDERAL
AVIATION GRANTS- APPROVED
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. And we move on now to 7 --
MR. MUDD: There's a time -- there's a time certain, ma'am, that
was for 10:30, and it was item number 9(F), and its intent is to obtain
the board's reconsideration on usage of the federal aviation grants, and
that's for Commissioner Henning.
There was a -- there was an agenda item that was brought before
the board at the last meeting in December whereby the three grants for
the airports was on that agenda.
And it seems that there was some confusion at the end as far as
the motion and what was -- what was on it or what wasn't on it.
And the reason -- and the reason we want to bring it back -- or
Page 33
January 13, 2004
Commission Henning wanted to bring it back was to make sure that
everybody understood what they were voting on. Commissioner Henning?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: County Manager Mudd, it's 10 after.
Do you think everybody's here for this subject? I just want to make
sure that--
MR. MUDD: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, ma'am. Time flies when
you can't see the clock over there.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I just wanted to make sure. If
everybody's here, it's fine with me that we discuss it right now.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, you're the
man that brought this back. Is that okay with you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, the -- if I may --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Sure, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- expound upon what the
county manager said.
The -- it was my understanding when I said, is it the intent to
remove the one item, and that would be the Everglades -- Everglades
City Airport grant.
It's further my understanding that the grant has already been
accepted by the Airport Authority, so why does the Board of
Commissioners not only accept it but expend it at the -- at the airport,
so why does the Board of Commissioners have to approve such grants
when it's already been accepted and spent.
MR. VASEY: I'm Dennis Vasey, chairman of the Collier County
Airport Authority. Thank you, Commissioners, for the pleasure of
being here today.
The FAA grant has been in the works for about five years, and
what Commissioner Henning says it tree, and it will continue to be
true with grants. They appear mysteriously, even though you plan for
O ! ° °
them. But when y u don t have any good ~nformat~on, you tend to
Page 34
January 13, 2004
look at the system and keep going.
So what we've done in this particular case is we've received a
high honor in light of waning federal support for aviation in general.
They're just not giving out a lot of grants.
And while it's tree that this year's budget did not show funding,
it's only because we didn't have any visibility that it was going to be
brought back to us as approved.
The way the grant process works is, over years you do pieces of
projects, and you go out for grant funding, grand funding is approved,
hopefully. In an ideal world, we could plan for that.
But what we find ourselves doing is we find ourselves planning,
not receiving the money, planning, not receiving the money, and then
WOMET (phonetic) comes back, and then we have to go back.
So what we are trying to do with bringing this back to the Board
of County Commissioners is remain consistent with the ordinance
which tells us that budget amendments are the responsibility of the
Board of County Commissioners.
And it's in that spirit that I'm here today to answer your questions
about the grant and answer any other questions that may have resulted
from the approval last meeting of this motion.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, and then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How much -- how much money
of that grant has been spent?
MR. VASEY: I'd have to go back and look incrementally, but
there was a lot of money expended in staff hours writing the grant,
there was more hours expended in the staff defending the grant before
the FAA, and there's been a lot of time spent by the staff. So I really
can't tell you how much money. But in general terms, what we're
asking for for this portion of the grant is stated on the summaries.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And it's possible that --
just asking -- that the Clerk of Court might have some knowledge
Page 35
January 13, 2004
about -- since all of the moneys flow through the Clerk of Court, they
might have some knowledge on what moneys has been expended on
this grant?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. It appears at this time that there's
been approximately $22,000 spent in regard to that project at
Everglades City. And it basically encompasses two things; one, is the
environmental assessment for the property, and the second one is the
design work for that specific project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And how much -- what's the
grant for?
MR. VASEY: This particular portion was for about 8,000. I'm
not sure of the exact dollar number. And that was in our matching
fund. So the total grant includes the design.
Now, this is just another piece, because after we get a design,
then we have to come back and go through the process of having the
design approved, take it before the county for the planner, look at -- at
how this is going to work out. So we're probably about an eighth of
the way into a process that could take 10 years to finish.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- and what was the
matching amount?
MR. VASEY: Forgive me. I don't have the summary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: County Manager?
MR. MUDD' The -- commission -- Commissioner Henning,
from what I'm getting out of the executive summary, it looks like
sponsor's match was $8,334, and in -- the needed budget total was
$166,000.
MR. MITCHELL: Let's see. Jim -- Jim, look at the Everglades
one. You're looking at the Immokalee line.
MR. MUDD: I'm sorry. Seven thousand, one hundred forty-six
thousand (sic) was the sponsor's match, and the parallel taxiway
design phase is $142,918 total, and it looks like the FAA grant was for
$128,626.
Page 36
January 13, 2004
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I have Commissioner Halas,
Commissioner Coletta, and Commissioner Coyle up next. Would you
-- do you have any more questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Shakes head.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. We can come
back to you, Commissioner Henning. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Just so that hopefully we're
all on the right track here, when this came up for approval, my
understanding was that we were voting on the Immokalee Airport and
the Marco Airport, and we were dropping the Everglades Airport; is
that what the motion was at that particular day? MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what-- the understanding
that I thought the motion was --
MR. MUDD' -- that's what Commissioner Henning is trying to
ascertain at this particular juncture,' because what he's relayed to me is,
in his opinion, that's what the motion was.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But the problem seems to --
seems to be at the present time, that there was money already spent on
this prior to us voting for this; is this correct?
In other words, the grant was here, the moneys -- because if you
look at the whole picture, as Mr. Vasey's talking about, where the
grant also paid for staff time, also paid for engineering time -- am I
correct --
MR. VASEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and this was prior to us making a
vote on this particular motion.
MR. VASEY: If I may. The way this works, this appeared in a
budget four years ago. And correctly stated, yes, you have earlier
approved a budget, and you did this year also, approve our budget.
And one of the difficulties that the Airport Authority found itself
Page 37
January 13, 2004
in a few years ago and the productivity committee looked at and the
clerk looked at, the way we reprogram money. And to make certain
that this board was not left out of picture, the authority determined to
bring these items always back to the Board of County Commissioners
and always explain why they were bringing -- why we were bringing
them back.
This one is particularly onerous because of your direction in a
letter from Chairman Henning on the 16th, which essentially directs
the Airport Authority not to expend any money.
But in between there's been such a groundswell, and the promise
in the letter was that airports -- Everglades -- Everglade's Air Park is
always going to remain an airport.
We have to plan for the design and we have to plan for safety,
and that's what we're attempting to do. And I'm -- I hope that in
explaining how the process works, you can understand that this is a
multi-year funding requirement, and it will continue to come back to
the board as we have -- as we establish different points in our process
or in the planning process.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: One more question and then we'll go
to Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're telling me is that
the motion we made was incorrect because we had already given you
direction to look for funds and to look for grants, not only this year
because we approved your budget, but in prior years stating to go
forward to get these grants.
And obviously these grants aren't something you get overnight,
they take much research, a lot of time. And so you were able to
acquire one of these grants, and it just so happened that the grant came
to us after we had some discussion about -- later on about what we
were going to do with the air park down there, but basically the -- the
Board of County Commissioners had earlier given you direction to --
that -- because of the fact that we okayed your budget, so you felt that
Page 3 8
January 13, 2004
everything was on the up-and-up, is that my understanding?
MR. VASEY: Again, Commissioner, each commission has
approved a budget.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. VASEY: And in that budget has been money, and this is
more money that we're asking for to do a safety project, yes, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Vasey, first off, I want to
thank you for donating your time to the Airport Authority and for
being here today. I think a lot of people are under the assumption
you're being paid for what you're doing, and you're not, and I do
appreciate it, and I just wanted to extend my thanks to you first.
Second, my only concern right now is, you know very well what
my direction has been for some time and what I'd like to see happen.
This is an issue that's come before the county commission a
number of times regarding the Everglades Air Park, and it will
continue to come before the commission time and time again.
And every time it comes before the commission, this air park is
up for grabs. Something could go wrong. Now, right now our
direction is, we want to preserve it as an airport.
As long as this remains under the county domain, its chances of
surviving sometime into the future are -- aren't all that good. At some
point in time the grant could be paid off, the land could be sold. Any
number of things could happen that would be negative.
What I -- and I see Jim Mudd's hand going up, and I'm going to
ask you to wait, sir, until I finish.
If I may, the -- this particular venture that we're going through
and what we're talking about concerns the good citizens of Everglades
and the surrounding area, and is very -- very important to their future
being as far as the vitality of the economics of that area.
And so that's the reason why I've notified my fellow
commissioners through for-your-information notices -- I'm asking for
Page 39
January 13, 2004
no returns -- that my stance is that we come up to -- with an agreement
with Everglades City Council to sell back the airport to them for $100
or less. We originally bought it for 10, and I think we've got a right to
make a small profit.
But my thoughts being is that once it's in their hands, I know that
these people -- and they've told me their ideas -- and the fact that they
are the main stakeholders could turn this thing around, not only to
break even, but to make a profit and to grow as time goes along.
And so I -- that's -- the only question I've got is, the direction
we're going with this grant, would this be something that could be
handed off, the money from this grant, to the Everglades City Council
if they were ever to assume control of the airport, which I hope they
do?
MR. VASEY: If I understand, Commissioner, your question is,
does the grant run with the land, and the answer is yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Jim Mudd, I didn't mean
to interrupt you.
MR. MUDD: No, Commissioner. What's on your visualizer,
what I tried to do is put down a section that deals with FAA grants.
And what I will tell you -- that once you accept an FAA grant on a
particular airport, your ability to sell it for something other than an
airport is severely limited, okay? And I want to make sure that the
commissioners know that right now. By accepting the grant, you
basically lose options with that airport. That's all I need to say.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: But you say, Mr. -- Commissioner
Coletta, that they want to purchase it and keep it as an airport; is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. And what I
would recommend if we get to that point, and I hope we do, that we
put a reverter clause in the agreement with them that if they ever
desire to do something with it other than for an airport, related
functions as an airport, that it would revert back to the county. And
Page 40
January 13, 2004
that's what they should have done in the beginning when they sold to
the county.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tell me when this portion of the
grant money was actually received and when it was spent.
MR. VASEY: We have -- we have not expended this portion, the
design portion yet. We would like to, and that's why we're here asking
for approval to do that.
What the clerk's office has reported to you are prior board
approvals of fund expenditure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So the $142,918 hasn't been
spent yet; is that true?
MR. VASEY: Not as of this moment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And for the benefit of the
rest of the board, let me tell you what the recollection was of our
actions and intent with respect to the airport and Everglades City.
You will recall that we had representatives from Everglades City
here in the room who were telling us what they wanted to do with the
airport. They wanted it preserved. They even passed a resolution that
they were willing to take it over.
And we had a discussion about the grant, and I made the
statement that, wouldn't it be nice, rather than spending the grant at the
present time, to first decide what the City of Everglades wanted to do
with the airport and let them make decisions about the grant.
So I would have to tell you that my understanding of our
discussion with respect to the Everglades City Airport and the grant
was that we first determine the status of the airport, what are we going
to do with the airport and what is Everglades City going to do with the
airport, and then once that decision is made, then the decision
concerning the expenditure of the remainder of the grant money could
be determined by the people who are, in fact, operating the airport. At
least that was my understanding. So for whatever use that is to you,
Page 41
January 13, 2004
that's where I was.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS' But I think what we did here is we
set up a Catch 22 scenario whereby as we went through this deal about
what we were going to do with Everglades Airport, I think we gave
false hope to the Airport Authority that we were okaying their budget,
and that budget also included the air park at Everglades City.
And then in the course of deciding that maybe we would like to
get rid of it, already the wheels were in motion for the grant and for
moneys that they were researching on this.
And if I'm incorrect, please state that. But I was under the
impression that when we included the budgets through the year and
okayed a budget, that we were okaying the budget for all three
airports.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll tell you what, Commissioner
Coyle has been sitting on the committee representing the commission,
and so if anyone's versed in what's taking place, I'm sure it's him. And
I do respect his opinion.
And I'll tell you, as far as turning the airport over to Everglades
City with -- and burdening them with something that they had no say
in is starting to trouble me. I see your logic behind this, and it makes
sense.
The only thing that lays in the interim is, how do we expediate
(sic) this so that life can keep on going and the certain safety measures
can be put in effect in as short a time as possible.
And I'll remind this commission that we did promise to meet at
some future time with the Everglades City Council to be able to try to
resolve this.
And this -- we may want to consider trying to move that
Page 42
January 13, 2004
timetable up so that we can get this resolved and get it going and find
out the direction it should take place.
I'm sure that all the work that's taken place at this point in time is
transferable; in other words, it could be -- if Everglades City does end
up with the airport, they can take the work that the Airport Authority
did and just move it over with just a simple, probably change of some
signatures and notification of change of ownership, and the thing
would be able to continue; is that right, Mr. Vasey? MR. VASEY: Mr. Coletta, thank you.
Obviously, in real life that isn't precisely what happens because
there are a lot of agreements that have to be transferred. But in reality,
if the idea is to maintain Everglades Air Park as an airport and we
have the opportunity for the design phase of a safety feature, using the
illustration Commissioner Coyle used in wanting to seek the people's
determination, it would be shortsighted of us to determine here that,
no, we weren't going to proceed with this grant. And the likelihood of
getting another grant is unknown.
So what we might like to do now is to wait until we have a firm
answer. And as you're aware, I'm asking those questions. We are
going to meet with Mayor Hamilton. He's had trouble with a recent
eye surgery. We do have two steps to take at your direction at the
December 2nd meeting and then at the December 12th letter, and
those were to determine -- make initial contact, determine what the
desires of the community are with regard to the air park.
In the meantime, for the last five years, we've been trying to get
these safety features brought in because we are deficient -- we are not
deficient. We would be at a better public safety position to have the
enhancements that the FAA grant will allow us to plan.
At that point, once you've had your meeting with the city council
and you come back, we are still not really going to know what the true
desires are, but by that time the grant money might not be available,
we may not be able to execute the grant during the grant period, and
Page 43
January 13, 2004
we may lose totally, and then the criticism--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All the more reason to expediate
this process.
I think we need to come up with a timeline that doesn't just
speculate on some time in the future we're going to do it. We have to
be very firm in our timeline and say, we're going to reach this
particular goal at this point. We're going to -- in fact, what we ought
to do is pick the end goal, the meeting with the Everglades City
Council and just force everything else to happen between now and
then. This is going to draw out forever.
And like you mentioned, the Everglades City Airport, there's --
the safety and well being of that airport might be placed in jeopardy
because of the fact that we're lallygagging on this particular issue.
We've got to make it happen in a reasonable period of time.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just to explain the budget
process, as I understand it. We allocate millions of dollars to different
projects and different departments within the county.
Give you an example. Our transportation department, millions
and millions of dollars are dedicated to certain projects within the
budget under a line item.
Can you imagine if Norm Feder went out there and entered into a
contract with a road construction firm without board's approval?
That's not going to happen because state statutes (sic) reads, as I
understand it, is the elected officials will enter into contract dealing
with the county government. That's my understanding. That's why our
agenda's so long, is we give many opportunities for the public to see
what's going on with the public funds.
You know, what I -- Commissioner Fiala, what I hear from the
majority of the commissioners is, it wasn't the intent to accept this
grant.
And also if I might say, if it is the wishes of the city council of
Page 44
January 13, 2004
Everglades to operate this airport as an airport, they can accept the
grant.
MR. VASEY: Commissioner, I'd like to correct Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. VASEY: The ordinance that you have voted on gives us the
responsibility for accepting grants. You only have the authority, this
board, to deny the budget request.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that needs to be
amended. Because, again, under state statutes, my read is that the
Board of Commissioners is the only one to enter into contract.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So Commissioners, where are we
now?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think we need a motion.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And do I have one?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the thing that you're voting on --
and David, I'm going to need some help because you know all the ins
and outs of this -- this is for reconsideration. So it would have to
come back to another board. Go ahead, David.
MR. WEIGEL: That's exactly right. And your agenda package
has a very well worded request in that regard which provides the
information that if the board votes today to reconsider-- and that's
really all that is before you is to reconsider the prior action taken on
December 16th -- the matter, upon a successful vote of
reconsideration, would come two meetings in the future, which would
be the February 10th meeting, whereupon you would go back to and
have a full discussion of the item that you considered and voted upon
December 16th.
You've -- you've broadened your discussion today beyond the
mer -- idea of reconsideration, which is fine, but you will have an
opportunity -- in fact, by ordinance, the opportunity is by law to be
Page 45
January 13, 2004
taken at actual reconsideration of the item in chief, which would come
back on February 10th, two regular meetings from today's vote if you
vote to reconsider.
Mr. Vasey is correct and Mr. Henning is correct, both in regard
to some power of the board and the authority.
The authority has, you might say, in its charge or charter to go
out and attempt to seek grants, but the board ultimately controls the
pursestring, and that's what this item from December 16th is about, is
that there is, in fact, an ultimate control of the Board of County
Commissioners to allow or not allow the commitment of the tax
dollars to go forward to provide for the approval, execution, and
administration of the grant.
So the board has retained-- retained the power, but it's, perhaps,
not as direct as the board would wish for it to be.
Now, there is an amendment to the Airport Authority ordinance,
which will be coming back, advertised for the next board date, and it
may be that upon its review and consideration, that some of these
questions will be answered at that time as well.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion for
reconsideration, but I would also like to attach with that motion a
recommendation that the staff and Airport Authority move
expeditiously in coordinating with the Everglades City Council to
determine their intentions with respect to this and hopefully have
some report to us when this thing comes back for reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that, and I'll tell you
why, because I think this is an item that we're not going to get
resolved if we just refuse to hear it. We need to bring it back not only
for this particular item, but to be able to keep the wheels moving on
this so that the meeting takes place with the Everglades City Council
in an as-fast-as-possible way.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I agree.
Page 46
January 13, 2004
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS. I just need clarification. This -- are
these three separate grants or is this one huge grant? That is --
MR. VASEY: This is one grant which includes three instances
of design.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So do we have the option of
breaking off one particular airport from the other two?
MR. VASEY: When -- whatever your decision is today, either to
reconsider or -- I don't know what the other options might be -- we
would at that point begin to look at the possibilities of' dividing the
grant.
But as written, the grant included an aviation system and design
in that aviation system for safety, and these three airports are
specifically awarded the grant.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's one huge grant?
MR. VASEY: Yes, sir. '
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So we have a motion on the floor and
a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
Page 47
January l3,2004
would please give me just a moment. CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because of this action and other
actions that the Board of Commissioners is taking, a clarification of
the motions are not quite clear, and it might be a good idea for one of
the staff members to restate the motion, whether it be the county
attorney, Sue Filson from the county commissioner's office or the
county manager's office.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I think that's an excellent idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Anybody would want to -- I
don't know who's going to take the duty on, Commissioner.
MR. MUDD: We'll work through it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Will you try and attempt that today?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All right, right, very good.
Thank you for that great suggestion, Commissioner Henning.
Item #7A
RESOLUTION 2003-08: PETITION NUMBER VA-2003-AR-4768,
FOR AN 1.8 FOOT AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 7.5 FEET AND 5.7 FEET FOR THE EXISTING SHED
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND A 7.3 FOOT
AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF 7.5 FEET TO 0.2 FEET FOR THE
EXISTING POOL AND SCREEN ENCLOSURE OF THE SOUTH
SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE "MH-ACSC/ST" MOBILE
HOME ZONING DISTRICT WITH AN AREA OF CRITICAL
STATE CONCERN/SPECIAL TREATMENT ZONING OVERLAY,
ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER
COl JNTY, FIJORIDA - ADOPTFJD
Page 48
January 13, 2004
Okay. We have a time certain of 11. The room is filling up, but
we have -- we'll go on so that we still have time for everybody to
appear.
Oh, did you want to have a little bit of a break right now?
THE COURT REPORTER: Right before 11.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right before 11 would be great.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Right before 11, very good. Okay,
fine.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this would bring us to --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: 7(A).
MR. MUDD: -- 7(A). This item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commissioner
members.
It's petition number VA-2003-AR-4768 for and -- a 1.8 foot
after-the-fact variance from the required 7.5 feet, and 5.7 feet from the
existing shed on the north side of the property, and a 7.3 foot
after-the-fact variance from the side yard setback requirement of 7.5
feet, to .2 feet from the existing pool and screen enclosure on the south
side of the property in the MH-ACSC/ST mobile home district with an
area of critical state concern/special treatment zoning overlay on
property hereinafter described in Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Council -- commission members, do
we have any disclosures?
Comtnissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I don't have any disclosures on
this.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning -- I'm sorry.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You sound like Commissioner
Henning when he was in that position.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I know.
Page 49
January 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: You get nervous in this position.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay. I'm a little younger
than him, so don't worry about it.
Yes, I do. I have quite a bit of disclosure. I've been involved in
this process at Plantation Island for-- ever since it started.
Originally some time ago, the -- you've got to realize, Plantation
Island's been in existence for over 25 years. It's a second-- it's a
mobile home community that's -- it was -- served as a second home for
some people originally. Now a lot of permanent residents live there.
Most of them are retired.
For years, they've been totally ignored in the back stream of
Collier County as far as permitting went. Some time ago, the
residents of this community -- and I'm going to -- the reason I'm going
to this length is to try to explain the reason for my declaration -- is that
the residents had problems with each other, and so they started using
code as a weapon to try to bring their fellow residents down.
At that point in time, I helped to kick start the Plantation Island
Civic Association. And since then, it's been going forward, and a lot of
the residents have cleaned up their act.
But I've talked to just about every resident in there two or three
times. Mr. Webber was the head of the Plantation Island Property
Owners' Association, and I -- we communicate on a regular basis.
I've talked to people in Everglades City who are quite familiar
with the problem there, too, even though it's -- they're a municipality,
they feel some kinship to the residents of Plantation Island.
So -- and, of course, with staff, and I've been there for numerous
meetings.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: No ex parte communication.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
Page 50
January 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No ex parte communications.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And none from me.
And we need to swear in our-- anybody who is involved in this
item.
MR. MUDD: If you'd please stand. The court reporter will
swear them in, please.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Did everybody hear that? Do you
swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Say I do.
Thank you very much.
You have a tiny little voice. Thank you.
MR. WOODWARD: Good morning. Craig Woodward, attorney
for the petitioners in this action, Mr. and Mrs. Albert Dowacter. I'm
here today with my clients and neighbors who support this petition.
As was stated, the property is the mobile home subdivision
known as Plantation Island. It's an unrecorded subdivision from the
late 1950s, and it's located between Everglades City and Chokoloskee
Island.
My clients have owned their property since 1978, for 25 years.
As Commissioner Coletta mentioned, we're actually here as a result of
a code enforcement complaint, which resulted from neighbors who
turned in the violation, and there have been other violations due to
conflicts between people, and code enforcement has been used as sort
of a way to seek revenge.
Because of the age of the subdivision, it predates your Land
Development Code, and because of the haphazard way it was
developed, I'm sure there are a lot of properties out of compliance.
We're here today on two variance requests. One is a shed on the
north side of the mobile home. It's located 5.7 feet from the north
property line instead of the required 7.5 feet, and a pool and screen
enclosure on the south side of the mobile home, and it's located, from
the property line to the cage, .2 feet, and to the edge of the pool is two
Page 51
January 13, 2004
and a half feet, and required is seven and a half feet.
As was mentioned in the staff report, two variances have been
granted since 1987 at Plantation Island. V-87-7 granted a variance on
the front yard of 20.6 feet from a required front yard setback of 25
feet, and V-91-4 is a variance on a side setback granting a seven-foot
setback from a required 7.5.
Both are large variances, and as I mentioned earlier, Plantation is
an old mobile home subdivision, and a lot of the lots don't meet
current code as far as width or square footage, and many of them are
nonconforming.
The first issue is regarding the shed. If you look at the survey,
you'll see there's a wooden fence to the north of the shed. This fence,
when it was constructed, was constructed parallel to an old iron fence
that was on the south side of the pool, and it was thought the iron
fence was the property line, and so the woodshed was constructed 60
feet north of the iron fence.
Then when the shed itself was put in, the shed was put seven and
a half feet south of the wooden fence.
My client went to Collier County about 22 years ago to get a
permit for the shed, and he was told he didn't need a permit because
his property was in Plantation Island and no one there pulled permits,
which was the information he was given.
Later when the property was surveyed, it was discovered that the
wooden fence was not on the property line, and the shed, instead of
being 7.7 feet from the property line is now 5.7 feet from the actual
property line.
The shed has been there many years. The adjacent neighbor to
the north, who lives right next door, is here today, Mr. Kowalke, and
he has no objection to it remaining. The shed doesn't interfere with
any views of the neighbors. And a literal interpretation of your code
would create practical difficulties on my client.
We're asking for a 1.8 foot variance, which is the minimum
Page 52
January 13, 2004
necessary to make reasonable use of the shed. And as mentioned,
seven foot variances have already been granted in the same
subdivision.
The second issue is the pool and the screen cage. Again, the
adjacent neighbor, this time to the south, Mr. Bob Chipman, has
consented to the location of the pool and the screen cage. There's a
letter in your packet from him requesting that you grant this variance.
Mr. Chipman has been a neighbor for many years and, in fact,
was the owner when the pool and cage were constructed.
In addition to Mr. Chipman, there's a petition that's part of your
package where we have 20 of the immediate neighbors who've signed
requesting that the -- this board approve the variance.
In addition, your staff received two letters directly from property
owners. One was from Walter Rolland who owns nearby land and
said in his letter, it appears that both the shed and pool have been
constructed in a professional manner and certainly adds to the
property values in the community.
Mrs. Lynn Chin, who lives in Plantation Island and lived there
for five years, said in her letter, she's seen the pool and shed many
times and feels that these structures are only a plus to the value and
beautification to this area.
Your staff found no hardship involved, but if you read the actual
requirements of your code, it says, will a literal interpretation of the
provisions of this zoning code work (sic) unnecessary and undue
hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the
applicant?
Your staff did say a literal interpretation of the setback
requirement will create practical difficulties.
We submitted documents to our staff, which are in your packet,
that the pool was built for medical reasons.
One of the letters is from Dr. Maurice Hanson, the Department of
Neurology at Cleveland Clinic, and he stated that it's imperative that
Page 53
January 13, 2004
Mr. Dowacter continue his aquatic exercise program at home
indefinitely to reduce his discomfort. I ask that he be allowed to keep
his pool, as it's instrumental in his pain reduction.
Another doctor, Dr. Carumba (phonetic), signed a prescription
that requires Mr. Dowacter to have aquatic therapy on a daily basis.
Also, a copy of Mr. Dowacter's disability parking permit was provided
to you.
And we feel that a denial of this variance would create an
unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant and create practical
difficulties. It is also the minimum necessary to provide reasonable --
promote standards of health, safety, or welfare, and there is a health
and welfare issue involved.
Also there's an issue as to whether this granting this variance is in
harmony with the intent of the zoning code and not injurious to the
neighborhood.
Clearly, all of the neighbors around who signed our petition or
sent letters don't feel this variance would be injurious in the
neighborhood. In fact, they've said it-- the look of the pool and the
shed improve property values.
The -- there are also lots, as I mentioned, that are nonconforming.
And under your own code, those lots -- there's two across the street.
One is 40 feet, one is 50 feet. Both of those lots would be allowed to
have a setback of either five or zero feet because of your code. So the
whole community has somewhat problems because there's a lot of
nonconforming lots.
Rather than spending a lot of time on variances, I have suggested
to the staff that you would be better off preparing a special zoning
overlay, which was done for Goodland. And I know that the county
worked very closely with Goodland on that special zoning overlay,
and it was an excellent idea, and it worked very well for Goodland,
and I've suggested that to the staff and to the clients that they -- that
their homeowners' association work closely with the county on that,
Page 54
January 13, 2004
otherwise, I think you're going to spend a lot of time on these type of
variances coming up in the future.
I don't think that Plantation Island needs to conform to your -- the
same zoning standards that we expect for these mo -- a lot of the other
newer properties in this county.
This matter went in front of your planning board, and there was a
unanimous vote to send this for approval, and -- the only issue was
whether or not there should be a fence, and the -- we agreed that we
would make the screen enclosure opaque on the one side of the screen
enclosure, which your staff suggested, and which would work to
resolve any kind of a view issue from the neighbor.
So we would request you grant this variance and adopt the
resolution as proposed.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you very much. I
know this isn't the appropriate time, because we have to close the
public hearing and we're still a ways off from that.
But when the time does come, I'm going to make the motion that
we accept this without reservation, and I'll tell you the reason why.
