BCC Minutes 02/24/2004 RFebruary 24, 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, February 24, 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 governing 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:
Donna Fiala
Fred W. Coyle
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
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
February 24, 2004
9:00 a.m.
Donna Fiala, Chairman, District 1
Fred W. Coyle, Vice-Chairman, District 4
Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
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. 2003-53, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES
THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS".
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
1
February 24, 2004
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.
*Commissioners will be attending a lunch/question and answer session with the
Greater Naples Leadership Group in the Human Resources Training Room *
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor David Mallory, First Assembly Ministries
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. January 20, 2004 - BCC/Strategic Planning Workshop
C. January 27, 2004 - BCC Regular
D. January 29, 2004 - BCC/LDC Meeting
E. February 5, 2004 - District 5 Town Hall Meeting
SERVICE AWARDS
PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation proclaiming the week of February 22 through 28, 2004 as
Engineers Week. To be accepted by Edward J. Kant, P.E., Director of
Transportation Operations.
2
February 24, 2004
e
Be
Ce
Proclamation to designate February 24, 2004 as Children's Day in Collier
County. To be accepted by Patti Young, Executive Director of Collier
School Readiness Coalition.
Proclamation to recognize the month of March as National Purchasing
Month. To be accepted by the Collier County Purchasing staff.
De
Proclamation to recognize Veteran's Transportation Program and all of their
services for helping all the Veteran's in our Community with their
transportation needs. To be accepted by Jim Elson, President of the Collier
County Veteran's Council.
PRESENTATIONS
Recommendation to recognize Lieutenant Michele Williamson, Paramedic,
Emergency Medical Services, as Employee of the Month for February 2004.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
Ae
Public Petition request by Mr. John Veit to discuss arrangements for
participants in the 4th of July Festivities.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2002-AR-3542
Dwight H. Nadeau of RWA, Inc., and Richard D. Yovanovich of Goodlette,
Coleman and Johnson, P.A., representing Waterways Joint Venture IV, the
applicant, requesting: (1) rezoning from an "A" Agricultural Zoning District
to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) District for a project to
be known as the Bristol Pines RPUD. This project proposes a maximum of
159 dwelling units (an overall density of 6.98 units per acre), to consist of
any combination of single-family attached, zero lot line, or single-family
detached unit type construction; and (2) consideration and approval of an
affordable housing density bonus agreement authorizing the developer to
utilize affordable housing bonus density units (in the amount of 68 units at
2.98 bonus density units per acre) in the development of this project for low-
income residents. The 22.77+ acre subject site is located on the east side of
Collier Boulevard (CR 951), approximately 1 mile south of Immokalee
3
February 24, 2004
Road, at 14750 Collier Boulevard in Section 35, Township 48 south, Range
26 east, Collier County, Florida.
An Ordinance of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 89-69, as
amended, regarding inoculation of Coconut Palm Trees against Lethal
Yellowing disease; expanding the scope of the ordinance to apply to the
Malayan and Maypan Coconut Palm Trees and to the Phoenix Date Palm
group (Date Palm and Canary Island Palm) and Christmas Palms; delegating
responsibilities to Code Enforcement; authorizing the County to take
remedial actions without first instructing the land owner to take such actions;
providing for inclusion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances; providing for
conflict and severability; providing an effective date.
This item to be heard at 1:30 p.m. An Ordinance amending Ordinance
Number 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code,
which includes the Comprehensive Regulations for the unincorporated area
of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, recitals: Section
Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of amendments to the Land
Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Article 3,
Division 3.13, including revisions to coastal construction setback line
variance; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, inclusion in
the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, effective date.
This item continued from the January 27~ 2004 BCC Meeting. Public
hearing to consider adoption of an Ordinance of Collier County, Florida,
amending Ordinance Number 99-38, the Collier County Maximum Fees for
Non-Consent Towing and Storage of Vehicles Ordinance; amending Section
Four to clarify that vehicle towing companies, when engaged in non-consent
towing or non-consent storage, shall not charge any administrative charge or
fee unless the towing company actually incurs such cost as a direct expense
and pays that expense; amending Section Six regarding the County's
wrecker operator system and clarifying penalty provisions. (David Weigel,
County Attorney)
An ordinance amending Ordinance 81-75 by adding Section Twelve entitled
Classifications and Certificates; providing for Inclusion in Code of Laws and
Ordinances; providing for conflict and severability; and providing for an
effective date. (John Dunnuck, Public Services Administrator)
FJ
This item being continued to the March 23~ 2004 BCC Meeting. PUDZ-
03-AR-3831, Robert Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing
4
Februa~ 24, 2004
e
10.
Robert Reed, of Reed Development Company, requesting a rezone from
"PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for the purpose of changing the
name from Goodland Gateway PUD to the Calusa Island Village PUD,
increasing the number of dwelling units from 47 to 52 units reducing the
commercial area known as the Commercial/Mixed Use area from 0.45 acres
to 0.12 acres of commercial use area with a maximum of 1,300 square feet
of commercial uses, and eliminate many permitted commercial uses that
were no longer deemed compatible with residential uses. The subject
property is located south of Goodland Drive and east of Calusa Marina, in
Sections 18 & 19, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 6.2+ acres.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Appointment of member to the Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
Bo
This item to be heard at 2:00 p.m. Accept the final report of the Collier
County Revenue Commission, an Ad Hoc Advisory Board, created to
explore alternative revenue sources for meeting the County's numerous and
varied needs. (James R. Gibson Jr., Revenue Commission Chairman)
Ce
Review a recommendation from the Collier County Tourist Development
Council (TDC) on the addition of a fourth percent of the Tourist
Development Tax in Collier County.
De
Approve a joint resolution with Lee County to pursue a legislatively
established expressway authority to make it possible to widen 1-75 through
toll financing as outlined in Representative Davis' Expressway Authority
Bill.
Approve a Resolution supporting the preservation of the State
Transportation Trust Fund. (Norman Feder, Transportation Services
Administrator)
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Ao
Item continued from the February 10~ 2003 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to ratify a tri-party agreement between Everglades City,
Ochopee Fire Control District and Club Everglades Development Group for
funds donated to provide needed fire and rescue equipment and to approve
the award of Bid Number 04-3604, for the purchase of a power catamaran
5
I::ebrua~ 24, 2004
Ce
boat in the amount of $43,713.50 to Twin Vee Inc. (Dan Summers,
Director, Emergency Management)
Approve a development agreement with V.K. Development Corporation of
Wisconsin, Inc., which agreement implements that portion of the Wentworth
Estates PUD, wherein the County agreed that the developer would receive,
on payment of one-half of the estimated road impact fees ($2,836,419.25),
Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy for transportation for 1200 dwelling
units, 85,000 square feet of retail commercial uses, and an 18 hole golf
course, in exchange for the developer, among other things (1) improving the
intersections of US 41/Southwest Boulevard and US 41/north entrance to the
Wentworth Estates PUD; (2) paying County $392,800 towards
improvements to the intersections at US 41/Airport Road and US
41/Rattlesnake-Hammock Road; (3) providing up to $250,000 to supplement
the funding for the installation of street lighting by the County along US 41
from Broward Street to Collier Boulevard; (4) Improving Southwest
Boulevard at an estimated cost of $350,000; (5) Conveying, at no cost to the
County, appropriate easements associated with the proposed Lely-Manor
Western Outfall Canal and Lely-Manor Eastern Outfall Canal Storm Water
Management Facilities; and (6) reduction of 1,000 vested units from the
Lely Resorts PUD/DRI. (Norman Feder, Transportation Services
Administrator)
Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to approve the
filing of a petition to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for an
Administrative Hearing to challenge the Florida Department of Community
Affairs' Notice of Intent to find the amendment to the City of Naples
Comprehensive Plan in compliance as it pertains to the construction of
overpasses and flyovers. (Norman Feder, Transportation Services
Administrator)
Approve the scope of work for the development of Goodland Boating Park.
(John Dunnuck, Public Services Administrator)
Item continued from the February 10, 2004 BCC Meeting. This item to
be heard at 1:45 p.m. For the Board of County Commissioners to consider
a request from the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory
Committee to partner with the M.S.T.U. in the development of a Master Plan
at a cost of one-half of the total cost of the Master Plan at an amount not to
exceed $40,000. (Norman Feder, Transportation Services Administrator)
6
February 24, 2004
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
Ae
This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. A Resolution supporting full and
adequate funding for the State Court System and the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit to ensure justice for all Floridians.
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
Ae
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Petition AVESMT2003-AR4981 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the
County's and the Public's interest in the water retention easement
conveyed to Collier County by separate instrument and recorded in
Official Record Book 808, Pages 1899 through 1900, and in the
drainage easement conveyed to Collier County by separate instrument
and recorded in Official Record Book 808, Pages 1901 through 1902,
Public Records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 15,
Township 48 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
2)
Petition CARNY-2004-AR-5367, Benny Starling, Executive Director
of Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, requesting permit to conduct a
carnival from February 26 through March 7, 2004, on property located
at 110 North 1 st Street in Immokalee.
3)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "White Lake
Corporate Park Phase Four", and approval of the Standard Form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
7
February 24, 2004
4)
5)
6)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Terrabella of
Pelican Marsh Unit Two", and approval of the Standard Form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
Petition CARNY-2004-AR-5343, Peg Ruby, Special Events
Coordinator, Collier County Parks and Recreation, requesting a permit
to conduct the annual Country Jamboree Carnival on March 12, 13
and 14, 2004, in the Vineyards Community Park at 6231 Arbor
Boulevard, Naples.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Cayo Costa, Unit
One", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
7)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "City Gate
Commerce Center, Phase One", and approval of the Standard Form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security; and accept certain required off site
drainage easements which are associated with this project.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Award Work Order No. UC-090 to Douglas N. Higgins, Inc., for the
Palm Street Outfall Project (Project No. 51804) in the amount of
$594,525.00, approve two donation agreements, and accept two
drainage and utility easements, to be used for storm water site
improvements and temporary staging within the area of the project.
2)
Board approval for a six (6) month extension to Bid No. 99-2955-
"Immokalee Road Grounds Maintenance Service" to Commercial
Land Maintenance, Inc.
3)
Approve Bid #04-3597 "Davis Boulevard Phase II MSTD Roadway
Grounds Maintenance" and award to Advanced Lawn in the amount
of $84,956.00.
4)
Approval of Contract #03-3559 "Consultant Services for the Update
of the Collier County Comprehensive Pathway Plan", for the not to
exceed amount of $99,976.00, with Sprinkle Consulting Inc.
8
February 24, 2004
5)
6)
Approve the final Change Order No. 9 in the amount of $253,938.35
to be removed from the purchase order with Bonness, Inc., and place
into Transportation's budget to close out the Livingston Road Phase
IV Project, from Immokalee Road to the county line, Project No.
65041, Bid No. 02-3364.
Award a construction contract in the amount of $96,000.00 to Stemic
Enterprises, Inc. and allocate $9,600.00 (10% of the construction cost)
for contingency purposes to dredge Natures Point along the Golden
Gate Main Canal, Project Number 51601, Bid No. 03-3530.
Ce
7)
Approve the addition of two positions to the Stormwater Management
Department to be funded by the South Florida Water Management
District/Big Cypress Basin in the amount estimated at $169,000 to
assist staff with the primary and secondary canal system.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Approve a second amendment to lease agreement with Carlton Lakes,
L.L.C., to extend the term of the existing lease twelve additional
months, at a total revenue of $8820.
2)
Rescind award of Bid #03-3533 to Crane Equipment and Service Inc.,
and award to Florida Handling Systems, Inc., in the amount of
$26,800.
3)
Approve Change Order No. 1 to Task Order No. 6 in the amount of
$747,040.50 with Youngquist Brothers, Inc., for North County Water
Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) Deep Injection Well Construction,
Contract 01-3193, Project 73948.
4) This item has been deleted.
Approve Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Certification of Financial Responsibility form, for the South County
Water Reclamation Facility Injection Well, IW 1.
6)
Approve Work Order UC-093 to Mitchell & Stark Construction
Company, Inc. for underground utility contracting services related to
the South County Regional Water Reclamation Facility, Injection
Well IW-2, Project 73154.
February 24, 2004
De
te
Go
7)
Approve Work Order ABB-FT-04-04 to Agnoli, Barber and Brundage
(ABB) in the amount of $158,150.00 for engineering services for the
design and construction inspection of a master pump station under
Contract 01-3290 - fixed term professional engineering services,
Project 73153.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Approval of Settlement Agreement between the Florida Department
of Children and Family Services and Collier County regarding the
Immokalee Community Park.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
Recommendation to declare certain County-owned property as surplus
and authorize a sale of the surplus property on March 13, 2004.
2)
Approve a budget amendment to carry forward $462,232 for the Fleet
County Barn Facility, Project 52009.
3)
Approval of the Annual Group Insurance Actuarial and Brokerage
Services Workplan for 2004 and an amendment to the existing
agreement.
4)
Recommendation to reject all proposals received under Bid 04-3610,
Vending Machine Services.
5)
Approve a budget amendment in the amount of $125,000 to provide
funding for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements at
Golden Gate Community Park and the Harmon Turner Administration
Building (Building F) to accommodate access for public visitors with
disabilities.
COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - BA #04-123 in the amount
of $13,604; BA #04-131 in the amount of $14,000.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
10
February 24, 2004
Je
1)
2)
3)
Commissioner Henning's request for approval for payment to attend a
function serving a valid public purpose; the American Business
Women's Association luncheon to honor "Women in History,
Remember When..." in the amount of $75.00.
Commissioner Coletta's request for approval for payment to attend a
function serving a valid public purpose; Florida Tradeport Briefing &
Barbecue Luncheon in the amount of $50.00.
Commissioner Halas' request for approval for payment to attend a
function serving a valid public purpose; Florida Tradeport Briefing &
Barbecue Luncheon in the amount of $50.00.
4)
Commissioner Fiala's request for approval for payment to attend
functions serving a valid public purpose; the American Business
Women's Association Luncheon to honor "Women in History,
Remember When..." in the amount of $75.00.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Approve agreed order and authorize payment of appraisal fees in the
lawsuit styled Collier County v. David J. Frey, et al, Case No. 03-
2353-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project #60027).
2)
Approve the stipulated final judgment relative to the acquisition of
Parcels 219 and 219T in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Kathryn
Hankins, et al, Case No. 00-1296-CA, Golden Gate Boulevard Project
No. 63041.
3)
Approve the agreed order awarding Expert Fees relative to the Fee
Taking of Parcel No. 194 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Robert W. Pieplow, et us., et al., Case No. 02-2133-CA (Immokalee
Road Project #60018).
4)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the acquisition of
Parcel No. 199 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Joseph Delucia,
11
February 24, 2004
17.
Trustee, et al., Case No. 00-0938-CA, Golden Gate Boulevard Project
#63041.
5)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the acquisition of
Parcel 161 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. John W. Schiebel,
et. al., Case No. 03-2872-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project #60027).
SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE
QUASIJUDICAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN
IN.
Ao
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition
AVPLAT2003-AR4683 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 along the rear of Lot 4, according to the plat of"Villa Fontana Unit
One" as recorded in Plat book 16, Pages 71 through 72, Public Records of
Collier County, Florida, located in Section 8, Township 49 south, Range 26
east.
Bm
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CUE-2003-AR-4856,
James K. Keiser, representing Southem Exposure of Naples Inc., requesting
a one-year extension of an approved Conditional Use for a clothing optional
social club located at 1311 Jaybird Way, in Section 18, Township 49 south,
Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida, consisting of approximately 8.71
acres.