This is really -- would be destroying the fabric of the community
of Plantation Island. It used to be a happy little community. You'd go
down there, they'd hold fish fries, they go out fishing. Now they're so
upset with what's taking place and everything, and they don't seem to
have a way to resolve it. They don't go anyplace. They just stand
around there. They don't really have community meetings. The fabric
is being destroyed of the community.
And I think this would be the first step, and I agree with you
about the zoning overlay. It has to be initiated by the citizens of the
community, and I'm going to ask today before they leave if I can have
another meeting with their association to try to kick-start this and get it
moving forward.
But I kind of hope we can expediate this process. This is
Page 55
January 13, 2004
something that's quite unusual from almost everything else we've
heard in the past. This predates enforcement, and now all of a sudden
we have the burden being placed upon them. I assume the expense for
what we're going through with this particular variance, these two
variances, probably exceeds 3 or $4,000. MR. WOODWARD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if every resident there is
going to have to do that, it's going to be very expensive. But they
have to do something to comply with code, especially when they've
been turned in.
So anything we can do to expediate this so we can get these good
people back on the way home, so knowing that there is a solution in
hand, I would appreciate the indulgence of this commission.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good. We have --
Commissioners Coyle, then we have four speakers.
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just like to make the
observation that in view of the approval of the adjacent property
owners, I'm inclined also to support this.
But let me point out one thing. The pool and the screen
enclosure were constructed in the year 2000. They were constructed
without a permit. The purpose of getting a permit is to find out where
the lot lines are and what the setbacks are so that you can abide by the
law.
I'm not really too happy about rewarding bad behavior in
violation of the law.
If people are complaining about violations of code down there,
then the people who build things like this to should be more sensitive
to what they do, and apparently that didn't occur in this case.
I see that the petitioner offers no explanation as to why they built
the pool and the screen enclosure without bothering to get a permit
Page 56
January 13, 2004
and a survey.
So I'm not at all persuaded that financial impacts are a reason for
granting a petition to -- for this variance.
So I think the first obligation we have is to make sure people
understand that they should, in fact, adhere to the law, and then they'll
stop this bickering among themselves about who is guilty of what.
And I really don't like the idea that we're approving this. But if it
doesn't make much difference to the neighbors, I guess it shouldn't
make a lot of difference to me except that I don't like to see people
intentionally violating the law.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Did we have any comments from
staff?.
MR. DERUNTZ: For the record, my name is Mike Deruntz,
principal planner with the zoning and development review committee,
department.
The staff found that there were no land related hardships to this
request. They also felt that the magnitude of the variance, you know,
not meeting the seven and a half foot setback, going all the way to
point two, two tenths of a foot from the site property line was an
extreme, and also, as pointed out, that there was no permit that was
acquired for the pool and screen enclosure, and -- but the Planning
Commission has made a motion and is recommending approval, and
the motion was unanimous. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you. I'd like to hear from our
speakers.
Would you like to wait, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALA$: I'll wait, I'll wait, I'll wait.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
We'll hear from our speakers. We'll call the first one and the
second one, and the second one can come up and wait while the first
one gives their speech. They're limited to five minutes.
MS. FILSON: James Malless.
Page 57
January 13, 2004
MR. MALLESS: Wrong petition. Next petition.
MS. FILSON: It says 7(A) and B. Okay. So you want 7(B)?
MR. MALLESS: I'm sorry. It should be B and C, sorry.
MS. FILSON: B and C, okay.
Phil Portz. He will be followed by Fred Kowalke.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Good morning.
MR. PORTZ: Yes, ma'am. My name is Phil Portz. I was
president of the homeowners' association of Plantation Island for five
years.
Mr. Dowacter and myself worked very closely together. We all
cooked fish and used to get along very well. But things have changed
considerably since then, as Commissioner Coletta suggested.
I think that this variation of the code will be a big improvement
for Plantation Island, possibly it will stop a lot of the bickering. I highly endorse Mr. Dowacter's petition.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Fred Kowalke, and he will be
followed by your final speaker, Walter Rowland.
MR. KOWALKE: Thank you. I live on the north side. And
according to my survey, my lot line -- his shed is not in variance (sic)
-- he's got more than eight foot, because our lot lines are not --
anyway, the shed's beautiful, painted nice, kept clean.
The pool is excellent. And for the reason they're talking about
these permits, I, for one, was another one told, never come down and
get a permit, and I do have proof of it. And that is the way that place
was run out there for all these years. And you can laugh at me, do
whatever you want, but that's the way the place was run. And I thank
you very much.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Walter Rowland.
MR. ROWLAND: Good morning. My wife and I own the
property at East Flamingo, very close to the Dowacter property. We
are very much in support of the variance that has been proposed here.
Additionally, we would highly endorse Commissioner Coletta's
Page 58
January 13, 2004
involvement on Plantation Island in facilitating it with the members of
-- those property owners down there have interest in the overlay.
That's crucial, I think. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We might want to take a very
short break while we wait for a couple of commissioners to return.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Everybody keep their seats.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: My vice chairman left. I'm so sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe we should reconsider.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'd just like to enforce (sic) on
what Commissioner Coyle had said.
And contrary to what I've heard today, I believe that all citizens
have to abide by the zoning regulations and rules of Collier County.
And I, for one, will probably go along with this variance, but I'll
tell you that there's -- it's uncalled for, for people who go out and build
stuff and don't acquire a permit. And I'm sure that if you go to Collier
County, to the development department today, that they'll enforce the
idea that anything that you build, you will need a little site plan and
also need to pull permits.
But I hope that we can come to a resolution on this and that all
the citizens down there in Plantation City (sic) realize that we need to
address these issues. And I think maybe the best way to approach it,
as one of the people spoke, and along with Commissioner Coletta, and
that is to have an overlay study in that area.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. We've heard from all of our
public speakers, and so I will close the public portion of this agenda
item and -- go ahead, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was going to say, I'd like to
make a motion at this time for approval of the variances.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 59
January 13, 2004
yOU.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Passes, 4-0.
Very good. And now we will take a five-minute break.
(A brief recess was taken.)
Thank
Item #10A
DISCUSSION OF ACCESS TO EATONWOOD LANE AND
LIVINGSTON ROAD FROM THE HIWASSE PROPERTY,
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LIVINGSTON
ROAD AND EATONWOOD LANE, EAST OF KFJNSINGTON
PARK PUD,- STAFF TO INITIATE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT
EATONWOOD LANE BE USED BY HIWASSE PROPERTY AND
AN AGREEMENT BE REACHED WITHIN 15 BUSINESS DAYS.
ALL ASSOCIATED COSTS TO COME FROM THE GENERAL
FUND- APPROVED- MOTION ON AGREEMENT OF
PRF, VIOI IS MOTION CI,ARIFICATION- APPROVF, D
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, could I please get you to
take your seats.
Ladies and gentlemen, could I please get you to take your seats.
Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes, thank you very much. We move
on to item number -- this is our time certain, item number 10(A).
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. This item to be heard at 11 a.m. It's
a discussion of access to Eatonwood Lane and Livingston Road from
Page 60
January 13, 2004
the Hiwasse property located at the northeast comer of Livingston
Road and Eatonwood Lane, east of Kensington Park PUD, in section
13, township 49 south, range 25 east.
And Mr. David Weeks will present.
MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm David Weeks
of your comprehensive planning staff. And one quick correction on
the title. The property is at the northwest comer of the intersection of
Livingston Road and Eatonwood Lane.
Commissioners, the genesis of this particular item goes back to
November 18th of last year, a public petition brought to you by
representatives of the Kensington Park Homeowners' Association,
which is the PUD adjacent to the west of the proposed Hiwasse PUD
in the particular piece of property at issue here today regarding access
to Eatonwood Lane.
At the -- well, the property owners' association, when they came
before you last year in November, what they wanted to see you do
was repeal or rescind the Growth Management Plan amendment that
established the Eatonwood Lane -- excuse me -- Livingston Road,
Eatonwood Lane commercial infill subdistrict, a subdistrict in the
Comprehensive Plan for this Hiwasse property that we're here to
discuss today, their access issue.
One of the requirements of that subdistrict is that access must be
provided to Eatonwood Lane. It is mandatory. It is a requirement, and
the property owners do not want that access. They do not want the
Hiwasse property accessing Eatonwood Lane.
Your direction was for staff to get together some information and
bring this back to you, and here we are today.
Briefly, to walk through some of the history which is outlined in
your executive summary, in 2001, Collier County filed an imminent
domain proceeding regarding acquisition of properties for the
Livingston Road project.
Title to the various properties vested in the county once the good
Page 61
January 13, 2004
faith estimate of value was made for those properties. The owners of
the certain properties disagreed with that value, and ultimately we
ended up in a settlement agreement to resolve the issue of the value of
the properties, and that settlement agreement, amongst other things,
allowed for the Hiwasse property owner to file the previously
mentioned Growth Management Plan amendment to establish a
commercial infill subdistrict, therefore setting the stage for a future
commercial rezoning on that Hiwasse property.
The settlement agreement was signed by all the involved parties,
which included Collier County, Mr. J. Dudley Goodlette, as trustee
and individually, Hiwasse, Inc., the owner of the Hiwasse property,
and also the Kensington Park Master Association itself.
However, I think it's worthy of note -- and I'm sure when they
speak, the Kensington folks, they'll be sure to point this out to you --
that at that time the developer still controlled the Kensington Park
Association. So we had one gentleman wearing two hats, both as the
Hiwasse property owner, but also as the Kensington Park Association
representative. But, nonetheless, all those parties did sign off on that
agreement.
And one of the other things that the agreement provided for was
this mandated access onto Eatonwood Lane.
In January of 2002, a Comprehensive Plan amendment was filed
to establish the subdistrict on the Hiwasse property, and consistent
with the settlement agreement, it did include language that would
require access to Eatonwood Lane.
And the county commission did ultimately approve that
amendment, and it is now in effect. A rezone petition for this Hiwasse
property has been filed and it is still pending.
Livingston Road is a controlled access facility. It is one of only
six roads, major north/south roads in the western urban area, or coastal
urban area of Collier County.
It is being constructed as a six-lane road, as I think you know.
Page 62
January 13, 2004
The purpose for it being a controlled access facility is to limit the
number of access points, be it driveway cuts, street intersections,
whatever type, so as to maintain the traffic flow on that roadway, and,
of course, to keep the volume of traffic moving and to maintain its
adopted level of service. Accordingly, the fewer access points onto
that road the better.
Going back to the settlement agreement and, again, that language
carried over into the Comprehensive Plan amendment, mandating
access to Eatonwood Lane was not something suggested by the
property owner, Hiwasse, nor was it suggested by the Kensington
folks. It was a recommendation of staff, county staff.
We wanted access onto Eatonwood lane. Why? Because it's
already an access point onto Livingston Road; therefore, having
access used at the -- Hiwasse site use that existing access point could
potentially mean no additional access points onto Livingston Road at
all, again, going back to it being a controlled access facility, or, at
most, an additional access point being a right-in, right-out only onto
Livingston Road.
Eatonwood Lane itself is a private street. There's no issue over
that. It clearly states so on the plat. It provides -- presently provides
access only to Kensington Park PUD, and in fact, it is located within
the boundaries of the Kensington Park PUD itself.
I do note in the executive summary -- and I'll go ahead and quote
it quickly -- the dedication note on the plat. Quote, to Kensington
Park Master Association, Incorporated, all of the road right-of-way
lying within the lands indicated hereon as Tract R, which includes
Eatonwood Lane, for private roadway purposes with responsibility for
maintenance subject to easements heretofore set forth. Said Tract R is
a private road right-of-way, and Collier County has no maintenance
responsibility with respect thereto, end quote.
And again, as presented in their public petition in November, the
residents of Kensington do not want access onto Eatonwood Lane.
Page 63
January 13, 2004
They specifically had asked that you rescind or repeal that
amendment. Procedurally you could not do that. You would actually
have to go through the formal process of amending the
Comprehensive Plan to remove that access requirement.
And that is the single issue that staff took away from that
November 18th public hearing, and the single issue that we are
presenting to you today is the access to Eatonwood Lane.
I know that the association members have some other issues
based upon the correspondence to you, Commissioner Coyle,
regarding landscaping and signage and, perhaps, other matters.
But the issue that we understand as the core issue before you is
the access to Eatonwood Lane. So the options before you are, number
one, do nothing, leave it the way it is, and the rezone petition that has
been filed will eventually come before you and it will, to be found in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, will have to include access
to Eatonwood Lane.
The other two options are both to have the Comprehensive Plan
amended to remove that access requirement. They break into option
two and three because it depends on who initiates it, who pays for it.
Option -- the second option would be for you to direct staff to initiate
the amendment, which would mean that the taxpayers of Collier
County, out of the general fund, would pay for that amendment.
The third option will be some type ofjoint effort between the
county to prepare the amendment, and then some other entity,
presumably the Kensington folks, as the persons that have initiated
this action to pay for the advertising costs. However the money is
split up, as far as the payment goes, I mean, that could vary. You
could make whatever policy decision you might choose as to who
pays for how much.
But your three options basically are, do nothing, direct staff to
initiate the amendment, or some type ofjoint effort to initiate an
amendment to remove the access requirement to Eatonwood Lane.
Page 64
January 13, 2004
One thing I think I need to stress to you, that even if, ultimately,
months down the road, an amendment of whatever action you take
today, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan comes before you
and you approve it that deletes the requirement to have an access onto
Eatonwood Lane, it is still possible that that rezone petition comes
before you and that it includes an access point at Eatonwood Lane. It
would then be a matter of choice however, as opposed to an absolute
requirement. And that's, again, what it is today. It is a requirement in
the Comprehensive Plan.
I don't -- from my perspective, I don't think we need to try to
discuss where their access is going to be located from this Hiwasse
site today, that is, the end result when that PUD comes before you for
zoning action approval, that is the time when you would decide where
their access is going to be located. Is it going to be on Eatonwood
Lane? Is it going to be directly onto Livingston Road? Might it be
through a joint access up at the north end of the Hiwasse property
where the La Costa Apartments are located, or some combination of
those access points?
But I don't think we need to try to resolve the complete access
picture today. We're not there yet. You would do that at the time of
the rezoning. The issue today is, again, whether or not you want to
direct some action to remove the requirement that there be access to
Eatonwood Lane.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, thank you.
For the benefit of the other commissioners and the members of
the public present, I've had the opportunity to sit down with all of the
parties involved in this process, and I believe there is a solution that is
available to solve this entire problem. And I would like to give a brief
overview, if you would indulge me, and then ask the parties involved
to come up and read into the record their understanding of the
commitments they're willing to make with respect to this.
Page 65
January 13, 2004
Now, you'll see on your viewers a map of Kensington. To the
right is Livingston Road, to the north of that picture is Pine Ridge
Road, Eatonwood Lane, of course, is that small street there.
The residents strongly believe it is a private street, and they
should -- they should not be burdened with additional traffic on that
street.
The Hiwasse owner, the part in yellow there, is a commercial
strip, and they believe they have legal access to Hiwasse, and there
has been an ongoing debate about that. So we have tried to find a way
to solve the access problems.
At the northern end of the Hiwasse strip is a curb cut which
currently exists right now in Livingston Road, and that street is named
La Costa Apartments. There is a street sign there that calls that
particular opening La Costa Apartments.
Across the street from that opening is a development which has
been already approved that requires access to Livingston Road, and
there is also a fire department and an EMS station there that has been
petitioning Collier County government for some time to permit them
access to Livingston Road for southbound dispatches.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner Coyle, pardon me for interrupting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure.
MR. WEEKS: I was just going to mention, in your executive
summary packet, there's a site plan or site map. That shows the
surrounding properties as well that you're discussing, the fire station.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good.
MR. WEEKS: And it's on the visualizer as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very
much.
So we have discussed the possibility of taking all of the traffic
through that particular intersection. It will serve the purposes of the
fire department, the EMS, the development across the street. It will
serve the purposes of Hiwasse and La Costa Apartments.
Page 66
January 13, 2004
Now, in order to do that, there will be expenditures necessary for
building the street and the traffic control devices, whatever they might
be at that intersection.
The developers at Hiwasse and the developers across the street
from Hiwasse have agreed to pay for the cost of developing the street
and for putting in the mast arms necessary for whatever signalization
goes into that intersection.
We will not make a decision on any traffic control devises there
unless they meet the -- our regulatory requirements for installation, but
the mast arms and equipment necessary to support them will be placed
there to provide an opportunity for emergency vehicles to get out and
get onto Livingston Road, which will serve the purposes of our fire
department and our EMS.
So with that access being available, it means that there will be no
access onto Eatonwood Lane whatsoever, and that issue will go away.
There is one remaining legal detail which needs to be taken care
of. It will take a little time, but La Costa Apartments, the owner of
that development, their lawyer was not available today to perform a
final review of the document, and it has not been signed. There is
belief among all the parties associated with this that it will be signed,
but no one can be absolutely certain.
Along with this particular agreement, the Hiwasse developer has
recognized the responsibility to provide for a guard shed, a
guardhouse, on Eatonwood Lane, and has agreed to give to the
homeowners' association $75,000 for building the guardhouse.
So it appears to me that we have an agreement which will meet
all of the needs of everyone here, and that our traffic department,
Norm Feder, will talk about the implications of that particular
intersection and the traffic study which seems to indicate that it will
work okay.
So Miss Chair -- Madam Chair, if you wouldn't mind, if I could
-- or would you mind calling the people who are responsible for
Page 67
January 13, 2004
reaching this agreement and letting them indicate for the record their
position on all this.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Rich Yovanovich would be the first
person.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich
Yovanovich on behalf of Hiwasse, Inc.
I don't know that Mr. Hancock's going to make it in time for this,
but I'm -- I think I can tell you what the terms, the business terms of
the deal are. And I've spoken many times with Mr. Hancock, so I
believe I know their position.
And I don't want to get into the merits of each side's argument,
but just basically what we've agreed to do -- and we have -- it's a
three-party agreement to basically construct a road that would provide
access to Hiwasse and a back entrance for La Costa to Livingston
Road and also provide what I know as the Ebert Golf Center, being
developed by -- developed by Baldridge as a shopping center, access
at a full median opening.
There will be a -- we'll put in a traffic light that will be a flashing
light that will deal with the emergency access. And at some point, if it
ever meets the warrants, it will become a fully operational traffic
signal. But in the interim, it would be flashing.
And all of those expenditures, the construction of the roadway
and the construction of the mast arms for the traffic signal will be
funded a hundred percent, and they'll be a split, but it will be a
hundred percent provided by the private sector, between Hiwasse,
Inc., and the Baldridge groups. None of this would be at the expense
of the county or at the expense of any of the residents at Kensington.
We would -- assuming we get the signature from the
representative of La Costa, and we're as comfortable as you can be
without having the signature in front of us, that that's ultimately going
to happen, we would be -- then be in the position to forego any access
Page 68
January 13, 2004
to Eatonwood Lane for the Hiwasse property.
If there were an opportunity where the residents of Kensington
might want access so they wouldn't have to go out onto Livingston
Road, we would be open to discussing that with them, but that's their
call. It's not something that we're asking for or would ask for.
But we would give up the access to Eatonwood Lane. And again,
yes, we did make the complement, which would have to be through a
separate -- because really, La Costa and Baldridge have nothing to do
with the guardhouse issue, but the commitment of a payment of
$75,000 to the residents of Kensington for them to construct the
guardhouse however they deem appropriate.
But we would make that -- we would make that payment once we
obtain our rezone, because we'd need to make sure that the rezone
goes through.
I think I've hit all the highlights. If I've missed anything,
Commissioner Coyle, or any of the other commissioners, please let me
know.
But there is an agreement between Baldridge and Hiwasse, Inc.,
for their -- to do a portion of the construction costs related to that
roadway and the traffic signal.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, did you have
a question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not for Rich.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just -- later on I have a
question for staff.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. In your presentation, you said
that there was going to be a road that was going to be provided by the
people you represent, La Costa Apartments, whereby they would have
access -- or the fire truck and the EMS would have access through that
Page 69
January 13, 2004
area out onto Livingston; is that correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I -- let me clarify one thing for the
record. I do not represent La Costa, and I don't represent Baldridge. I
do -- I was party to the negotiations. I represent Hiwasse.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But my understanding is, yes, this will be
an access point for the residents of La Costa and any emergency
vehicles to get to the La Costa development and would be our only
access point to the Hiwasse project together with a possible, if it's -- if
we could do it, a right-in, right-out on Livingston Road. I don't know
that's even feasible under the scenario, but we'll deal with that during
the zoning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, you were talking about
putting up a signalization there with the intent of having the
emergency vehicles use that as an exit point; is that correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, Commissioner, on the other side of
the road is the Baldridge shopping center -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- with the fire station is on the -- is on
the east side of the road, and there will be a loop road within --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- the Baldridge property for emergency
access to Livingston Road. But -- so it's across the street, but, yes,
that is --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- part of what our site -- what
Baldridge's site plan will include.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. I understand now
what's going on.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the Baldridge PUD, from what I've
seen, has a -- has a drugstore on it, has a supermarket, has a liquor
store in the back of the supermarket, and around the back perimeter,
Page 70
January 13, 2004
that fire station sits right here, would have access to come around and
then get out onto Livingston Road. That's what we're talking about. It
would match up with the cut that you've seen up here that's to the
north of Hiwasse.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Madam Chairman, congratulations.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
MR. FEDER: Norman Feder, for the record, transportation
administrator.
I think Commissioner Coyle -- and I do thank him for bringing
the parties together -- as well as Rich have pretty well covered the
item. I just want to reiterate and make sure I highlight a couple of
points.
First of all, as was pointed out by David Weeks, we were trying
to limit the number of access points on Livingston. We still are.
The concept that we're looking at here, rather than coming off of
Eatonwood, but rather coming to the north to encouraging joint access
driveways is very consistent with what we're trying to do, although I
do want to make sure that the board realizes that our standard on an
access control is typically not to have a full opening but every half
mile.
This would only be about a quarter mile south of Pine Ridge
Road, so therefore, since I'm not looking for this to become an
ongoing precedent, I would ask the board to acknowledge that as an
exception to our controlled access status that you established for
Livingston Road.
Having said that, working with the Baldridge PUD, which is not
yet approved in its site plan, but nonetheless has these concepts that
have been outlined to you, they have been looking to try and establish
a full opening.
Right now you have what is called a dual directional, allows lefts
in both to Baldridge and to La Costa, which, of course, isn't yet
Page 71
January 13, 2004
connected up, but does not allow lefts out.
If we open this up to a full opening, allowing Hiwasse to proceed
to the north along with La Costa and then access across to the
Baldridge PUD, the concept would be then to have the full opening in
that location and then to bring down what is a half mile south of Pine
Ridge at Eatonwood and establish that as a left-in, left-out, both for
Kensington as well as on the east side, for the Arlington PUD when
and if that comes forward.
So there would not be a full opening, and therefore, not the
potential for future signalization down at the Kensington opening, so I
want to make sure everybody's aware of that and we'd bring that to the
board's attention.
In looking at it, as I said, we did do a traffic analysis with the
Golden Gate interchange opening, and with the modifications on Pine
Ridge, we're fairly comfortable that in spite of not meeting what is our
desired standard of the half mile, that we can operate pretty effectively
with a full opening and the potential for signalization across from La
Costa, Baldridge, Hiwasse's access to there.
What I will tell you though, that obviously, as has been pointed
out, all of this is conditioned upon a few things I'd just like to bring to
your attention, including the modification by -- we would see the
developers down at Eatonwood do a dual directional or pork chop, as
it's sometimes referred to, modification to that full opening that exists
today, as well, the modification of the opening that today is dual
directional to a full opening, with, as the commissioner pointed out, all
the signalization installed for future full operations, interconnection
with Pine Ridge and preemption for fire and rescue, but initially only
operating as an emergency signal and only moved over into full
operations once, and if a warrant study finds that, in fact, it is
warranted to do so.
The other thing would be to make sure that the connection, which
has been asked for by the fire and rescue, that that connection to the
Page 72
January 13, 2004
fire department through the Baldridge development be a direct
connection, as direct as it can be, such as to make it an efficient
avenue for the fire station, and that the design of the roadway and the
specifics, make sure that they fully accommodate fire and rescue, not
some circuitous movement through the development itself.
With those conditions, with those understandings, if all three
parties are ready to sign and to agree to it, we're prepared to move the
full opening up to the LaCosta/Baldridge, and then have the dual
directional or the pork chop median be established at Eatonwood.
And based on, as I said, the traffic studies, we believe we can still
maintain viable operations along Livingston which is critical to this
community.
I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Any questions,
Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. We have 92 speakers.
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am, and I believe Mr. Mudd took them.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And I -- pardon me? And Mr. Mudd
took them. But I would like to ask if Mr. Gerry Bums could be our
first speaker. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Bums -- I think Mr. Bums has three speakers,
and I would ask Madam Chair's and the commissioners' indulgence to
let him basically present his side on -- whichever way he wants his
three speakers, and I don't think, Mr. Bums, you're going to have me
go through all 92 of these, are you?
MR. BURNS: No, not really.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
MR. BURNS: Actually, it was his -- can I tell you a side? It was
his idea. He said--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't do that.
MR. BURNS: This guy's got a fun heart to him, I'll tell you that.
Page 73
January 13, 2004
First of all, just for the record, my name is Gerald Bums, and I'm
the president of the Kensington Park Master Association. I go by
Gerry.
But when we met with Jim, which we have for almost 14 months
on and off, Ron Henning and myself, he said, if you want to get their
attention, he said, what you want to do is just waive all these. I says,
they're going to get diarrhea. He says, yeah, but when you tell them
you're not going to do it, it's like getting Immodium. So he's a fun
guy.
Actually, what I'm going to do on behalf of the Kensington folks
is to state what we're agreeing to. Joseph McMackin, our attorney,
just would like to make one point also, so -- but we're going to try to
keep it as brief as possible.
But as you can see, when an issue does come up with
Kensington, they do respond. I mean, this is -- if I could just take one
minute, because this is awesome for us to look at, is this kind of
community development. And these folks here, not just because it's
only Kensington, there's a lot of people out here to volunteer, doctors
of medicine. There's Dex over there, and all of you know Dex. He
puts a tremendous amount of time in here.
But this is a community that has a lot of caring, they really do.
And they're very interested, not only for Kensington, but what's best
for Collier County. And when we're finished, is it going to be possible
for me to address the podium just for a few minutes to talk about what
Ron and I have found in the last 14 months, how good a job you're all
doing? I'd like to do that, so I'm going to ask for that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can always have time for that.
MR. BURNS: Well, as we understand, the two issues that we
were concerned about was -- one was to actually -- for you to delete
the access from -- onto Eatonwood Lane from Hiwasse. We felt that
was our private road and that's what we understand is our agreement,
so you obviously accept that.
Page 74
January 13, 2004
The second aspect is the gates which are being built right now.
We are actually implementing the installation of the gates, and that's a
separate expenditure that Hiwasse has agreed to pay.
So the $75,000 is for us to go out and find somebody to build the
guardhouse and some signage. And I asked for $100,000, but 75,000,
we're going to accept, because we want to negotiate and want to bring
this to closure.
So as far as we're concerned, we definitely do agree with the
terms of the agreement. But if I could just take a minute to have
Joseph McMackin, our attorney, address his one issue, and then I'd
like to come back.
MR. McMACKIN: Thank you, Madam Chairman, Gentlemen.
For the record, Joe McMackin. I represent the Kensington
Master Association. We have one question, which I'd like to address
to Mr. Yovanovich, which, perhaps could be included in Mr. Coyle's
recommendation, and that is that Hiwasse would quit claim back to
the master association the purported easement that was granted onto
Eatonwood Road.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, assuming we reach our
easement agreement and we get our rezone, not a problem.
MR. McMACKIN: That would be fine, thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Mr. Bums.
MR. BURNS: Based on that, can I make my comments then
about -- okay.
I'm speaking with Ron Hinding who has worked -- in fact, could
you please stand up please. This gentleman here has spent --
(Applause.)
MR. BURNS: We were talking today. We didn't realize, but it's
been 14 months that we've been working on this situation since we
came to know about it.
In that 14 months we both -- we're both from Chicago, and we
have commented, it's amazing the amount of cooperation that we have
Page 75
January 13, 2004
received from Collier County government at every single level.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's great.
MR. BURNS: In fact, I was commenting with David earlier, I
said, the way you handled it was professional. We didn't agree, but it
was very, very professional.
But starting with the -- Ray Bellows when we first met him, I
didn't know the difference between a PUD and a PUT, to be honest
with you. And he sat down and explained in great detail what it all
meant. And it was immensely helpful to us.
As we dealt with the people in records, they -- they were
extremely cooperative. It's almost like nobody said, well, you're kind
of a pain. Everybody said, how can we help.
Then we met Don Scott, and, again, ! needed an education. He
talked about ingress and egress. I thought that was two birds from
Florida.
So we have been so impressed with the attitude of the people.
And I read the local paper every day, and I guess, because the fact that
I got involved 14 months, I really -- and I have to tell you, the paper's
not reporting the truth, and I can say that from personal experience.
(Applause.)
MR. BURNS: I really can.
I was thinking, well, maybe there's -- you know, lately there's
new beginnings. Well, that's not really true, because the timeline goes
back to right here, you five and Jim Mudd and the staff. It goes back
to when you-all started it.
Now, what you are doing, in our estimation, is through the new
beginnings you're continuing with honest, competent, caring,
interested.
Commissioner Halas, keep sending your information to us.
We're -- for some reason, we're on your mailing list even though --
Commissioner Coyle. And I love it. I read every word of it.
And you talk about who's looking out for the taxpayer, you
Page 76
January 13, 2004
know. The developer has his people looking out for the developer.
And in our estimates, you are. You're looking out for the taxpayer. I
can say that from our experience and from our conversations, you
definitely are.
And we've gotten to know County Manager Jim Mudd and Fred
Coyle, of necessity, and they've been princes, they really have.
They've been just great guys, and they just have supported us so well.
And I've already told Fred, I said, when it's time for your
election, you can count on me. I'll ring doorbells for you. And a lot of
the people here would do the same thing. (Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Mr. Bums, I just want to tell you it's
such a good -- it's so good to hear somebody applaud our staff. Our
staff is -- helps us and the people that we send to them every step of
the way. So seldom does anybody ever come up front and actually
say it to an audience.
And you folks with your clapping and your smiles, we love that
you're confirming everything Mr. Bums says. Thank you so much for
honoring these people that work so hard. Thank you. (Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Did you want to say something?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, you said it. You said it.
MR. BURNS: I have a final thought for the residents of Collier
County, and especially for the Naples paper. I'd really like them to
take a look, a very long new look with an objective mind, because I
think if they spend some time looking at what you-all are doing,
they're going to find a jewel. Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Bums.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And -- now we have 92 speakers.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, we have 92 speakers. And just to
make this formal -- because I have speaker slips here for all of them.
Page 77
January 13, 2004
And the key to help me here -- and all 92 of you signed up. You know
who you are. And I would like you to at this time tell the clerk that
you waive to speak, and if-- and if you don't waive to speak, I'd ask
you to please go to that podium over there, okay, as we work through
the things.
For those people that have signed up, do you waive on this public
petition request to speak? AUDIENCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Everybody waive.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Is there -- is there anyone that's on these 92
that would like to speak? Please go to that podium at this time.
Commissioner, I would also, since I don't see anybody moving
very quickly -- I don't see anybody moving at all -- what I would --
what I would like to have happen with-- as you do this motion and
you've come to some agreement with the homeowners' association and
developer and La Costa Apartments or whatnot -- and we don't have
the last piece -- but I would like to have a time frame set by the board
that we see that written agreement in letter form to the board and let's
-- and I would suggest that it be before your next meeting that you
receive a letter.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to make that motion.
And if that letter -- if that commitment is not in our hands by -- pick a
time. What's convenient for advertising purposes?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two weeks.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two weeks, 15 days?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Fifteen days?
MR. MUDD: Sir, I would -- I would say, if we don't have it by
the 21st of January, then it's coming before the board again.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then what we would do then is --
at least I would make the motion that we begin the Growth
Page 78
January 13, 2004
Management Plan revisions to remove Eatonwood as an access point
for the Hiwasse development. That would be my intention if we don't
have this -- this thing signed within the 15 days. Is that -- is that an
acceptable motion to you? Does that make sense?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
Okay.
I'll second that.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. David?
MR. WEEKS: Madam Chair, I need to remind the commission
that regardless of whether you -- whether this agreement is signed or
not, the Comprehensive Plan does need to be amended if your desire is
not to have access to Eatonwood Lane as a -- I mean it is a
requirement right now. So even with this agreement, if that goes
forward and then all the parties say, okay, we'll take this northern
access point, you still have a Comprehensive Plan that says, you must
have access to Eatonwood Lane.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I think that's the motion that
Commissioner Coyle just made.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe not, not quite. Maybe I
should revise it. Then I would make a motion that we direct staff to
go through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process to remove the
requirement that access to Eatonwood Lane be used by Hiwasse, and
then whenever the agreement is signed and the quit claim deed is
accomplished for that road, for Eatonwood Lane, then everything will
be clean.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And your second, Commissioner
Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, that includes that.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Any further discussion?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Weeks, I guess I
misunderstood your previous comments that a Growth Management
Page 79
January 13, 2004
Plan would not be required in this case. So I misunderstood that?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, you did.
It would be absolutely necessary that the Growth Management
Plan be amended if the commission does not want access to be
required to Eatonwood Lane.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then the associated costs could
be up to $16,000 for that?
MR. WEEKS: Or more. Real quickly, the fee for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment is $16,700.
When staff initiates it, the process is a little different. We don't
have an application to review. It's a little bit more abbreviated, so
arguably we would not have to expend that much expense at the staff
level.
But you also have the advertising costs, which are now a little bit
over $16,000 for a cycle of Comprehensive Plan amendments. But it
all depends on how many we have though, because that would be
divvied up by however many amendments there are. If we have five,
we'll divide 16,000 or so by five for the advertising costs. It starts
dropping down.
But we don't yet know how many petitions we're going to have
for this upcoming April cycle. And because of the recent fee increase,
maybe we won't get as many as usual. We typically average about
four a year.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: See, I feel that I was duped or
deceived when this Growth Management Plan amendment came
forward, understanding that the property owner had full control of the
property.
And if I would have known that this was going to be an
association taking this over, I think I would have raised that question
at that time.
So I think there is a responsibility by the Hiwasse group to defray
some of the cost of the -- of this amendment.
Page 80
January 13, 2004
Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, if I may. I hoped we were going to
avoid getting into who has rights to that road and who doesn't have
rights to that road.
I think we've reached an agreement, and let's move on in
reaching the agreement, because we don't agree with their position.
So let's get -- we're trying to get beyond that.
Commissioner Coyle, I do want to point out that we are -- the
developer of La Costa has told me it's going to take him 15 business
days to make a decision, because we've got to deal with the design of
the road.
So 15 calendar days is -- puts me at a disadvantage with the La
Costa developer. So I just wanted to let you know, that's what he's
already told me. So I'm hoping that we can honor their request on the
15, which is essentially three weeks, to get this done because they've
-- their issue is, they want to make sure that the design is appropriate
for them as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd be willing to modify my motion
MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's why I brought that up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to three weeks.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And the second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Up to this point. I've got a
question to ask in regards to this.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we really need to get involved
in a Growth Management Plan if we just right -- the two parties come
up with the proper litigation in regards to the paperwork? Do we
really need a Growth Management Plan if we're going to change the
access road location?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, and the reason -- the reason is because
the Growth Management Plan mandates that the Hiwasse project have
Page 81
January 13, 2004
access to Eatonwood Lane. This agreement would not supersede the
Comprehensive Plan.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But we would -- if I may, we will have
the access. It doesn't say we have to utilize it. So what I'm saying is,
to get around the Comp. Plan issue is, the access would be there, we
just wouldn't utilize the access. We would have a different access.
AUDIENCE: No.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just trying to avoid the -- I'm not
trying to pull anything. Forget I even tried to resolve this.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner, any other questions or
comments?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, let me -- can I just say something real
quick as we --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR MUDD: -- get to the GMP amendment and whatnot. One of
the things I did hear that Mr. Yovanovich said is, there might be a
desire by the residents, okay, to go to this commercial establishment in
Hiwasse, whatever it turns out to be, okay, maybe it's got a pharmacy
or it's got a beauty salon or something that's there, and somebody
wants to go get a haircut -- AUDIENCE: No.
MR. MUDD: Can I please finish? Thank you? And the reason I
mention that to you is because what Norman described to you was a
right-in, right-out of Kensington in the back way, so that means if
they're going to go, they're going to have to go out their front door,
make a right-hand turn, go through the light in order to get that. But I
just -- and I just brought it up, and that's fine. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas, did you
finish?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I -- so, the end result is, we
do have to get into a Growth Management Plan change? We just can't
take care of this through normal terms, through litigation and drawing
Page 82
January 13, 2004
up the paperwork between all the parties involved in this?
I guess I'm looking for a way that we can defray the $16,000 cost
and if we can get to the same point without the expenditures of
taxpayers' funds.
MR. MUDD: You're the expert, David.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, the answer is no.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: We -- this is not your normal scenario in that we
don't -- we don't usually have the Comprehensive Plan getting so
specific as to say, you must have access to this specific road. In this
particular case we do, and so we're going to have to amend that
subdistrict to delete that as a requirement.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Who normally pays for
these changes to the Comprehensive Plan, the cost, the $16,000?
Under normal circumstances, who normally pays?
MR. WEEKS: This is an unusual circumstance. Ordinarily it is
the property owner, in this case, Hiwasse, but they would be -- we'd be
going back to the beginning when they're asking for the
Comprehensive Plan amendment in the first place to change the
designation to allow commercial development.
The unusual circumstance here is we're going back to that
previous amendment to say we want to change it, and that doesn't
usually occur.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So this cost would be -- the
taxpayers would be paying it out of the general fund; is that what it is?
MR. WEEKS: Unless you-- yes, sir. When you're directing
staff to do so, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'd like, so that no one
misunderstands what we're doing here, to have that added to the
motion, if you wouldn't mind.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I don't mind adding that
Page 83
January 13, 2004
language to the motion, that it will be done by staff, and the cost will
be incurred out of the general fund.
And the reason that I'm willing to do that, it was, indeed, the staff
that recommended it and the Board of County Commissioners that
approved it. It wasn't -- it wasn't the residents who came here and
said, let's put that in the Growth Management Plan.
And by the way, I would hope this would be a lesson to us, when
it comes time to Growth Management Plan, to consider Growth
Management Plan changes, we should avoid this kind of specificity --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- because we've done it too much
in the past, and I've always maintained, you don't need that kind of
detail in a Growth Management Plan, and I would hope that in the
future we wouldn't do something like that.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good. Will you include that in
your second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I will.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Any other-- any further
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA:
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Passes, 5-0.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA:
Now, Commissioners--
(Applause.)
Page 84
January 13, 2004
'CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you all for being here, and
thank you for your kind comments to the staff. We really appreciate
it.
County Manager, we're going to be going to lunch now. When
we return -- when we return, we have a one o'clock time certain, and
that's item 10(E).
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Shouldn't you make -- maybe
mention at this time that we're -- that the Naples Park -- Park issue is
to be continued; is that correct?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, thanks. I don't think anybody
can hear us anyway.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just wanted to --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you so much. Good to see
you. Looks like they consider you a hero. I don't think they can hear
us anyway.
Meeting is -- meeting will resume at one o'clock for a time
certain, items number 10(E) and 10(B), and also the item number --
MS. FILSON: 10(E) is continued.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- Naples --
MR. MUDD: 10(E).
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yeah, that's what I said, 10(E).
MS. FILSON: 10(E) is continued.
MR. MUDD: It's been-- it's continued, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. 10(E) will be continued,
so we'll only-- we'll be discussing 10(B)?
MR. MUDD: At 1:30, ma'am. We'll go right into 7 -- ma'am,
let's -- it's adjourned for lunch, and we'll see you back at one o'clock.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All right.
(A luncheon recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, call the meeting back to order
Page 85
January 13, 2004
again, please.
Before we continue on, I would like to refer to our County
Attorney, David Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mad'am Chairman. And it's a
pleasure to call you Madam Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioners, I would like to bring your
attention back to the item last heard before the luncheon recess, and
that was Item 10(A), referring to Eatonwood Lane, Kensington and
Hiwasse.
And immediately upon the adjournment, there was discussion
ongoing with the principals of Hiwasse and Kensington related to the
Growth Management Plan element that's in place and that you had
provided direction for amendment. The direction that you provided us
would appear to be a deletion of the requirement for an access, but the
parties, the principals involved, indicated that they would like to
endeavor to have a pedestrian access, which does of course have its
own form of interconnectivity between projects.
Your division administrator, Joe Schmitt, from development
services, is here to explain to you the clarification of direction that we
would like for the Board to entertain on a reopening of item 10(A), so
I would ask that the Board reopen 10(A) for a clarification and
direction to staff.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Board, may I have a motion to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve -- motion to
reopen.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 86
January 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you. Mr. --
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development and Environmental Services.
What David is basically saying was that after the vote we
concluded that the petitioner still would like to have at least the option
of allowing for pedestrian traffic to use the Eatonwood access, but
staff, we were very concerned that we still should strike the language
in regards to vehicular access, to make sure that that does not come
back to haunt anybody, either with the community or the county. So
we would continue with the GMP amendment, but your motion would
include to allow for pedestrian -- at least a pedestrian access from the
Eatonwood side of the Hiwasse project.
And so we'll -- and with that, we would allow the petitioner to
proceed with the rezoning action that they're currently going to be
coming forward with, with the proviso, of course, that it would be a
provisional approval pending the outcome of the Growth Management
Plan amendment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we need to amend the motion, County
Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: No, this is a clarification. I think that the Board
should indicate by a vote their clarification, or agree to what Joe has
recommended that they do.
And I would also like, for the record to be complete, for the
principals that were here before and spoke, Mr. Bums, Mr.
Yovanovich for Hiwasse, the attorney for Mr. Bums, Mr. McMackin,
indicate that they are in agreement, that this is what they are
requesting. And again, as Joe indicated, the idea is that the Hiwasse
development would be able to pursue and proceed through its
Page 87
January 13, 2004
rezoning, that's appropriate, and with this Board's determination today
and its clarification regarding the Growth Management Plan
amendment, that the amendment itself would not, and this is the
Board's understanding by your action being requested to be taken, is
that the Growth Management Plan amendment does not in and of itself
slow down or prevent the process of the rezoning and the ability for
the developer for Hiwasse to proceed with all the elements that it
would normally proceed with from a business aspect if there were no
Growth Management Plan consideration.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, you had your hand
up?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I just wanted to make sure
that there was a buy-in by all parties involved; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. I'm asking that they come on the
record to affirm the statements that Mr. Schmitt and I have made to
you in making a recommendation for you to clarify.
So at this point, if it works with the Chair, I would ask that they
come up and address the Commission at the podium here.
MR. McMACK1N: Good afternoon, Madam Commissioner,
gentlemen, Joe McMackin for Kensington Park Master Association.
The proposal was actually discussed prior to the lunch break.
We, the Kensington Association, had thought this was a way to save
the county the $16,000 if we would agree to grant pedestrian access to
the Hiwasse property, meeting the technical definition of access. Mr.
Schmitt said that he felt that the intent was clear that it was vehicular
access and would not feel comfortable unless they went ahead with the
plan amendment.
At the same time, the attorney for Hiwasse was frustrated by the
delay over this technical change. So the position of Kensington
property, which we sort of discussed while you were out with Mr.
Yovanovich for Hiwasse, is that Hiwasse will quitclaim the easement
that they gave themselves nine months ago over the Eatonwood Road.
Page 88
January 13, 2004
In exchange, the new -- or the owner-controlled Master
Association would grant a license for pedestrian traffic into the
Hiwasse site so that Hiwasse can proceed with whatever they need to
do while Mr. Schmitt and his staff proceeds with what they have to do.
And I think this is acceptable. We thought it was a courteous thing to
do, because you all have been so courteous to us. We had hoped we
could save you $16,000, but nonetheless, the Master Association is
happy to cooperate with the parties in this way. Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Yovanovich, representing Hiwasse, Inc.
I think essentially we're in agreement. As long as we can move
forward with our PUD rezone while the clarification that Mr. Schmitt
wants to make to the Comprehensive Plan. We also had hoped that
the Board's determination that pedestrian ac -- by continuing to have
pedestrian access, we would have met the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan language that said we had to have access on Eatonwood Lane.
That would avoid the need to go forward with the Comprehensive
Plan amendment altogether, saving the county some time and effort,
staff time, and also dollars and cents from the General Fund.
We hoped that that had been the approach that could have been
taken by the Board, but if we have to go forward with our cleanup
Comprehensive Plan amendment, as long as we can continue to work
-- go forward with our rezone application, pending that Comp. Plan
amendment, I guess that's the best result we're going to get.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any comments? Commissioner Coyle --
oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was just going to make a
motion, but go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would somebody please
summarize for me where we are with this thing? Now, we're not going
to have to pay money for anything?
MR. WEIGEL: No, you will. As you were informed prior to the
Page 89
January 13, 2004
luncheon break, the county will still be on the hook for the expenses
of the GMP amendment. Both parties, the Hiwasse party and the
Kensington parties, had hoped that by coming to an understanding in
their own quitclaiming that there would not be a necessity for the
county or for anyone to be responsible for the cost of the Growth
Management Plan amendment, because the amendment itself, in an
interesting way, doesn't -- the amendment language itself doesn't say
vehicular traffic, it just talks in terms of access.
But David Weeks and Joe Schmitt very properly point out that
the underpinnings of the Growth Management Plan element itself had
a site plan showing vehicular access, and that's what it was all about.
And so our concern from a -- from not just today but for the future is
that with subsequent ownership, subsequent interest, someone could
come back and claim that the Growth Management Plan, as it
currently exists, provides some rights and responsibilities that could be
problematic in the future. So we think that--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're back where we were
before lunch, and the agreements to quitclaim are of no consequence,
they don't solve any problems?
MR. WEIGEL: No, they solve problems between the parties and
reduce their issues altogether. But the concept of pedestrian access
between the parcels was not discussed prior to lunch, and --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: -- but they had reached an agreement prior to --
just prior to but not on the floor for discussion when the Board made
its decision and broke, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the prior motion is still valid.
We will proceed with the Growth Management Plan revision.
MR. WEIGEL: That's right. It's just we're tempering -- we're
clarifying what that is. It's not to remove it entirely, it's to revise it or
remove it in such way that it can allow for pedestrian access but
absolutely not provide for vehicular access.
Page 90
January 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we need to make a motion on this
then?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, please.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner -- Ms. Chair --
Madam Chair, I make a motion that we include the comments of
David Weigel and recognize the corranents of Joe Schmitt, included in
the action or the intent of the Board under this item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, second from Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks for clearing that up.
Mr. Mudd, would you like to --
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, just as we start, we finished up the
one item from this morning. But for those people that are here in the
audience for Item 10(E), and that was to authorize the expenditure of
budgeted funds for the development of Best Friends Park, the Board
voted this morning to continue that item until the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board conducted a survey of the residents to find out exactly
Page 91
January 13, 2004
what they want or if they want a park at all.
And so again, Item 10(E) was continued this morning until the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board gets back to the Board of
County Commissioners.
If there's anybody here in attendance today that would like to talk
on this particular item, there is public comment part of this agenda
under paragraph 11, and they can sign up with Ms. Filson -- Sue, if
could raise your hand, Ms. Filson over in the comer -- sign up on a
speaker slip for public comment and the Board will hear your
particular concerns.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So the -- what I understand is that
Parks and Recreation is going to do this survey, so the Parks and
Recreation are going to take it upon themselves to pay for this survey;
is that correct?
MR. MUDD: The Board directed the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board to go get a survey of the residents to see if they want
a particular-- a particular park or not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Did everybody hear that out
there? That the survey is going to be conducted by the Parks and
Recreation, and they'll find out what the end result is, and this item is
to be continued. And what date did we plan on this?
MR. MUDD: You did not put a continuation to be heard by the
Board until you get that particular issue resolved with the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So this continuation could be
anywheres from a month to two months away before we get some --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or a year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or farther. It could be even farther.
But sometime in that time frame we'll make sure that everybody in
Naples Park is well represented, and we hope that we hear from not
only one side but we hear from both sides in regards to this park issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can we make sure that people with
Page 92
January 13, 2004
children can participate in this?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the other thing is, there's been
some information, that's my understanding that came to my attention,
there's been some information whereby somebody's been saying that
we're going to charge residents $30 one year, the following year is $40
and then the next year is $50. I can assure you, there's no taxation to
any of the residents in Naples Park, whether the park goes in or
whether the park does not go in. The end result is that when the county
puts parks in place, that that -- all the maintenance and everything else
is taken care of by the budget by Parks and Recreation. And all this
money is brought forth by taxes that we -- that people pay for Collier
County. And anything that we can do to help better a neighborhood,
that's where we are. Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, with that -- Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'd just like to make one
clarification: This was not a decision to build the park. As far as I'm
concerned, I'm not going to vote for a park unless 50 percent plus one
demonstrate that they want a park. I'm not going to get back into that
argument that we went through before with Naples Park. And so I
don't know what people are so concerned about. But apparently
there's a lot of distortion of what's going on here by people who have a
personal interest in creating uproar in the community. But
nevertheless, I just wanted to make that -- that clarification.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Commissioner, and that brings us to
where we are on the agenda. And I would make a recommendation
that we try to get through 7(B) and (C) and then go to the presentation
of 951 going north of Immokalee Road into Lee County in that
process.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good, thank you.
Item #7B & Item #7C
Page 93
January 13, 2004
CU-2003-AR-4524, JAMES B. MALLESS, AICP, OF WIRELESS
PLANNING SERVICES, LLC, REPRESENTING PINNACLE
TOWERS INC., REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE #13 OF THE
"A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF A 700-FOOT GUYED COMMUNICATIONS
TOWER PER SECTION 2.6.35 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE PROPERTY TO BE
CONSIDERED FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE IS LOCATED IN
SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA. THIS PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 14.55+
ACRES AND VA-2003-AR-4525 FOR A VARIANCE OF 690 FEET
FROM THE MINIMUM SEPARATION REQUIREMENT FROM
RESIDENTIAL ZONING OF 1,750 FEET TO 1,060 FEET; A
VARIANCE OF 450 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED MAXIMUM
HEIGHT LIMITATION OF 250 FEET TO 700 FEET FOR TOWERS
IN AN AGRICULTURAL SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 24 FEET
FOR A SINGLE GUY ANCHOR POINT IN AN AGRICULTURAL
ZONING DISTRICT ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER
DF, SCRIFtF, D IN COI,I,IF, R COl INTY, FI,ORIDA- DF, NIF, D
MR. MUDD: And I'll read 7(B) and (C). This item is continued
from the December 2nd, 2003 BCC meeting. This item requires that
all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. It's Conditional Use 2003-AR-4524, James B.
Malless, AICP, of Wireless Planning Services, LLC, representing
Pinnacle Tower, Inc., requesting Conditional Use No. 13 of the "A"
Rural Agricultural Zoning District for the purpose of a 700-foot guyed
communication tower per Section 2.6.35 of the Collier County Land
Development Code. The property to be considered for the conditional
use is located in Section 3, Township 51 south, Range 26 east, Collier
County, Florida. This property consists of 14.55 plus acres. It has a
companion item to it which is 7(C).
Page 94
January 13, 2004
This item also requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members. It's a
variance, 2003-AR-4525 for a variance of 690 feet from the minimum
separation requirement from residential zoning of 1,750 feet to 1,060
feet, and a variance of 450 feet from the required maximum height
limitation of 250 feet to 700 feet for towers in an agricultural side yard
setback to 24 feet for a single guy anchor point in an agricultural
zoning district on property hereinafter described in Collier County,
Florida.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. And right now, by way of
disclosures, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received one e-mail and heard
this item at a previous Board of Commissioners' meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: E-mail, and of course a previous
Board of Commissioners' meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I've had meetings and
correspondence, and also prior information from our prior meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I also had meetings, talked
to staff and, of course, the previous Commission meeting, e-mail and
some correspondence.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And I too have -- of course, I
was at the last Commission meeting, and I've spoken with staff. I've
also called the Coast Guard, I've called residents of Eagle Creek, I've
called Keith Tompkins, a trusted friend, I've talked with staff, I've
talked with advisors, and I've called a couple of the surrounding
developments, just to get as much information as I could as to public
input.
And now we need to swear in the audience?
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
Page 95
January 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
MR. MALLESS: Thank you. Madam Chair, congratulations.
Commission. My name's James Malless. I'm a planner hired by
Pinnacle Towers to represent them at these meetings. We've been here
before, so I'm not going to go through all of the support
documentation.
We have previously presented-- I'll put up the aerial and the site
plan. This is the existing site for the existing tower. You have Eagle
Creek here, State Road 951 is right there.
We've presented evidence to support the conditional use request
and the variances. This tower was built prior to the development of
Eagle Creek Park, the existing tower, which at the original time was
700 feet. And we have the staff and planning commission
recommendations for approval.
There has been one change that you are aware of and that is that
the FAA -- the final FAA has come in and is now final and the FAA
would only approve 527 feet. So there is a recognition that that is the
height that we can now have and that's the tallest height we can
request.
We request approval of CU-2003-AR-4524 and its companion,
VA-2003-AR-4525 in the resolution, and we'll stand for any questions
and reserve a right of rebuttal.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Since the-- since we got this
additional information on the height of the tower, do we need to go
ahead and still construct this tower, or can we use the existing tower
that is there now, since there's only a difference of three feet?
MR. MALLESS: The problem with the existing tower is that it
is at its structural capacity right now. They are looking into whether
they can move around their existing clients and create space, but right
now they don't know that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
Page 96
January 13, 2004
MR. MALLESS: And so the tallest tower we'd build is 527.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And as in our earlier discussion,
the first time it was brought before the Commission, one of the
questions I had asked was if we lowered the height of the tower, how
was this going to affect your coverage? And I think at that time you
stated that is was going -- for every so many feet, it was going to
affect you by so many miles.
Is this going to -- with this additional tower, if it needs to be
built, are you going to have the coverage area that you were hoping to
get?
MR. MALLESS: That was Chief Rowe's testimony at the time,
because he is the radio frequency expert, and they -- it's my
understanding they are working on all the changes they can do to the
system to maximize the coverage. They may not end up with the
entire coverage.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I guess where I'm at is, if
you would -- if you need to build the tower, that's one thing, but if you
could use the existing tower, I think that would probably be really
great.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Other questions from Commissioners?
We have a speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. We have one speaker, Madam
Chairman. Keith Tompkins.
MR. TOMPKINS: Congratulations, Madam Chairman, as well.
My name is Keith Tompkins, for the record. I'm the property
manager for the Eagle Creek Homeowners Associations that comprise
11 associations within Eagle Creek, totaling about 435 homeowners,
just to give you an idea.
First of all, I want to compliment the petitioner. I think that they
presented the information clearly and concisely early on. They've
answered my questions. We've gone back and forth over the phone
Page 97
January 13, 2004
since those meetings. I would say the same thing about the county
staff. I met with Michael last week. He gave me more information,
answered my questions. And I think both of them have done -- have
done a good job in answering my questions.
I just would like them to do a very good job with this tower
elsewhere. So, you know, not enough compliments in these meetings,
I wanted to make sure you understood that. I was -- I'm
complementary to them.
Our comments and our views are certainly not personal with
them. It's strictly an issue, one of the four, five issues that I want to
outline quickly for you, given the time constraints.
It is perfectly understandable why the petitioner wants to put this
tower on this property: Because they own it. It is also perfectly clear
to me and to the people of Eagle Creek why the tower is not planned
to be located closer to the Gulf with other towers so that they're out of
view of homeowners, existing homeowners, or way out, 41 out of
view of homeowners as well, because the petitioner doesn't own the
land. It's really a simple issue. This decision's being made and driven
by the fact that they own the land where the existing tower sits.
The question -- I was going to address the issue with respect to
using the existing tower as well that Commissioner Halas raised, but I
would take it one step further, and that is I think that if in fact this is
the critical communications device for maritime safety and to improve
homeland security, it seems that that tenant on any of the towers takes
precedent over the routine, merely commercial uses that the tower, the
current tower, is used for. To me it's an important issue as to whether
they can relocate tenants off that tower. We're talking about a
decision as to whether they're going to even build this tower. If they
can make arrangements and move the existing commercial tenants off
the tower, then we go on out without another tower out there.