C. Approval to repeal Ordinance 77-58, Marco Water and Sewer District.
12
February24,2004
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
13
February 24, 2004
February 24, 2004
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats.
Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. The meeting will
be called to order.
And we have our invocation first.
David, would you like to come up and give our invocation.
Reverend David Mallory. Please, stand.
REVEREND MALLORY: Our lovingly heavenly Father, we
thank you for this gift of life that you've given each of us. And you
told us that you would direct our footsteps, you also said, Lord, that
you would give us wisdom.
I thank you for these commissioners, the lives you've given them,
and the calling you've given them, and the purpose.
And I pray now, Lord, that everything be done for your honor
and your glory. We thank you for this county, we thank you for this
beautiful state that we live in, and we just covet your blessing. Amen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Amen.
We'll say the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in
unison.)
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA- APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Now you can be seated.
Thank you all for being here this morning. It's kind of nice to see a
full house here.
County Attorney, do you have anything to add to the agenda or
Page 2
February 24, 2004
any comments?
MR. WEIGEL: No comment other than the agenda changes as
noted, reflecting county attorney's comments. We may have comment
about 10(A) in conjunction with the county manager. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
County manager?
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, good morning.
First of all, I'd like to welcome the Greater Naples Leadership
Class. If I could get them to raise their hands so you know where
they're at. Okay? They're back there and they're watching. We're
going to have lunch with them, okay, and then tomorrow I'll spend
some time with them along with some of our administrators.
But the agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioner
meeting, February 24th, 2004:
Item 8(D), will be -- was continued from 27 January, 2004 BCC
meeting and is further continued indefinitely. And this is the basic
change to the towing ordinance that the county attorney's office and
the towing industry are working on in order to get some of the things
fixed in it.
So, again, the towing ordinance changes will be continued
indefinitely.
Add item 10(F), and this is an award of bid 04-3616, advertising
of delinquent real estate and personal property taxes for 2003, and
that's at staff's request.
The rest of the items are notes.
First of all, I mentioned it before, I'll mention again. County
Commissioners will be meeting with Greater Naples Leadership
Group at the new Human Resources training room for lunch and a
question and answer session, during our break today, our lunch break
today.
Time certain items:
Item 8(C) to be heard at 1:30 p.m. That's an ordinance amending
Page 3
February 24, 2004
ordinance number 91-102 as amended to the Collier County Land
Development Code, and that basically has to do with beach
renourishment and allowing that to happen, and that's section 3.13.
Item 9(B) to be heard at two p.m., and that's to accept the final
report of the Collier County Revenue Commission and Ad Hoc
Advisory Board created to explore alternative revenue sources for
meeting the county's numerous and varied needs.
Item 10(D) to be heard after two p.m. I got a late request from
some Goodland folks yesterday, and I -- instead of having them sit
around all day, get them in after two p.m. this afternoon, and that's to
approve the scope of work for the development of the Goodland
Boating Park.
Next item is item 10(E) to be heard at 1:45 p.m. for the Board of
County Commissioners to consider a request from the Vanderbilt
Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee to partner with the
MSTU in the development of a master plan at a cost of one half the
total cost of the master plan at an amount not to exceed $40,000.
And the last item I have is item 13(A) to be heard at 10 a.m., and
that's a resolution supporting full and adequate funding for the state
court system and the 20th Judicial Circuit to ensure justice for all
Floridians.
That's all I have, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioners, do you have anything -- any additions or
corrections or changes to the -- to the agenda this morning?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I don't have any additions or
corrections. I have one ex parte, and that is on 8(A).
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, that one we'll get when we get to 8.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, great.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No summary agenda ex parte?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not on the summary agenda.
Page 4
February 24, 2004
Nothing --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry. I should ask that. Excuse me.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no additions or changes,
however, I do have a declaration to make on the summary agenda.
17(B); I've talked to the petitioner and his representatives a
number of times and received correspondence, emails, and phone
calls.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no ex parte
communication or anything to come off the consent.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no other changes to the
agenda, nor do I have any ex parte disclosures for the summary
agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
And I have no changes or additions to the agenda and nothing to
take off or remove or put on to another session, and no -- no ex parte
for the summary agenda. Thank you.
Now may I hear a motion to approve the agenda?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So move.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. A motion to approve by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Coyle to approve the
regular agenda, the consent, and the summary agenda as amended, or
as submitted, excuse me.
All those in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 5
February 24, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Page 6
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
February 24, 2004
Item 8D was continued from the January 27, 2004 BCC meetinR and is further
continued indefinitely. Public hearing to consider adoption of an Ordinance of
Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 99-38, the Collier County
Maximum Fees for Non-Consent Towing and Storage of Vehicles Ordinance;
amending Section Four to clarify that vehicle towing companies, when engaged in
non-consent towing or non-consent storage, shall not charge any administrative
charge or fee unless the towing company actually incurs such cost as a direct
expense and pays that expense; amending Section Six regarding the County's
wrecker operator system and clarifying penalty provisions. (Staff request.)
Add Item 10F: Award of Bid #04-3616 "Advertising of Delinquent Real Estate and
Personal Property Taxes for 2003". (Staff's request)
NOTE: County Commissioners will be meeting with the Greater Naples
Leadership group at the new Human Resources training room for lunch and a
question and answer session.
Time Certain Items:
Item 8C to be heard at 1:30 p.m. An ordinance amending Ordinance Number 91-
102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code...
Item 9B to be heard at 2:00 p.m. Accept the final report of the Collier County
Revenue Commission, an Ad Hoc Advisory Board, created to explore alternative
revenue sources for meeting the County's numerous and varied needs.
Item 10D to be heard after 2:00 p.m. Approve the scope of work for the
development of Goodland Boating Park.
Item 10E to be heard at 1:45 p.m. For the Board of County Commissioners to
consider a request from the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory
Committee to partner with the M.S.T.U. in the development of a Master Plan at a
cost of one-half of the total cost of the Master Plan at an amount not to exceed
$40,000.
Item 13A to be heard at 10:00 a.m. A Resolution supporting full and adequate
funding for the State Court System and the Twentieth Judicial Circuit to ensure
justice for all Floridians.
February 24, 2004
Items #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E
MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 2004 BCC/STRATEGIC PLANNING
WORKSHOP, MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2004 BCC REGULAR
MEETING, MINUTES OF JANUARY 29, 2004 BCC/LDC
MEETING, MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 5, 2004 DISTRICT 5
TOWN HAI,Ii MF, F, TING- APPROVFJD
May I have a motion to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the January
20th, '04 BCC Strategic Planning Workshop, January 27, '04 regular
meeting, January 29th, '04, BCC/LDC meeting, and February 5th, '04,
town hall meeting in Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
And opposed, like sign.
Very good.
We now have service awards.
MR. MUDD:
CHAIRMAN
MR. MUDD:
CHAIRMAN
MR. MUDD:
CHAIRMAN
There are no service awards, Madam Chair.
FIALA: No service awards.
That brings us to --
FIALA: Proclamations, okay.
-- proclamations.
FIALA: Proclamations.
Page 7
February 24, 2004
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY
22 THROI JGH 287 2004 AS ENGINEERS WEEK - ADOPTED
The first one will be presented by Cormnissioner Halas proclaiming
the week of February 22nd through the 28th as Engineers Week. To be
accepted by Ed Kant, Director of Transportation Operations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, do you have any other
engineers out in the audience? I think we ought to get them out here.
It's a very important document--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see them streaming in.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
engineers be down here?
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
-- proclamation, I should say.
Should all engineers -- should all
Well, we've got a great group of
engineers here, led by our county manager, Jim Mudd.
Whereas, engineers are real movers and shakers in our world.
They design structures to stand up to earthquakes, they travel into
outer space. From computer chips to potato chips, their work makes a
world of difference in our lives because engineers are practical
inventors and problem solvers; and,
Whereas, creativity is not only expressed in art, music, drama,
and literature. Modem engineers strive to give shape to our material
world, build environment, and systems for information and power;
and,
Whereas, engineers perform outstanding work in their everyday
lives and, throughout (sic) the efforts of the National Society of
Professional Engineers, a new generation is proving that they, too,
have important contributions to give to the world by taking part in
educational groups and programs such as new "Faces of Engineering,"
"Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day," "ZOOM Into Engineering,"
Page 8
February 24, 2004
and "Visioneering"; and;
Whereas, the engineering profession has changed much in recent
decades with globalization of the workforce, and to commemorate this
advancement this year's National Engineers Week will, for the first
time, expand beyond U.S. Boarders to involve our international
colleagues; and,
Whereas, President George Bush acknowledges the contribution
of American (sic) engineers to our technological progress,
infrastructure, strength, and prosperity. He also recognizes engineers
for their dedication to improve our quality of life and revolutionizing
the way we learn, work, and communicate.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that February 22nd
through the 28th, 2004, is designated as National Engineers Week in
Collier County.
Done and ordered this 24th day of February, 2004, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Donna Fiala,
chairman.
I move for approval of this important proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a move for approval by
Commissioner Halas, and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Congratulations.
(Applause.)
Page 9
February 24, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That was pretty nice, huh? What a
line-up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Ed, go by the -- oh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've got a picture.
MR. KANT: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
On this 53rd anniversary of the National Engineers Week, I
would like to thank you on behalf of the approximately three dozen
professional engineers and engineer interns on your staff, and on
behalf of the several hundred professional engineers and engineer
interns working in industry and other government entities here in
Collier County. We are honored to be accepting this proclamation on
their behalf.
As professional engineers, my colleagues and I work to assure
that Collier County's infrastructure is up to the task of providing
adequate potable water, adequate wastewater disposal, adequate solid
waste disposal, safe roads and highways, pleasant public buildings and
public spaces.
Any rapidly growing and maturing metropolitan area has
problems keeping up, but we are dedicated to providing the
infrastructure that allows our fellow citizens to keep the quality of life
in Collier County at the high level that is expected of us.
Thank you, again, for this honor and for taking the time to
recognize our contributions to the well-being of all citizens of Collier
County.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Ed.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE FEBRUARY 24, 2004 AS
CHII,DRF, N'S DAY IN COIJlJlER COl JNTY- ADOPTF, D
Page 10
February 24, 2004
Our next proclamation is to designate February 24th as Children's
Day in Collier County. To be accepted by Patti Young, executive
director of Collier County Readiness Coalition. They must be the
reason our room is decorated so beautifully, I guess.
Commissioner Coletta, will you read that proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would be my pleasure,
Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I think we need to wait here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Bring the children on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, my goodness.
MS. MclNTYRE: They're our future engineers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I guess. Aren't they beautiful? Look at
the innocent faces of those little ones.
right
high
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about the innocent faces
up here?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll tell you right now, this is the
point of the whole day.
Whereas, the Collier School Readiness Coalition, in conjunction
the Florida's Children's Forum and the Florida state legislators
is celebrating Children's Day during the month of February 2004;
with
(sic)
and,
Whereas, research on brain development indicates that
stimulating and nurturing environments during a child's first five years
of life are critical to long-term development and school readiness; and,
Whereas, the ability of Collier County parents to work is tied to
their ability to obtain and afford high-quality earlier education and
care programs; and,
Whereas, businesses and communities benefit when children are
provided high-quality early childhood programs; and,
Whereas, working families must be assured of high-quality early
childhood programs so that their children can be ready to begin school
Page 11
February 24, 2004
and to exceed in school; and,
Whereas, by calling attention to the need for quality early
education and care programs for all young children and their families
in our community, we hope to improve the quality and availability of
such services; and,
Whereas, parents, children, teachers and children care workers
will demonstrate their dedication to the needs of children with
celebrations throughout Collier County and the State of Florida; and,
Whereas, Collier School Readiness Coalition, Incorporated,
Childcare of Southwest Florida, Incorporated, School Districts of
Collier County, Redlands Christian Migrant Association,
Incorporated, Collier County Health Department, Department of
Children and Families, and other agencies, will continue to collaborate
in their community to advance the needs of children and families
through high-quality early education and care services.
And, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that we hereby proclaim
Tuesday, February 24th, 2004, Children's Day in Collier County and
urge all citizens of Collier County to support quality early education
and care for all children.
Done and ordered this 24th day of February, 2004, Donna Fiala,
chairman.
And I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Coletta, and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 12
February 24, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we get the pleasure of actually
looking at these wonderful children. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, a couple of our fellow commissioners
are going down. Do you want to all go down there?
MR. YOUNG: They have something for you also, if you did
want to come down.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, great.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe we should sit on the
floor, too. We have to get up again, too.
MR. MUDD: Smile, guys. Everybody smile.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you want to take one more picture?
Everybody look at the lady at the camera and smile.
MR. MUDD: Come on, everybody smile and say cheese.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Before you go back up, the
children have made you something, all of you something.
COMMISSIONER MUDD: Oh, thank you so much.
Donna, it looks just like you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why don't we pass them on
down. Well, this one's supposed to look like --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, dear. There we go.
Those beans are edible, too.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, they actually move in here. These
are beautiful. Did you guys make these?
UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: I didn't do it. Ms. Simry (phonetic)
did.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
You guys helped, right?
I bet she taught you how to do this, right?
Page 13
February 24, 2004
That's the wonderful thing about children, they're so beautifully
honest, aren't they?
Thank you very much.
Oh, am I in your chair?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can stay here though.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I was so excited with the children.
MS. MclNTYRE: My name is Patti Mclntyre (phonetic), the
director or Precious Cargo Academy and a member of the Collier
County School Readiness Coalition.
I would like to thank you for this, our third children's day
proclamation. The children today have given you dolls that they made
representing the Collier families receiving childcare assistance. We
hope that you'll keep them on your desk so that they will remind you
of the needs of children and that they are our future.
Childcare assistance is provided through the Collier County
School Readiness Coalition and Childcare of Southwest Florida. The
following statistics are certainly eye-openers, and know (sic) you will
find them of interest.
Currently 1,156 children are being helped with 1,569 children on
the waiting list. Currently -- or in 2002-2003, 2,321 children received
childcare services. At this time in Collier County, there are 10,183
children under five years of age in early childcare and education
programs throughout Collier County.
And we want to thank you again for your interest and attention
today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And thanks for decorating --
MS. MclNTYRE: Happy Children's Day.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- our room.
MS. MclNTYRE: Boys and girls, would you like to stand up,
please? We want you to listen to the last verse of this -- this song.
Very special.
Okay. Boys and girls are you ready? ABC's, let's go.
Page 14
February 24, 2004
(The ABCs were recited in unison with the
last verse being, "Won't you please support our
needs.")
MS. MclNTYRE: And we'd like to invite you, anytime that you
ever want to go through one of our early childhood centers in Collier
County, to please make arrangements. It would make your day.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Looks like we have an
exhibitionist this morning.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, that could be the Greater Naples
Leadership Class some 40 years from now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yes, that's exactly right.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE THE MONTH OF MARCH
AS NATIONAl, PI JRCHA,qING MONTH - ADOPTED
Next we have a proclamation to recognize the month of March as
National Purchasing Month, to be accepted by the Collier County
purchasing staff.
And, Commissioner Henning, will you read the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Whereas, purchasing professional (sic) plays a significant role in
the efficiency and effectiveness of government and business; and,
Whereas, purchasing professionals, throughout (sic) their
combined purchasing power, spend millions (sic) of dollars every year
and have a significant influence on the economic conditions
throughout the world; and,
Whereas, Collier County Purchasing Department provides
value-added services such as contract negotiations and administration,
vendor management, and training; and,
Page 15
February 24, 2004
Whereas, Collier County Purchasing Department and
professional purchasing associations throughout the world engages in
special efforts during the month of March and (sic) information --
inform the public about the important (sic) of the role played by
purchasing professionals (sic) in businesses, industry, and
government.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed the Board of Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, recognizes the importance of purchasing
professionals (sic) in general and the Collier County Purchasing
Department in particular, and hereby declare the month of March,
2004, as National Purchasing Month.