Why is that important? Because I feel, and the people of Eagle
Creek feel, that certainly the area is not made any safer by the addition
Page 98
January 13, 2004
of another tower out there. The fact that there's a tower sitting there --
in fact, this is the third tower that would sit on the piece of property. I
don't know if you're aware of that, but there's already two towers: One
about 527, another one in the 300-foot range. This would be the third
tower. And clearly, it doesn't make the area any safer, to say the least,
to add another obstruction out there in the direct air space between
Naples Airport and the Marco Executive Airport. So certainly I think
we take a step back on safety, which is an important issue.
Furthermore, the petitioner is requesting multiple variances. It's
not just simply one, I need a side setback or a rear setback, as so often
you get, where somebody comes before you asking for one variance.
This is multiple variances. It's the height, it's the shadow of the tower,
it's the guy wires in relation to the setback issues for the residents of
Eagle Creek. All of those issues, I think, makes this a rather unusual
case in the number of variances that they're asking.
Lastly, I know the LDC provides and allows for this application,
and I know that the Board is to consider these kind of applications,
and I would even go so far to say the LDC, I think, recommends and
suggests that you place towers next to other towers, the logic being, I
guess, that once the view is spoiled for some people from one tower
you might as well go ahead and put another tower there, because it's
not going to spoil the view of others that have no view spoiled.
But I know all that. And today I ask that just because the code
provides all of this, and just because the code allows the petitioner to
request this, it doesn't mean that it has to be accepted. The tower very
likely is not necessary, the tower very likely is not needed. It certainly
compromises the safety, additional -- in an additional sense out there.
And I think the Board -- I would ask respectfully that the Board reject
the petitioner's request and ask them to seek location of the important
communications device that I think everybody supports, but locate it
on the existing tower in our community.
This is your community, it's your quality of life, and again, I ask
Page 99
January 13, 2004
the Board to respectfully reject the applicant's request for a variance.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any comments from the Board members?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a comment, or a couple of
comments, actually. When we first heard this, we heard how
necessary it was for homeland security and it had to be 700 feet tall
because that's what homeland security needed. Now, of course, when
the FAA says this is not safe for your residents, not safe in the line of
flight, then we don't hear about the homeland security anymore,
because they probably need to move that to a place where they can
build a 700-foot tower.
Meanwhile, you have got residents here who are living with
flashing lights all night long, and not we're going to add more flashing
lights in their windows, and yet development is continuing to creep
into that area. We have the twin tower -- Twin Eagle things, what was
it -- what is it called? Lands Ends, I'm sorry. Lands End's coming up
there, and Wentworth Estates's coming up there. And plus now
they're asking for these guy wires to be extended instead of the 1,700
feet, although that would be changed now with the height of the
building, still it would be extended closer to the peoples' property in
order to get this squished in onto the land.
Of course it's a wonderful thing for the guy that owns the land,
because that's -- you know, that's -- he could put up another tower,
make a lot of money and not have to spend a penny more on the land.
But is it a wonderful thing for the residents who have to live close by?
That's my concern.
And so I would vote not to approve that. And I'll make a motion
not to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear any other comments or
questions from our Commissioners?
Page 100
January 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The only thing I want to ask is,
you heard the comments as far as the motion goes. I was wondering if
the petitioner might be able to comment on the safety issue. Do we
have that wrong or do we have that right?
MR. MALLESS: I appreciate the opportunity. Are you speaking
about from the FAA standpoint?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no, I understand where that
is. But I'm concerned about homeland security originally looking at
700 feet, now we're down to 500 feet. MR. MALLESS: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're talking about
reconfiguring the existing tower to be able to accommodate new items
to go on it or the new -- what's required. I'm a little bit lost on the
whole thing. It's not as clear as it was the first time around.
MR. MALLESS: Right. Okay. Let me -- maybe I can back up
and help, because Keith made some statements that I have to disagree
with.
The first thing is, is that on the tower we have commercial leases.
We have already sold to somebody the right at a certain height, 500 --
you know, there's people at 520 feet on the tower. So the first thing
we have to do is talk to them and say can your system work if we
lower you to this point? Okay, now, they have the right to say no,
they don't have to do that. So -- And we can't force them to move
their site because they have a legal lease. It's just like if you're in a
shopping center, you sign a lease, they can't take that away from you
until the lease is up. So that's the first thing that has to occur.
The other thing that we're looking at, because we don't know that
yet, is can we move enough people around so that the tower
structurally can handle additional antennas at the top now. So it's
really a -- first step is, can we move you, and if yes, where to. And
then we can do a structural analysis.
One customer on the tower, existing customer on the tower,
Page 101
January 13, 2004
saying I can't move because they have commitments to their service,
say the broadcasting antenna's on it, if they can't lower theirs so they
can't be moved, then there isn't the -- the may not be the ability to put
the Coast Guard at the top.
The second point is, the Coast Guard is doing what they can do to
maximize the coverage at 524 (sic) feet. They may decide, although I
don't think so because of their timeline, they're going to try to do as
much coverage at 527 feet, if we can get them on the tower, as they
can. Instead of having a 30-mile range that they were talking about, in
some cases they only may have 27 or 25 going out into the Gulf. So
there may be a diminishing of coverage, but that's the best they can
do.
And I would remind people that the Coast Guard came to
Pinnacle Towers to locate on this property. Pinnacle Towers wouldn't
be here without the Coast Guard. So yes, we have an opportunity to
make money, but if the Coast Guard has to go back out and buy a
piece of property and build a tower, that's the taxpayers' money being
spent on that new facility. So the Coast Guard felt that this was their
best opportunity for the tower, given the location they needed and for
cost considerations, truly. But that's the taxpayers, not Pinnacle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And it takes four votes to
be able to pass a variance, and it doesn't look too good for you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I would just like to -- I'm
surprised that Pinnacle, being in the business of putting towers up, that
they didn't first look into what the maximum height of the tower they
could put on that property. Because I would think that one of the
things that you would probably investigate prior to coming to the
county to pull permits and everything else, and that would be to get
some type of recommendation from the FAA in regards to what is the
maximum height you can put on a tower. And I don't think we would
be here at this point today had maybe that process been taken on prior
Page 102
January 13, 2004
to getting all the -- everything in -- that needed to be put in line and
spending a lot of time with staff in getting everything organized and
putting this on the agenda.
And I'm not trying to be critical, it's just that it seems funny that
you being in this business that you wouldn't have taken that avenue
first, maybe.
MR. MALLESS: Right. And remember, there was a 700-foot
tower on this site that had FAA approval previous to when it was
reduced. And so that's -- Pinnacle had talked to them about that.
Until there was some objections to it, there might have been a chance
for 700 foot being approved, but then went into a longer process,
what's called circulation -- because we talked about that, the letter
from FDOT, and so it took longer for the FAA to come to their
answer, versus their normal nine -- or three to four months, it took
them about seven months to give us an answer.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Excuse me, Commissioners, I forgot to
close the public hearing, so let me do that now.
MR. MALLESS: Well, may I ask -- do I have a chance to rebut?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yeah. I just had to close the public
hearing, but--
MR. MALLESS: I have a chance to rebut Mr. Keith Tompkins'
comments?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, you may.
MR. MALLESS: Okay, okay. You know, his comments were
that it's the property owner making money. I'm just reiterating that the
Coast Guard came to Pinnacle. Pinnacle did not go out and seek the
Coast Guard.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You hadn't planned on building another
tower until the Coast Guard approached you?
MR. MALLESS: No, absolutely not, no. This tower that is there
right now has five of the major six providers of PCS service, it has
two-way radio clients on it. So we would not be here without the
Page 103
January 13, 2004
Coast Guard.
I'd also remind you that we had been approved by the county to
collocate on the tower, if it was built. We had a discussion about that
the last time.
He said a 300-foot tower is on this property. Actually, I believe
it's a 250-foot tower that's on the Comcast Cable property, which is
not our property.
He made some comments about safety, and I'm not sure, the --
what those comments were about. But this tower is proposed
primarily for maritime time safety and homeland defense uses by the
Coast Guard, although it would support other carriers, as your code
requires.
And the flashing light comment that Madam Chairman made, the
flashing lights were there at 700 feet when Eagle Creek was built. I
mean, the people came to that light. Now, certainly if a 527-foot
tower is built there, there will be more lights, but they were already
there when the people moved to them and it didn't prevent that. So it's
an interesting position to say the lights are a problem, yet the people
moved there after the fact.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I might just comment, when you usual --
when you shop for a home, you don't usually shop at night, when you
see the lights. You know, most of the time you're not even aware that
they're flashing in your window until you're living there.
MR. MALLESS: Okay. That could be true.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I will have to add that.
And I do have to mention that the 700-foot tower, yes, at one
time it stood. But then after the airplane crash, it did not stand any
longer. So, I mean, it seemed like that had something to do with the
line of flight and that's another concern. But anyway, that isn't our
concern today. The FAA has ruled that isn't something we can even
do.
MR. MALLESS: Okay. With that, I respectfully request your
Page 104
January 13, 2004
approval of the conditional use and the variances, and I'll answer any
other questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other comments from our
Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor and a
second.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Okay, fine. So we have a motion
that we will -- we will not grant this variance.
MR. MALLESS: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, it was Mr -- Commissioner Halas's
second.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner. Hang on. Just for a point of
clarification.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm confused here.
MR. MUDD: There were -- there were the two items we're
talking about, 7(B) and 7(C), okay? And we're going to need two
votes. The first is for a conditional use for the tower to go in this
particular place, the 700-foot guyed communication tower. And I'm
going to need -- and there was a resolution on the floor to disapprove
and it was seconded. And I don't know if it was the conditional use or
the variance. So I'd like to get some clarification, and let's do each
one in mm.
So let's do the conditional use one first, just so -- because I saw
Page 105
January 13, 2004
everybody, they voted and said no, yes, and I had a disapprove the
person that seconded the motion and I'm going, okay.
So we need a motion for the conditional use to approve or to
disapprove.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The motion that I made was to disapprove
the variance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Conditional use.
MR. WEIGEL: How about 7(B), the conditional use?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, just 7(A), that was just 7(A), right?
MR. WEIGEL: 7(B), 7(B).
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 7(B)?
MR. MUDD: 7(B) is conditional use, 7(C) is variance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry. Okay, so motion to disapprove
conditional use, which is 7(B). Okay, one at a time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second by Commissioner Halas, thank
yOU.
Now, all in favor of 7(B?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, now we have a 5-0. And thank you
for clearing that up. That's exactly what Commissioner Henning was
talking about is that we want to make these motions clearer.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, now we need another motion on
7(C), which is the variance for this particular petition for Pinnacle
Towers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Gee, it seems like that first vote would
Page 106
January 13, 2004
have just --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to disapprove.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
Motion to disapprove by Commissioner Coletta, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
MR. MALLESS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #1 OB
RECEIVE AN UPDATE AND PROVIDE INPUT FOR THE
COUNTY ROAD 951 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENT (PD&E) STUDY, FROM IMMOKALEE ROAD
TO AIJICO ROAD IN COI,I,IFJR AND liEF, COl JNTIES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that will bring us to a time certain
item that is 10(B), and this item to be heard immediately after 10(E),
which we know was continued. And this is to receive an update and
provide input for the County Road 951 project development and
environmental PD&E study for the Immokalee Road to Alico Road in
Collier and Lee Counties. And your transportation staff will present.
MR. QUINTY: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Congratulations, Madam
Chairman.
Page 107
January 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
MR. QUINTY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Joe Quinty, Transportation Planning.
I'm just going to give a brief intro -- a brief overview and
introduction of Ralph Bove for DRMP, the CR 951 extension PD&E
study we've been working on for the past year. I think it's a really
good example of bi-county cooperation.
I want to thank some of the Lee County staff who are here in
attendance today. I really credit DRMP with a public involvement
approach that's way above the norm for this type of study, and I think
as a result you have a good positive working relationship with the
stakeholders on this matter. In fact, this sort of approach we want to
use as a model for upcoming corridor studies that no doubt will have
some level of controversy to them.
So we're at the stage where we see some potential alignments on
the map and we're discarding some of them after the first round of
analysis. So with that, let me turn it over to Mr. Bove.
MR. BOVE: Thank you very much. For the record, my name is
Ralph Bove. I'm Vice President and project manager of Dyer, Riddle,
Mills and Precourt. Our firm has been retained by the Lee County
Board of County Commissioners to conduct the project development
and environment study for the extension of County Road 951, also
known as Collier Boulevard, from Immokalee Road to Alico Road.
The project is being done in association with Collier County, as
well as the Florida Department of Transportation, so it is a partnership
between those three agencies.
I would like to recognize Mr. Don DeBerry from the Lee County
Department of Transportation, who is our project manager from the
county, and also Mr. Dave Loveland who is Director of Transportation
Planning from Lee County and who is also assisting us. And we're
working very closely with your transportation planning staff, in
particular Don Scott and Joe Quinty, and I appreciate all the work and
Page 108
January 13, 2004
help that Don and Joe have done thus far.
The purpose of the presentation this afternoon is to give you a
summary of our public involvement efforts. We have provided a
project kick-off presentation to you as you were assembled as the
Collier Naples MPO sometime last year. In fact, I think it was about
this time last year. We want to present to you the development of the
project alternatives that we've developed with the help of the
community and general public, and then provide to you and present to
you the initial screening of those project alternatives and to seek your
concurrence then on that work that we've done to date, as we move
forward in subsequent phases of the study.
In terms of public involvement, we've established a website. It's
CR951.com. It has been used very extensively since the beginning of
the project. We post notices of public meetings and technical
information, results of all of our public meetings, public comments
and so forth. We have a very extensive consensus building
component woven into our traditional public involvement plan and
program for this project, where we are working with the community in
large group format, as well as small group formats, to focus on
specific topics as we move through this very formalized process of
project development and environmental study, or PD&E.
And we've had five meetings to date, beginning in February of
last year and culminating with a meeting that we held just recently this
past December. Commissioner Coletta has attended several of our
meetings and we appreciate the Board's interest and continued
involvement in this project.
Additional meetings that we've had as a traditional part of this
process, a number of kick-off meetings have been held with special
interest groups and transportation agency staff. We presented to the
joint Collier-Lee county MPO back in October. Again, this Board was
a part of that and saw that introductory presentation. We have been
conducting a series of small group meetings and even conducting short
Page 109
January 13, 2004
courses, if you will, to explain certain elements, technical elements, of
the project, such as a meeting we held back in November to talk
specifically about traffic modeling. It was kind of a transportation
planning 101 short course for travel demand forecasting to help some
members of the community understand a little bit better the process of
developing travel demand forecasts as a part of this PD&E process.
In the very beginning of our public involvement program, back in
February of 2003, we held a public meeting and we held several
activities with the group that was assembled there. And one of the
things was we asked the members of the public that were there to help
us develop project alternatives. We provided, in small group format
and round tables, a discussion that talked about project issues, and we
gave members of the public blank maps and asked them to actually
physically draw alternative alignments on a blank map of our study
area and give us their best shot at some viable project alternatives.
And recognizing that the no-build alternative or build no extension of
County Road 951 is a viable alternative and will remain so until the
very end of this study.
This exhibit shows the result of that work, the alignments that
were developed with public participation. As members of the
technical team then digesting that information, we made certain
refinements, added certain spurs and connectivity to make sure that all
of the alternatives would consider logical termini both at the south end
and at the north end. We made some additional refinements in
smoothing out some of the geometry at this level of detail. The scale
that we're dealing with is very preliminary. And what we ended up
with are resulting corridors that we have now moved into the process
of evaluating.
And in the evaluation process, we have further defined these
project alternatives in terms of segments identified by intersecting
nodes, and you see the exhibit there and I believe you also have color
versions, the 11 by 17 exhibits that you can kind of follow along the
Page 110
January 13, 2004
numbering or lettering system on the segments that we've identified.
And as part of the initial screening, or actually in advance of all
this and other technical work that we've done, the project need is a
very important element of this project. There are many factors that
constitute project need for a project of this magnitude. Travel demand
and capacity and safety and mobility are just some of those factors
that constitute project need.
As part of our preliminary travel demand forecasting, we've
developed travel demand or traffic volume forecasts for the year 2030,
which is our planning horizon year. We're developing this project to
meet the needs of growth in population and travel demand for the year
2030. And we compare the different build scenarios with a no-build
alternative. And very -- the point of all this is to be able to look at the
travel service benefits that this project may or may not have in terms
of relieving other north-south facilities such as U.S. 41, Three Oaks
Parkway and Livingston and 1-75.
And as you can see in this exhibit, the different build scenarios
that we have that we've developed so far for this project do have an
effect and will decrease traffic on those additional -- on those existing
north-south facilities, which gives us more capacity and more mobility
to meet those growth needs by the year 2030.
For the initial project screening, we established a number of
evaluation criteria, and again, we used our public involvement and
small group meetings to develop these travel -- these evaluation
measures with input from the public.
And there are really five major categories. We look at travel
service and how the proposed roadway fits into the overall roadway
network. We look at potential impacts to the natural environment, in
particular wetlands and uplands, impacts to listed species, threatened
and endangered species, hydrological impacts, social impacts, which
include residential relo -- potential residential relocations and effect on
public lands and then project costs.
Page 111
January 13, 2004
So we have used these evaluation criteria in our initial screening
process to look at the different segments and corridor alternatives that
we have identified to date.
And what I want to do now is focus in on the Collier County
segment, which basically extends from Immokalee Road up to and
beyond the county line up to Bonita Beach Road. And the reason for
that is to look at that segment in having logical termini from
Immokalee Road to Bonita Beach Road.
And in this area, we have a unique situation where we have
several developments, approved developments that have actually set
aside some right-of-way reservations for the potential extension of
County Road 951. And you see them listed there on the exhibits'
Heritage Bay, Mirasol, Parklands West and Corkscrew Growers. We
want to be able to maximize those opportunities as they exist and get
into a little bit more detail as far as the actual dimensions, the
right-of-way width that is being reserved, the dimensions in terms of
limits, where the reservations start and stop.
And those really affect segments A to B, B to H, H to I, and to
some degree the segment B to C, as far as those reservations that are
being set aside. In this respect then, we really need to maintain most
of the segments from A to B, B to C, B to H, and all the way up to I.
But there is some commonality between the segment B to G and C to
G. So with that respect, in terms of their being able to provide the
same level of travel service, we recommend that we eliminate that
interior alignment alternative in favor of the other two, segments C, G,
J, and segments, B, H, I, as being retained as viable alternatives.
The other thing that we looked at in the Collier County segment
is the utilization of Immokalee Road over to 1-75. The issue with the
1-75 corridor is that the Florida Department of Transportation already
has plans to widen-- a long-range plan to maximize the widening of
1-75 initially to a six-lane facility but then ultimately to a 10-lane
facility and perhaps even more with some auxiliary laneage as they
Page 112
January 13, 2004
connect the interchanges, particularly up in the Lee County segment.
To co-locate the extension of County Road 951 in that roadway
network does not provide the same level of mobility and travel
demand service as a separate, independent alignment. So for those
reasons and in addition to that, the segment A through II had at this
level of detail the highest potential residential relocation. In terms of
needing to co-locate an additional facility east-west along that
segment of Immokalee Road, we recommend that those segments be
eliminated from further evaluation as viable alternatives.
So that is essentially the result of what's left affecting the Collier
County piece of the study area. Let me just very quickly summarize
what we have recommended in Lee County. We have a number of
issues, particularly to the east of the existing power line and to the east
of the existing Bonita Grande alignment in terms of that is -- a
majority of that study area consists of natural features. A majority of
that land is held in public ownership through the Corkscrew regional
ecosystem watershed, as well as it is a majority of primary panther
habitat.
So those primary environmental issues led us to the conclusion
that a majority of the alignment segments then east of Bonita Grande
could be and should be eliminated from further consideration as viable
alternatives in favor then of those that are shown on this exhibit in
green.
And this is the information that was presented to the general
public then in December -- on December 9th of last year. And just to
give you a visualization of now how those preferred alternatives or
viable project alternatives look in terms of some of the resources that
have been mapped for this project, this is an exhibit that shows the
project alternatives overlaid on top of natural lands, panther habitat
zones and public lands. And you can see that we've at this stage tried
to minimize and/or avoid those significant environmental impacts and
hope that we can then move forward with your concurrence and the
Page 113
January 13, 2004
concurrence from the Lee County Board, which is the point we're at
right now in the study, is making these presentations to each County
Commission, getting your concurrence on this work to date and then
being able to move forward into the detailed evaluation and
preliminary engineering of these project corridors, which would
include things such as access control, perhaps elevated sections to
maintain water surface flow, the typical section or roadway concept
itself, number of lanes, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities and so
forth.
Other activities include moving forward with the formal agency
scoping meeting with the state and local environmental agencies;
continuing our public involvement and consensus building process;
and then beginning our documentation phase for the environmental
impact statement.
So that, Madam Chair, fellow Commissioners, is our summary of
the project. I stand to address any questions and would be supported
by staff as appropriate.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're asking us to concur with
the elimination of some of these? MR. BOVE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, it looks like a bowl
of spaghetti with a bunch of numbers on it to me. Doesn't have a
meatball. So if we can just slow down and show me which ones that
you're considering.
MR. BOVE: Okay. Essentially on this exhibit, the alignment
corridor segments that are shown in green --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. BOVE: -- would be retained as viable project alternatives
and would move forward into more advanced or more detailed
preliminary engineering phase of the study. Those that are highlighted
in red then would be eliminated from further consideration at this
Page 114
January 13, 2004
point in the study.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- have you gone to the Lee
Board yet?
MR. BOVE: No, sir, we're scheduled to do that in February. We
will start with their Management and Planning Board and then their
full Commission in February.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Since most of the eliminations is
in -- within Lee County, wouldn't we want to get their opinion first?
MR. BOVE: Yes. And essentially your concurrence could come
in the form ofjust your concurrence with the process that we've
handled, that we've conducted the study to date and the
recommendations that we are planning to make to the Lee County
Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle and then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One of my problems with trying to
make a decision about that today is we just got this. You know, it was
just put on our desk right as we began talking about this. It wasn't part
of our packet. We don't have any of the rationale concerning the
elimination or retention of any of these routes. And none of that was
in our packet.
So I don't know how I can make an informed decision about
endorsing a decision to eliminate or retain a route without
understanding why it was eliminated or retained, and so I feel very
uneasy about trying to make a decision that would guide your future
work on this project.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, and then
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I kind of understand where
you're coming from. I've attended one of your workshops in regards
to the overall picture on this, and I'm not sure if you're looking for just
Page 115
January 13, 2004
direction, or do you want us to tell you exactly the route that we feel
should go through Collier County at this point in time? Can you
answer that?
MR. BOVE: We are willing to accept any input that the Board
wishes to give us. In terms of concurrence, we -- it's -- in terms of the
NEPA process and the process that we're following with the PD&E
study and what it means in terms of future documentation, this is the
process that will end up being documented in the environmental
impact statement. The concurrence that we're seeking is more of a
courtesy, because you are participating in the study with Lee County
to kind of get some direction. It doesn't have to be formal direction.
If you choose not to make a motion this afternoon, that's fine.
We've been working very closely with staff on the technical
issues and the justification for elimination of alternatives. If you wish
to make a recommendation for a preferred alternative, we would
consider that in the next couple of stages of the project.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta and then --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I finish up?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm so sorry, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's okay.
Then if I was just going to make a recommendation, and it's only
just mine at this point in time, I don't want to go any farther east of
where 951 is now. And of course the routes that you have don't show
anything in Collier County that's east of where the projected course is.
I would prefer, if we look at this diagram, A to B and then B to H.
And that's what my feeling is from the information that has been
presented to me going to the different -- or going to the workshop
there.
MR. BOVE: Right. And if I may address that. In that particular
area, we do have a right-of-way reservation from Heritage Bay that
essentially runs -- it's about -- I think it's 100 feet in width from the
intersection of County Road 951 and Immokalee Road up to just to the
Page 116
January 13, 2004
south of the letter designation B. It's only about a mile and a half
north from the intersection of Immokalee and 951.
On the other side, at Mirasol, from about that point where the
Heritage Bay reservation ends, Mirasol has a reservation in their
developer documents that sets aside 100 feet that would be adjacent to
the Heritage Bay. It is not continuous. Even though that gives us 200
feet, that is not continuous because Mirasol does not own property all
the way down to Immokalee Road, based on the documents that we
have seen.
In addition, the Mirasol development has set aside a 200-foot
right-of-way for the northwesterly alignment, which is depicted by
segments B to H.
Mirasol also has documentation, though all the property
ownership does not show up on their site plan, a variety of
right-of-way reservations in the segment B to C. So for that reason we
would like to also retain the segment B to C, and then again, of course,
not being able to end this road at a county line, carrying it up to Bonita
Beach Road is where we get Parklands West and Corkscrew Growers.
Both of those developments have set aside right-of-way reservations
in and affecting the segment H to I. So that's kind of what led us to
the decision, to be able to maximize all of those opportunities at this
preliminary stage of those two different alternatives in the Collier
County segment.
Let's get down to the real details now of preliminary engineering
and comparing those two alternatives and then go ahead and eliminate
that segment B to G from the mix.
So that was our rationale on the Collier County segment. Again,
it began with not just stopping at the county line but looking at going
up to Bonita Beach Road, because that's a logical termini. And then
backing up from that and looking at how that fits in totality with the
entire regional facility and presenting to you then a rationale for
elimination of alignments on Lee County.
Page 117
January 13, 2004
Commissioner Henning, I understand your comment about not
wanting to make a concurrence recommendation without input from
Lee County, but if we can focus on the Collier section and at least get
a nod or an agreement. It doesn't even need to be in the form of a
formal motion. For us to proceed in the process, we don't necessarily
need a formal recommendation at this point. We can still proceed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Yeah, my
involvement with the 951 corridor expansion goes all the way back to
the late Eighties. I was involved with the Chamber of Commerce in
Golden Gate. I was appointed as the chair of the 951 corridor
committee. And so I'm pretty familiar with it and that's why I've been
following this along. Once I get on one of these things, I don't want to
leave it until it's done.
I agree with you, I really don't want to make decisions for Lee
County. I mean, they know best what would be the corridors to pick.
And I think through our process that we've gone through so far, we've
eliminated a lot of the possibilities so that we can bring this bowl of
spaghetti down to something that looks a little more palatable.
One of the comments, and I need you to clarify it to make sure
I'm right, can you give me the enlargement again, the Collier County
section? Okay. The B to H. H there, where H is, wouldn't that also
be where Logan Boulevard would be coming out and possibly be able
to consolidate two roads, rather than have two going into Bonita
Beach Road and maybe causing a traffic problem?
MR. BOVE: Yes, I would ask the transportation planning staff,
your staff, to help us define the actual limits of that alignment.
And another thing that I should point out with the graphic here,
the segment, the node H really actually goes all the way out to the
county line, just for clarification, so your 200-foot reservation. How
Logan Boulevard ties into that, Don, could you help me with that?
MR. SCOTT: That is along the alignment of Logan Boulevard
Page 118
January 13, 2004
that's been set aside by Parklands.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. I mean, if I lived in
Bonita springs, I might be a little bit nervous about Logan Boulevard
dead-ending at Bonita Beach Road. But if it was part of another
highway that could carry people on to a further destination, it would
make a little more sense. Now, of course, I'm not -- I don't think I'm
ready to eliminate anything at this point in time, but I think that the
scenarios that you come up with, the B -- the C or the B to H for
Collier County, there isn't many choices that we had in the beginning.
That just limits it to two. And I don't think we should go to the point
of eliminating it right down to one at this point in time. But those are
the only two alternatives we've really got. It's not like there's a number
of them out there that haven't been explored.
When you get to the Lee County side is where you got the
problem. That's why our cost for this study was 250,000, while Lee
County paid 10 times as much. Because their end of it is going to be
the lion's share of what has to be dealt with.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other comments from
Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have four speakers.
MS. FILSON: Yes, Madam Chairman. Nancy Payton, she will
be followed by Nicole Ryan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Chair, Madam Chair, I
concur with Mr. Bove, with his comments, and if we just deal with the
Collier part of it, I think it's a great recommendation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see another nod right next to you, and
two more. Great.
MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton with the Florida
Wildlife Federation. And I just have a few very brief comments, and
they're restricted to the Collier County portion of it.
But before I make those comments, I do want to compliment Mr.