Done in this order, 21st-- 24th day of February, 2004.
I move that we approved.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve by --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- Commissioner Henning, second by
Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
heroes.
Opposed, like sign.
Thank you for being here. Our unsung
Would you stand for a picture. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks for coming.
MR. CARNELL: Madam Chairman, if I could, just briefly.
wanted everyone to know -- I'm Steve Carnell, your purchasing,
I
Page 16
February 24, 2004
general services director.
And a couple of events that we're going to be doing to participate
in National Purchasing Month, we'll be having an open house next
Friday, March the 5th, and then we'll also be offering a seminar --
we're offering a seminar to our vendors on Friday, March the 12th, on
how to do business with the county. And we've had a number who
have signed up already.
If we have anybody who -- in the audience who's interested in
more information about that, please contact my department so you can
participate in that. And we'll also be taking part in the government
day's event at the Coastland Center in April as well.
So, again, thank you for your time this morning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you so much.
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE VETERAN'S
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND ALL OF THEIR
SERVICES FOR HELPING ALL THE VETERAN'S IN OUR
COMMUNITY WITH THEIR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS -
ADOPTF. D
Our next proclamation, and last proclamation, by the way, will be
presented to recognize the Veterans' Transportation Program and all of
their services for helping all of the veterans in our community with
their transportation needs, to be accepted by Jim Elson, president of
the Collier County Veterans' Council, and to be read by Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jim, would you come forward.
MR. ELSON: Yes. And I'd like the drivers that are participating
and volunteers in our program to please come forward as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that it? Okay.
Page 17
February 24, 2004
Whereas, the Veterans' Transportation Program is a cooperative
effort between the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
and the Collier County Veterans' Council; and,
Whereas, the purpose of the transportation program is to provide
free transportation for Collier County veterans to VA health care
facilities in Fort Myers, Bay Pines, Tampa, and other facilities in
South Florida; and,
Whereas, the drivers in this program are all volunteers who
donate their time and effort to see that our veterans receive needed
health care in a timely manner; and,
Whereas, the families of these volunteers also contribute to the
success of this program by supporting the volunteers and the goals of
the transportation program; and,
Whereas, in 2003, our volunteer drivers logged 72,026
accident-free miles, made 319 trips to VA medical facilities, and
contributed 2,277 hours.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that we offer our
appreciation and our thanks to the volunteer drivers, office staff, and
their families, for their efforts in making the quality of life better for
the veterans in our community.
Done and ordered this 24th day of February, 2004, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Donna Fiala,
chairman.
Madam Chair, I make a motion that we approve this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 18
February 24, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Opposed, like sign.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for all --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- for all the help that you provide all of
our veterans.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good to see you again.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nice to see you, Nick.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good to see you again.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Great to see you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thanks for your service.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's so nice that you guys are doing this to
help others, thank you. Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nice to see you again. Thank you
for your service.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. ELSON: The Veterans' Transportation Service is a product
of many people and their efforts: A special thanks to Joanne Dalbey,
who is our coordinator-- (Applause.)
MR. ELSON: -- and really the central point of contacts, and also
Peter Kraley, who's our director of veterans -- veteran services, whose
efforts are never-ending, to make sure everything happens the way it
should. Thank you both.
The 72,000 miles was accomplished by 24 drivers. I'd just
quickly read their names; Julias "Jiggs" Futo, Don Colbert, Arlie
Page 19
February 24, 2004
Cantrell, Ron DeBo, Steven Driscoll, David Graham, Ralph
Guckenberger, Bill Hauke, Ken Mabuchi, Don Mielke -- I said it
wrong, sorry -- Arthur Pope, Neil Pritchard, Nick Roberts, Paul Seday,
Wes Stevenson, Bill Tilton, and Jim Wiley. All of these people
dedicate hours upon hours, and I thank them all.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Item #5A
RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE LIEUTENANT
MICHELE WILLIAMSON, PARAMEDIC, EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR
FF, BRI JARY 2004- PRF, SENTFJD
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now I'd like Michele Williamson to
come forward, please. I hope she's here. Yes.
It gives me great pleasure to recognize Lieutenant Michele
Williamson as Employee of the Month for February, 2004. And I'm
going to embarrass you.
When not on duty, Lieutenant Michele Williamson teaches
courses in pediatric advanced life support, basic trauma support-- life
support, and advanced cardiac life support. Michele teaches as many
as 12 classes during the year.
While on duty, Lieutenant Williamson helps to train new
employees and is viewed as a go-to person when it comes to working
with the new trainees. She has recently been appointed to field
training officer. In this role, Lieutenant Williamson will be training
the new paramedics in preparation for certification by our medical
director.
Lieutenant Williamson's customer service is exemplary. Her
philosophy of customer service is simple, treat everyone like they
were a member of your own family. Lieutenant Williamson always
Page 20
February 24, 2004
goes the extra mile to help those in need.
Recently, Michele helped an elderly diabetic patient raise their
blood sugar level by helping prepare their breakfast. While the patient
did not want to go to the hospital, they still needed assistance, and
Michele made sure that the patient received it.
Michele also helps her patients complete the File-of-Life forms to
better prepare them to receive the quality of life they deserve.
There have been many other instances where Lieutenant
Williamson went above and beyond her call of duty. She is noted for
her kindness and compassion.
Lieutenant Williamson's professional achievements include an
AS degree and the Fire Company Leadership class. The American
Heart Association has certified Lieutenant Williamson to such
advanced paramedic level courses as ACLS, BTLS and APLS. She
obtained these credentials on her own time and is greatly admired by
her colleagues for her dedication.
Lieutenant Williamson is an active member of the United Way
and is a member of the Lee Memorial Hospital Military Support
Group.
Please join me in applauding Lieutenant Williamson.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What a great person. We have a plaque
for you. We have a check for you. I have to congratulate staff for
doing this.
MS. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. JOHN VEIT TO DISCUSS
ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARTICIPANTS IN THE 4TM OF JULY
Page 21
February 24, 2004
FESTIVITIES - TO BE BROUGHT BACK AT A FUTURE BCC
MEETING
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, public petitions.
MR. MUDD: This is 6(A). It's a public petition request from
Mr. John Veit to discuss arrangement for participation of the 4th of
July festivities. He's here. He's over against the wall, but he's waiting
for some --
MR. VEIT: Traffic.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Making his way.
MR. VEIT: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is John
Veit, for the record. I work for the Collier County Parks and
Recreation Department, which was recently recognized as the best
parks and recreation department in the State of Florida, with a
population of over 250,000, and we are honored with that distinction;
however, I've taken a little time off from my normal duties this
morning to address an issue that is near and dear to so many of us.
Each year during the 4th of July, or Independence Day, there are
so many of us that come together to celebrate that day. They come
from all walks of life. We've had state senators, we've had county
commissioners, we've had fire commissioners, fire chiefs, firemen,
county employees, we've had from directors to maintenance workers,
and in the civilian community, we've had so many retired veterans,
real estate. They come from all over.
If I might just read something. It's called the Infantrymen's
Prayer, and the author is unknown, which is pretty apropos for those
that work -- or serve in the military.
Almighty God, whose will it is that we be leaders of men, hear us
as we come to you for guidance in this awesome responsibility. Let us
never forget our duty and the men whom we lead. May we instill in
them the qualities of loyalty, integrity, and duty.
Grant us the patience in dealing with the mistakes of our fellow
Page 22
February 24, 2004
man. Let us never forget that no man is perfect, but that perfection for
fragile humans is trying each day to do better than the day before.
Give us courage, oh Lord, in the face of danger. Keep us pure in
heart, clean in mind, and strong in purpose. Remind us .that wisdom is
not gained in an hour, a day, or even a year, but it is a process that
continues all the days of our lives.
Keep us before -- keep us -- keep ever before us our goal which
is not to perpetrate war, but to safeguard peace and preserve the great
gift to man, freedom.
May you always be near to guide us in decisions, comfort us in
failures, and keep us humble in our successes. We ask your divine
blessing and leadership, and all we discard (sic) the honor and
responsibility of leading men in the service of our country. Walk
close to us always, our Father, that we may not fall.
Each year we bring these men and women to this community
that's opened up their arms for years and years and years. They stand
and they say, no one is going to diminish our freedom. Each year we
bring these men and women here to honor them and to thank them for
the services that they gave us.
On the rare occasion that I take a vacation, I travel around
Florida and I see that Collier County is still having the flags flying off
their cars, they still have the bumper stickers. They are so much in
support of our troops, whatever our political philosophies happen to be
at that day.
And I'm here to ask to see if I can get some financial assistance
so that we may continue on with this endeavor. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion or questions from the board members?
Commissioner Henning?
Page 23
February 24, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How much?
MR. VEIT: Well, we are very aggressive after last 4th of July,
and it came out to a little over 130,000; however, we have done some
crunching.
Presently, we've gotten a kind donation from the Naples Daily
News of $10,308.24. The First National Bank has graciously
contributed, cast their donation of 5,000. Wiegold & Son (sic) has
graciously given a donation of 8 -- or committed $1,850.
The grand total for the event, which -- I might first go down the
line. Special Operations Command, the parachute team, this will be
their ninth year here. They're excited. They have always been
committed to coming to Collier County.
We are also trying to get the Cadet Band from West Point. We
have a tentative commitment, but unfortunately we can't move any
further with these until such time as we know that the funds are
available.
The 283rd Army Band, which has been here for several years,
they did have to cancel last year, but that was because there was a
rotation of troops, and they welcomed the troops home, and we
thought that was much more apropos than being here. And then Stan
Spyro (phonetic) and his band substituted and the concert was -- came
off with a full capacity crowd.
We are also trying to get some A-10 warthogs to do some aerial
shows from Langley Air Force Base.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I forgot my question. What was
my question?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How much --
MR. VEIT: How much?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How much do you want?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's $51,900.
MR. VEIT: Okay. I'll get to the point, sir.
The bottom line is $51,938. We are still soliciting private
Page 24
February 24, 2004
donations. And if anybody here is -- would like to commit, if they
contact the County Manager's Office, that would be wonderful. And
we are still working with some of the veterans' organizations to
provide meals while the military's here as well, so we're still trying to
cut costs.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is the City of Naples going to be
participating in this at all?
MR. VEIT: We're presently -- the City of Naples normally does
the parade, which is normally done by mostly county employees. I
am uncertain as to their direction right now with the new regime that's
in place. We are trying to set up a meeting with Mayor Barnett and
the manager, Bob Lee, to find out what their intent is for the 4th of
July in reference to the parade.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And if they aren't participating
financially, will you then be -- being that the county would be
participating, would you be presenting this in the county rather than in
the city?
MR. VEIT: The parade is a byproduct which we put the military
in just for the parade. The essence of bringing them here is to put on
concerts within the county, such as we've done in Gulf Coast High
School. We had, last year, worked with the jaycees to contract having
the Army Band and a parachute jump during those festivities.
Our intent is to bring it to Collier County, not just to the City of
Naples. And the parade is simply a byproduct of-- of that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'll be meeting with Mayor
Barnett tomorrow. I'll ask him about setting up a meeting with you
ASAP to see what the City of Naples -- to come forward with to share
in this tremendous endeavor.
MR. VEIT: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
Commissioner Coyle?
Yeah, I was going to say I would
Page 25
February 24, 2004
be happy to do that, but since Commissioner Coletta's going to do it,
there's no problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I use you for a reference?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, you may.
But my vote is contingent upon being able to jump with the
parachute team.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wow.
MR. VEIT: As long as you certified class D and you can
pinpoint within a five meter radius, I'm certain --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I might need some help.
MR. VEIT: -- and you'll have to jump from a private commercial
aircraft. You won't be able to jump from military.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Include that in my second.
MR. VEIT: I'm jump qualified, sir, and they won't let me do it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a -- Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I just wanted to finish up
where I started.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
The -- you know, I appreciate the efforts and the -- of bringing
back the military, back into Collier County, but I almost feel like if we
approve this, that we're taking the easy way out -- and I really
appreciate you involving the business community in this endeavor.
But if we approve this, then we are saying, in my mind, is, you
don't have to worry about any fundraising efforts anymore because
taxpayers are going to provide it. I guess that's a concern that I have.
So I would hope that we can re-craft the motion to approve
contingent upon further fundraising in the community to make that
happen or come back to the board for final support.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I -- if I could just help a little bit,
not that -- not that --
Page 26
February 24, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
MR. MUDD: This is a petition. You don't have to vote on the
particular item. The petition is basically, do you want to hear this item
at a future board meeting. And if you want to get contingent on funds
and things like that, I think John can go out there and sharpen his
pencil or whatnot and see what he can garner and then come back at a
future time. And I will ask him if-- what date that is so we can do the
final budget as it gets closer to the event or whenever his drop-dead
date is.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I was just going to remind
the commissioners that this is the vote to bring it back for
consideration.
But I'll give you my personal feeling. I think this is such an
important event, I would be willing to stand on my vote to even
approve it for funds. But I think, in fairness, it is best to bring it back
and have a full discussion and have it on the agenda so that people
who are interested in hearing it can be present at that time since it was
not advertised for that purpose today.
But I am sure that John and the other veterans' organizations will
work very diligently to try to get as many people involved as possible.
And I don't know that we have to motivate you to do that. We haven't
had to motivate you to get you this far.
So I think it's a very important event, and I stand prepared to
commit -- vote for committing the funds whatever happens. This is
not something that we can let slide.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Hear, hear.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was going to say that what I -- I
was going to say the same thing that Commissioner Coyle said, that
we were going to bring this back for discussion at a later date.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
Page 27
February 24, 2004
So we have a motion on the floor to bring this back at a later date
and that -- is that your motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, yes, it is. Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. And a second --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: As quickly as possible.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: As quickly as possible.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And a second on the floor from
Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Opposed, like sign.
Very good. That passed, 5-0.
MR. VEIT: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2004-10:PUDZ-2002-AR-3542 DWIGHT H.
NADEAU OF RWA, INC., AND RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH OF
GOODLETTE, COLEMAN AND JOHNSON, P.A.,
REPRESENTING WATERWAYS JOINT VENTURE IV, THE
APPLICANT, REQUESTING: (1) REZONING FROM AN "A"
AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) DISTRICT FOR A
PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE BRISTOL PINES RPUD.
THIS PROJECT PROPOSES A MAXIMUM OF 159 DWELLING
Page 28
February 24, 2004
UNITS (AN OVERALL DENSITY OF 6.98 UNITS PER ACRE), TO
CONSIST OF ANY COMBINATION OF SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED, ZERO LOT LINE, OR SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED UNIT TYPE CONSTRUCTION; AND (2)
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF AN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING
THE DEVELOPER TO UTILIZE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
BONUS DENSITY UNITS (IN THE AMOUNT OF 68 UNITS AT
2.98 BONUS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE) IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT FOR LOW-INCOME
RESIDENTS. SITE IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR951, APPROXIMATELY-1 MILE
SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD, AT 14750 COLLIER
BOI ~IJEVARD - ADOPTED W/STIPI JIJATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us -- there are no items
for the Board of Zoning Appeals, which is paragraph seven.