Page 119
January 13, 2004
Bove and the other, the folks that are involved in coordinating this
study, that they have been very accessible, very approachable, and
they have provided workshops and special sessions for us to get
additional knowledge about modeling, for example, that -- kind of a
confusing issue, but they had a special session for those -- anybody
that was interested. It wasn't just the environmental community,
anybody could attend. They're accessible through e-mail and their
website's been very useful for our members and for citizens who have
contacted Florida Wildlife seeking more information. So I wanted to
share that with you that I think that they have met and exceeded the
public outreach requirement of this.
We're still a no-build supporter, but we do appreciate the fact that
a number of alignments have been eliminated for consideration
because of their environmental impacts.
The issue that I wanted to discuss with you today are the green
lines in Collier County that cross the Mirasol flow way or preserve,
and that you reaffirm or clarify that when these routes are evaluated,
that this be an elevated or a bridged highway, so that there's
clarification right now when cost is determined that the engineers that
are looking at this know that this is the concern, that that is to be an
elevated road.
And I also was going to comment about rights-of-way and
widths, but Mr. Bove has already addressed that, and so I won't burden
you with that. That's been addressed. That's my point.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nancy, Commissioner Coletta had
something to ask.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once more, I'd like to repeat
what I've said many times before: Whenever this is going to go over a
flow way, the only way I'd ever support it is if it's an elevated section
going over it, and also too that it's a limited access highway. MS. PAYTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the only way I'll ever
Page 120
January 13, 2004
agree to do it.
MS. PAYTON: And there had been those commitments in the
past, but I thought it would be important to clarify at this meeting so
that once again everyone knows that commitment. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's my feeling exactly also.
I want to make sure that it's elevated and that we don't disturb the
flow way.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It has to be.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, it must be. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And also that it's very limited
access, definitely.
MS. PAYTON: Very good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Nancy.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker, Madam Chairman, is Nicole
Ryan, and she will be followed by Brad Comell.
MS. RYAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Nicole Ryan here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And I would like to echo Nancy's comments concerning how helpful
and accommodating both the Lee and Collier County transportation
staff has been, along with the consultants. We've had lots of questions
and concerns, and they've always been very forthcoming with giving
us the information that we've needed, setting up meetings, the
transportation modeling workshop. So there's a lot of complicated
issues and concepts, and they have been very good at walking us
through that process, and we certainly appreciate that. Along with all
of the public meetings that have been held in the evenings, I believe
that the public is able to go and comment and share their feelings.
That being said, this proposed extension does contain a lot of
environmental concerns and growth management concerns, most of
which are on the Lee County side of it because the road would be
going through a lot of sensitive areas that aren't yet developed. So that
Page 121
January 13, 2004
gets into the urban sprawl and building roads east of the interstate
where there isn't yet development.
On the Collier County side, we are concerned that all of the
alignments would go through the Mirasol, either the proposed flow
way or proposed mitigation areas. Elevating the road could help a
little bit, but you're still going to have runoff issues and there's still the
concern that when roads go through natural areas, first of all, if the
wetlands are set aside for mitigation, is it even appropriate to have a
road placed through there? I know that was part of the PUD
agreement, but we still are concerned with that.
I was happy to see that the red alignments have been removed. I
think that's a step in the right direction. The Conservancy is still
pushing for the no-build alternative, and I also was glad to see on the
What's Next slide, no build was up there. And we'd ask that
throughout this process you do keep that in the back of your mind, or
in the front of your mind, that no build is one of the alternatives, just
like all of those green routes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Brad Cornell. He will be
followed by your final speaker, Carol Wilsey.
MR. CORNELL: Hello, Commissioners. Brad Comell with
Collier County Audubon Society. And I don't disagree with what
you've just heard from Nancy Payton or Nicole Ryan. I do agree with
all those statements.
I want to point out that likewise, Collier County Audubon
Society is very strongly in favor of the no-build alternative. And
when you're approving the process that the consultant has used, that
that does include, as he pointed out himself, the no-build alternative.
So we're glad that that is in there and that is what we'd like to see be
the outcome.
And we've documented our concerns, as you probably have seen,
in a joint publication with a number of organizations that detail what it
Page 122
January 13, 2004
is that we object to in building County Road 951 extension to Alico
Road. And it has to do with growth management and wildlife,
wetlands and a number of other important environmental issues.
We're very supportive of the evaluative criteria that the
consultant has used to eliminate the portions of-- the segments of the
alternatives that you've seen up there. We believe that those
alternatives were arrived at in a very proper process, and they have
been very good about reaching out to the public and to the agencies.
The sent out a notice letter asking for comments from the federal and
state agencies, I guess mostly the state agencies.
And so we're supportive of the elimination of those most
injurious routes, the further east they go, through wetlands and panther
habitat, woodstork foraging habitat.
And so we would -- we are happy to work with Mr. Bove and the
consultants and Lee and Collier County staff. It's been a pleasure
working with them. The public process has been very solicitous and
very easy to participate in. So we look forward to continuing to work
on this. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Carol Wilsey.
MS. WILSEY: Good afternoon. Nice to see you all again.
I'm here on behalf of the Olde Cypress Homeowners Council.
And for the record we, as a group, as well as some of our neighboring
communities, are not in favor of the no-build of 951. We've been
working very hard. We do realize that 951 is an important connector
to Lee County and we are in favor of continuing the route.
However, I do want for the record to concur with Commissioner
Coyle in that I did attend one of the public hearings and I found it very
difficult to determine exactly what criteria had been used in
eliminating the existing corridors that have already been eliminated. I
questioned what the criteria had been for the elimination, and on what
relative ranking each criteria had been given, and I really didn't get a
very solid answer. And ! don't think anyone should make any
Page 123
January 13, 2004
decisions of this magnitude in a vacuum.
So I want on the record to say I do think we need to know exactly
what criteria were used in eliminating certain routes already and in
proposing additional routes.
And lastly, I think it's very important for you to know that the
residents of Olde Cypress, who are very supportive of wildlife,
Audubon Society, nature groups, environmentalist groups, we also
understand that we do need expansion. And we do not want to see the
leg going through the Mirasol development. We don't want it to
connect at all to Logan Boulevard unless there is absolutely no other
way to do it.
We fought very hard not to have Logan Boulevard go through to
Bonita Beach Road. We were told that it was to be a local road. If it
connects to a road of this magnitude and it connects as close to our
development as it looks like it will there, I fear for our residents, as
well as other neighboring communities that the traffic levels that
we've been told will be on Logan Boulevard will be far exceeded.
And I'm concerned about public safety and wellbeing.
So for the record, we do want 951 to continue. We would be
more in favor of a straighter route. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No further speakers?
MS. FILSON: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other comments, or any comments at
all from our County Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A question.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta and then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All right. Thank you. I'm sure
we would have had hundreds of more residents here today to speak in
favor of the 951 expansion, but I've had it on good word that they got
stuck in traffic. I know that's not appreciated by everybody, but in any
case I want you to know that I know that some people in the
Page 124
January 13, 2004
environmental community think of me as an adversary, but I'm not. I
see it all as a necessary balance. I see a public need here that has gone
unfulfilled for a long time. But I do see the environmental community
as being a balance to make sure that we do the right thing, and I
encourage them to continue.
The process has been long, but we are getting there. Is there
anything that you know of that is going to sway us from the direction
we're going as far as the timeline goes? Is there anything that is going
to hold it up? Are we on schedule and will we be able to remain on
schedule?
MR. BOVE: At this particular time, I can say that we are
schedule. My goal and my hope is that we remain on schedule. We
can accelerate as much as we possibly can throughout the remainder
of this year, hoping that the last nine to 10 months of the study will,
you know, obviously be involved in the environmental documentation
phase and review process of the numerous federal, state and local
reviewing and approving agencies that are going to be involved in the
project.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I take it from what I heard today
from the environmental community that the process that they've seen
so far meets their expectations and their requirements, so I don't
expect that they're going to come back later and say that we were
deficient in some form or manner in the way this was put through and
thus ask for a continuation or a restudy or any kind of delaying factors
that would take place. Because I know for one, this no-build theory, I
find it very disturbing. When we originally had this presented to us I
don't remember us elaborating on it. But I know as one Commissioner
that I never would have advanced $250,000 of taxpayers' money,
along with my colleagues up in Lee County which bid two and a half
million dollars, to even consider a no-build theory. But once again,
you know, we've got to go with the will of the people and make this as
fair as possible.
Page 125
January 13, 2004
MR. BOVE: Right. Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'd like to ask a question of
our staff with reference to Logan Boulevard.
Don, my recollection of the Logan Boulevard routing was that it
is not a straight north-south route to the Lee County line, that it
actually meanders through the development. Is that recollection
correct?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, that's correct. If you take off of where it
goes right now, it goes straight, but -- for another mile or so, and then
it starts to curve and it goes on the other side, essentially, of Parklands
and then heads up towards --
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
with the segment B-H?
MR. MUDD: Right there.
Now, where would Logan intersect
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right about where the curve --
MR. MUDD: Right there on the -- on the -- it hits right there.
I'm sorry -- exactly --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right on the curve, okay.
MR. MUDD: Is that about it?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: And it curves down, Logan would curve down like
this and drop in like that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Monday night football,
Budweiser.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The reason-- the reason I
asked that question is that I understand the concern of the people in
those developments, that they don't want to see a racetrack coming
through there to join up with 951. But that is a relatively narrow road,
if I remember correctly.
MR. SCOTT: Right, that's--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I doubt seriously if it's going
Page 126
January 13, 2004
to be able to handle a very high volume of traffic coming through
there. Is that the correct assessment?
MR. SCOTT: That's true. And that's one of the concerns of the
residents is that 951 does get built so that not everybody is on Logan
also.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank
yOU.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there's the alignment for Logan
right there in front of you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Yeah, that's exactly
what I thought was happening.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I concur with Mr. Bove on the --
dropping the alignments in Collier County. If that's what's needed.
I'm not sure if we need a motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we need a motion or--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just nods of the head?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So everybody is in agreement?
You see five nods.
MR. BOVE: Very good.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Forge on.
MR. MUDD: Now, Commissioner, I will say that you have a
tri-county meeting scheduled for the 17th of February, where you're
going to meet with Charlotte, Lee and yourselves. This might be an
item of discussion on that agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, that's a great idea. Well, thank you
very much for a fine presentation.
MR. BOVE: Thank you, Madam Chair. And I also wish to
extend my congratulations to you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, thank you so much. I appreciate that.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we're back to -- I'm sorry.
Page 127
January 13, 2004
Item 9A
RESOLUTION 2004-09 APPOINTING LORETTA MURRAY AND
ANDREW H. REISS TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD -
ADOPTF, D
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, that would bring us to Item 9(A),
which is appointment of members to the Library Advisory Board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll tell you, I --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh-- I'm sorry, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's your turn now. You're the
Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We had--
MS. FILSON: This appointment is to choose one member from
District --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: For District 1 we had two fine applicants.
Pardon me?
MS. FILSON: I just wanted to make sure you knew that this was
to appoint one member for Commission District 1 and one member for
Commission District 2.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. And we had two fine applicants.
And in viewing their resumes for District 1, the lady from Marco
Island had an excellent library background, and she was recommended
by the committee, but she has only lived here six months. The lady
from District 1, Loretta Murray, we have not had anybody serving on
the library board that lived in East Naples in many, many years, and
so if the Board would go along with me, I would like to nominate
Loretta Murray, even though she was not one of the board
recommendations, but I know that she'll do a fine job.
So I would like to nominate Loretta Murray for position for
Page 128
January 13, 2004
District 1.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'd like to nominate what the
board recom-- the committee recommended, and that's Andrew H.
Reese for representing District 2.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second that. Thank you. Any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2004-10 APPOINTING HELEN C. PHILBIN AND
RE-APPOINTING JANET VASEY, DEXTER R. GROOSE, AND
JOSEPH B. SWAJA TO THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT
PRODI ICTIVITY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
Let's see, 9(B), we have --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to accept the
committee's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 129
January 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
MS. FILSON: On this particular committee, you'll need to waive
7(B) --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we all approved it.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2004-11 RE-APPOINTING ELLEN CHRISTIAN
MYERS, WILLIAM J. MCCARTHY, AND DAVID M. CORBAN
TO THFJ CITIZENS ADVISORY TASK FORCE- ADOPTED
9(C), three members --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion--
. MR. MUDD: The appointment of members to the Citizens
Advisory Task Force.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to recommend the
committee's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
THE WITNESS: Aye.
Page 130
January 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Opposed, like sign.
Very good.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2004-12 RE-APPOINTING ROBERTA DUSEK
AND CLIFFORD FLEGAL, JR. TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
lqO A RD - ADOPTF, D
MR. MUDD: That brings us to Item 9(D), is appointment of
members to the Code Enforcement Board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve the committee's
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
MS. FILSON: With waiving that portion of the ordinance?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Waiving that portion of the
Ordinance 2001-55 concerning terms of office.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: She does keep us straight, doesn't she?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My second includes that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2004-13 APPOINTING BETTY R. SCHUDEL AND
Page 131
January 13, 2004
RE-APPOINTING DALE L. LEWIS TO THE RADIO ROAD
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: That brings us to Item 9(E), which is appointment
of members of the Radio Road Beatification MSTU Advisory
Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to accept committee's
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item # 10C
ALTERNATIVE ROAD IMPACT FEE CALCULATION FOR
SHELTON JAGUAR/LAND ROVER DEALERSHIP
REPLACEMENT FACILITY- MOTION TO CONTINUE -
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Now we're on to 10(C), I
believe.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir-- ma'am. That's -- 10(C) is alternative
road impact fee calculations for Shelton Jaguar and Land Rover
dealership replacement facility. And Mr. Tindall will present.
MR. TINDALL: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman,
Page 132
January 13, 2004
Commissioners. For the record, my name is Phil Tindall, I'm with
Transportation Planning.
The item before you is an alternative impact fee calculation
affecting transportation impact fees only. This is a very rare
occurrence. In fact, the last time such a thing came forward was about
three years ago. The reason it's so rare is that we have very strict
guidelines and regulations governing this sort of thing. It's very
onerous on the part of the petitioner to convince staff that this type of
thing is appropriate and technically correct.
Also, we have a very comprehensive set of impact fee regulations
to include our fee schedule, which has over 60 separate categories in
it, and we cover almost every possible development scenario that
might come forward. However, experience has shown that you can't
cover every possible scenario, and that's why this provision exists. It
helps to maintain the integrity of our impact fee ordinance and keep us
out of litigation when these types of things arise.
What's happening there at Shelton Jaguar on U.S. 4 ! is they're
basically tearing down a building and putting up another building in
its place, which will be 26,100 square feet larger. And the impact fees
are to be assessed on that additional square footage.
We met with the petitioner about six months ago. They basically
stated their case. We had some very in-depth discussions about the
methodology, the sites that were going to be studied and the way the
data collection was to be conducted.
Finally, we approved their methodology. And the study took
several months. I want to impress upon you as sternly as I can that
they have followed the rules absolutely ! 00 percent in accordance
with our standards and guidelines for this type of study.
The result of their study is that for the 26,100 square feet, they're
recommending a rate of $6,708 per 1,000 square feet, which differs
from our road impact fee schedule rate for new auto sales, which in
that case is 18,000 -- I've got it here somewhere, I apologize. A little
Page 133
January 13, 2004
over $18,000 per 1,000 square feet. That's about an adjustment of
about 64 percent in a downward direction, okay? And that's pretty
significant. That amounts to about a little over $300,000.
But we feel that the way the study was conducted, everything
was done correctly. The data is -- was collected correctly and is
statistically reliable and sound and all the methodology is correct. So
we have no problem with recommending approval of this petitioner's
request.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Could I hold that one for just a moment?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we've got a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is a very, very large
adjustment downward, as you've pointed out, and I understand why
we provide people the opportunity to do this, because our standards
don't necessarily fit everything. MR. TINDALL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But here's my problem: The
petitioner measured the actual trips generated at three other
dealerships, Fort Myers, Fort Lauderdale and Tampa. MR. TINDALL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They did not measure the actual
traffic at the Naples dealership.
MR. TINDALL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So, you know, it raises the
question, why not measure the actual traffic at the Naples dealership
in order to determine the amount of traffic generated by the Naples
dealership? I mean, it's based upon numbers of bays for maintenance
and things of that nature and square footage. But there must be
considerations for numbers of vehicles for sale on the lot.
Page 134
January 13, 2004
MR. TINDALL: Yes, sir, I can address that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. TINDALL: First of all, that would be preferable, as would
seem obvious. The point is, that was initially one of the sites selected
for the analysis, which would be an obvious choice. However, when
the consultant for the petitioner met with us and we discussed it, they
had done a survey of the site, and the way it's laid out, there are about
five separate ingress/egress points right on U.S. 41, another one south
on 8th Avenue and then there's an alley behind the facility, which
made it basically impossible to accurately measure those trips coming
in and out of the facility, because it's done through machine counts
and there was no way of avoiding duplicate counts or even counting
all the trips that were going to come in and out, especially from that
back alley.
So we felt it was necessary to ensure that we had the rival data,
would probably be more important than anything else from our
standpoint, because that ensures legal defensibility, that we felt that
we agreed with the consultant's request that they use an alternate
facility in that place, simply because there was no way that we could
rely on the data that would be collected from the Naples facility.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Will the number of entrances and
exits at the new facility be changed?
MR. T1NDALL: My understanding -- and Mr. Nunner is here,
Jeffrey Nunner, who's the consultant for the applicant -- is that they
are going to have one ingress/egress point on U.S. 41. They'll
maintain the same access point on 8th Avenue, and the access from
the alley is going to be completely deleted.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then that causes me more
concern, because if you delete the other access points, you're going to
have more access from 41. So I am concerned about the way this was
calculated.
And furthermore, the petitioner selected the Tampa dealership as
Page 135
January 13, 2004
the one to use that would be most comparable to the one in Naples.
Now, I would submit that the Fort Lauderdale dealership is
probably more comparable to the Naples facility because they are both
relatively affluent communities where there probably is a bigger
market for that kind of automobile, as opposed to Fort Myers and
Tampa.
So I think that if I were looking at this logically -- and I'm not a
traffic engineer, so I don't know that I'm supposed to think logically --
but if I were looking at it logically, I would probably go with the Fort
Lauderdale standard.
MR. TINDALL: Yes, sir. And that is a more of a technical
question.
If I may, I would like to mm that over to Mr. Nunner and I think
he can address that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE' Okay. All right.
MR. NUNNER: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Congratulations, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. NUNNER: For the record, my name is JeffNunner,
representing Shelton dealerships.
To address your question, Commissioner Coyle, the ordinance
requires three sites to be surveyed, and then the aggregate of those
three sites to determine the alternate impact fee. And that's what we
did. We went to great lengths to find similar sites. And I'm very
confident that the three sites we did use are the best available sites to
US.
And if I may just point out that your rate currently is derived
from an ITE, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, document.
And I can just read from that document on the sites that make up that
rate. There were seven surveys done. These sites were surveyed from
the late 1960's to the 1990's at domestic and foreign dealerships
throughout the United States. Many were conducted in Florida and
Page 136
January 13, 2004
California.
So I'm very confident in finding a fair rate for the Naples store
and using the three sites that we did, especially when I look at the way
that the current rate was derived.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- you'll get no argument
from me that the current rate probably doesn't resemble reality in a
number of areas, not just in car dealerships.
But had there -- is there a car dealership in Boca Raton that you
know of'?.
MR. NUNNER: I don't know. I don't know for sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Once again, I would think a factor
taken in another so-called affluent community would give a better
indication, but nevertheless, you've heard my argument.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, if I could throw one up. One of the
other things that might help you try to determine which one of those
dealerships to pick is volume of sales. And I don't think any sales
issues were represented at all. So, it -- you know, that might help you,
who does the better business in comparing to what Naples does as far
as volume is concerned. It might help you with the selection of sites.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I have the same concerns that
Commissioner Coyle has and that's in regards to the affluence of a
particular area. And I think one of the dealerships probably falls
pretty much in line with the Naples area, and that's Fort Lauderdale,
and I think it would have been interesting if we could have had
somebody like -- you know, some area like Boca Raton be a part of
the representation of this.
And you brought up an interesting point when you said that this
particular dealership had not only one or two points of entrance and --
ingress and egress, but I hope that you used the same standards when
you went to these other dealerships in regards to knowing that there
was an additional ingress and egress of those also.
Page 137
January 13, 2004
And I -- and I'm not disputing your figures, but I'm disputing the
demographics, possibly for, let's say, the Tampa and the Fort Myers
area. And I think that we would probably be -- that the Naples
dealership here may be a little bit closer to what was counted at the
Fort Lauderdale dealership. And I guess that's where I'm directing this
information to.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, being the fact that I drive
a Ford and probably have ridden in a Mercedes-Benz once in my life,
I think I act a little bit quicker than I should of, and I defer to the
people that probably have had the opportunity to be able to deal with
such a quality automobile and such dealerships. I withdraw my
motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It kind of died anyway for lack of a
second, so --
MR. TINDALL: If I might interject, if the issue is whether the
data is adequate to bring about a proper decision, I would recommend
that that item be continued to give the petitioner and the consultant a
chance to go out and collect some more data, rather than killing the
item right now, because we do think, generally speaking, their
methods are sound and everything has been done by the book so far.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners? Commissioner -- what is
your-- Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner H.
The -- Mr. Nunner, there is an existing building on the site that
used to be a plumbing store years ago and then converted into to a
beauty salon. Was there impact fees credited for that site?
MR. NUNNER: Any of the existing buildings on the site were
credited, based on the current county ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- you're going to be selling
used cars, correct?
MR. NUNNER: Yes, it's a new and used car dealership.
Page 138
January 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you going to limit the
product line of used cars that you're going to be selling there?
MR. NUNNER: Yes. The dealership would be limited to
Jaguar, Land Rover and Austin Martin.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Used cars?
MR. NUNNER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How do you -- how does the
county enforce that? I mean, that's part of your calculations, is you're
saying that the number of trips are going to be less, because in this
particular case in a car dealership you don't have the number of trips
like you do with a Chevy dealership.
MR. NUNNER: The sites -- we're comparable to the sites that
we surveyed. In other words, the stores that we surveyed sell used
cars, so our trips would be in -- would be comparable to -- what you
would expect our site to generate would be comparable to exactly
what we did in the study.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you say you're going to
limit the used car sales to three specific car lines.
MR. NUNNER: For the most part, yes, that's true.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So maybe you are going to limit
it to three.
MR. NUNNER: Well, and we -- we are willing to put a
provision on the site that this is limited to a new/used car dealership
for Jaguar, Land Rover and Austin Martin. That would -- that would
be agreeable to the owner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Don't you also --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you also sell Porsches?
MR. NUNNER: The Porsche store is under construction now,
and there were no impact fees due for that store. Those impact fees
were paid through credits on the existing site.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you'll still sell -- you'll still sell
Page 139
January 13, 2004
used cars of Porsches and so on; is that correct?
MR. NUNNER: Yes, and the Porsche impact fees --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Even though you've already paid
the impact fees, that also has an impact on the amount of traffic that's
being generated in and out of the store.
MR. NUNNER: Again, the study takes into account new and
used auto sales.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Just so we can get the
record straight, then. Even though that the Porsche portion is not
included in this, it also is part of the store and it also has an impact on
the roads in that particular area; is that correct?
MR. NUNNER: Yes. And the Porsche store paid the impacts
fees that are required today. They paid the higher impact fees.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'll try to deal with this
intuitively, if I can.
I would be willing to accept the rate that is equivalent to the Fort
Lauderdale store --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or to give the petitioner the
opportunity to go back and gather additional data to try to substantiate
a lower number. I'd be willing to go with it either way.
It's going to take you a little time and money to go back and do
another survey of another location or two, but--
MR. NUNNER: The -- there's three parts -- there's three data--
data items that we need to collect. One are the trip counts. The other
two are the percentage of new trips that the store would generate and
the trip length. The trip counts are relatively easy to obtain, because
we put a counter out. The other two items are more difficult to obtain
because it requires a survey on the -- at those stores.
I could approach -- if there is a store in Boca, I could approach
that store. That's one of the other things, we need to get permission
Page 140
January 13, 2004
from the owners to be able to do that. But we would be willing to put
out trip counters at those stores and see what we get. But I -- I just
want to point out that we worked with staff for six months on this, and
we were very cautious in proceeding with any store until we had
staff's approval. The stores that we selected were very close to what is
going to end up in Naples so that we were sure to get a store that's
going to produce the amount of trips that we're going to build in
Naples.
So we've been very, very diligent in collecting the data and
working with staff and producing this report. But if the Board wants
additional data, we can -- we can arrange for additional data.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, I think-- I think Commissioner
Coyle basically said there was one of two things you could do in his
regard. One was either go out and collect additional data or use the
Fort Lauderdale numbers. And I don't think Mr. Nunner has
addressed the Fort Lauderdale numbers. If there's three -- if there's
three dealerships that look like Naples, smell like Naples, then why
did you pick the one in the middle and not the one at the top? I think
that's the issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Nunner, would you like to address
that?
MR. NUNNER: We -- what we did is we took three stores and
we averaged the amount of trip ends based on those three stores. If--
you're referring to the Exhibit C?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. NUNNER: Okay. We took the average of those three
stores. Fort Lauderdale was the highest, Fort Myers was the lowest
and Tampa was right in the middle. And if-- if the Board would be
agreeable to using the Fort Lauderdale data, would they be -- would
you be agreeable to use the Fort Lauderdale data for all three of the
data collect-- all three of the points of the data collected? In other
words, we'll use --
Page 141
January 13, 2004
MR. T1NDALL: One thing we need to do before we proceed
with that type of an avenue is to take a look at our provisions again.
And I would prefer not to do that on the fly, because it does say in our
detailed procedures that the consultant will look at a minimum of three
sites and average them. So I don't want to violate our own regulations.
So I would like to take another look at that, if that's the direction
we're going.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you would like to continue this then?
MR. TINDALL: That would be my recommendation. If the
alternative is for it to be disapproved, I would rather it be continued so
that we can go ahead and solve all of your issues.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we continue
this item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And then a second by Commissioner
Coyle. Any further discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, it's continued.
MR. NUNNER: Thank you.
Item #1 OD
RESOLUTION 2004-14 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY
Page 142
January 13, 2004
CONDEMNATION, IF NECESSARY, OF PERPETUAL, NON-
EXCLUSIVE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRAINAGE AND/OR
UTILITY EASEMENT, WHICH WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY/AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD GRADE SEPARATED
OVERPASS PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 60006)- ADOPTED W/
STIPI JIJATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item number
10(D), which is to adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by
condemnation, if necessary, of perpetual, non-exclusive road
right-of-way drainage and/or utility easements which will be required
for the construction of roadway, drainage and utility improvements for
the Golden Gate Parkway/Airport-Pulling Road grade separated
overpass project. Project number 6006. Fiscal impact, $4,500,000.
And Gregg Strakaluse will present.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Mr.
Mitchell.
Today the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Golden Gate
Parkway has extremely long traffic lanes at the signal and extremely
lengthy signal delay, all contributing to an unacceptable level of
service during the peak hour. There has been what's been termed as a
crush of traffic about -- an impending crush of traffic about to hit
Golden Gate Parkway with the Florida Department of Transportation's
interchange project at 1-75 and Golden Gate Parkway. In fact, just a
few days ago I found out that they are working under an accelerated
construction schedule, so the window of opportunity is moving
quickly to do some type of improvement at Airport-Pulling Road and
Golden Gate Parkway.
Some of the constraints we deal with at that particular
intersection are the Airport Road canal. Utilities, there's a 36-inch raw
Page 143
January 13, 2004
water main that services 80 percent of the City of Naples population
for their drinking water. And there's an extremely increasing level of
traffic going through that intersection.
Over the past decade there's been superior planning specifically
related to the DRI and PUD of Grey Oaks to reserve right-of-way at
this intersection.
At the conclusion of my presentation, and with the permission of
the chairman, I would like to incorporate the January 5th workshop,
the city-county workshop video, which goes into an exhaustive level
of consideration for the project at the intersection.
While staff doesn't anticipate the need to condemn the specific
property at the intersection, we do need to proceed with an abundance
of caution, because again the window of opportunity is closing for
some type of improvement project which -- at that intersection, which
staff is planning. We are completing the 60 percent design of the
overpass.
This concludes the presentation of the information. Again, the
January 5th workshop video contains substantial information on
alignment, on safety, on aesthetics and character, on cost that I think
does a very good job in communicating the Board's consideration of
the project.