Paragraph eight is advertised public hearings.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's PUDZ-2002-AR-3542, Dwight H. Nadeau of RWA, Inc., and
Richard D. Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, P.A.,
representing Waterways Joint Venture, IV, the applicant requesting,
one, rezoning from an "A" agricultural zoning district to a Residential
Planned Unit Development, RPUD, district for a project to be known
as the Bristol Pines RPUD.
This project proposes a maximum of 159 dwelling units and
overall density of 6.98 units per acre to consist of any combination of
single-family attached, zero lot line, or single-family detached family
unit type construction; and number two, consideration and approval of
an affordable housing density bonus agreement authorizing the
developer to utilize affordable housing bonus density units in the
Page 29
February 24, 2004
amount of 68 units at 2.98 bonus density units per acre in the
development of this project for low income residents.
The 22.77 plus acre subject site is located on the east side of
Collier Boulevard, County Road 951, approximately one mile south of
Immokalee Road at 14750 Collier Boulevard in section 35, township
48 south, range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners, do you any ex parte?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I do. I've met with the
petitioner, I've also met with staff, and -- on this item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Same here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: I met with staff, county
manager.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have met with the petitioner,
and Mr. -- or Mr. Yovanovich, representative of the petitioner, and we
discussed density and the affordable housing bonus calculations, and I
also communicated with the staff who gave me an additional
explanation of that process.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And I have met with the
petitioner, I have received some mail that I have in a folder here that I
will file with the records department, and also I've spoken with staff.
Thank you. And now may we have -- yes, sir? Oh, my goodness.
I'd like to swear -- everybody who wants to participate in this
particular issue, please stand so we can swear you in. (All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Rich Yovanovich representing the petitioner.
With me is Richard Davenport and Amnon Golan who are the
developers of the project with Waterways, Dwight Nadeau with RWA,
who is the planner on the project, and Ted Treesch, who's our traffic
Page 30
February 24, 2004
consultant on the project.
As the -- as the title describes, this property is approximately
22.77 acres on the east side of County Road 951 north of Vanderbilt
Beach Road intersection with 951.
We're requesting a 159-unit residential project that will be town
homes, single -- basically single-family fee ownership for those who
purchase the units.
The overall project density is 6.98 -- 98 units per acre. Based
upon the base density in the area of four units per acre, plus an
affordable housing density bonus agreement adding an additional 2.9
acres -- 2.98 units per acre, for a grand total of 6.98 acre -- units per
acre for the project.
The density bonus is for 68 additional units, which will yield 16
affordable units which will serve the low income category. That is
people who make less than 60 percent of the median income. Those
68 units basically subsidize the 16 units for-- to be made available for
affordable housing. That's about 24 percent of the density bonus units
that will be provided for affordable housing.
This project, the price points, just so you know, it will be geared
to the workforce housing segment of our community in the range from
129 to about 190,000 is the -- is the projected price points for the
project.
We are probably one of the first projects to go through this
process of doing a for sale owner-occupied affordable housing density
bonus agreement. And with that, Mr. Giblin is here to answer all the
great details of-- about the program.
But as you've seen through the agreement, we are required to
prequalify the individuals who are going to reside there, verify
income, and make sure that what they pay for the housing, including
their homeowners' association assessments, all meet with the
guidelines to make sure they're not paying too much of their income
towards the purchase of the unit.
Page 31
February 24, 2004
All of the units will have tile roofs, they'll have brick paver
driveways, walkways, and entranceways. You will not be able to tell
the difference between the affordable units and the market rate units in
the project. That's a requirement of the agreement, and we'll -- we'll
live up with that -- we'll live up to that in our site planning.
We went through the Planning Commission, and I'll say we got a
unanimous recommendation of approval, although we had three
dissenting votes. And the three dissenting votes had to deal with the
issue of what type of fence would we place on the north and south
property lines.
We had proposed a black vinyl chain-linked fence with vines
growing through the fence as the -- as the barrier. The five
commissioners who voted in favor of the project brought a motion to
approve it with a concrete wall.
The three who dissented wanted it clear that they approved the
project, they just thought it would be better for us to do the
chain-linked fence with the vines.
Since that meeting, we have met with our neighbor to the south,
Mr. Gilbert, and he has asked us to do the solid concrete wall, which
we will do. So we are -- have no objections to going forward with the
concrete wall.
We will be doing, also near Mr. Gilbert, we'll make sure that on
our site plan, that we have single-story structures versus the two-story
structures. These are town homes with a ground floor and a second
floor, so the maximum building height would be two stories, but we'll
have single -- a single-story project near him for compatibility issues.
If I can, I'd like to switch real -- switch back. Do I just hit
visualizer?
MR. MUDD: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's essentially the site plan.
And what we've done is, staff had to raise an issue about the use
of Tree Farm Road, and as I'm -- you're aware, Tree Farm Road is not
Page 32
February 24, 2004
owned by us. It is owned by another individual who owns
approximately 13 and a half acres to our east. He owns it in fee
simple.
We have agree that if that -- if Tree Farm Road ever becomes a
county or a public road and available to us, that we will have our
primary entrance to the project off of Tree Farm Road and have
secondary access to our project on the 951 bridge. And you can see
on the site plan how we've -- we've made a -- accounted for that
interconnection to Tree Farm Road.
We've also provided interconnectivity to a parcel to the south.
So that there will be interconnectivity for all the projects in the area.
Again, we meet all of your level of service standards as far as
water and sewer. They're currently available on 951.
Transportation, we meet the requirements under your
concurrency management system and would have made the -- would
have been consistent under the originally transmitted concurrency
management system, which included just the first year, because 951 is
scheduled to go forward in the first -- at the beginning of'05. I think
it's trying to get pushed up into the end of calendar year '04, but it
starts in the first quarter of'05.
So from a transportation standpoint, we're consistent with the
concurrency management, we're consistent with the comprehensive
plan because of the affordable housing density bonus agreement. We
have incorporated and agreed to all of the changes requested by the
Planning Commission. It's in the PUD documented in front of you.
If you have any questions of me or Mr. Nadeau or Mr.
Davenport, we're happy to answer any questions regarding the project.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? Oh, I'm sorry.
You were just -- we have a speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chuck Posch.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you like to come up here, sir, to
the podium? State your name.
Page 33
February 24, 2004
MR. POSCH: Hi. Yes, my name is Chuck Posch, and I'm the
owner of Tree Farm Road. I know -- I was here last month.
Everybody recognizes me.
I -- I'm here not to cause any problems. I'm here to make sure that
everybody has all the facts. I have a letter I wanted to read. Can I
approach and hand you a copy of the letter? Okay.
On the letter, on page two you'll see that -- that Dwight Nadeau
and Richard Yovanovich received copies of this, and they're the
principals that are bringing this action.
They claim that -- last month they claimed that they would buy
the road in a heartbeat at the price that's stated, and I've had no
communication at all. I've called them twice and received nothing
back.
This letter, which is written by a Mr. Mansolillo, who is to
coordinate this -- the sale, was written on November 13th, 2003, and it
says, I am writing this letter as an offer of a solution to the access
problem for the projects on County Road 951 at Tree Farm Road.
First I would like all involved to know that I am trying to create
an agreement that is a win-win-win for all property owners while still
meeting the needs of Collier County.
To date I have met with the Posch family, Jacob Nagar, as well
as Reverend Bart Mclntyre, who are the owners of the other property
that's involved. Current -- trying to strike a deal to move the Nicaea
access on Tree -- to Tree Farm Road.
My findings were as follows: Mr. Nagar would rather have his
already planned 951 access as an exclusive access to his project.
However, he is willing, in the interest of serving the county's concern,
to move his site's access to Tree Farm Road. Mr. Nagar is concerned
that he will be made to bear all the costs of doing so while all other
reap the benefits of his investment into the cost of the land and
building of the road.
Quite clearly, the county is not willing to bear any of the costs of
Page 34
February 24, 2004
creating this road, which will become a public road serving two major
developments and built to county standards.
After much negotiation, the following solution is offered for all
to consider: Mr. Nagar will acquire Tree Farm Road from Mr. Posch
at a land cost of $500,000. Bristol Pines developers must contribute
half of this acquisition cost. Tree Farm Road shall then be donated to
Collier County.
Further, the Nicaea property shall donate an additional 20 feet of
land -- well, anyway we get -- I think we get the gist of it.
And as I say, over the past year I have received no
communication from any of these people over here. I received none.
And I challenge them to produce anything, any telephone records. I
called them twice last month myself, but I have received nothing.
So I'm not under any illusion that I have any control on none (sic)
of this at all. I just want to make sure you had the facts. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas, did you
want to say anything, or shall we hear from Rich first?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We'll hear from Rich.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Would you like me to respond to that or
not, Commissioners? I can--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess we're done with the
public portion of this --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- as far as the speaker goes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- I don't think so. I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But yeah, I would like to
comment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Because I wanted Rich to
answer that. Did you want to comment before Rich?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah. It's my
Page 35
February 24, 2004
understanding, just a couple of months ago, that the Nicaea property
was to get access on Tree Farm Road. That is their deal. I'm not sure
if the Board of Commissioners should get mixed into private deals for
private gain. I have a real concern about that. But I'm going to
support the commissioner of the district of-- whatever he wants.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Richard?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. Commissioner, just so you
understand, this letter was written to me by Mr. Mansolillo, not by Mr.
Posch, and he wrote me another letter as well, and I responded to both
of those letters.
And it's the paragraph that Mr. Posch stopped reading that was
the got-ya paragraph, if you will. It was the requirement that --
remember, they had -- they had a requirement in their PUD to convey
40 feet as part of their PUD approval.
They tried to shift their requirement to do 40 feet to making us do
20 feet of the 40 feet they had to do. And if we didn't do that, we had
to pay them for the land value.
So it wasn't -- we have no problem. And, again, we've not had an
offer come to us to buy our use of the road for $250,000. We will pay
that.
What happened was, is when we talked to Mr. Posch after the
Planning Commission, he mentioned that he'd prefer to sell us his land
for a -- for a purchase price of a couple of million dollars, and we're
evaluating that, but we also need to acquire his son's land, which is
next door, to make it work.
Mr. Posch just got back from a 1 O-day vacation, so there hasn't
been time to finalize a private deal for the potential acquisition of Tree
Farm Road. That's the history regarding Tree Farm Road. And we
attempted to work out an agreement with Mr. Posch almost 18 months
ago for access on Tree Farm Road, and when -- the initial offer to sell
it to us for a million dollars, when we recovered from that purchase
price, we said, well, I guess we'll just spend the money we would have
Page 36
February 24, 2004
to spend on the -- on a bridge.
We are willing to use Tree Farm Road if it becomes available.
But, again, we're not willing to pay an unreasonable amount for the
land to accomplish that. And we're still willing to do it. But again, it
needs to be a fair price for the land or a fair price for the use of the
road if we can't reach an agreement on the acquisition of the land.
So that's the history of Tree Farm Road, and we're committed to
using it, as our PUD document says, if Nicaea Academy ever does
acquire it. Because, remember, they came to you and said they've
worked out the deal for Tree Farm Road. They even tied their zoning
to it by saying that they couldn't go forward until access on Tree Farm
Road occurs.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, did you have any
more questions of Mr. Posch?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I didn't.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Then--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If he could stay close by,
because I may.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. I want to close the public
hearing, but I don't want to close it until we're -- till we finish talking
with Mr. Posch.
Go ahead, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we have one other --
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem.
I'm a principal planner with the zoning and land development review
development, and I just wanted to put staff's comments on the record
before you close the public hearing to state that we are recommending
approval of both petitions, or both requests that are before you within
this petition, one for the rezoning and one for the approval of the
affordable housing agreement that's included in your packet.
We have reviewed the project and we have found it to be
consistent with the comp. plan, and we do recommend approval. And
Page 37
February 24, 2004
if you have any questions, I'm here. We have someone from
landscape review. However, now I understand they're going to go
with the wall, not the fence, so there's no questions there.
Cormac Giblin is also here to answer any questions you may
have about the housing issue as far as density bonus.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. DESELEM: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm glad you told us that. Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I've got some questions.
We're saying that 16 units are going to be considered affordable
housing, and that's based on 60 percent of the income. So what's that
figure, dollars- and cents-wise? What does that really equate to?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll let Cormac give you the exact figure.
MR. GIBLIN: Good morning, Commissioners. Cormac Giblin,
your housing development manager.
What we're looking at are 16 units of the total development will
be affordable to persons at the low incOme level, which is 60 percent
of median income.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what is that?
MR. GIBLIN: The limit for a single person is $29,300 a year. It
goes up for as many people are in the home. A family of four can earn
up to $41,900 a year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So you're ask -- they're
asking for a density bonus of 68 units, but they're only going to
provide out of that is -- is 16 units of affordable housing; is that
correct?
MR. GIBLIN: That's Correct. The density bonus formula in our
land --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. GIBLIN: -- heavily weighs -- you get more of a density for
providing units at the lower income levels than you do at the higher
Page 38
February 24, 2004
income levels, as opposed to 80 percent median.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other -- and the other
part that I believe that the petitioner brought forth is that the actual
price of these units was going to be anywheres from 129,000 to
190,000 for'the remaining units; is that correct?
MR. GIBLIN: Well, the density bonus agreement or the PUD do
not designate or limit purchase price limits. All we are concerned
with is the income levels of the 16 individuals or households who buy
those units. The market will determine the actual selling price of the
units.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm talking about the other
units which would be basically considered in the affordable range.
MR. GIBLIN: Well, it -- that's the petitioner's opinion that the
other units outside of the initial 16 that are required to be affordable, I
think they put on the record that they expect that to -- that market for
those units to be around $190,000.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's what I want to get
clear, that the 16 units are the affordable housing based on $29,300 a
year, and then the remaining units that are going to be built there --
because we're talking a large density bonus here, okay? We're looking
at seven units per acre, basically, is what they're asking for, all right?
And I'm trying to figure out what the -- the remaining property
that is there, the remaining units, what the cost of that's going to be.
So, Rich, are you saying that the -- that your developer there that
you're representing is going to provide housing in the 129- to
$190,000 market?
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the market rate, that's the price
points, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Now that, I would consider,
to be somewhat in the range of where schoolteachers or people that
work in this area would be able to afford; is that true?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That is correct.
Page 39
February 24, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Now, the other part of the
equation here is, this is pretty -- this is pretty -- this marketing here, it
would be -- would be seen by people that would like to retire down
here as a way of getting into this market or to buy into this.
What I'm concerned about is, if we try to provide housing for the
people who work here in Collier County, what's not to say that
somebody is going to come in here and buy up five or 10 or 15 of
these units and then turn around and try to sell them quickly at a
substantial (sic) higher price, or that we have people that would like to
retire down here end up buying it instead of providing affordable
housing for teachers, fire department, EMS, and so.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I can just tell you, you know, the
past purchasers of our type of product. And he's done the Waterways
development in Orange Tree and Summit Place across the street, and
the majority of the buyers are families. And that's the niche we're
going for, and that's -- but, you know, there will be others, other than
-- you know, there'll be some retirees that will buy, but we are -- we
have a niche for the -- for single fam -- single-parent families. You
know, that's a niche we're trying to meet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If you understand where I'm
coming from, I'm looking at quite a few issues here. One is to make
sure that we have housing here for people who live in Collier County,
who support the infrastructure here in Collier County, but I'm also
looking at the density that you are requesting.
We have a huge issue out there at the present time with roads and
-- the crowding of roads in that particular area. And prior -- people
that come up before with us with PUDs, of course, they've requested
huge amounts of density, and we've addressed that issue very
seriously because we realize that we do have a problem in making
sure that we meet concurrency now and in the future.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And, Commissioner, as I said in
my opening remarks, we clearly meet your concurrency management
Page 40
February 24, 2004
system, the recently adopted concurrency management system. And I
think it's important to note that, essentially, the Planning Commission,
who has reviewed this and usually is a little sensitive to developments
in that area, recommended this project unanimously with the density
bonus. So, I mean, I think those issues have been looked at and
resolved and your -- and 951 will be under construction, if not at the
end of this calendar year, at certainly the very beginning of next
calendar year. So I think we clearly meet all your transportation
requirements under the comprehensive plan and your concurrency
management system.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now let me interrupt everybody
right now, please. I want to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I wish you wouldn't.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, you want me --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I may want to call back Mr.
Posch.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. What I want to do is, we have a 10
o'clock time certain, we have the State Attorney's Office all sitting
here waiting. May I put this on hold without closing the public hearing
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and then Commissioner Coletta will be
the first one back? I know we have this commitment.
MR. WEIGEL: Appropriately, Madam Chair, would be a motion
to table, and then after success --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to table.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
MR. WEIGEL: -- on that vote, then you can bring it back at your
convenience.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Motion to table by
Commissioner Coletta and seconded by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor?
Page 41
February 24, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. We will table this until we
hear from the State Attorney's Office, then we'll take our 1 O-minute
break for our court reporter, and then we will be back.
Item #13A
RESOLUTION 2004-61 SUPPORTING FULL AND ADEQUATE
FUNDING FOR THE STATE COURT SYSTEM AND THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT TO ENSURE JUSTICE FOR
Alii. FI.ORIDIANS- ADOPTFiD W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, this brings us to a time certain item,
which is paragraph 13(A). This item to be heard at 10 a.m.
It's a resolution supporting full and adequate funding for the state
court system and the 20th judicial circuit to ensure justice for all
Floridians, and I think Chief Justice Hayes is going to present, or at
least say a couple words, I think, in this particular case.
JUDGE HAYES: Good morning. For the record, Hugh Hayes,
the Circuit Court judge here in Naples, but chief judge for the 20th
Judicial Circuit. And we really appreciate your taking the time to put
this on the agenda today.
And I would like to briefly point out that we have Bob Jacobs,
who is the elected public defender for the 20th Judicial Circuit, and, of
course, you saw Steve Russell, who's our elected state attorney, and
also next to him is Lou D'Agostino, who is the chair -- or the president
Page 42
February 24, 2004
of the Collier County Bar Association.
And we have all come basically to show support for the
resolution that we've requested the county to present.
It basically helps to tell the Florida Legislature that Article, you
know, V revision seven has been passed, that we would like for them
to fully fund it as much as they can for our state court system.
As you already know, both the courts' budgets, as well as those
of the state attorney and the public defender's, is less than two percent
of the total budget of the State of Florida. And we know that that still,
of course, makes us have to compete for every single dollar we get.
But on the other hand, there is a part of revision seven that still
falls back on the counties, and I guess we're still kind of watching to
see how that's going to turn out between the county and the state.
But if-- we would appreciate this passage of this resolution so
that we can pass this on to our legislative leaders to demonstrate the
support of the local county commission. We're going to each one of
the county commissions within our circuit, and Steve and Bob and I
will be making these presentations. You're just the first one that could
entertain our request, so we appreciate that.
Also, I would like, if I could, for Lou to come up and just to
mention to you who is on the local advisory committee that helps the
Collier County Bar, if that would be okay.
MR. D'AGOSTINO: Good morning, Commissioners, members
of the board.
My name is Lou D'Agostino and I am the president of the Collier
County Bar Association this year. And we fully support the proposed
adoption of this resolution which urges the state legislature to fully
fund revision seven.
I wanted to tell you a little bit about why the bar association is
involved. We were contacted back in August of 2003 by Chief Judge
Hugh D. Hayes, as well as the chiefjustice of the Florida Supreme
Court. And the purpose of that initial meeting was to discuss the
Page 43
February 24, 2004
potential negative ramifications of the shortfall in funding that's going
to occur locally to the state.
There are many local programs in Collier County that benefit the
residents of this community, including such things as the public
guardian program, teen court program, foster care, funding, of course,
for our probation department, and a shortfall in this funding could be
very negative and have a dramatic impact upon the residents here in
Collier County.
And to be proactive in this regard because this -- the negative
ramifications or the impact of this shortfall of funding is not going to
be known until July.
We formed, and the chiefjudge and chiefjustice asked us to
become involved, and we formed a local advisory committee to
address these issues, to work in conjunction with Judge Hayes, to
work in conjunction with our chief justice.
And this advisory committee is comprised of not only members
of the bar association who are concerned with this funding issue for
our judiciary, but also with prominent members of our community.
Some of them were able to attend today, and I wanted to identify
some of these members. They include Michele Lugo, who was unable
to attend today, Kim Long is also a member of our committee, Pat
Barton is here today, Kelly Price, and attorney Jeff Fridkin.
We recognize the urgency of this situation. We've already taken
active steps and have met with our state representatives, Mike Davis,
as well as Dudley Goodlette, expressing our concern.
And on the basis of this analysis, we think it's very important that
we get complete funding for revision seven, and we're urging the
Collier County Commissioners to adopt this resolution.
We thank you for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Judge Hayes, I fully support your
request and the importance of this resolution. I have a question,
Page 44
February 24, 2004
however, because I'm reluctant to make a change that might dilute the
importance of the resolution itself.
JUDGE HAYES: No problem.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But my concern is that the state
frequently funds things by transferring costs to local government.
And this request to ask that they fully fund the justice system is
certainly something I will support.
Would it-- would it diminish the importance of this resolution if
we added a clause to fully fund it without transferring additional cost
to local government?
JUDGE HAYES: We're not going to have a problem with that.
And I understand. And I think, you know, if Steve and Bob have any
comments, I'd want them to jump in as well, because I'm speaking
primarily for the court system.
But as I said, all of us together is -- still constitutes less than two
percent of the state's overall budget of 52 to 54 billion -- that's B,
billion dollars.
I think -- no. I think that would be fine. I mean, I understand in
speaking to our legislators that they understand the impact.
Without going back into the history of Article V, revision seven,
it's clear it's not necessarily something that they wanted to do, but
they've now found themselves in the position of actually
implementing this program. And I think they are, at least our local
legislative delegation, understands the importance of this and they
really can't do anything but charge forward. We're somewhat going
down a path that I think none of us have been down before.
This -- in another week, I start like my 27th year of serving the
people of Collier County as a judge, and it's the first time I've had to
deal with this type of a situation as well.
But I think that everybody understands the importance of the
implementation of this legislation. There is, to some degree, an
understandable reluctance on the part of the state to shoulder this
Page 45
February 24, 2004
burden. It's not something they initially asked for, but I think they are
stepping up to the plate and they understand their responsibility and
their obligations, and they're going to do everything, I believe, that
they can to help.
In certain areas they have advised me, such as in the teen court
and the drug court area, mental health courts, things like that -- in the
last legislative session, some of the guys in the northern part of the
state describe those as boutique courts. That kind of was an
unfortunate term or, you know, appellation that went around.
I think these are more -- treated as community outreach programs
where, truly, the -- as in the past, the counties have funded these
programs. We have just been the administers for the county to
implement the programs because it's part of our training, and we're
willing and happy to do so.
But I think that, sure, we know that -- what the -- that the
counties are concerned that they fully -- especially after taking the fine
and forfeiture fund and shifting it north, it does take a lot of the
county's capacity away, and we're fully aware of that. And I don't
have any problem at all in that resolution change. And I -- I think if
Bob and Steve have anything contrary to that, I'd like for them to say
so now. But I don't see any problem. Maybe Steve can --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You had another question, Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I just had a follow-up when
you finished speaking.
MR. RUSSELL: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, Steve
Russell, state attorney for the 20th Judicial Circuit.
I don't want to be redundant. I think the comments that have
been made, I fully support. I'm here for that purpose.
I think this exercise and transfer of funding responsibility to the
state is particularly important to our circuit. Judge Hayes and Bob and
I deal on a circuit-wide basis.
Page 46
February 24, 2004
And I think we always have to remember, it's particularly
important to our circuit because we're the largest circuit, we're the
fastest growing circuit in the state, and we probably get funded the
least proportionately.
So whatever is transferred over is going to start a base that we
continue on. And I think it's always important for all of us to
remember that and also remind our legislators of that.
So I agree with all of Judge Hayes' comments. I think at the end
of the day there will be probably a few issues that do come back
before you, and I'm sure we can discuss them and address them then,
but we're interested in getting as full funding for all the parts of the
system as we can. We appreciate your support in that regard.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, just a follow-up to explain
why I would like to at least address that issue.
You know, we are caught in a position where we are obligated to
fund certain things over which we have no control. Every time a new
judge position is created, it creates additional costs that we are
obligated to fund, and expert witnesses in trials are a responsibility for
our funding. So there are certain things over which we have little
control.
And as the state assumes responsibility for more and more of this
under the revision seven of Article V, we would prefer, I think, that
they not unload more of those costs onto us.
And for that reason, I would just suggest a very minor change to
the resolution which would essentially say that we -- we urge the state
to provide full funding for the judicial system without transferring
additional costs to local governments.
MR. RUSSELL: Like Judge Hayes, I have no problem with that
amendment, and I think that that is the theme that we are approaching
the legislature on to cover those items that you've just mentioned.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
Page 47
February 24, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Also in the resolution, I think
the -- or at least our delegations should know the fiscal impacts of
what's being proposed today. I think those are real hard number
dollars, and I think we need to send a clear message by interjecting
that in the resolution.
JUDGE HAYES: No, I understand, and I -- like Steve said, you
know, the statewide growth is approximately -- at least according to,
as I have to say, the University of Florida -- studies that were done,
they broke it down the 20 circuits in the state, and the average of the
state -- I think I shared this with Madam Chairman, a map of the state
with the numbers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh.
JUDGE HAYES: And probably state-wide average, on average,
is about a two-percent growth. Our circuit, the 20th circuit, is number
one in the state. We were number two last year. We're number one
this year -- in year ending 2003, with a 4.11 percent rate of growth.
So we not only, of course, have the problem particularly in the
20th circuit, we have the problem the rest of the state has with getting
adequate funding, but then we have a peculiar problem, because being
number one, our needs are really, at this point, arguably twice as high
as some of the other counties -- or circuits in the state. So we really
feel the pinch as much, if not more, than most of the circuit.
So it's true, I think that we're trying to stand back and take the
long view. I don't think anybody has got an absolute handle on it this
year, and they may not have it next year. But I think that -- I believe,
honestly, that everybody is making a good faith effort to go forward.
For whatever reason, they have the responsibility shouldered
upon them whether they want it or not, and they have agreed to take
that responsibility and move forward.
Hopefully -- I don't expect it to be a perfect resolution this year.
It probably is going to take a couple years.
You know, it's been a long time to get to this point, clearly, and
Page 48
February 24, 2004
it's -- and I really just don't believe -- it's not because it's government.
It's just because I think people can reasonably disagree.
But I think it's going to take a couple of years to actually get a
real handle on this and to get, for example, the counties, plural, of the
state, to get their points across that they really need and expect that if
they're going to -- especially in our circuit -- they're going shift all this
money north, they don't really want to do the State of New Jersey
story with interstate highway systems where, you know, we give up a
dollar and get 75 cents back.
And that -- that is -- in all honesty, that is part of how that Article
V, revision seven passed. It was to equalize some other circuits in the
state that are not as well to do as those that are in our coastal -- our
three coastal counties in this circuit.
We, ironically -- and it's good to have, in a way -- we have a
situation where three of our counties, of the five counties in our
circuit, are what we would define as well-to-do counties, and we have
two -- no disrespect to Hendry and Glades County, but -- to their
county commissioners -- but who are not as well to do, and it's to
those -- some of those counties in the state that really this Article V,
revision seven, was directed.
And so to some extent, whether we like it or not, that really was
the gist of what passed, and it's to bring them up to a level that's not
equal to us in any way, but at least to get them -- give them a helping
hand.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Judge Hayes, what do you
anticipate the shortage of judges, if this goes through?
JUDGE HAYES: At this point -- you know, you never know
until the legislature actually adjourns. It's hard to get a handle on it.
But we've qualified for four new judges. We've qualified for a
new county court judge for Collier County, and we've qualified
through the Florida Supreme Court for three new circuit judges for the
Page 49
February 24, 2004
circuit, at least a great percentage of one of those would be here as
well.
One of the ironies that we have is, it's -- it's a problem, I guess,
we should be happy to have, but we'll worry about that later -- if we
actually get our judges funded, we don't have space for them at this
point. That's another problem that's down the road. And as you know,
of course, we're working on this. There are some plans that this
commission is looking at for future building needs.
And Lee County has already actually done this with buying the
bank building that they have up there to increase the size of their
facilities for Steve's office and Bob's, and for us as well. These are just
problems of growth.
I think that if we don't get those four judges, that it's going to
have a very deleterious effect on our system. We are probably -- I'm
confident -- and I don't want to make it sound worse than it is, but I'm
confident that we will be pulling some of our judges out of our civil
divisions, at least probably once -- one week out of a month, moving
them into the divisions that, by state law, must be given priority, such
as the felony division for speedy trial cases, for juvenile cases, for
some dependency court issues, things like that, and we can do it, you
know. It's not what I ever signed on for in the beginning, either as a
lawyer or as a judge. I never really thought we would get to that
point. But, you know, it's an education every day.
But I don't think, honestly, that, you know, that the people of the
State of Florida, much less this county commission -- I don't think the
people of the State of Florida will accept that. That's not their view of
what their state government should look like, and so ! don't think we'll
get to that point.
Our legislative delegation seems to be quite positive at this point
in saying that we are going to get at least half of those judges, if not
more. So -- and that's their responsibility, of course, to fund new
judges.
Page 50
February 24, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was just concerned. I just don't
want to increase the backlog in the courts as -- where it is today.
JUDGE HAYES: Yeah, it's -- I, maybe fairly or unfairly, last
Friday when Steve and Bob and I were at the Lee County Bar
Association meeting, I -- I don't know exactly as -- when I sat down
next to Jeff Kottkamp, he thought -- he said, well, I think you just
praised me, but I'm feeling my seat -- my hot -- my seat's getting a
little warm here.
But-- because I said it in this way, and that is, when you-- this is
a very unique set of circumstances in the Florida legislative
government, and that is, when you have house of the -- the chairman
of the house policy commission (sic), which is Dudley Goodlette, of
course, the chairman of the house judiciary committee is Jeff
Kottkamp from Cape Coral, and you have the chairman of the house
appropriations committee, Bruce Kyle from Fort Myers, when you
have those three kind of coalescing together as a power package, that's
rare.
I don't remember that being the case in the 32, 33 years I've lived
here. I don't remember us having that kind of power block at one
time. And it's coincidental -- it could be for a lot of reasons. It may
be term limits, it may be whatever it is. It is what it is.
And the interesting thing is, from my point of view is, as I told
my friend Dudley, who, you know, we went to law school together
and were in the army together and all that kind of stuff, I said, when
you're on the way out the door, pull the trigger. I mean, take those
judges with you, buddy.
You know, I mean, that's what they've done in Broward and that's
what they've done in Palm Beach County, and I hate to say, you know,
use your power when you've got it, but that's really what it boils down
to.
So when I sat down Friday and Jeff said, well, I think that was --
you built us up -- you know, you made us look good, but I'm feeling
Page 51
February 24, 2004
kind of warm down here because you put the pressure on us to
actually deliver these judges.