And with that, Kevin Hendricks and myself are available for
questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: At the workshop, I think it was
the consensus of the Board and the City Council, there is a need for
improvements in this intersection. We also -- I think the Board by
consensus said that we know that we need to purchase right-of-way,
an additional right-of-way for the highest and best alternative road
design. That would be the split intersection.
I just want to make sure that the decisions that we make today is
Page 144
January 13, 2004
to buy improvements for improve -- the right-of-way purchases for the
improvements, not say that it's just going to be for the overpass but,
you know, whatever improvements that we need to make.
MR. STRAKALUSE: The sketches and descriptions contained
within your executive package are specifically associated with the
property that's necessary to build an overpass. That does not exclude
any other alternative from being considered as part of construction.
However, we are proceeding with the design of the overpass at this
time, and are prepared to take the 60 percent plans to public meetings.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Board of Commissioners
already gave you direction previously, before it became very
controversial, to proceed with the design. And I haven't heard any
Commissioner brought up an item on the agenda to stop that process.
But we also still want to work with the city elected officials to still
continue to take a look at the alternatives.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think-- I think one of the things
that Gregg isn't telling you is this right-of-way, the way it was laid
out, even for the Parsons Brinkerhoff, was the right-of-way that they
worked with the at-grade split intersection design and things like that
they worked into it. So this right-of-way that your -- this action
basically gives you that footprint.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Good, that's the answer.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the point I want to clarify
here, and I want to make sure we understand it.
The amount of right-of-way that you're seeking to acquire will be
necessary, whether you build an overpass or the most attractive
alternative intersection improvement; is that true?
MR. STRAKALUSE: Yes. Although there isn't a final design
on any type of split intersection median U-turn approach, the concept
design was fit within the footprint of the overpass. And again, this
particular footprint doesn't exclude any other option other than a split
Page 145
January 13, 2004
intersection median U-mm.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're not making a decision on
any options right now, we're merely making a decision on the
right-of-way purchase that would be prudent for any of the options we
wish to pursue; is that a fair statement of our position here?
MR. STRAKALUSE: That's a fair statement. The footprint itself
is specifically designed for the ultimate need of the overpass, which is
a large footprint, in a sense. And again, the alternatives would fit
within the footprint.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And some of that right-of-way was
.actually reserved some time back when some of those adjacent PUD's
were approved.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it's my understanding that it is
prudent for us to proceed to purchase the remaining right-of-way now
rather than waiting till sometime in the future when the cost of
right-of-way has increased dramatically.
MR. STRAKALUSE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I just don't want anybody to
assume that the decision being made here today is one that involves
the construction of one alternative or the other. It's merely a prudent
financial decision that relates to the acquisition of right-of-way, which
will be necessary under whatever alternative we proceed with.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Feder, did you want to make a
comment?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norm Feder, Transportation
Administrator.
No, I believe the questions that Commissioner Coyle has asked
and the responses pretty well said it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Page 146
January 13, 2004
Any other comments from the Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, motion to approve the purchase of
the--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right-- as so stated in our
summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, as so stated in our
summary. And seconded by Commissioner Henning. Any further
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
is--
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
MR. STRAKALUSE:
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
MR. MUDD:
Opposed, like sign.
Thank you.
5-0.
Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10(G), which
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Mudd, how about if we give our
court reporter a few minutes break here. Let's give her five minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're back in session.
Item #10G
Page 147
January 13, 2004
APPROVE A TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "A"
BEACH RENOURISHMENT/MAINTENANCE GRANT
APPLICATION, A BUDGET AMENDMENT, AND AN
ENGINEERING SERVICES WORK ORDER TO SEEK
MODIFICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PERMIT FOR
MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF WIGGINS PASS, PROJECT
9052271N THF, AMOI INT OF $15~000- APPROVF, D
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, our next item is 10(G) and that's to
approve a tourist development category "A" beach
renourishment/maintenance grant application, a budget amendment
and an engineering service work order to seek modification to the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection permit for
maintenance dredging of Wiggins Pass, project 90522 in the amount
of $15,000. And this was originally on the consent agenda as
16(C)(6) and was moved to the regular agenda by Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. The reason I brought this
forth, there's a couple of issues, and this not only is in regards to
Humiston and Moore, but it's a lot of the different businesses that we
contract, the county contracts throughout Collier County. And
sometimes I have some concerns in regards to how wide is the
firewall.
And I know that Humiston and Moore are presently working with
some developers up in the North Naples area, and they're also working
with the county in regards to doing some consultant work to stop
beach erosion. And so I just wanted to bring this off the agenda and
bring it out in the open to make sure that the people that the county
deals with here, that we make sure that they have a firewall that's wide
enough so that there is a differentiation between the work that's being
done by -- for them -- or by them for developers and the work that
Page 148
January 13, 2004
they do for us, for the county.
And I also have some concerns in regards to possibly the
proposed channel that they -- we want to dredge there. And -- because
I'm concerned that we don't continue to get an erosion issue that all of
a sudden has occurred in the last couple of years.
And I'm not by any means a marine engineer, but I'm concerned
that in about the same time frame as when we started dredging to 12
feet that we started to incur a serious -- an erosion problem. And so I
know that there was, I believe, some guidelines established many
years ago in regards to exactly what the depths were. And I hope that
the representatives for Humiston and Moore can kind of enlighten all
of us here in regards, because we also are stewards of the lands here.
MR. HUMISTON: Ken Humiston with Humiston Moore
Engineering. I'd like to join in congratulating Madam Chairman and
Commissioner Coyle as vice chairman as well.
One of the first things that we did when we were asked to provide
a proposal to the county for the item that's on your agenda today was
to make a full disclosure to the county, as well as to our client, who
has an interest in property inside Wiggins Pass, the site of the former
Wiggins Pass Marina.
Their interest is in no way contingent upon the county's
maintenance of Wiggins Pass. Our role for that developer has been
exclusively in designing a marina configuration that would flush
properly to meet the state water quality standards, and it has been
designed consistent with the specifications for maintaining Wiggins
Pass that the county has been maintaining since 1984, as well as
consistent with the other boating facilities in the area.
And the proposal that we gave to the county is for modifying a
channel alignment for the purposes of reducing beach erosion that's
occurring on the Barefoot Beach side of the inlet, as well as to look at
the possibility of some form of structural stabilization on the Gulf
beach side of Barefoot Beach, which has been eroding very rapidly.
Page 149
January 13, 2004
As Commissioner Halas indicated, there is some indication that
the deepening of the entrance channel to Wiggins Pass may have
destabilized that area somewhat and contributed to the erosion. I
would agree that there is some evidence to support that. Any time you
dig a deeper hole like that in a dynamic inlet, a dynamic sandy inlet,
that hole is going to tend to fill back in again because the tidal currents
are not strong enough to scour the sand out of it and it will fill in with
sand from the adjoining areas.
Basically what you've done is taken the beach slope and lowered
the toe of that slope, and the whole beach profile readjusts in response
to that, and I think that's what we're seeing on the north side of the
inlet that's contributed to that erosion.
You would expect that after a period of time that it would again
reach a new level of equilibrium, that the shoreline would be further
landward. And I think we're seeing that kind of readjustment going
now.
The purpose of the deepening was to provide a place for sand to
accumulate so that the dredging wouldn't have to be done as often.
That would reduce the long-term maintenance cost if the dredging
could be done every three or four years rather than every year. Again,
there is a certain amount of readjustment that will occur before you
would realize the benefits of that.
The purpose of looking at structures on the north side would be
to stabilize the beach and reduce the flow of sand into the inlet and try
to achieve that kind of equilibrium a little bit sooner.
This -- what is before you today is a portion of the total scope of
work that would be required to complete this. This portion of the
scope of work would be to consult with the regulatory agencies, as
well as local interests and environmental groups on a conceptual plan
to determine the feasibility of proceeding with both the modification
to the channel alignment inside the inlet, which would reduce the
erosion on the inside of Barefoot Beach, as well as the structures that
Page 150
January 13, 2004
would reduce the erosion on the Gulf shoreline. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like some background, because
I haven't been living in this area all that long, about five, six years.
This sandbar that's located presently inside the mouth just east of
the beach area, how long has that sandbar been there? Yeah, I guess --
there we are. How long has this bar been there? Do you have any
history on that?
MR. HUMISTON: The sandbar has been there for quite a long
time. It's a relatively permanent feature. However, it is growing in
size as the portion of the channel that bends up to the north that's
causing the erosion on Barefoot Beach is -- it's increasing the
curvature of that channel as it moves further to the north. And as it
does that, that shoal also expands to the north.
The idea in modifying the channel would be to straighten it. If
you look at the -- in the center of the channel, there's a -- if I can use
this illustrator here. Right in this area where it's a little bit darker,
that's where the tidal currents when the water is coming in the inlet try
to cut across the center of that and go straight up the alignment. That's
basically the alignment that we would -- we would propose for this.
If it is dredged in that straight alignment, there is an inherent
instability in open channel flow such as this, and it will tend to go
back to this kind of alignment. But if the channel is going to be
maintained on a two-year basis, or perhaps a three- or four-year basis,
if we can extend the dredging interval through some of these changes,
it will be easy to maintain that alignment, because it takes a -- it would
take quite a number of years to get back to where it is now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The -- I know you just -- where this
item is on the agenda to do a study, your thoughts in regards to if you
dredge through the sand bar, what are we talking about as far as the --
what you might think might be an adequate proposal for both depth of
the channel and also the width of the channel? Do you have any ideas
Page 151
January 13, 2004
on that?
MR. HUMISTON: The depth would be consistent with the
depths in the current permits that have been maintained since 1984,
which is a -- I believe it's an eight-foot depth in the entrance and then
it shallows up to six feet on the inside. The greater depth at the
entrance is to account for wave action and so forth for safety purposes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the width of that?
MR. HUMISTON: The width would either be consistent with
the existing width or, alternatively, we would look at, at least in the
first phase of this, removing more of that shoal. That shoal could
possibly be a valuable source of sand to supplement the sand that's
needed for beach nourishment at Vanderbilt Beach, or possibly on
Barefoot Beach, if it's needed there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you think the quality of sand is
such that we can reuse that sand and hopefully rebuild this point then
that we're losing?
MR. HUMISTON: I think that the sand is probably beach
quality sand. There has been some geotechnical information collected
a little bit further to the east, in this area here, which was in fact
dredged during the last maintenance dredging, and that material was
placed on the beach. So it's very likely that the sand in this shoal is
also beach quality, but we wouldn't know for sure until we get some
borings.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have one more question I'd like to
ask. When we started to -- as you brought up, and I appreciate the fact
that you brought that up, I think you brought it up and said that we
started dredging at 12 feet with the intent that it was going to be a
process of maybe every two to three years that we'd have to go back
and do a maintenance dredging. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when
we went to 12 foot, this pass only stayed open for about one year, then
we had to call the same group back in to redredge again. Why was
that, if we were -- if we thought the first time around that the 12 foot
Page 152
January 13, 2004
would be adequate for three years before we'd have to address this
issue again?
MR. HUMISTON: That is correct, the dredging was done about
a year later. The reason for that is there was a rather severe storm that
moved sand into the inlet so fast that a shoal started to grow across the
inlet. The currents in the inlet have a certain amount of self-scouring
potential. A certain amount of sand goes in there and the currents will
push it back out.
The idea of the 12-foot depth is that is will push the sand into that
deeper area so it would be a longer period of time before the shoal will
grow to the point that it's going to require dredging.
This shoal is very localized right at the throat of the inlet and it
was dredged for navigation purposes. The dredging at the one-year
interval only removed about, I think, 20 to 25,000 cubic yards of sand.
On a two-year interval, the county has been dredging an average of, I
think, between 30 and 40,000, probably an average of 35,000 cubic
yards of sand. So although it was only dredged one year later, it was a
much smaller quantity of sand. If for navigation purposes enough time
was allowed, the tidal currents probably would have pushed that shoal
down into the 12-foot depth and conditions probably would have
improved somewhat over a period of time. And then the two-year
interval could have been adhered to.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But correct me if I'm
wrong, we've -- basically one dredging I think was nine feet and then
we went down to 12 feet, and then it filled in again and then we went
down to dig out another 12 feet. Am I correct on my assumption on
there, or am I wrong?
MR. HUMISTON: Well, the entrance channel had been
maintained to minus eight feet. And then it was deepened to 12 feet,
with I think two feet of overdepth. So I think it was actually
excavated down to 14 feet for the purposes of creating this sand trap.
And that's just the seaward portion of the channel that goes from about
Page 153
January 13, 2004
alignment with the beach in this area. What did I do?
The area that's outlined in blue here is the only portion of the
channel that was dredged to the greater depth for the purposes of
creating a sand trap.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And like I said, that seemed
to fail. And we had a -- one year we had a storm, but then the
following year -- this particular summer we didn't have that many
storms, and now we're to the point where it's almost -- it's been
brought to my attention that we're almost to the point now where we
have to dredge again out there; is that correct?
MR. HUMISTON: I don't know that it is to the point where it
needs to be dredged. We haven't done a survey recently.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Because I've had some
inquiries saying that as they leave out in that area that they're -- low
tide, they're hitting bottom.
MR. MUDD' Commissioner, I want to bring it to your attention,
we only dredge when we need sand for a beach. That's when it's
funded by tourist development council money.
If you're talking about dredging a channel so boaters can get out,
and you're not -- and you don't need the sand on a beach, then it's --
you're either going to take that out of General Fund or somebody's
going to set up an MSTU in order to do that. I want to just make sure
we're in the general vicinity. You know, we did it two years in a row
because we used the sand on a beach. And I'm not too sure doing this
every year we're not stretching it as far as where we need that sand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. All I'm doing is trying to get
some background here, because I -- there's been a lot of inquiries and
that -- I'm glad that this all came before us today. Because the -- I
think it's an education, not only for myself but I think for my fellow
Commissioners in regards to, you know, what's being developed in
here and what is really happening.
And we realize that we have to have an opening here to make
Page 154
January 13, 2004
sure that we have the proper flushing action so that the estuary system
back here stays viable. That's one subject.
But then the other subject, of course, that you brought up, Mr.
Mudd, the fact of navigation here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we go back to the other
close-up of the inlet, please?
MR. MUDD: Hit undo. There you go.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you do cut a more direct channel
through there, the existence of that channel which loops northward, if
it continues to exist, it appears to me will result in more silting in of
that particular channel.
Is there any intent to try to close off that northward channel and
try to get the flow of water to go more directly in and out of this pass?
Or would that do any good?
MR. HUMISTON: Conceptually we had not considered closing
that off. I think that as you indicated, over time it will gradually fill
in. And I don't really think that there's a need to close it. In fact, in
the option that we had talked about, basically removing all of that
flood shoal in there, what that does is it shortens the length of the inlet.
It reduces the resistance to tidal flow. It would generate stronger
currents and improve the self-scouring capability of the inlet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the northern channel would
most likely fill in only if you maintained the direct channel open for a
number of years?
MR. HUMISTON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But during that period of time, the
mere existence of that north channel is in itself going to result in
additional sand accumulation along the bar that is there right now,
unless you plan to remove the entire bar. Is that what you plan to do?
MR. HUMISTON: We think that the straight alignment is going
to be the path to least resistance to flow, if the straight channel is
Page 155
January 13, 2004
cleared out. The deeper area will continue to fill in, but that would
function essentially the way the deeper -- the 12-foot depth in the
entrance channel was designed to function. It will act as a sink, a
sedimentation basin where sand can accumulate without obstructing
the designated channel area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then what will that do to the
north-south channel inside the inlet, the opening of that channel? It
would appear to me if you have a more direct flow of water in and out,
that the mouth of that north-south channel is going to collect
additional sand.
MR. HUMISTON: That is a possibility. The area at the north
end of that north-south channel has been an area of high shoaling,
which was why it was -- it was dredged the last time maintenance was
done. And that would have to be considered, because in order to
maintain this straight alignment that we're looking at, the dredging
would extend periodically all the way into that point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you think two, three years
might be adequate to establish a more permanent straight route for this
flow?
MR. HUMISTON: I think it would be. Of course, with
something as dynamic as this, it's very difficult to predict exactly what
would happen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One other question. The southern
tip of this -- excuse -- yeah, the southern tip of this land mass that's
actually north of Wiggins Pass itself is Barefoot Preserve. We've lost
-- this picture, is this picture taken before we lost all that mass down
there? Or is this taken--
MR. HUMISTON: This was taken in January of 2003, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And that was already the
process of losing that land, that point down there had already taken
Page 156
January 13, 2004
place. Okay. That's -- this is one of the problems is because this is
state land and we're stewards of this. And so we're -- what we're
trying to do is address the best way so that we don't lose this land. As
you remember, before I came to the Commission here, there was a
piece of land in here I believe the county paid $4.5 million for. And
so when we're losing land down here, to me that's money.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You bring up a good point. If this is
state-owned land and we're stewards of that land, do they pay us to
dredge this?
MR. HUMISTON: The state doesn't pay to dredge this.
MR. HOVELL: Ron Hovell, Public Utilities Engineering
Department.
The -- part of the scope that Ken has proposed, the state typically
only pays for dredging if the sand is used on a critically eroded beach.
So part of Ken's proposal is to either have the permit modified to
allow the material to be placed on Vanderbilt, which is already
designated as a critically eroded area, and/or to obtain additional
beaches closer to the inlet to be designated as critically eroded and to
place the sand there and then potentially we could get some state
funds.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Are there any other--
MR. DeLONY: Let me just -- let me make sure, ma'am that --
Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator.
Again, for state participation in a project that involves dredging,
it must relate to beach renourishment in some way. To get direct state
funding in support of dredging for navigation or other purposes I think
is quite problematic.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Even though we're maintaining --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- that, their beach.
MR. DeLONY: But in this case here, if we can -- if the study
goes as roughly outlined today, by Mr. Humiston's comments here
Page 157
January 13, 2004
today, then there should be beach compatible material, and then
potentially we could be eligible for some state assistance, as you've
asked.
But I want to be clear that, you know, I know of no way for the
state to come here and help us with a dredging problem, okay, but
they will help us with a beach renourishment problem.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So whatever cost to maybe get --
acquire that sand to put it back to reestablish that point, then there's a
very good chance that we could get some benefit funds from the state?
MR. DeLONY: Well, the purpose of what we're doing is --
clearly evolves around conserving, preserving, preventing erosion of
that point. That's the only reason we're here today. That's the reason
Marla is sitting here to my left here, to talk to you about what the
impacts is from her view, who is the project sponsor for this project.
And this has nothing to do with navigation dredging or attempts at
navigation dredging or to preserve or assist in navigation dredging.
But there's a two-for here. If you can get a clear channel and you
get the material where you want it, I mean, there's some, there's some
costs --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Trade-off.
MR. DeLONY: -- there's some trade-offs here. But we're not
pursuing a navigation project in any form or fashion today in the
proposal that you have in front of you today.
MR. MUDD' And there's one other piece that he missed out.
When you take the sand and you put it on a critically eroded beach
that has public access to it, then you get your state funds.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But this is public access, this
beach.
MR. DeLONY: Right. Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: But that's another piece.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have any public
Page 158
January 13, 2004
speakers?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, we have two public speakers.
MS. FILSON: Would you like me to call them now?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, thank you.
MS. FILSON: The first one is Douglas Fee. He will be followed
by Brad Cornell.
MR. FEE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Doug Fee. I'm president of North Bay Civic Association, and
I thank you for this opportunity to speak today. And I also would like
to congratulate the Chairman and the chair person -- or the Vice Chair.
What we have in front of us here is, in my opinion, the tip of the
iceberg. We've got an extremely important ecosystem that you've got
an expenditure before you, and although it's only $15,000, it has a lot
of implications. And I just want to read a couple of things.
There's a Historical Geography of Southwest Florida Waterways.
Very interesting. I recommend that you all read this. And in the
forward it says, coastal Southwest Florida has undergone dramatic
changes in the past 120 years. The vast mangrove forests, expansive
seagrass meadows and serene seagrass tracts have been changed into
housing developments and waterfront condominiums. The once quiet
towns and fishing villages have been transformed into bustling
communities. Unfortunately the new residents to the coast are too
often unaware of the region's history. The great naturalist and
ecologist, Edward Wilson, in remarking on man's alteration of the
environment, speaks of managing the human footprint on natural
systems as society's greatest challenge in this new century. Yet there
are few such places where man's footprint is more starkly visible than
the coast of Southwest Florida. In little more than three decades, a
blink of an eye in human history, this coast land has gone from the
most pristinely region of small towns and coastal communities to one
of immense development that has markedly changed the face of
Southwest Florida. Massive dredging and filling projects have
Page 159
January 13, 2004
reshaped the land and waterways. We have made land where nature
did not, and dug waterways in areas nature picked to be seagrass beds.
It is only through understanding these changes made throughout the
years that we can fully appreciate the alterations to this once pristine
landscape.
With that in mind, I'd like to read a resolution that the North Bay
Civic Association board voted on, expressing concern for the future
health and wellbeing of the Wiggins Pass estuary system.
WHEREAS, Collier County has in place the Wiggins Pass Inlet
Management Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the plan advocates bi-yearly maintenance dredgings
of the pass to maintain navigability for watercraft drafting up to three
feet; and,
WHEREAS, these maintenance dredgings have become
necessary at ever decreasing intervals; and,
WHEREAS, present policies have proven destructive to the
southern tip of Barefoot Preserve.
BE IT RESOLVED that the official position of the North Bay
Civic Association is that before any additional dredging is scheduled,
a full study of the entire pass estuary system be undertaken, conducted
by a properly qualified, impartial and unencumbered marine
engineering firm to determine the validity of the existing policy and to
present a plan for the future that elevates to the highest priority the
health of the estuary, and that such position be cormnunicated to
· ° 'S
county officials, the orgamzat~on membership and the general public.
That's basically what I wanted to say is, as a resident of this area,
we're very concemed. There's a tremendous amount of dynamics to
this issue. It's not just about the $15,000 expenditure, it's wildlife, it's
boating rights, it's property rights, it's beach access. There's a lot of
significance to this. And with that in mind, I hope that you can take
our resolution into consideration. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Brad Comell.
Page 160
January 13, 2004
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, again, Commissioners. Brad
Comell, with Collier County Audubon Society.
I'm confused about what is actually in front of you. In looking at
the executive summary, there's a reference to a feasibility study, but
then it's also a work order. So I'm not sure what kind of animal this is,
what's actually going to result from any action on this. So that's one
issue.
But bigger than that is I have a concern that this is being pursued,
apparently, in reading through Humiston-Moore's proposal here, scope
of services, that there's not adequate environmental assessment of the
impacts of this project, that what we're considering doing isn't
properly evaluated from an environmental perspective.
And some of the specific concerns that I have, have to do with
the T-groins and the moving of the channel that we've been
discussing. I recall in 1993, '94, I can't remember exactly when it was,
when the Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan was being drafted and
we were meeting with Harry Huber and some other folks here, that
there was mentioned on Delnor-Wiggins north side, right at the tip
there, that there's a rock underlayer beneath the sand, and that
changing the dynamics, changing the dredging schedule and the
depths and the widths of the mouth of the pass could impact that rock
and that that would negatively impact -- potentially negatively impact
Delnor-Wiggins Park's beach on the north side. Which, by the way,
has historically been a nesting ground for least terns, which is a listed
species. It is not currently.
However, that -- you can see that the beach is in good shape now.
But I'm concerned that if we move the channel further south from
what it is now, that we are going to negatively impact the north side of
Delnor-Wiggins State Park.
Also, I think that it's safe to conjecture or even conclude that the
-- this idea of conducting a dredge project for the purposes of putting
sand on a critically eroded beach is a little strange, because from my
Page 161
January 13, 2004
view it looks like we're dredging deeper and causing the critical
erosion, at least to some extent, on the Lely Barefoot Beach -- on the
Barefoot Beach Preserve side of things.
So it's a sort of-- it doesn't seem quite like a genuine process to
first destroy -- you know, to erode a beach and then get help in fixing
it for the purposes of really improving navigation.
So -- and that brings up the whole issue of what we just heard
Mr. Fee suggest is we need a little more broad-based comprehensive
study of this whole inlet management plan in this pass and this
ecosystem before we start going into things like T-groins and
changing what Mother Nature has actually had here for many, many
years.
So those are my concerns, and I -- I'm not supportive of going
down this work program, the scope of work, until we have studied it
better. And I don't see assurances in the proposal and scope of work. I
just see the possibility that the agencies may ask questions. I don't see
an environmental assessment really that needs to be done. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other comments from our
Commissioners, or questions?
COMMISSIONER HALAS' I think where we're headed here is
that what we need to do is, if we direct staff to improve this, before
there's going to be any other work done in that area, all we're going to
do is just initiate the funds today to do a study. And before anything
else can be done, then it has to come back before the Board of
Commissioners. And I would hope that maybe that with the amount
of funds there, that some additional work could be done as far as
environmental aspects of what's really happening here. And maybe I
can get some guidance here from our staff.
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
Administrator.
As you know, this is a -- will be an application for a permit
revision, and it's going to be full participation with regard to the
Page 162
January 13, 2004
environmental agencies that will comment to that permit request. So
certainly what you're suggesting is right down the line of what we're
going to try to -- we'll pursue here. I -- you know, I think that what
you've heard today from the public speakers, their concern about
scope and level of effort that goes into that, and -- but we'll never get
there in terms of defining that need or that scope unless we move
forward with some type of action.
We've got a critically eroded beach. We need to take -- the
proposal is to take some action about that. The proposed action that in
concept is to look at, maybe as described by Mr. Humiston, realign
that channel, make it straighter, get more self-scouring there, take the
pressure off the north side of that inlet. Potentially that may not be
feasible, either through environmental documentation or through the
hydro that's done with regard to the study. That very well may not be a
feasible solution to the problem and the problem as we see it, but what
-- the problem we're seeking to serve or change or help is that
critically eroded beach.
So I'm not trying to lead you down a path. That seems to be the
course of action that seems most probable, and that would require us
to modify our permit. So it's like step one. But their slate does not
dictate specifically what steps two, three and four will be, until we go
through that type of public hearing, public participation, as well as
science and research.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think you hit the nail on the head
and you gave me the information that I would need, because you said
that we're going to look at all aspects of it and we may not be able do
what we want to do because of environmental problems here. So that
there gave me assurance that we do have a place that we can check off
as we go through the system here.
And at that, I make a motion that we accept this, this study.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
Page 163
January 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much for the
presentation. That's 5-0. We're on to-
Item#10H
RESOLUTION 2004-15 GRANTING LIMITED SETTLEMENT
AUTHORITY TO THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
UNDER THE COUNTY'S PROPERTY, CASUALTY, AND
WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE PROGRAMS-
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 10(H), which
used to be item 16(E)(4), and it's the approval of a resolution granting
limited settlement authority to the Risk Management Director under
the county's property, casualty and workers' compensation insurance
program. And this was pulled from the consent agenda to the regular
agenda by Commissioner Coyle.
MR. WALKER: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman,
Commissioners.
The item before you today is, as County Manager Mudd said, a
resolution granting limited authority to settle claims under our
property, casualty, workers compensation program.
Just to give you a little bit of background about how this process
works so that you understand where we are today, Florida Statutes
768.28 and Florida Statutes Chapter 440 govern the purchase and
Page 164
January 13, 2004
administration of these types of programs, and they grant a certain
amount of authority to local governments as to their purchase and
management.
We come to the Board annually to get a budget approved, as does
every department. We also come to the Board annually to purchase
excess coverages and various things of that nature. The part of that
equation that's a little bit unclear has to do with the actual payment of
claims, how they're handled and settled.
Our practice over the years has been that we bring all litigated
files to the Board for settlement approval. And I'm sure that you recall
us doing that.
The issue that comes about, though, has to do with claims that are
relatively minor in nature or claims that aren't litigated but have --
may have high dollar values associated with them.
And so beginning last year, I entered into discussions with the
County Attorney's Office, Chief Assistant Attorney Mike Pettit,
regarding a process that we could go through to enable us to manage
this process a little bit more closely.
And so what we have before you is a resolution which does that.
And what we're doing in this case is simply asking you to grant to the
Risk Management Director a certain amount of limited authority for
claims by various line of coverage and by various dollar amounts, so
that we can efficiently and timely manage the program. Obviously
claims that are over a certain dollar amount would come to the Board
for approval, or if they're litigated, they would come to the Board for
approval. So we've set these thresholds in place so that we know
exactly what our authority is for these various lines of coverage.