But I know they're going to do the best they can. I've worked
with those guys before -- you know, before today, and we've got a
history together. So I really feel like -- that they are going to do the
best they can for Southwest Florida. They are a very group --
powerful group of men in the legislature, but they are not the Florida
Legislature, and we understand that.
So I hope we're going to get our judges, Commissioner, and I'm
really looking forward to it, and I think that we will. Any other questions?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm just ready to make a motion to
approve.
JUDGE HAYES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we could just add to the
resolution, at the end of that last paragraph, the phrase, without
transferring additional costs to local govemrnent.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor to amend -- a
motion to approve but amend --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With the amendment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Would you repeat the statement
just one more time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I would merely suggest we
put at the end of the resolution itself, at the end of the paragraph, the
phrase, without transferring additional costs to local government.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 52
February 24, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Opposed, like sign.
You've got a 5-0 on that.
JUDGE HAYES: Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate
your time, we really do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, all of you for coming today.
JUDGE HAYES: Thank you for your work.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We appreciate that. Thank you.
And now we will break for 10 minutes and see you back here at
about 20 to.
(A recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if I could please get you to
take your seats.
Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
Item #8A (continued from earlier in meeting )
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And we will reconvene our
public hearing on item number 8(A). Commissioner Coletta was the
next speaker.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We might as well wait until everybody
gets up here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I tell you what, before I ask my
questions, obviously Mr. Yovanovich has got something he wants to
share with us.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I'm just here to answer-- answer any
questions.
Page 53
February 24, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You looked like you were ready
to make some sort of profound statement.
That's okay. I'm sure there will be people here that will make
profound statements.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll try to live up to that when you ask
your question, but I don't have anything profound to say at this
moment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: First off, I like the project the
way its billed and the way it's going to meet some affordable needs
that we need -- have in Collier County. It's truly not an affordable,
affordable project, but the fact that 16 of the units are -- and when you
look at this, you really can't tell which 16 units it is, which gives you
-- brings everybody up to the same scale to a point.
Meanwhile, the construction of this with the red tile roofs and
everything, blends in with the surrounding communities that are
already existing. That's a plus. And I like the idea of a community
center and a swimming pool that they want in. And, you know, let's
face it, as hard as it is for me to believe today, that $190,000 is
probably about the average price, or below the average price of a
home in Collier County today.
So I know, it scares me. But the fact that there are 16 units -- and
I do know that you can't make these things happen unless you've got
some consideration for density. You take out the density element,
then what at that point in time will happen is that all the units will be
$190,000 or more, and I wouldn't have any doubts that they'd be able
to sell them too. So that's a plus and that's something that I can -- I
can see the benefits for and I think it would be something that would
fit greatly in the community.
However, as I mentioned to you before, Mr. Yovanovich, I still
have a problem with what's taking place, and that problem gets deeper
and deeper every day. I don't like the idea of two entrances to a
project of this size, especially so close together, one of them being
Page 54
February 24, 2004
Tree Farm Road, the other one being a right-in, right-out for your
residents that would be a secondary entrance.
I'm going to ask Norm Feder to come up for a moment. But we
just took Nicaea Academy to task on this very same thing where they
wanted to avoid Tree Farm Road, and we made that one of the
requirements.
Now, I realize I could box you into a comer where you could be
held at bay by the owner of that property, in other words, if that was
the restriction. So somewheres in there there's got to be a middle
ground. But one of the things that -- and I'm not too sure how we're
going to get there. Maybe Mr. Feders (sic) might have some
suggestions. But there's got to be some way that when Tree Farm
Road's available, that will be your only entrance and exit and that your
-- this right-in, right-out will be abandoned and closed off, because it's
way too close to the other road.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If I can just make two points before
Norm comes up. The first point is, Nicaea Academy, remember, they
came to you and said they had -- they voluntarily agreed to limit
themselves to the use of Tree Farm Road because they believed they
had struck a deal --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- for the use of Tree Farm Road.
We have provided for access to Tree Farm Road if it becomes
available. So our PUD already requires us to use it as a primary
access, if it becomes available.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My whole thing is, it be your
sole access, that if the other access was opened up, I mean, to give you
some leveraging power, in other words, with your -- the landowner,
that you would give up the exits that you have now in the front.
How close would these two exits be? It would be close to say,
what, about 6, 700 feet apart?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, for the record, Norman Feder,
Page 55
February 24, 2004
transportation administrator. They'd be about 330 feet apart.
I think that what I can do -- and you asked me a question,
Commissioner -- is to probably frame the issue, probably not answer
the question. I'm going to leave that to you folks playing -- to have to
play Solomon, I guess, on this one.
The applicant has committed to connecting to Tree Farm. It's a
stipulation in the PUD that's before you, when and if Tree Farm
becomes available as a connection point. And that's pretty much the
rub.
The issue is, what is the impetus if this goes forward and they
build their other entranceway 330 feet to the south and get a right-in,
right-out -- what's the impetus for them as part of the catalyst, along
with others in the area, to get that connection to Tree Farm, which
we're trying to encourage on the east and west sides of 951 to get joint
access and to get to a signalized location rather than a number of
right-in, right-outs without median opening, and then the issues that
we face later throughout the county in not having planned access
points.
At the same time how much of that can you put onto this
property owner is part of the question? I know I talked with Rich and
the property owner. They've been trying to work with Mr. Posch. I
know Mr. Posch has come up and noted that he's ready to work with
them.
I don't want us, in any way, to get into brokering land. That's not
our purpose or our function, yet at the same time, Nicaea has
committed to the 40 feet to connection, but they're still to come back
to us again, as I understand it, and yet, how do we get that access to
Tree Farm Road?
I asked Rich if he can answer the question for me on the break. I
know that he talked to his owner, and the question is, what can we do.
One thing you raised may be part of a solution, and that is require
that they remove that right-in, right-out access point once there is
Page 56
February 24, 2004
access to Tree Farm. What that does do is give impetus for them to
try to work it out, and -- because they're spending money on that
bridge to develop that bridge, and it would be a lot of money just to
waste if, in fact, there's a way to work it out quicker to get Tree Farm
access. That's about the closest I've come to an answer to your
question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich, have
you got anything further to add?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- and we cannot forget that even if
we did strike a deal with Mr. Posch, that's only a 30-foot right-of-way.
You still got to force Nicaea Academy to give the other 40 feet for the
road to occur. And then -- and then we've got to deal with that bridge.
You know, you're going to have to increase the size of the bridge on
Tree Farm Road if we go there.
And so there's a lot of expenses. And we've been willing to work
with those expenses. But after we -- you know, Commissioner, we're
in the position now where we've tried and we're being held at bay by
someone who wants to make a land deal. And he sees this as an
opportunity to make a land deal.
We're providing a project that is needed in this community. We
have no operational impacts on 951 by doing the bridge. 951 will
function fine with our one bridge. Will it function as you had ideally
set it up? No, it won't. But it will function fine and function properly,
and it will be safe if we do this bridge.
We've been in this process for 14 months. And it was supposed to
be fast tracked as an affordable housing project, so the goal is around
four months, and mainly because of this issue. And we've tried, we've
worked hard. We don't want to spend a quarter of a million dollars on
our bridge and then have that be economic waste by shutting that
bridge off. We already know, we've already made provisions for
additional costs if we have to move to a primary entrance on Tree
FarlTl.
Page 57
February 24, 2004
But I would -- I would hope that we can look at the bridge issue
as it's set up in the PUD. If it ultimately needs to be closed, fine,
because of safety issues, we'll deal with it then. Let's see how it
functions and let's deal with Tree Farm Road under the situation where
-- let Nicaea Academy follow through on its commitment to provide
Tree Farm to you. They said they would do it in their PUD
application. If they deliver through on their commitment, we will be
using it as our primary entrance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand what you're saying,
Mr. Yovanovich, and I don't want to put you in a position where your
client has to spend untold amounts of money that isn't warranted on a
piece of property to be able to gain access; however, I am concerned
that once you build this bridge and once you have the right-in,
right-out, there'll be the end of any reasoning that -- reason that you
ever have to have to go to Tree Farm Road to be able to have that
entrance. That's my concern.
And then we're going to have two entrances and exits that are
going to be 300 some feet apart. And this is supposed to be a limited
access highway. This defeats the purpose of what we're trying to get
to. There's got to be a better way.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, and, Commissioner Coletta, I've
told you, we've had negotiations for close to 18 months with the owner
of that roadway, and I really don't want to negotiate for the land here
in front of the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I understand.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If I could have got access on Tree Farm
Road for slightly over fair market value, we would have done it. We
don't have any kind of an offer.
What happened was, at the Planning Commission, we were
offered to buy it for 250,000 bucks. We got outside, it became
500,000. And then it became, well, why don't you take me out of my
land.
Page 58
February 24, 2004
If we could find an appropriate price to pay for his land to make
it work, we'll do that. I mean, we're business people. But that's where
we are.
I don't know any way to fix it, and I really don't want to have a
gun put to my head to deal with the property owner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once again, we're not obligated
in any way to approve this particular development, and we can refuse
to do it for various reasons, one of them could be the traffic element
and the way that the entrance and exits come out.
And I really see this as a problem, Mr. Yovanovich, is the fact,
330 feet between entrances, we're creating the same problems that
existed in this county since day one. There's got to be a solution, if it's
anything.
Maybe you might want to consider continuing this.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, Commissioner Coletta, for one
thing, we actually do have the right to access on 951. We have legal
right to access the roadway. We meet all your concurrency
requirements and also safety concerns.
Here's -- here's what I think we could -- we could do. Mr. Posch
said at the Planning Commission that he'll sell me access rights to that
road for 250,000 bucks. Make him bring a contract that sells me just
access rights for my units to Tree Farm Road. I'll give him till the end
of tomorrow. There's no reason he can't do a contract for the 250.
We'll do it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're getting closer, Richard,
and I appreciate where you're going with this and the fact that you're
coming up with some creative thinking to bring resolution to this.
I don't want to -- I don't know how to be able to word a resolution
that would actually be able to cover this predicated on this taking
place.
We heard on the record that it was $250,000. The only thing is,
we're not there yet. You have to take care of this the next day after we
Page 59
February 24, 2004
make a decision here today. Seriously, why don't we go ahead and
continue this for two weeks and then bring it back, and we'll walk
right on through with it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, Commissioner, if I had any real
hope that that was going to happen without a time frame imposed by
the commission, I would -- I would say fine. But at some point we
need to say, he made the offer at the Planning Commission for access
rights for $250,000. Make the motion to approve contingent upon we
have -- we cannot build our bridge if he brings me a contract to buy
the access rights for $250,000.
I don't want any strings attached to the agreement. If he does
that, we'll buy it. If he doesn't do that, we should be allowed to go
forward, because this is an important project. I can't -- I don't think
two weeks is going to make a hill of beans. I think we need to have
that motion to put the pressure on Mr. Posch and not the pressure on
me to live up with the offer he made to the planning commission.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let's go back to this for a
second. You said it is your right to access 951. You're absolutely
correct. But I think it's, one house per five acres gives you that right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, and we can get into the whole
discussion about, the comprehensive plan really talks about four units
per acre in here and the need to do affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I wanted to make sure that
we didn't leave that misunderstanding out there for the public to be
able to pick up on, saying that we're denying you a right. We're not.
You can access it anytime you want based on the current density and
-- that you're allowed to do under the agricultural zoning that now
exists.
However, that's not -- that's not the goal here today. The goal
today is to bring this to some sort of closure so that we keep moving
this forward.
Mr. Feder, have you got some suggestion on the wording for this,
Page 60
February 24, 2004
or Mr. Mudd, one or the other? I really would like to be -- I like what
Mr. Yovanovich has come up with, but I just don't know how to put it
together in such a way that it's going to be a compelling thing to get
this resolved.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, if I could just interject again. Jim
Mudd, county manager, for the record.
Discussion aside, and let's talk about Nicaea Academy, and let's
talk about this particular development.
I see about 500 to 600 new residences in those two particular
developments with right-in and right-out on 951, going to be a six-lane
highway, and I see a time, not -- in the not too distant future where
you're going to get developments coming back to you as homeowners'
associations saying, please let me have a median -- let me have a
median cut and my own light. And you have the opportunity today to
try to get that resolved so that Tree Farm Road is that -- is that -- is
that signalized intersection where they can all get out, they can make
rights, they can make lefts, and doing the same to get back home.
And I wouldn't -- and I wouldn't let this opportunity go away
from you at this particular juncture. And I mean, it's going to save
you much pain in the future, I think.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got a -- I got a suggestion.
You know, I do agree with you about the position your client may be
put into in negotiations that have to take place after this happens.
How about if we -- I can't make you promises, but I can tell you
what I would -- what I'd be willing to back, is the continuance for two
weeks. And at the end of that point in time that you can't come back
with a contract in hand at the price that we -- that he told you he
would do it for, then we consider very seriously your right-in and
right-out.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And the price you're talking about is
$250,000?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's whatever it was that
Page 61
February 24, 2004
he came up with that he stated on the record.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what he said at the Planning
Commission. That's what he said at the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
MR. YOVANOVICH: And let me -- let me point out one other
thing, if I may. You all have to now make a request on Nicaea
Academy to give the 40 feet they said they were going to give,
because you need 70. So you-- you're part of the solution. I would--
I would hope that the staff or through direction from the commission,
if it needs to come from the direction of the commission, will direct
your staff to enforce that PUD requirement on Nicaea Academy,
because you can't build the road in 30 feet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we ought to just cut to the
chase here. I think what -- the responsibility needs to fall back on you
and on Nicaea Academy to where you people work with Mr. Posch
and figure out what you're going to need to do to get that road open so
that we have an access through not only Nicaea, but also your
particular property that you're representing and -- so that we've got a --
one area that's signalized for all those communities there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's my recollection, excuse me,
that Nicaea cannot develop without having access to Tree Farm Road.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Tree Farm Road.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So they have great motivation to
work out some arrangement with Mr. Posch. It's my turn now.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The -- there are some important
dynamics here that have to be understood, by the way, all parties,
including the owner of Tree Farm Road.
Page 62
February 24, 2004
If we approve this PUD as it's submitted with the right-in,
right-out, the value of Tree Farm Road is diminished because there's
only one person then that really needs it.
And I would suggest that it is an opportune time for the owner to
see if he cannot make out some arrangement very quickly with respect
to the utilization of Tree Farm Road. Because if we do -- and I'm
willing to vote for the right-in, right-out access because you do not
violate our concurrency requirements. The staff has said you do not
violate our concurrency requirements by doing so, but in the long run,
it is not the best solution.
So we would like to encourage the utilization of Tree Farm Road,
but I don't want to get in the middle of a land deal negotiation.
But I'll tell you that I will vote for the right-in, right-out access,
which you have a right to, with the requirement that when Tree Farm
Road does become available for public use, that your development
will be required to use it, and that's essentially what you have
proposed.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That is correct, and we recognize just --
if you get the 40 feet you need from Nicaea Academy and we get Mr.
Posch's property, we understand that we may have spent a quarter of a
million on a bridge that may go away.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So we do -- if you approve what I'm
proposing today, we do have incentive to try to work a deal with Mr.
Posch to save a $250,000 expenditure that will go for naught in the
long run, but it also puts him in a position where he's really got to
negotiate fairly with us and not hold our zoning over our head.
So I'm hoping that that's the compromise that could work for you,
Commissioner Coletta, because we recognize we may build a bridge
that will go away and be abandoned when and if Tree Farm Road gets
built, and I think that was one of the things you were concerned about
is you wanted us to abandon that right-in, right-out, and we can do
Page 63
February 24, 2004
that.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman, again for the
record, Norman Feder, transportation administrator.