Again, our purpose here is to promote clarity among the staff so
that we know exactly what our authority is. We're trying to promote
efficiency and timeliness. And again, we're trying to promote
accountability among the staff so that we process these matters
according to procedures set forth within the resolution, that we
Page 165
January 13, 2004
document what we do very carefully, that we make findings of
liability if we pay claims and that sort of thing. So with that, I will take questions.
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, what is your name?
MR. WALKER: I'm sorry, the name is Jeff Walker, Risk
Management Director.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jeff, with respect to property losses
to county owned property, there seems to be no monetary limit there.
Property loss could include loss of an entire building. MR. WALKER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why would you want to have
authority to deal with something of that nature without bringing it to
the Board?
MR. WALKER: Well, let me give you an example. About four
years ago we had a water valve break on the fifth floor of this building
in an air conditioning unit. And what we -- what happened in that
case is we ended up with a water loss which flooded about three floors
of this building to the tune of about $250,000.
What had to take place in that case is we worked with Facilities
Management Department and the various contractors that we have
under contract to make repairs, emergency repairs to those issues that
we had to deal with.
The thinking here is that we need to act on matters such as that
very quickly within the contracts that we already have in place
through our departments who service these matters. And what we do
is we work with them to pay those contractors to get those repairs
made. And so for us to bring that matter to the Board could be
redundant in that we already have contracts in place which have
hourly rates and fees and things of that nature. But also simply to get
the work completed. That is the thinking on that. It's a first party type
claim. It's not to a third party, it's not a liability claim, it's simply an
Page 166
January 13, 2004
action to repair our own property to get us back in business. That's
really the thinking on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The County Manager has that
authority now, emergency approvals, right? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now why couldn't you deal with
that if it were an emergency? Why couldn't you deal with that, even
under our existing policy? I mean, you could do what he just
described, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right now?
MR. MUDD: That example that he used about the water main
break, okay, the damage was in Commissioner Coyle's office and
Commissioner Coletta's present office, okay? And it was obvious --
and Sue's office. It was obvious that they knew what the problem was.
The -- yeah, we could do with that, in that process and then bring it
back to the Board if it gets over a certain threshold that you'd like to
have.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But that's -- you're able to even do
emergency contracts on major road construction projects and things
like that, and you do so when we have a summer recess and it's not
possible to convene a quorum of Commissioners.
I guess what I don't understand is under emergency situations like
that why the current policy won't work for you.
MR. WALKFJR: Well, I know when I was drawing up the
resolution, that was not a consideration that I took in mind. I was
simply trying to include that type of scenario within the development
of this resolution. So I think we're talking about a similar thing here,
but obviously that is a scenario under which we could work.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is the county -- does the County
Page 167
January 13, 2004
Manager want to delegate that authority to that particular gentle --
individual in regards to --
MR. MUDD: When it gets down to facilities, I -- you know, he's
not going to do anything that he isn't going to tell me about in that
process, and then I'm going to give him the thumbs up. I mean, Jeff
doesn't go out there and spend money without telling Leo or I or
what's going on in the process, and a lot of times checks with Jim
Mitchell or whatever as he's doing this thing, and checks with the
Attorney's Office as we're going through it. I mean, he doesn't do it in
isolation, I'll let you know that right off the bat.
But if you want to set a limit on facility loss or something like
that, or you want to exclude facility loss from this delegation, I don't
have a problem with that either.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Kind of at an impasse. If there's
no objections, I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second. Okay, a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Halas. All those in favor, say aye -- oh.
MR. PETTIT: Just-- sorry. For the record, Mike Pettit,
Assistant County Attorney.
As I was reviewing this, I noticed that in the executive summary
it states that a closed file report of each settled claim will be presented
to the Board on a quarterly basis, and that that's part of the resolution.
I think that's a piece to the resolution that maybe Jim Mitchell and I
may have talked about at one point. I know he and I talked about this
at one point.
Regardless, it's not in the resolution. I would like you to make
your motion, go ahead and approve, but I want to add that piece so
that we will be coming back to the Board, or Mr. Walker will on a
quarterly basis with it so you can look and see what's -- how this
Page 168
January l3,2004
program is working.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
approved.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
That's part of my motion.
That's part of my second.
The amended motion has been
Opposed, like sign.
Thank you.
MR. WALKER: Thank you, Commissioner.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Paragraph 11,
public comments on general topics.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Don't we have 16(C)(2)?
MS. FILSON: Yes, we have 10(I).
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean 10(I), which is 16(C)(2)?
MR. MUDD: Excuse me. Yes, ma'am, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right.
Item # 10I
APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT FROM SOLID
WASTE OPERATIONS TO SOLID WASTE CAPITAL PROJECTS
TO DESIGN FOUR RECYCLING AND HAZARDOUS WASTE
COLLECTION CENTERS, PROJECT 59003, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $375,500 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: 16(C)(2) is to approve a budget amendment for the
Page 169
January 13, 2004
solid waste operation to solid waste capital projects to design
recycling and hazardous waste collection centers, project 59003, in the
amount of $375,500.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it. But I would like to
hear from George, if we could.
MR. YILMAZ: For the record, George Yilmaz, Solid Waste
Director.
Commissioners, as you know, we do currently operate our
recycling centers at different locations: Naples, Immokalee, Marco
Island and Carnestown. The current facilities are outdated and consist
of mostly tampers, structures, such as tut sheds, that have been added
as the needs for recycling services have increased. Improved facilities
are needed to meet the demand, stay in compliance, establish
necessary household hazardous waste infrastructure, and enhance the
safe work environment for our customers and the team members
working there.
A work order was approved by the Board on December 16th,
2003 under agenda Item 16(C)(16) for these abovementioned site
improvements. And today we're simply recommending a budget
amendment for previously approved funds in Fund 470, Solid Waste
Disposal to Capital Projects.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. This was brought on to the
regular agenda for our speaker, actually. So without further ado,
would the speaker like to step up to the microphone?
MS. FILSON: You have one speaker, Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank
you very much for bringing this forward. I had a few questions about
it and comments, and I appreciate the opportunity to make them.
I'd like to -- Bob Krasowski, Zero Waste, Collier County group.
In reviewing this item as it was listed on the consent agenda, a
few issues came up. And what I would like to deal with is that at your
Page 170
January 13, 2004
next meeting, January 27th, you're going to be considering what type
of structure you want to apply to the commercial recycling component
in Collier County. Your options will be to go to a mandatory
recycling operation.
I don't know what range you have, as far as options, as to
whether you want to apply -- or use one collector, one service provider
to collect -- make everybody use them or just open the field as you
have now for your collections from generator -- small generators of
hazardous waste where county people go out and they give
companies, businesses a booklet that lists all of the service providers
for hazardous waste and then the company is responsible to choose the
one they want. That's the method Zero Waste supports. But we also
support a mandatory recycling ordinance. Now, you'll hear from the
Chamber and other people that have other spins or positions on this.
So how this relates to this action of today is in the documentation
I've read regarding this operation, and believe me, I think
improvements on those recycling transfer stations are sorely needed.
And the work that the staff is doing to implement hazardous waste
collection centers at those locations is excellent. Because we have to
get the hazardous materials out of the waste stream and you're not
going to go door to door and collect those.
Well, the -- but back to the recycles. If you decide to --
depending on what you do on the next meeting, January 27th, it will
impact the volume of material going into these transfer stations. If
you have a mandatory and people have to use these transfer stations,
then you're going to get an enormous amount of materials. If you
have a mandatory non-residential business recycling program, where
our recycling infrastructure, the many, many -- the 40 businesses or so
that provide recycling of one type or another in this community, then
they would absorb the most of the recyclables and you might not need
as large a facility as you may or not be planning for. I don't know what
the details are as far as the size facility that you're looking at in each
Page 171
January 13, 2004
one of these four locations that you're going to spend the $375,000 on.
So my question to you is, if we haven't determined our program,
which you probably will determine on January 27th at the next
meeting, how is it we can move ahead, spend money on designing the
facility that we don't know how big it should be, how much material it
would hold. And that's pretty much it. Let's see. Yeah, we -- no,
okay.
So if somebody could address that, like -- or my suggestion
would be there's a Phase A and B on this plan. One is to analyze and
test what you do have at these locations, and Section B is actually
designing the buildings and providing you with the site plans and all
that. So I would think you wouldn't want to go very far into Section B
at all, you'd want to just stay with preliminary analysis of what's going
on until you know how big of an operation you're going to have and
then move forward on that, you know, so -- you know, maybe I --
maybe the staff would like to address that and answer my questions
and then you can decide or something like that. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's on a future agenda,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, it is on a future agenda.
MR. KRASOWSKI: The commercial recycling?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes, but how do you know how big? How
do you know how much to spend or what type of facility design?
That's on the work order here now. It's like how big of a building are
we going to have? You have scale houses in here, you have all of
these other facilities that if your-- if you go to a nonresidential
recycling ordinance where you use the infrastructure of businesses to
provide those services, then you'd want this to be one size or another
size. And we don't know that yet. So how far do you want to go on
this?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
Page 172
January 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I was going to say, when
Bob's finished I'll have -- I'll ask somebody from staff maybe to
respond to it. Thank you very much.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you. Appreciate it. And
congratulations, Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coyle.
And for all the good it did between us, Mr. Henning, I
appreciated much of what you did.
MR. YILMAZ: For the record, George Yilmaz, Solid Waste
Director.
First of all, Bob, thank you very much for your continuous public
participation in the process, and that is welcomed, so we appreciate
your participation.
Having said that, there are two points in my best effort to respond
to Mr. Bob Krasowski's inquiries and questions. The work order
designed to first address our current customer service base with
flexibility in mind for future growth, meaning we're trying to improve
our facilities for our current customer base first. That is the first thing
we have to do. Of course the work order also have (sic) flexibilities
built in so that when we build these facilities, we have the expansion
opportunities for future demand.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But we're not going to build it so that
when it's completed it's already in a state of needing to add on, right?
Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval.
MS. FILSON: You already have a motion and a second.
Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 173
January 13, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
about that, Bob.
Now we're moving on to 12(A), which is-
And opposed, like sign.
Thank you. Thank you for talking to us
Item #11
Pl IFIl.lC COMMENTS ON GF. NERAI~ TOPICS
MR. MUDD: No ma'am, we're at public comment and general
topics, Paragraph 11.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. I'm sorry.
MS. FILSON: And I have three speakers. The first one is John
Austen. Mr. Austen? He must have left. Dr. Selwyn Mills. And he
will be followed by Dr. Amber Rose.
MR. MILLS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Selwyn Mills. And my wife and I have started a nonprofit corporation
called Living Love in Action. And some of our projects involve
county-wide activity that affect everybody in Collier County.
One of our projects was earlier to have Naples declared the
romance capital of Florida. Now, the reason we did that is because we
love Naples and we think it is the most romantic city in Florida. So
we went about collecting signatures. We went through all the malls
and we went to prominent places in Naples and we asked people
personally how they felt about Naples and whether they would like to
have Naples called the romance capital of Florida, in which case they
signed our petition.
A second very, very important, I think, project is to have
hundreds and hundreds of people within Naples, couples within
Page 174
January 13, 2004
Naples, renew their wedding vows on Valentine's Day. And one of our
methods of promoting that was for my wife and I to don wedding
gown and tuxedo and go out into Naples and meet people.
So we went into some of the prominent places in Naples, and
people would assume that we were just newly wed because we had a
wedding gown and a top hat and a white uniform or white mx, and it
was our way of promoting romance.
And so we met hundreds of people all over Naples and we spoke
to them about renewing vows, and it was another project that they
really loved.
And we proceeded to promote it and various articles were written
about us. We're members of Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber
of Commerce was very enthused about the idea.
And then we had to decide on finding a site on Valentine's Day
for this group of people, which we assume will be upward of 250
couples. And we went to the Park Department and met with Annie
Pappalardo, and she was very helpful in suggesting different sites for
us. So we went to examine these sites. And the one that we found the
most suitable was Sugden Park.
And then we went to meet with the County Manager, James
Mudd, and talked to him about it. And we discussed the possibility of
us being a partnership with the Collier County, since we're nonprofit
and we make no revenue from this. And we talked about what we
would need. And what we'd need in that particular park would be a
sound system, a few tables and some Port-a-Potties, because there's no
immediate lavatory facilities right there. And Mr. Mudd said that
that's something the county already has and therefore would not entail
any additional cost for the county. And he suggested we come before
the Board and discuss it and ask for your support, which is what I'm
doing right now. So I thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did we get any -- did they take
Page 175
January 13, 2004
any surveys from Golden Gate? You said you had a survey or petition.
Did you go out to Golden Gate?
MR. MILLS: You mean regarding the romance capital idea or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. MILLS: No, we didn't go to Golden Gate. We were mostly
in the malls, mostly in central Naples, and the Philharmonic. We went
to movies together, we went to restaurants and we walked on Fifth
Avenue and places like that and met people. No, but we didn't go out
to Golden Gate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you'll probably petition the
City Council to take action on that item later on?
MR. MILLS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dr. Amber Rose.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
Mr. Mudd, is this something that would be out of the ordinary or
something that we do to accommodate the public on a general basis?
MR. MUDD: Since Marla Ramsey's in the back, she can come
up and talk about it, since that's her park.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thought you got off scot-free,
huh?
Is this something we normally do to assist the public, or is this
considered extraordinary?
MR. RAMSEY: Well, normally we have a fee policy. So we
would look at the size of the facilities that they would need for this
event and then we would charge them a rental fee based upon that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why is it being brought to the
Commission when this thing can be done right at the Parks and Recs
level? I'm kind of confused.
MR. RAMSEY: Unless they're asking for a waiver of the fees.
I'm not sure. I'm not --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know numerous things have
Page 176
January 13, 2004
come up in the past and were very good events. In all cases we kept
the fees in place, the permits for whatever took place. I don't think
that's something that really I'd like to get into at this point in time.
Once we start to waive the fees, we have to have a policy that's going
to cover everyone, every nonprofit going, and we haven't been doing
that.
MR. RAMSEY: Right. There's two ways that you can look at it.
If they want to rent the facility then there's a rental fee attached to it.
If they're asking us to co-sponsor the event with it, then the -- it
becomes a Parks and Recreation event along with them, you kind of
endorse it. Those are the two ways that you can usually get an activity
in a park itself.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. Now, normally when
activities -- you bring to us, you bring to us after you've taken it to the
Parks and Rec. Advisory Committee and then it comes back to the
Commission for some kind of action. I'm sure you're not looking for
an action item tonight. I'm not too sure how to proceed on this. I just
didn't want to pretend it didn't happen if they didn't speak. I just want
to make sure they get the same consideration that all citizens get.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me -- let me help just a little bit,
why Dr. Mills and Dr. Mills are here today. They came to me and
they said, hey, I'd like the Board to help us with the event on
Valentine's Day where people are going to renew their vows.
They came to me, and there's a 13-day window before you can
public petition. Well, if they do a public petition and they come to see
you, I couldn't get it scheduled till 10 February. And since Valentine's
Day is I think on the 14th or 15th-- CHAIRMAN FIALA: 14th.
MR. MUDD: -- that then the public petition would be that the
Board would consider this at another agenda item and that date would
have continued on till next year. And I said the only thing that I have
power to do is to recommend that you come and talk to the Board on
Page 177
January 13, 2004
comment today to see what they want to do.
Now-- and Maria basically has stated correctly, they pay a fee
for the facility or it's a co-sponsor. And I think Dr. Mills had
mentioned to me that he would like to have the county co-sponsor to a
certain point in time in order to offset some of the costs for PR, tables,
Port-a-Potties, or whatever.
Now, there are standing facilities at Sugden Park as far as
restroom facilities are concerned, and we're basically talking about a
portable PA system and tables at this particular juncture, which the
county has in its inventory in the Parks and Rec. and other places that
I have in county government.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does the fee that you charge, does
that include Port-a-Potties and PA system?
MR. RAMSEY: We don't really have an extra fee for the -- for
the -- either of those two areas. If it's a large event that would warrant
having those, then yes. But at the -- I believe I missed the first part of
that when they came in, but I thought they were talking about the
amphitheater, and there are Port-a-Johns or Port-a-Potties at that
particular location, and if they're looking at the open field area next to
the ranger area, there are restroom facilities there. So I wouldn't see
that there would be a need for additional expense for that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. What about, is there a fee or
a charge for the PA system?
MR. RAMSEY: No. I think that if the PE system that we have
currently is large enough to accommodate them, then I don't
necessarily see a problem with that either. The amphitheater has been
running about $60 an hour for the rental fee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's the other question I
was going to ask you, what is the fee. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Go ahead, please.
MS. FILSON: Dr. Amber Rose.
Page 178
January 13, 2004
MS. ROSE: My name is Dr. Amber Rose. My husband, Dr.
Selwyn Mills and I are the incurable romantics of Naples. And our
marriage is very sacred to us. We truly wish for others what we have.
Marriage is not a noun, it's a verb. Anyone can say I love you, but
true love must be lived. You learn to love by loving. A good
marriage is alive and that's why we call it Living Love in Action. My
husband and I met the week of September 1 lth, 2001 in New York.
We've experienced living love in action ever since. 9-11 was a real
turning point. Many people's lives were transformed.
My husband and I made a personal commitment to each other
that we would try to bring love to a higher level and live each day as if
our lives really depended on it.
Our marriage marked the beginning of a brand new start and we
decided to move to Florida. We chose Naples because it's a romantic
paradise. And Naples has not disappointed us. Naples continues to
inspire us every day as we work to bring love, happiness and the art of
romance to this beautiful community.
For the last six months we've been going all over Naples, dressed
in wedding gown and tuxedo. People stop and stare and take pictures
or engage us in conversation. Everyone loves a wedding. You should
hear the comments. We love your mission, or as soon as you walked
in the room, everything changed, or thanks for making our day, or we
love Naples too. And since Sunday, when a very large article came
out about us in the Neopolitan section, our phone's been ringing off
the hook.
We've come here today to ask for your help in declaring Naples
the romance capital of Florida. We are honored to be ambassadors for
Naples. It's a beautiful place to live.
It is time to put Naples on the map, a place where every day is
Valentine's Day.
On February 14th, 2004, we're going to try to break the Guinness
Book of Word Records for renewal of wedding vows here in Naples.
Page 179
January 13, 2004
We sincerely hope that you will support our mission.
And in closing, I would just like to share a few lines from a love
letter that my husband wrote to me while he was visiting Naples
several months before we moved here.
Dear Amber: Puffy white cotton against an azure sky of blinding
sunlight fill my midday walks among the coconut and royal palms.
Thoughts of a difficult transition from my comfortable, predictable life
in New York pale when viewed against our commitment to living love
in action. Our unknowable future holds the promise of adventure, new
relationships and our healing work with others. I feel that our love
will open hearts and doors.
When my husband wrote these words to me, he had no idea that
I'd be sharing them here with you today. But I've spoken them for you
in the hope that you will believe in us and help us make our dream
come true for Naples and for all of those who love it. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one question. I see some
things that are very positive here and I got some things I'm concerned
about. One is the fact that we have a nonprofit, and we came up with
a policy where we haven't been granting this generally to nonprofits.
However, we do do proclamations. Is there a possibility for the
next meeting we might have a proclamation that would recognize this
particular venture that they're doing and Valentine's that's coming up?
I think it would be a wonderful way to be able to move everything
forward, including Valentine's Day.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think the purpose is
wonderful and I think it's a great idea. I do have some concerns. I
don't want to set a precedent that we're -- that we're not likely to be
able to escape from some time in the future.
The things that bother me are the nonprofit corporation. Why is
Page 180
January 13, 2004
it necessary to have a nonprofit corporation to get people to renew
their wedding vows? You know, that's -- we seldom get into the
business of trying to endorse corporations.
That's complicated somewhat by the fact that you're both
psychotherapists, acupuncturists, massage therapists. And you spoke
of being able to help others and to counsel others. My concern is I
don't want to be placed in a position of using the county government
to sponsor a business for you and to essentially do advertising for you
so that you can engage other people in your therapist activities.
And I wish you the best of luck in doing those kinds of things,
because it seems to me your heart's in the right place and you want to
do some great things. My problem is getting the government involved
in that, and it troubles me a little bit. And I don't know if you can
address that for us.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if I may comment just
before he does.
When it comes to proclamations, we just got through doing it for
Catholic School Week, be did it for the Blue Martins. We cover
everything under the sun. And, you know, they're non-profits too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, a proclamation doesn't bother
me, it's just the other part.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, okay, forgive me, I thought
the issue was -- I agree with you, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's the other parts that bother
me a little bit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I agree with you.
Because, I mean, there -- what's unique about this, when we have
homeless shelters, we have food banks that are going with great needs
and we're not waiving that. We have our own fraternal organizations
step before us and ask for waiver of permit fees --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we tell them no.
Page 181
January 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and we tell them no. Then we
end up having to reach in our pocket and pay for them when we
belong to the organizations.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. Sir, I think what you're
doing is a very noble thing.
MR. MILLS: Yeah. And I appreciate what you've just said, Mr.
Coyle. It's not our intention, is all I can say. We've done
out-of-pocket expenses for everything we've done in the past six
months in terms of promotion. And if such an activity should result in
us gaining more popularity, so to speak, that might be an ancillary
consideration. But it's certainly not our intention.
And as far as the county being involved, I see this as a win/win
situation for everybody. I mean, the people in this city appreciate the
idea and it raises the spirit.
Now, I also wrote a letter to Jeb Bush a couple of weeks ago, and
I asked him if he would like to attend. I told him about the project.
And it was in response also to his recent concern and talking about the
problems with marriages in Florida and the fact that there are family
problems which have to be concerned -- we have to be concerned with
in Naples -- not Naples, excuse me, in Florida. And that this kind of
project would promote stronger families. Because the way we
conceive of it is that this is not just a matter of people who are married
getting up to say yes, we're happy to be married and we want to
remarry. It involves all the families, and it involves their children on
that day. It's very rare to have children see their parents recommit
themselves to a marriage. And it makes for a stronger community and
for stronger families.
So that's part of our intention in this whole thing. And I have to
say, Mr. Coyle, that your objection is understandable, but it certainly
was not our intention.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand.
I would be willing to support Commissioner Coletta's idea of
Page 182
January 13, 2004
putting together a proclamation to support your goals here and see if
we can't get that before the Commission and get it done pretty quickly.
And that would certainly, I hope, deal with the principles involved
here, which are, I think, very commendable.
MR. MILLS: When I spoke with Annie Pappalardo, who's with
the Parks Department, she told me about the partnership arrangement
that the county has had in the past to promote certain causes, certain
issues, and that she felt that this would fall into that category, that we
would be able to get the park with the support -- no financial support
but certainly the support of the county in that respect.
And if we could get it very, very soon, get that commitment, then
we could proceed to start to promote in terms of location. Because so
far the promotion we've done has been well, we'll call you back.
Hundreds are calling and we don't know exactly where it's going to be.
It gives us some kind of lead time to put up posters, to contact
churches, to do all the things so we can get enough people there to
benefit from it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a couple of quick ideas that
come to mind. I don't think this Commission's going to be able to
underwrite the cost of it, which I understand where you're coming
from.
How is the possibility that you might be able to get donations
from the public that could put it into your organization, which I take it
is a tax deductible donation, or possibly there might be one of our
larger churches that serves the public where they could do it with --
and just let it flow or even the County Clerk's office.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Or charge admission.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. Or the County Clerk's
office might be interested in -- where did he go? He's gone. Okay.
MR. MILLS: We wanted to avoid charging admission. We
wanted to make this a free activity for family, that everyone could --
Page 183
January 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. But you'd take
donations, though, wouldn't you?
MR. MILLS: We could take donations, and we'd have to pursue
that.
But what would your objection to this being a cooperative
activity between the county and ourselves?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can answer that. We have
many a not-for-profit organizations that use our facilities, and your
organization shouldn't be treated any different. So if we could direct
our staff to do that, I think we're in line what we're being -- playing
equal to everybody in the status of not-for-profit organizations.
MR. MILLS: So you're saying that you will or will not support
us in items of cooperative effort?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just saying we want to treat
you equal. We want to create a proclamation and treat you equal than
any -- just the same as any other not-for-profit organizations that use
our facility. There are several of them, and several of them are on
Sunday.
MR. MILLS: And what would that be?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm sure the Director of
Parks and Rec. can tell you that. That's more of the day-to-day
business of what the charges are and how they deal with that. The
Board doesn't get involved with that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Madam Chairman, the Sugden Park amphitheater
is free that day in order to do -- on Valentine's Day in order to do that,
or the Sunday of Valentine's Day to do that. And as Marla had
mentioned, the fee is $60 an hour. And you pretty much -- you'll have
this done in about an hour period of time. If Dr. Mills would see Ms.
Ramsey after this or she'll meet him out in the hallway and they can
start working on those arrangements.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So the amphitheater is $60 an hour.
Page 184
January 13, 2004
Is there any other additional charges?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Is that all, Commissioners?
(No response.)
MR. MILLS: The Board agrees on it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We, we agreed --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We don't have to agree. That's
part of the normal process. But if you would like, we'll do the
proclamation for you in two weeks, that will give you a little more
contact with the outside world.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But as far as giving you free time,
no. That's, I guess, the bottom line is what you're looking for. We'll
endorse your organization through a proclamation, but when it -- and
then as my fellow Commissioner said here, that we treat all
non-profits the same way. So when they come before us, they hear
the same thing, that's it's a -- no problem, we'll help you out with any
way possible. But either through donations that you take up or it may
come out of your pocket or whatever else, that they have to pay for the
facilities here in the community.
MR. MILLS: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And Marla will meet with you
outside here --
MR. MILLS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- to discuss this. Thank you very much,
sir.
Okay. We have no other public comments or speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
Item #12A
APPROVAL OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
BOARD CONSIDER AND REJECT AQUAPORT PLANTIFFS'
Page 185
January 13, 2004
ATTEMPT TO ALTER TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN AQUAPORT PLANTIFFS AND
INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER DEFENDANTS AFTER THE
FACT, AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT COUNTY FUNDS ARE AT
ISSI JE
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. 12(A) is our County Attorneys'
report. We have an add-on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve staff's
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
MR. PETTIT: I appreciate the motion. Commissioner Henning,
if I could just -- I just want to put -- I need to a couple sentences on the
record.
On January 9, 2004, we received a letter-- or I received a copy
of a letter that had been sent to the counsel for the individual
Commissioners, Mr. Hemke, and to the county's counsel in the appeal,
Mr. Tripp. I remain co-counsel with Mr. Tripp in the trial court, but I
did not join in the appeal with him. And counsel for the appellants
here, the Aquaport plaintiffs, argues that those two gentlemen are the
cause of delay and that they didn't act promptly and because of that,
her clients need an additional $10,000 for the settlement. And she
wanted to make sure that all of the clients involved knew that position.
So I'm relaying that to you.
Now, I will tell you what I think of that position. I've looked at
the facts. On October 28th, this Board voted to agree to waive any
claim it might have for fees and costs to help effectuate this
settlement. That information was provided to that counsel by October
29th. The individual defendants, my understanding is, had already
agreed. So by October 29th there was a settlement of this lawsuit
against the individual Commissioners. All that needed to occur then
was the Aquaport plaintiffs needed to notify the appellate court that a
Page 186
January 13, 2004
settlement occurred and it would be some 45 days or whatever to get
the settlement papers in and to postpone all further proceedings.
Instead of doing that, they went ahead and filed briefs, and now
are attempting to assess some of the cost of those briefs as part of the
settlement agreement. I think that they reneged, and my
recommendation would be that we contribute no county money to this
proceeding.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The more I hear about this, the
angrier I get. Originally they tried to draw us individually and
personally into this lawsuit to try to effect a settlement and extract
something from this county that we normally wouldn't do. Well, I've
had it right up to here. And I agree with you 100 percent, I'm not for
giving them one red nickel other than the deal we already offered
them. And if they want to pursue it, let's go to court and let's settle it
there.
MR. PETTIT: You know, just so you under -- and the reason I
brought this forward is to understand the ramifications. Two points:
One is the insurance company is willing to throw in -- and it is
throwing in $2,500 to try to bring it to a close. That's not our money,
if you will. And we're now on their nickel and I can understand why
they might do that. And I don't know whether that's going to work or
not.