Rich, can I ask you a question? The bridge that's being built now
that will service your property, is that being build by Big Cypress
Basin right now as one of the bridges?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's ours, it's our expense.
MR. FEDER: Your expense?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Our expense.
MR. FEDER: Okay. Again, what I'll come back to you -- what I
think I'm hearing from the board -- again, I can't recommend that we
get into, in this forum, trying to negotiate a sale between the
individual property owners.
But I can tell you that if we let this go, we are replicating many
issues of the past and we'll have a very difficult time in trying to
establish a grid, and that's part of what we're trying to do. I know it
sounds rather unique for Collier County, but we'd like to try and do
that.
So with that in mind, the only recommendation I can give you is
one of two. And understand, I just spoke to Rich and the developer,
and, again, I'm not looking to harm them in any way, and I know
they've gone through a laborious process to this date.
But what I can tell you is that if we don't encourage that they take
the time and try and find a way and then come back, at least after that
and at least understand that that right-in, right-out bridge would have
to be taken out when they implement their access to Tree Farm Road
-- otherwise, we do have major problems.
As Jim pointed out, there's going to be that demand for the
median modification some 330 feet south of what's going to be a
future signalized intersection, and that's something we need to avoid
those demands and the operational impacts of 951.
I don't have an immediate solution for you. I think that if there's
Page 64
February 24, 2004
the opportunity that they can then go back to all parties -- if it's
appropriate for staff to bring the parties together -- and work as an
unaffiliated facilitator just to -- with one object in mind -- no party
affiliation here -- but that is to try and find a way to get all parties to
find a way to get access to Tree Farm Road. We'd be happy to serve
that role. So I'm at your guidance and your direction.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, Commissioner
Halas, then Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- what I'm hearing
from Commissioner Coletta, his concern is safety of having two
accesses close together, to bridge that gap on the crossroad, maybe
formulate a motion that if staff-- transportation staff deems that the
entrance is a safety issue and they have those two exit -- entrance to
Tree Farm and the other bridge, then the other bridge would become
removed or be removed. I mean, that's the solution.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, one hesitation on that, and I'll just
bring it to your attention. Depends on your definition of a safety issue.
What you've got is a higher access management classification on 951
where you're trying to discourage multiple access points.
Can you have 330 and have safety? We have areas around the
county where we have it. Can you have operational efficiency? That
becomes the issue. And so I just wanted to clarify.
The other reason I was raising -- and not necessarily the board's
decision. That's the board's decision -- the idea of it being removed
was not only for operational efficiency, but have that known up front
so that there is not the effort to expend the money if there's a chance to
try and get connection to Tree Farm. That provides some'level of
impetus. If, in fact, in their assessment they're not going to get access
or Nicaea's not going to come and create access, then I'm sure they'll
continue with the development of a right-in, right-out bridge, even if it
has to be taken out later.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Feder, I'm sure we could
Page 65
February 24, 2004
formulate a motion to put it in the transportation's hands to make that
determination.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to make a motion that we
table this and that all parties involved, both Nicacaea (sic) and your
development get together with Mr. Posch and come up with something
and table this for the next two weeks and come up with this so we get
this rectified, taken care of, and off the table.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And Mr. Halas, if I can just tell you, your
staff has hosted two meetings with all those same parties in the room.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, Mr. Posch made a -- made a
gesture today when he was up at the podium saying that he was going
to -- he would work with you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And he made the same gesture at the
Planning Commission, Commissioner.
Well, let me -- let me make a suggestion that hopefully -- we are
willing -- when Tree Farm Road becomes available for our use, that
we will abandon the bridge on 951.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other question --
MR. YOVANOVICH: That, I think, answers the question about
having two bridges closest (sic).
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other question is, why would
you start building a bridge if you didn't start -- if you didn't have this
approved -- this development approved? I don't understand.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We haven't started to build it. He -- the
question was asked, who is going to pay for the construction of the
bridge.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That will be us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was under the impression that it
was already started, the construction.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, nobody said that, no.
Page 66
February 24, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor to
table. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it for discussion
purposes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. A second by Commissioner
Coletta. And you're next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
I know this isn't what you wanted to hear today, but I'll tell you
what else I'm thinking about. If we can force this to go back-- I don't
want to put you at an unfair advantage. I want Mr. Feder to also look
at a couple other things, one, if Nicaea Academy was to come up with
their own road completely on their own land, what would be the
possibility ofjust getting access across that property; in other words, a
connecting road?
Number two, is there a possibility to have an entrance that would
take a right-hand mm and catch Tree Farm Road where the public
right-of-way is?
Number three, is there a possibility that we might be able to look
at condemnation for the betterment of all and then set up an MSTU
and make all property owners in that area pay for the cost of going
through that for the MSTU, for the building of the road, the legal costs
to get to that point and be able to move it forward?
Can't answer those questions here now, but I think these would
be good things to take various consideration of. Because, I mean, if
the price is too ridiculous and we went through a condemnation order,
it would have to come out with an appraised valuation of what I'm
sure would be considerably less than is being asked for.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, we'd love to pay the
appraised value of-- the value of the dirt for Tree Farm Road for that
30 feet. I think you'd be surprised at how little it really is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that might be another
avenue that we could have staff come back and discuss with all the
Page 67
February 24, 2004
parties involved, and then come back here in two weeks or a month,
whatever it takes for you to get through this. And at that point in time,
if everybody's being totally irresponsible and unrealistic, we'll have to
make some sort of final call on it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to remind the
commissioners the next meeting that we have, scheduled for two days,
the meeting, and it's because of a -- a permit, and we're going to have
a lot of discussion on that.
To continue this, I think, is not in the best interest of the public. I
think that we can formulate the motion in a way that we can
demonstrate the ability to connect to Tree Farm Road as a primary
access. But -- and again, I don't want to make somebody rich in this
process because of the action that the Board of Commissioners are
about to take. That's my real concern.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I don't believe that
postponing it achieves the desired objectives. The objectives are
good, and I agree with them, but I don't believe that postponing it
achieves those objectives.
But let's break this into two parts. The first part is two entrances
onto the main roadway. None of us want that. But that's not possible
under the current proposal. There cannot be two entrances, because
the minute that Tree Farm Road becomes available, it must be utilized,
and the right-in, right-out for this particular development has to be
closed. So there's no way under this proposal that we'll wind up with
two entrances.
Now, the other issue is, how do we motivate the people to get this
problem resolved? Well, one way to do that is as you have suggested,
is approve it with the understanding that they have to remove that
bridge when Tree Farm Road becomes available.
Page 68
February 24, 2004
Now, that bridge is going to cost a lot of money. They don't
want to build the bridge and then have to tear it down when Tree Farm
Road becomes available. So what they're going to do is to work as
diligently as they possibly can to get this resolved before they have to
build the bridge. So there's a built-in incentive for the developer to do
something to get this resolved so they can get on Tree Farm Road.
So we're protected in both ways. There cannot possibly be two
entrances at Tree Farm and for this particular developer. There can
only be one. And we have built in a substantial incentive for them to
work hard to get it resolved before they start building that bridge.
! think it's a good solution. It achieves all of the objectives, I
think, that both Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Coletta were
looking for, and it saves us the time and delay of having to consider
this again without really knowing if anything at all will be
accomplished.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners, at this time let me
-- let me remind you that this is a two-part issue, first is the rezone and
second is the affordable housing density bonus. That's what we're
actually voting on today. Okay?
Secondly, we have a motion on the floor to table this issue and a
second -- a motion on the floor by Commissioner Halas and a second
by Commissioner Coletta. Before we proceed any further, I'm going
to close the public hearing. Okay. Yes, sir?
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, the appropriate language
would be to continue for two weeks if you were to go forward at this
point with the proffer of Mr. Halas.
Let's do a little housekeeping right here. We reconvened this
hearing after we heard from the judiciary on 13(A). We had a motion
to table previously. We did not have a motion to remove from the
table. So just for housekeeping purposes, I would suggest that you
have a motion -- you reconvened and the discussion you had is fine,
Page 69
February 24, 2004
but for the, call it the parliamentary process, it would be appropriate if
you had a motion to untable this item, 8(A), consistent with the
discussions you've just had. And then when you finish that, Mr. Halas
has made a motion to effectively continue for two weeks, and that
would be the next item of business if you wish. I don't recall if there
was a second to that or not.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: There was a second to that.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. So that would be the next matter to be
had. But I would request, respectfully, that you first entertain a
motion to untable 8(A) consistent with your prior comments, which
you've just had. There.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to untable--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 8(A).
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- 8(A).
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
And I'll second that.
Motion and a second.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
that one.
MR WEIGEL: Right.
Opposed, like sign.
We won't even bother with discussion on
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll amend my motion --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The motion stands.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. So everything you've done -- you're up to
date at this point, and now you're ready for Mr. Halas's motion and a
Page 70
February 24, 2004
second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll amend my motion that we'll
continue this item for two weeks, and hope that all parties can get
together and come up with something so that we can get off the hook
on this, we being the county.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Does the second agree with that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle has
offered a very good argument to continue and be able to continue with
the stipulation, and if we could word that motion in such a way that
would say that there can't be two bridges, that simple, if we can word
that, I think that would get us to where we want to go, keep going
forward.
So in this case after listening to Commissioner Coyle, I don't
really care to make a second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You withdraw your second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I withdraw my second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. So that motion dies for lack
of a second.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you're going to need two motions
if you're going to go forward on this, one is for rezone, and then you're
going to do a second one to approve the affordable housing density.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Or we can -- from what I understand, we
can also take it as one motion but address both parts, is that correct,
both requests?
MR. WEIGEL: I think I would prefer two motions. And Mr.
Coyle may be looking to determine -- to place on the record -- if he
wishes to place on the record in the initial rezone motion the caveat
that he has regarding only one ingress/egress at a time, and Mr.
Yovanovich -- after that motion was made, I think, it would be
appropriate for Mr. Yovanovich on the record to indicate -- indicate
again his commitment to the motion that is made.
Page 71
February 24, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is exactly my intent, to ask the
petitioner to stipulate that there cannot be two entrances there, you'll
either use the one you've got now or you'll use Tree Farm Road, but
never both. And I would leave the motion up to Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, okay, fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- but I'm just asking that they
stipulate what you have asked that they do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I understood it just
slightly different, but close.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the motion would read, for
approval, based upon the Planning Commission's recommendations,
but the fence to be of a solid masonry construction, and this can only
-- that the entrances with the right-in, right-out, can only exist up until
the point in time that Tree Farm Road becomes available, then it must
cease.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it must be removed.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Available for use, correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Be removed.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. When Tree Farm Road is
available for use by us, we remove our bridge.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's what we've agreed -- yes, we
agree to that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do have a question of the
county attorney. When we're saying available by us, does that mean
that his determination of available might be if they're going to charge
him money for it? Or does it leave it wide open? I don't want it to
become something where they've now spent $2,500 where that road is
not available because they want $100 for it to be able to have entrance
Page 72
February 24, 2004
to it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Who?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, I think--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Your petitioner -- the petitioner.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What I understood is that ultimately Tree
Farm Road is supposed to become a public road. That's the ultimate
goal of Collier County. So when it becomes a public road available
for our use, we abandon our bridge, is -- I'm trying to put it in very
simple terms as to what I understood, because Nicaea Academy has
some obligations to make sure that that happens.
And when it -- and we abandon our bridge. And Commissioner
Coyle's absolutely right. We've got some money on the table that we
have some incentives to try to save between now and then, because we
really don't want to build a bridge that we have to abandon, but we
recognize that we may be spending a lot of money on a bridge.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you'll keep all the
entrances available? In other words, you won't reconfigure the plan
layout of-- the footprint of the buildings or build a building in such a
way that it would block some future use?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. Our master plan that's attached
to our PUD provides for the connection point on Tree Farm Road.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So Commissioner Coletta, would
you rephrase your --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I knew you were going to
do that to me, Ms. Fiala.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- your motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My motion is that we vote
approval with the stipulations that we follow all the recommendations
from staff and the Planning Commissioner with the change being, for
the -- the fence that surrounds the area will be of a masonry
construction and that the -- there will only be one entrance and exit to
951, and that will be Tree Farm Road at that point in time that it
Page 73
February 24, 2004
becomes available and that there will be no second entrance.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And we'll have to --just so you
know, it's Paragraph M in the traffic stipulations will have to be
revised to do that, and that's what we'll have to do.
And as you see on the visualizer for you, Commissioner Coletta,
we have already set up the access point for Tree Farm Road, so that
will remain.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That will remain.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor. Is there a
second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Get Mr. Weigel.
MR. POSCH: May I say one thing?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, sir, the public hearing is closed, I'm
sorry. We're not allowed to hear from speakers after the public
hearing is closed; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. It's up to the chair at any point
in time, and the chair can be guided by the rest of the commission.
But you're absolutely correct, when the public hearing closes, then the
chair and the commission can speak with or entertain questions from
whom they wish, to the extent they wish.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So in other words, if you wanted
to ask him a question --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I don't.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Everybody's had a fair
advantage at this point.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, as delegated to me, part of
the restatement brigade of motions, Mr. Coletta's motion is to approve,
Page 74
February 24, 2004
and I want to add the key word, the rezone as provided in the petition
before this board today, and everything else he stated.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you've added that to your motion and
second Mr. Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
Commissioner Halas, you had a question?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I have a question. After the
petitioner builds this bridge, why would he even want to try to explore
any further talks in regards to opening up this Tree Farm Road after
they've spent the 250,000 for the bridge?
I think that we ought to look at this and make sure that we only
have access onto Tree Farm Road, and that way it forces the developer
to figure out how he is going to negotiate both with Nicacaea (sic) and
this Bristol Pines so that we got a combination where we end up with
that Tree Farm Road. Because, if they put that bridge in, that -- they
lose the incentive then, because they've got their access.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any further discussion on this
motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and
a second.
All those in favor say, eye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
CHAIRMAN HALAS:
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Halas dissenting.
Opposed, like sign.
Aye.
We have a 4-1 vote with Commissioner
Second part of that motion will be addressing affordable housing
Page 75
February 24, 2004
density bonus.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a question to clarify the issue
about the construction of the affordable housing components. You're
going to construct this in phases, I presume. And is there a
requirement to provide a specified percentage of affordable housing
units for each phase?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. If-- we're going to construct a one
phase.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But if we did it in multiple phases, we
would be required to do the same percentage in each phase under the
agreement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you did mention something
about the possibility of not building as many units as you have
proposed. I believe that was contained in the petition; was it not?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's always a possibility that cannot fit
the full 159.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. If you -- if you part -- if you
don't fit the entire number into this parcel, are you required to still
build the 16 units of affordable housing, or is it proportionately.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we're -- Cormac -- and I'll defer to
him since he's the expert on this. We would still be required to do 16.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So if you built 50 homes
here, 16 of them would have to be--
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think once we get into the bonus, once
we start using the bonus units, yes.
Page 76
February 24, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we have a motion on the floor and a
second.