The other piece is I need -- I felt I had an obligation to bring this
forward, because by not agreeing to throw any county money into the
pot to close this out, there is a, in my opinion, very remote risk that
some day the case could get reversed, some day the claims against the
individual Commissioners could be tried, and it's conceivable that a
judgment could be entered. And because of the nature of the claims it
might exceed insurance coverage, which then would mean the county
would have to come out of its own pocket to pay off that judgment.
I just -- I have to tell you that, but I don't change my
Page 187
January 13, 2004
recommendation. I don't think that we should -- I think we had a
settlement agreement, it's been reneged on. As simple as that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't care if they get sued, do
you, Hank-- Frank?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll take it-- and you two aren't.
I'm willing to stand up for this. I really am. Because I tell you what,
if this one here goes through and they start to get something, you
better believe every time a lawsuit comes to the county we're all going
to be named. You got to take a stand at this some point in time and I
think this is the time to take a stand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll back you up.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So what-- there was -- somebody made a
motion here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And what was the motion, please?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve his
recommendation, right?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the second came from?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Came from me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning made the first --
made the motion, Commissioner Coyle seconded it. Anything further
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the recommendation is just
what we heard now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Coletta strongly
emphasized he believed in it.
Any further comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 188
January 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
MR. PETTIT:
And opposed, like sign.
Thank you. Motion passes 5-0.
Thank you.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GF, NERAIJ COMMI JNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we come to the part of the day when
we hear comments from our County Attorney and our County
Manager, and then from our Commissioners.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. It's been a very enjoyable day today
and very enjoyable to hear the comments of the public working with
the staff and with the Commission today.
I just wanted to let you know and the public as well, that being
advertised for the next board meeting will be three ordinance
amendments: One is the Airport Authority ordinance amendment
pursuant to your direction; the second one is the PVAC, the public
vehicles ordinance amendment initiated by Commissioner Henning
with very important, and I'll say, in fact, sophisticated changes that
have been drafted by an attorney in our office, working both with the
Sheriff and with the Florida Department of legal enforcement-- Law
Enforcement.
And the third, the third ordinance amendment to come back will
be the long awaited towing ordinance. I'm working with the Sheriff's
Department, which make sure that the mandatory towing, which is
essentially orchestrated in conjunction with the Sheriff, has some
Page 189
January 13, 2004
limitations, a la the Jim Kramer issues of a year, year-and-a-half ago,
where we don't get undue billing coming from trips that are
problematic, side charges that aren't going to be counted as to -- or
recognized in the ordinance.
So those three things will be coming up at the next Board
meeting for your consideration. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Manager Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Madam Chairman, if I could ask David one more
thing. The ethics ordinance, I think that's coming for the 27th, too; is
that correct? It was going to come on the 13th and we had, we had a
couple --
MR. WEIGEL: Is it? That's right. The ethics ordinance is also
coming.
With the mic., one last time I'll just mention that tomorrow the
County Attorney office will be again presenting the Sunshine Law,
public records law, ethics law and ex parte disclosure laws seminar to
all our advisory committees. This is the second in our series, just in
the last 40 days.
And by virtue of the fact that the boardroom isn't filled for these
things, if there's a public that's interested to come, I would think that
they could come too and observe. And that's at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Madam Chairman, I received a letter from the City
of Marco Island Manager Bill Moss that basically says that the
residents of Key Marco PUD, which we finally call Horr's Island, are
asking to annex into the City of Marco Island. So we're starting our
staff actions, as far as that's concerned, to try to work out the details
and whatever interlocal agreements we need to have. Because as you
know, we supply water and some other things. We buy it from Marco,
we take it to our distribution center, rechlorinate it and then
Page 190
January 13, 2004
redistribute it again. So we'll work through those particular issues
with this particular development.
But I want to make sure that you're aware that they're in
discussions and they want to proceed with that and they want to know
what our procedures are.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have to commend Bill Moss for taking
the time to write and alert us. That was really an outstanding gesture
on his part.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
The other-- another issue that's come up is it looks like the Cap
d'Antibes appeals are going to come to you on the first meeting in
March. And I've asked Ms. Filson to dedicate two days on that
particular meeting, because there will be two appeals that come to us,
and we expect those appeals to last anywhere from four to six hours
each. So again, there's a two-day Board meeting, 9th and 10th of
March, and this is the driver that brings that about. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're saying I think in
essence is that Tuesday will be the regular Board meeting and then the
following day will be just solely for the Cap d'Antibes.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That would probably be the most
productive. But I won't know that exactly for sure if we start it on the
Tuesday in the evening and then roll it into Wednesday until I get to
see the entire agenda and the actions that are going to transpire. So
when I get closer to that, we'll lock it in. But right now that's my plan.
MS. FILSON: And we already have it on all Commissioners'
calendars.
MR. MUDD: The next item is a -- is a letter that went to
Commissioner Henning, and it basically is a response to his letter to
the City of Naples, and it's from the Mayor, Mayor Bonnie
Mackenzie, and it basically says: Dear Chairman Henning, I'm happy
to report to you the Naples City Council has accepted your invitation
Page 191
January 13, 2004
of December 4th, 2003 to participate in future discussions to
determine whether or not there are opportunities for us to work
together regarding the Collier County Airport.
So that's good news. So the dialogue is open. And I talked to
Mr. Vasey two days ago, and we haven't heard anything yet from the
Naples Airport Authority, but I know they've told their director, Ted
Soliday, to start negotiations. So I think all the parties are open to
enhance our effectiveness and efficiency of the airports in Collier
County. So that indeed is good news.
The other thing is we've started high season, and everybody
knows that it hasn't rained in a while. And I'd just like to -- this is
kind of an advertisement, but I'd like to remind everybody that we do
have an irrigation ordinance. We do have -- It's mandatory year
round. You can only water three days a week. And there's some
really good rules, kind of catchy phrases. You water on wilt. So if
you see the grass turning a little yellow or it starts to wilt, or you've
seen a plant start to wilt, you water on wilt to get it back to green.
I'd also say that Fridays is a non-watering day. It's a dry day.
Again, year-round irrigation restrictions. If you have an odd address
number on your home, you water on Monday, Wednesdays and
Saturdays. If you have an even number on your home, as far as
address is concerned, it's Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sunday. And
again, it's from midnight to 8:00 a.m. as far as watering is concerned.
And you can hand water from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. on one of your
irrigation days. It's not any time you want to, it's on one of your
irrigation days.
And if you look at the science of the process, you only need
about three-quarters of an inch of water on your lawn or on your
landscaping a week. You pretty much get that accomplished by only
watering two times instead of three. The third time you're just wasting
it, it's costing you more money anyway.
And I just wanted to make sure that everybody out there and
Page 192
January 13, 2004
taxpayers knew about that, because we do get some residents that
come in on a seasonal basis that rent and they don't know what our
irrigation things are. It's also published in the Naples News on a
regular basis right under the weather forecast on the back page, front
page.
And then if anybody needs any help as far as instructions or
questions, they can call our help desk at 403-2380. Again, they can
call our help desk if they have watering, irrigation type questions,
403-2380.
And last but not least, tonight we're switching over the new
construction at our south sewer plant in the Lely complex, and we're
going to bring the new aeration basins on-line, and we'll start that at
midnight and we hope to have that all complete by 6:00 in the
morning. And we've sent out our public notices and stuff like that.
But this is a good news item. We're bringing on a major part of a
plant just before high season, or as high season gets here, to bring this
plant on line. And it's good news. People have worked very hard and
this particular project is on time and under budget, on schedule. That's
all I have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just wanted to inform
everybody I won't be able to make the first meeting in March.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or the second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Too bad.
I'm calling your wife.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
You're going to have to be here.
Yeah, I'm going to call her too
and tell her I won't be home for a couple of days.
The next thing, Commissioners, I did a year end review for 2003.
It's -- what I thought was some of the highlights of some of the things
we accomplished. And of course a lot -- and some of those things that
Page 193
January 13, 2004
you have initiated personally. And so anyways, if you want to use
that, feel free.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think there's a lot of great
information in there.
The last thing is the last meeting of my Chair of the Tourist
Development Council, the -- we heard the item of the additional penny
for tourism promotion in Collier County. That is -- TDC's going to
have a workshop with the industry at the next meeting and talk about
some of those issues, but I can tell you what I heard from the industry
at that public meeting is they are outraged that the Board of
Commissioners have constantly changed their mind, their
commitments to promotion and using a certain allocation of
promotion. And the promotion dollars have been whittled down
constantly. So I think we have a lot of healing to do in
communication with the tourism industry. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And let me just say again, it's
been a pleasure serving under you as our Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, it's a pleasure serving
together. I think it's a team. And I think it always will be a team,
especially under your leadership.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I'll tell you, we have had a great
team, and we do work together very well. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to add my
congratulations to everyone else concerning Commissioner Henning's
service over the last year. We all know that being Chairman is a
Substantial additional work load, and I do appreciate Commissioner
Henning's leadership over the past year.
A couple of items: Jim, the county is contemplating or involved
in making some improvements in the area, the commercial area east of
Airport Road along Mercantile, Commercial and places like that.
Page 194
January 13, 2004
Where are we with respect to that project?
And I had just heard some -- I had gotten some information that
indicates that the owners were going to contribute money for doing
some of that improvement, and that someone had produced a letter
from files that indicated that we, the county government, had agreed to
do that 10 years ago. Have you heard anything like that?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I've heard it. And Norm's looking
into that particular process to make sure exactly what our
commitments were in the past. But he has indicated to me that we
accepted some of those things about 10 years ago. And he's trying to
get -- you know, get the background to it. And Norm's here to discuss
that a little bit further.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if the report isn't complete, I
don't want to take up your time now to deal with it. But we certainly
need to understand the cost implications of doing that, so if--
MR. FEDER: We'll bring that back to the Board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good. Thank you.
The Naples Daily News got the stow all wrong about the
advertisement to get somebody in at Immokalee Airport. The last
stow was completely off base and essentially dwelt on the fact that we
were looking for somebody exclusively to take over the operation of
Immokalee and essentially contract it out. That was merely one
alternative that we had agreed to pursue.
What we really were looking for is any organization that had a
good business plan for helping make Immokalee Airport a success. So
that -- this particular stow has led a number of people in Immokalee to
get concerned about what we're doing and to make comments that
clearly indicate they don't understand.
I hope maybe we can clarify that for them and make sure -- and
secondly, where are we -- where are we with respect to getting some
kind of advertisement out? Is the airport making any progress?
MR. MUDD: I talked to Mr. Vasey about that, too. Yes, they
Page 195
January 13, 2004
are. They know specifically what they have to do as far as that
advertisement is concerned and that the Board's desire is to make sure
that we're running the most efficient operation we can out there, no
matter if it's us doing it or somebody else --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or somebody else, that's right.
MR. MUDD: He understands that. And they also know that it's
just an advertisement, it's to bring information into the county, at
which time they'll bring it back to the Board and talk to the Board
about what they would like to do or not do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And then finally, with
respect to the last item we considered today, about having Naples
designated as a romance capital of the United States, I think that if the
two petitioners really believe that Naples can be the romance capital
of the United States, they need to go visit Naples Park for a short
period of time and see what level of romance they might be able to
develop up there. And with that--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: With that, you're through.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm finished.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't know if I can top that off.
To start with, I want to thank our past Chairman, Chairman Henning,
for his leadership this past year, and I think that this Board has
accomplished a lot under his direction. And I'm looking forward to
working with you, Commissioner Fiala, and congratulations on you
stepping up and being our Chairperson. And I look forward to
working with you this coming year, and I think that we'll have -- our
success rate will probably be even better than what we've had in the
past.
And I think we've got a great team of people here, not only who
is sitting on the dais but everybody that supports us, and that's all the
staff people and hats off to everyone from staff all the way down to
the person who takes care of making sure that the roads are in
Page 196
January 13, 2004
adequate shape and fills the potholes and things of this nature.
And I think today was a great day for us sitting here, because we
hear so much negative in regards to people don't listen to us, we don't
feel that staff is really concerned about problems and conditions, and
of course we try our very best, but there's a lot of times that we can't
appease everybody.
But it really felt good today whereby over a period of, I believe
they said 14 months, where the homeowners associations were
working with everyone in Collier County here and had nothing but
praise for all the people who they interfaced with. And I think this is
-- we all should take a-- give ourselves a pat on the back. I think
we're working in the right direction. I know there's a -- there are
people out there who feel that they're not getting their bang for their
buck, but I really feel that staff and everybody here in Collier County
has really put their best foot forward and are very positive in their job
and really want to help the citizens.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's so hard following
Commissioner Halas because he says it all, you know. And he's
absolutely correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know. I'll call on you next time, okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate it. And I'll take all
the words away from Commissioner Halas.
He is right, staff has been receiving accolades continuously out
there. I've been hearing nothing but positive things for a couple of
years, to be honest with you.
I think people are starting to appreciate that we're just human
beings and we're striving to do the very best we possibly can in the
time that we have on this earth, and that we owe a lot to each other.
We owe a lot to the civic associations and the -- our members of staff
and fellow Commissioners.
Page 197
January 13, 2004
And I just want to thank you, Commissioner Fiala, for accepting
this position. It is a year that you're taking on all sorts of extra duties.
But I know you'll excel.
And Commissioner Henning, we owe him a debt of gratitude
because he gave up some of his personal life to be able to make this
happen for the past year. And he did an excellent job.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. It's a just a
pleasure working with all of you and with all of our staff.
Did you want to say something? Is that why you're getting --
trying to get our attention? Before we close --
MR. NORMAN: Well, for the record, my name is John Norman.
I'm a 43-year resident of Collier County, and I'd just like to thank the
current County Commission for restoring the faith of the community
in the County Commission and county government. And that goes for
the managerial staff and all. It's such a refreshing change from what
we've had. When you can look around and say I know every one of
these guys and they're all honest and straight and doing their best. I
haven't been able to say that before in quite a while. But I certainly
congratulate this Board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Boy, am I glad you walked in the room.
Thanks, John.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can come back the next time,
too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's quit while we're ahead.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And with that, meeting is adjourned.
*****Commissioner Halas moved, seconded by Commissioner
Coyle and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted:*****
Item #16Al- Withdrawn
Page 198
January 13, 2004
GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY
(PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "HABITAT
VILLAGE", THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, THE
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
MAINTA1NFD BY COI.I~IER COl JNTY
Item #16A2
APPROVING THE CHANGE OF THE DESIGNATED PAYEE
FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OUT OF POCKET
EXPENDITURES RELATED TO THE BAYSHORE CHRISTMAS
WALK ART FESTIVAL. (BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS THE COMMUNITY
REDEVEIJOPMENT AGENCY)
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2004-01: PETITION AVESMT2003-AR4693 TO
VACATE, RENOUNCE AND DISCLAIM THE EASEMENT FOR
PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT OF WAY RECORDED BY SEPARATE
INSTRUMENT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA. LOCATED IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP
48 SOl ~TH~ RANGFi 26 EAST~ COI.I.IF.R COl JNTY~ FIJORIDA
Item # 16A4
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2004-01 GRANTING JOHN YONKOSKY,
TREASURER, COLLIER COUNTY FAIR AND EXPOSITION,
INC., A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A FAIR FROM JANUARY 30
THROUGH FEBRUARY 8, 2004, AT THE COLLIER COUNTY
Page 199
January 13, 2004
FAIR GROUNDS ON IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846), NORTH
GOI.DEN GATE ESTATES.
Item #16A5
APPROVAL OF THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF
"SABAL BAY COMMERCIAL PLAT PHASE TWO" AND
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOI JNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECI IRITY
Item #16A6
APPROVAL OF THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF
"DELASOL PHASE THREE, THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND THE
COIINTY PARK DEDICATION AGREF. MENT
Item # 16B 1
AWARDING BID NO. 04-3591- "FURNISH AND DELIVER FIVE
(5) CREW CAB FLAT BED DUMP TRUCKS" TO WALLACE
INTFRNATIONAI. IN THE AMOI INT OF $279,950.00
Item #16B2
APPROVING THE TRANSFER
PROPERTY OWNED BY THE
SEWER DISTRICT ("DISTRICT") TO
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE
("COUNTY"), AND APPROVING
BY DEED OF A PORTION OF
COLLIER COUNTY WATER-
COLLIER COUNTY, A
STATE OF FLORIDA
REIMBURSEMENT TO
Page 200
January 13, 2004
DISTRICT IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE PRO-RATED
PURCHASE PRICE PAID FOR THE PROPERTY BY DISTRICT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX-LANE SECTION OF
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD (PROJECT NO. 63051).
F, STIMATFD FISCAIJ IMPACT: $12~381.00.
Item # 16B3
RESOLUTION 2004-02: AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION
BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS, AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENTS, WHICH WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF SIGNAL SYSTEM MAST ARM
ASSEMBLIES AND CONTROL BOXES AT INTERSECTIONS
AT SR 29 AND IMMOKALEE DRIVE, AT SR 29 AND 1 ST
STREET IN IMMOKALEE, AND AT THE INTERSECTION OF
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND TROPICANA BOULEVARD.
F, STIMATFD FISCAl, IMPACT: $57100.00
Item # 16B4
APPROVING MODIFICATION TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S
ERROR TO CONTACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 WITH APAC-
SOUTHEAST, INC., REGARDING IMMOKALEE ROAD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; PROJECT NO. 60018 (NO FISCAL
IMPACT~
Item #16B5
APPROVAL OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE'S RANKING
OF FIRMS FOR CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS FOR FRP #04-
Page 201
January 13, 2004
3587 "ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERVICES FOR
ROADWAY AND CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS TO COUNTY
BARN ROAD FROM COUNTY ROAD 864 TO STATE ROAD
84", COUNTY PROJECT NO. 60101 AND AUTHORIZATION
FOR STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH
TOP RANKED FIRM, AMERICAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS
OF FI,ORID A: IJl JC.
Item # 16B6
APPROVAL OF WORK ORDER AMENDMENT NO. 1 FOR A
DECREASE OF $33,924 TO THE CONTRACT FOR
CONSULTING ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION SERVICES
BY KCCS FOR THE DAVIS BOULEVARD AND COLLIER
BOULEVARD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT
NO. 60170
Item # 16C 1
APPROVAL OF TWO EASEMENTS TO BE DEEDED TO
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TO PROVIDE NEW
ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE TO THE NORTH COUNTY
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY, PROJECTS 739501 AND
739502~ AT NO COST
Item #16C2 - Moved to Item #10I
Item #16C3
APPROVAL OF WORK ORDER, UNDER CONTRACT #01-3271,
FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, FOR
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS, WITH TAYLOR
Page 202
January 13, 2004
ENGINEERING FOR CAXAMBAS PASS DREDGiNG AND
SOUTH MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHMENT,
PROJECT 90500, IN AN AMOIJNT NOT TO EXCEED $206,000.
Item #16C4
AUTHORIZiNG PARTICIPATION IN A DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT WITH THE NATIONAL BIOSOLIDS PARTNERSHIP
AND APPROVAL OF A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY WASTEWATER
DEPARTMENT AND THE NATIONAL BIOSOLIDS
PARTNERSHIP AT NO COST TO THFi COIJNTY.
Item #16C5
APPROViNG WORK ORDER ME-FT-04-02 WITH METCALF
AND EDDY FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT
PLANT EMERGENCY GENERATOR SWITCHGEAR
UPGRADES PROJECT, CONTRACT 00-3119,_PROJECT
70069,1N THE AMOI JNT OF $247,.438.00.
Item #16C6- Moved to Item # 10G
Item #16C7
RESOLUTION 2004-03: APPROVING A POLICY GOVERNING
THE SALE OF RECLAIMED WATER TO THE
IININCORPORATED AREA OF COI.I,IER COIJNTY
Item #16D 1
Page 203
January 13, 2004
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH
STOCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC, FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
UPGRADED SPORTS FIELD LIGHTING AT EAGLE LAKES
COMMI JNITY PARK AT NO COST TO COI,I,IFR COIINTY
Item # 16D2
APPROVING WORK ORDER #SC-02-57, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$77,247.00 TO SURETY CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
CONTRACTORS, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SCREEN
PORCH ADDITION AT THF, MARCO ISI,AND IJIBRARY.
Item # 16E 1
REPORT AND RATIFICATION CONCERNING THE SALE AND
TRANSFER OF ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COUNTY
SURPLUS AUCTION OF DECEMBER 12, 2003, RESULTING IN
$9,482.90 1N NF, T RF, VF, NI ~F,S.
Item # 16E2
AWARDING RFP NO. 03-3568 FOR COUNTY-WIDE EXOTIC
VEGETATION REMOVAL TO EARTH BALANCE, DEANGELO
BROS., AQUATIC WEED CONTROL, NATURCHEM, AND
FI,ORAQIIATICS (F, STIMATFD VAIJI IF, $500,000.00)
Item # 16E3
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A
TEMPORARY LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SARASOTA
COUNTY AND PAY FOR OFFICE SERVICES NOT TO EXCEED
$3,000.00.THE OFFICE SPACE WILL BE OCCUPIED FOR A
Page 204
January 13, 2004
TWO-MONTH PERIOD BY THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR OF
THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DURING THE
PROCEEDINGS OF STATE FO FLORIDA V. JOHN CALHOUN
NORRIS AND ROBERT PAUL HARDY IN SARASOTA
COl FNTY, FI,ORIDA.
Item #16E4 - Moved to Item #1 OH
Item # 16E5
REPORT AND RATIFICATION OF STAFF-APPROVED
CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO
FIOARD-APPROVF, D CONTRACTS.
Item #16E6
AUTHORIZING THE ADDITION OF TWO POSITION
CLASSIFICATION TITLES; DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND
DIRECTOR, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT,
TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2004 PAY AND CLASSIFICATION
PI JAN
Item #16E7
AWARDING CONTRACT TO SCHENKEL AND SHULTZ, INC.,
FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE NAPLES JAIL
CENTER, REVISED CONTRACT NUMBER 98-2867-2004, iN
THE AMOIJNT NOT TO EXCEFD $845,510.00.
Item # 16F 1
Page 205
January 13, 2004
APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT - BA#04-080-
FOR UNANTICIPATED RENOVATION EXPENSES FOR THE
MAIN HOIISE AT ROFIFRT'S RANCH
Item # 1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE- FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
Page 206
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
January 13, 2004
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
Bo
Lely Community Development District- Minutes of April 16, 2003; May
21, 2003; June 18, 2003; July 2, 2003; August 13, 2003; September 17,
2003; October 22, 2003.
Tuscany Reserve Community District - Minutes of July 10, 2003;
Adopted Budget for FY 2004.
Minutes:
Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee Meeting - Minutes of
September 22, 2003.
Collier County Citizens Corps Advisory Committee -Agenda for October
16, 2003 Minutes of October 16, 2003;. Notice of Date Change for
various Sunshine/Public Records/Ethics Laws and Ex-Parte Requirements.
o
Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. - Agenda for December 4, 2003; Minutes of
November 5, 2003; Notice of Date Change for various Sunshine/Public
Records/Ethics Laws and Ex-Parte Requirements. Agenda for November
5, 2003; Minutes of October 2, 2003.
4. Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for December 8, 2003.
Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for December 4, 2003 and
December 18, 2003; Minutes of November 6, 2003, Minutes of November
13 CCPC with LDC, 2003, Regular Meeting Minutes of November 20;
Meeting Minutes of November 20 with CCPC/LDC 2003.
o
Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U Advisory Committee -
Minutes of November 19, 2003, Agenda for December 17, 2003.
Environmental Advisory Council- Minutes of October 1, 2003;
November 5, 2003; LDC Amendments for 2003 - Cycle 3; Agenda for
December 8, 2003.
H:DataJFormat
Co
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Other:
1)
2)
Pelican Bay Services - Agenda for December 3, 2003; Minutes of
November 5, 2003; Budget Sub-Committee Minutes for November 13,
2003.
Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Committee - Agenda for
November 20, 2003.
Citizen's Advisory Task Force - Agenda for September 18, 2003;
Minutes of September 18, 2003.
Ochopee Fire Control District - Minutes of October 14, 2003.
Collier County Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee -
Minutes of October 29, 2003; EMSAC Schedule for 2004.
Collier County Productivity Committee - Agenda for November 19,
2003; Minutes of October 15, 2003.
Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for December 10, 2003;
Minutes of November 12, 2003.
Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee - Agenda and
Minutes of October 8, 2003; October 22, 2003 and November 14, 2003.
Guy L. Carlton, Collier County Tax Collector - Budget Amendment for 2002-
2003.
City of Naples - Voluntary Annexation/Ruffina, 605 Sandpiper Street -
Antaramian Capital Partners, LLC.
H:DataJFormat
January 13, 2004
Item # 16J 1
DETERMINING WHETHER THE PURCHASES OF GOODS AND
SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED REPORT OF
OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF
COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID PURCHASES. A COPY
OF THE DETAILED REPORT IS ON DISPLAY IN THE COUNTY
MANAGER'S OFFICE, COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
CENTER, 2ND FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING,
NAPI,ES_ FIJ.
Item # 16K 1
AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF $923.39 TO GOODLETTE,
COLEMAN & JOHNSON TRUST ACCOUNT OF BEHALF OF
THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR PLANNING FEES IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. G JR OF NAPLES,
INC., ETAL., CASE NO. 02-2212-CA. (IMMOKALEE ROAD
PROJECT #60018~
Item #16K2
APPROVING THE AGREED ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY
FEES RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT ACQUISITIONS OF
PARCELS 114, 115 AND 116 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. CENTEX HOMES, ET AL., CASE NO.
02-1602-CA (GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD PROJECT NO. 60134)
IN THE AMOIJNT OF $3000.00.
Page 207
January 13, 2004
Item #16K3
APPROVING THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AN A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED
INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO
THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL129 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JAMES R. COLOSIMO,
TRUSTE, ETAL, CASE NO. 00-0138-CA (PINE RIDGE ROAD,
PROJECT NO. 60111). AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SI JMM A RY
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2004-02: PETITION RZ-2003-AR-4080, HIBISCUS
CHURCH, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "GC" GOLF
COURSE TO "CF" COMMUNITY FACILITY FOR A CHURCH
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD AND DORAL CIRCLE, IN
SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COIJlJlF, R COl JNTY~ FI~ORIDA
Item # 17B
RESOLUTION 2004-04: PETITION CUR-2003-AR-3776,
REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE RE-REVIEW OF CU-98-
12, BY WILLIAM L. MCDANIEL, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 4125 OIL WELL ROAD (CR 858), FURTHER DESCRIBED
AS SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST,
COIJJIFR COl INTY~ FI,ORIDA.
Item #17C
Page 208
January 13, 2004
RESOLUTION 2004-05: PETITION AVPLAT 2003-AR-4700
DISCLAIMING, RENOUNCING, AND VACATING THE
COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF
THE 15 FOOT WIDE COUNTY UTILITY EASEMENT
LOCATED IN TRACT "D", ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF
"RIVERCHASE SHOPPING CENTER" AS RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 18, PAGES 19 THROUGH 20, PUBLIC RECORDS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 22,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOl JTH, RANGFJ 25 F. AST
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2004-06 REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA) TO EXTEND THE
TERMINATION DATE FO THE COUNTY'S CDBG AWARD
AGREEMENT FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT UNDER THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CATEGORY THAT PROVIDED FOR A PORTION OF THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE MANUFACTURING FACILITY II AT
THF, IMMOKAI,F,F, RF, GIONAI, AIRPORT INDIISTRIAIJ PARK.
Item # 17E
RESOLUTION 2004-07: PETITION PE-2003-AR-4261, DOUG
SCHROEDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
COCOHATCHEE NATURE CENTER, REQUESTING A
PARKING EXEMPTION TO ALLOW OFF-SITE PARKING VIA
A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT, PURSUANT TO LDC
2.3.4.1.C., BETWEEN THE COCOHATCHEE NATURE CENTER
AND THE PEWTER MUG. ACCESS BETWEEN THE
PROPERTIES WILL BE VIA A PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN
Page 209
January 13, 2004
WALKWAY UNDER THE U.S. 41 BRIDGE OVER THE
COCOHATCHEE RIVER. THE COCOHATCHEE NATURE
CENTER IS LOCATED AT 12345 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, IN
SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COI,IJFR COl JNTY; FI.ORIDA.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:42 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
D ONlk~" Fi~A'~A, Ul~a~an
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E~,t3RO{ .'K, CLERK
he~m~u~
Board
as prt-..~,ented.. ,,.,,~,~.,,,.. ,. or as co~ected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS AND CHERIE
NOTTINGHAM
Page 210