And further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have 4-1 vote. Again,
Commissioner Halas dissenting.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2004-11 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-69, AS
AMENDED, REGARDING INOCULATION OF COCONUT PALM
TREES AGAINST LETHAL YELLOWING DISEASE;
EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF THE ORDINANCE TO APPLY TO
THE MALAYAN AND MAYPAN COCONUT PALM TREES AND
THE PHOENIX DATE PALM GROUP (DATE PALM AND
CANARY ISLAND PALM) AND CHRISTMAS PALMS;
DELEGATING RESPONSIBILITIES TO CODE ENFORCEMENT;
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY TO TAKFJ REMEDIAL ACTIONS
WITHOUT FIRST INSTRUCTING THE LAND OWNER TO TAKFJ
SUCH ACTIONS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE
OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT
AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE-
ADOPTFD
Page 77
February 24, 2004
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 8(B), which is
ordinance of Collier County, Florida, amending ordinance number
89-69, as amended, regarding inoculation of coconut palm trees
against lethal yellowing disease; expanding the scope of the ordinance
to apply to malayan and maypan coconut palm trees and to the
Phoenix date palm group (date palm and Canary Island palm) and the
Christmas palm; delegating responsibilities to the code enforcement,
authorizing the county to take remedial action without first instructing
the landowner to take such action; providing for inoculation (sic) in
the Code of Laws and Ordinances; providing for conflict and
severability; and providing an effective date.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
approve the -- with the only stipulation that I don't want for the county
to go on the property and inoculate these trees only to come back to
the property owner later and say, we've done this, now give me the
money. I think we should just move forward with it and inoculate it
and not make any demands of the public.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So in other words, you would first advise
the property owner? That was exactly my question, too. First advise
the property owner so that they understand that the inoculation either
will take place or that they have 30 days to do it themselves; is that it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, right.
MR. MUDD: Doctor Denise Blanton will present.
DR. BLANTON: Good morning, County Commissioners,
Madam Chairman. Denise Blanton, director of your university
extension department.
The ordinance is being modified so that there is one path that we
take to stop the spread of the disease, that we focus on inoculation and
removal as soon as possible, and that we do not first require the
homeowner to attempt it.
Our experience five years ago was that trying to identify the
Page 78
February 24, 2004
owner, especially in rental properties, et cetera, and work with them so
that they can find someone suitable to hire, number one, did not
prevent the spread of the disease and it gave the disease an
opportunity to spread, and number two, was not cost effective.
The county spent time, energy, and also, I might add from
personal experience, got resistance from the public at the -- when we
did that. And it was -- my experience now is that it's more cost
effective to stop the disease, to immediately inoculate, remove trees,
and then it is perceived by the public as a public service.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
I second your motion, Commissioner Henning.
Is there any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just --just a question. Are we
violating any property rights by just going onto people's property? I
guess this would be addressed --
DR. BLANTON: We addressed that through the county
attorney's office. No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion.
MR. WEIGEL: The answer's no, if she's speaking or if you're
looking for me to speak. And we are always concerned about the
private property rights of property owners in Collier County and
elsewhere, and the context and concept of this is to not abuse or run
afoul of the private property rights.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're not removing trees. The
only thing we're doing is inoculating them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, it's removing them.
MR. WEIGEL: There is--
DR. BARTON: It is also removal, and you knock on the door,
you share what's happening. And generally the response is very
positive from the homeowner. And even when it's something -- I had
one gentleman who had planted the tree as a child, et cetera. It was
very heartfelt to have to lose the tree. But you get participation when
Page 79
February 24, 2004
they understand that the removal of the tree is a larger benefit to the
community.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are people with big vicious
dogs exempt?
DR. BARTON: Actually, I've never personally encountered that.
Usually people, you know, or an across-the-street neighbor will see
you, and they'll say, well, so and so works. You'll have to come back
after five, things of that nature.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How much extra does it cost by having
the county do it? Like, for instance, I pay $8.75 to have my three
trees inoculated quarterly, or however often they have to do that, right,
and I just pay the contractor directly. How much more is it going to
cost being that the county goes in now and does this?
DR. BARTON: Actually we're collaborating with the City of
Naples. This has -- has always been a very good partnership with the
City of Naples, and we're using a contractor that they are working
with and bringing the costs down. So it's actually less than what
you're paying.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's good. I just wanted to
make sure we weren't heaping a bunch of extra expenses on the
homeowners.
DR. BARTON: We're not asking the homeowners to assume the
expense when they're in the deceased zone. We say, we're going to
jump on it right now and we're going to take care of it.
And like I say, we get, usually, a very positive, thank you very
much, that kind of thing, once you have an opportunity to inform
them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
We have a motion on the floor and a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
Page 80
February 24, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a 5-0 on that.
Thank you.
DR. BARTON: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2004-12 AMENDING ORDINANCE 81-75 BY
ADDING SECTION TWELVE ENTITLED CLASSIFICATIONS
AND CERTIFICATES; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN CODE
OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT
AND SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE- ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 8(E), and
that's an ordinance amending ordinance 81-75 by adding section 12
entitled classifications and certificates; providing for inclusion in Code
of Laws and Ordinances; providing for conflict and severability; and
providing for an effective date.
Mr. John Dunnuck, the public services administrator will present.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, John Dunnuck, public services administrator.
This item is a follow-up item to previous board direction given.
Several weeks ago we directed Naples Community Hospital to go
ahead and enter into looking into post-hospital care for their
transports. In order to do so, we wanted to go back and amend the
Page 81
February 24, 2004
ordinance that would allow them that ability.
This amendment in from of you provides them that flexibility. It
divides it up into two classifications. One is -- one is for pre-hospital
care, which is presently what our certificate for Collier County EMS
operates under, and the second is for post-hospital care, and the
language is provided below.
There's a couple of issues that come with this ordinance
specifically from that standpoint, through the discussions we've had
with your Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee and
speaking with the hospital specifically, and I'll point those out, and
then I think we have people to speak to those items as well today.
The Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee has
recommended that we -- that we not include -- or they -- they
recommended, and that's provided for you today, that we use one
medical director through this process and that's an issue that is causing
a little heartburn with the hospital, and they'll speak to that issue a
little bit later on.
Additionally, you have a private carrier who is concerned with
this item from the standpoint of, the definition that we have for
post-hospital only speaks to hospital-to-hospital and it wouldn't allow
a private carrier to come in to operate under a license for post-hospital,
and they wanted to speak to that item as well, because it's very
narrowly focussed from that point.
And then the third item that I need to point out for the record
before we mm it over to the public speakers to respond to, is that there
are a couple of issues that we caught from the standpoint of when it
was provided to you all, there are clerical errors that have changed the
state administrative code, that actual -- the code numbers have
changed a little bit, and we have to get those on the record as well.
Those are minor typo errors that we worked through the county
attorney's office to fix as well.
But I wanted to keep this presentation brief. This isn't issuing a
Page 82
February 24, 2004
license to anybody today. This is merely changing the ordinance that
will allow people to apply for the post-hospital license. Are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's not issuing a license? It's just giving
them the ability to apply for a license?
MR. DUNNUCK: Correct. There are procedures that go along
with issuing a license. And right now I do have two applications for
license, one from the hospital, one from a private carrier, to evaluate,
and I'm beginning that evaluation process.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. Gail.
MS. DOLAN: Hi. My name is Gail Dolan and I am the
vice-president for clinical operations at Naples Community Hospital.
We, first of all, want to thank Mr. Dunnuck for all his hard work
in helping us to prepare for today's meeting, but also we've been
working very hard with the county because the county has provided a
wonderful service to us. And under your direction, we realize as a
hospital system, we need to provide our own service for transporting
our patients in between hospitals or in between the Marco Island
facility.
So we are asking for four changes in the ordinance. These
changes are what we think are minor changes. The first one being -- I
would draw your attention to page six on my document under number
B(2), which would be that the class two, which is what we are
applying for, ALS transfer certificate holders may provide
post-hospital interfacility medical transfer services and routine ALS
and BLS calls within and outside the county. This is to transport our
177 patients out of county to other facilities that can provide the
service.
Then I would draw your attention to 3(A). And we would like it
to read, transfer and medical protocols utilized by class two transfer
certificate holders shall be preapproved by Collier County's medical
director.
Page 83
February 24, 2004
(B), all class two transfer certificate holders shall only utilize
paramedics and EMTs that are fully qualified to follow the transport
and medical protocols that are preapproved by the county's medical
director. Class--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't mean to interrupt you, but I don't
find that. Where are you?
MS. DOLAN: Well, we wanted three to be eliminated, the whole
section of three, and this is what we would like to be presented in
there.
And the last sentence, which is probably most important to you
all, is that the class two transfer certificate holders are not required to
comply with the general operating conditions in the -- in-- stated in
section 15(G) of this ordinance.
And the last thing, this is, a class two transfer certificate holder's
medical director shall perform all services set forth in section 401.265
Florida Statutes, as specifically set forth.
We are willing to comply. We just need to have our own medical
director that the hospital contracts with. That's probably the number
one issue that EMSAC has an issue with at this time, and I am a
member of EMSAC. So we did meet with them yesterday, Mr.
Dunnuck and myself, and that EMSAC committee. I believe Fay is
here to talk about that.
And the hospital just wants to provide the service to transport our
patients interfacility-wise, and we would like to use our own medical
director and orient the paramedics and EMTs who work for us, just
like we do any other of our hospital personnel. Questions?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: None.
Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have one speaker. Are you ready?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MS. FILSON: Mr. David Hill.
MR. HILL: Good morning, Commissioners. Thanks for letting
Page 84
February 24, 2004
me be here and discuss this with you. I'm the president of Superior
Ambulance Service. We are a company that specializes in
interfacility transports. We transport about 170,000 patients a year.
I was talking to Mr. John Dunnuck, and he was telling me that
you had this ordinance coming up and the -- it seems to me that the
ordinance is quite limiting in that you're going to -- you're going to
have a need for other facilities that will need transports. There are
other hospitals and another one on the way.
And I would ask that you consider expanding this ordinance so
that you could have another provider so that the other facilities could
be taken care of.
There are other needs also that should -- we need to cover in this,
including special event coverage like football games, golf
tournaments, tennis tournaments.
We're not interested in doing any 911 work. That's not what we
do. We primarily transport people between health care facilities. And
as this ordinance is written, it doesn't really allow for that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I understand Fay Biles is here
also.
DR. BILES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Are you here on behalf of EMSAC, Fay?
DR. BILES: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you--
MR. HILL: Oh. We're -- we submitted our letter of intent to
become a licensed provider, and we are going to be working with the
hospitals, and we'd like to -- hopefully we'll be able to work
something out, and they may see that we could be a better alternative
than them reinventing the wheel.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Dr. Biles.
DR. BILES: Please excuse, first, my voice. I've got laryngitis, so
I hope you can hear me.
Dr. Fay Biles, and I'm chairperson of the -- of EMSAC.
Page 85
February 24, 2004
The first thing I'd like to do is correct the name of our group for
the record. I noticed in the paper that everybody's calling it the
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee. By ordinance on
the county, it is a council, and state statute says that it is a board. So
please refer to us from now on as the Emergency Medical Services
Council or Board, just for the record.
First thing I'd like to say, as you know, we all have a right to be
very proud of the service rendered by our EMS professionals. And I
think we all know the record over the many, many years.
We were first in the state, we were first in the nation, and we
continue those top level standards. Our resuscitation rate rose to 42
percent this last month. The national average is anywhere between six
and 10 percent. So we, by far, have the best record of resuscitation in
the nation.
The tremendous success of EMS, it's a very fine program, first
among those, is really due to Dr. Robert Tober who's been our medical
director and who has set the standards, along with EMSAC, over the
years, and we want to keep those records intact. We don't want any
reduction of standards of anything because we -- EMSAC firmly
believes that that is the record that is needed.
I think the following questions have to be addressed. IfNCH is
to follow the current EMS medical protocols, which are extremely
complex, and they plan to hire part-time firefighters to follow these
protocols, it is very unlikely that they will be able to safely meet the
medical standards regardless of what they say now or promise.
We have a very complex and detailed quality assurance program.
How can their group of EMS providers network into an
already-established quality assurance program of EMS providers
network into -- if they have a separate medical director?
What patient safety issues are served by a second medical
director who has no experience in pre-hospital care when the current
medical director has 27 years of experience?
Page 86
February 24, 2004
Since when are the politics of NCH and their own desire to
establish their own medical director outside of Dr. Tober is of greater
importance than the established and standardized medical protocols
and quality assurance programs already in place, and functioning
beautifully within our county?
Please ask the following question. NCH no longer utilizes the
services of Dr. Robert Tober at either one of its emergency
departments or urgent care centers in spite of the fact that history
speaks for itself as to what he has accomplished over these many
years.
I also understand that the separation was not over quality of care
issues on the part of Dr. Tober but issues of philosophical differences
over the standards of medicine that Dr. Tober insisted upon and what
these standards cost. So it's really the level and the standards and the
cost.
Why, then, would our county want to turn over the reins of a new
emergency medical system to an unknown, inexperienced in
paramedic training, a new medical director that happened to be the
choice of NCH?
Dr. Carolyn Walters is a very fine physician but she is -- she
really is hired as the -- within the emergency physician group with
whom NCH contracts. So she has no experience at all in the training
or the recertification of EMS professionals.
So the EMSAC advisory board or council has had several
meetings. We've gone over everything. We don't think that a COPCN
is to be taken lightly because of what could become in the future. And
so the EMSAC council has very much voted in favor of not going
along with the plan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, thank you. Commissioner
Coyle, then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think my question has been
answered.
Page 87
February 24, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
that have been recommended?
Has it?
Yes.
Commissioner Halas?
Do you go along with the changes
MR. DUNNUCK: From my standpoint, you have two processes,
and that's what I tried to outline in the beginning. You have the
outline of the change to the ordinance, and then you have the
application process itself.
What I explained to the Emergency Medical Services Advisor
Council yesterday was that, from my perspective, if they're following
protocols from a health, safety, welfare standpoint, that's my most
important issue.
And from a separate medical director standpoint, that's not
necessarily my issue, because the protocols are what really is where
the rubber meets the road.
Now, as they go through the application process, the question
becomes -- and that's separate from this ordinance today-- becomes,
how do they meet those protocols and how are they going to get there.
And that is the issue that would occur through the application process,
which we're presently in right now with the hospital.
So to answer your specific question in a roundabout way, there
are specific changes I don't have any issue with.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a couple questions myself, one of
them is, according to this class two on page seven, the handwritten
page seven, class two, I guess it would be definition, it says that class
two certificate holders can only transport to hospitals owned by the
certificate holder.
Well -- and yet, the hospital wants to add, and outside the county,
but they don't hold any -- they don't own any hospitals outside the
county, number one. Number two, Cleveland Clinic doesn't own
anybody except themselves, so they can't transport, nor can NCH
Page 88
February 24, 2004
transport to Cleveland Clinic, nor can -- say, for instance, Cleveland
Clinic would want to transfer a heart patient to NCH, they can't do it
this way because they don't own it.
So I think there's some glitches here, and I would really -- there
are a couple other things that I have as well. Let's see.
I wanted to know what the cost benefits were. I don't think we've
even mentioned that at all. And then would this eliminate the extra
transport companies from even being eligible to be contracted? I'm
concerned about that. This gentleman that was here mentioned
something about outside transports. Well, maybe they'd be the only
ones to be able to transport between NCH and Cleveland Clinic or a
new HMA.
MR. DUNNUCK: Let me try to answer your three questions.
The first question you asked -- you know, you thought it was very
limiting in scope, and yes, we did write it very limiting in scope. And
if the board wants to direct it to be a little bit wider on the class two,
we'd be happy to accommodate.
The recommendation from the hospital was to allow them to do
the out-of-county portion of it, and we're agreeable to that. I think that
was as much -- I think that was a glitch, you know, because part of
what we brought to the Board of County Commissioners several
weeks ago was that we wanted NCH to be doing out-of-county
post-hospital transports. So that would allow them to --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Except they don't own any out-of-county
trans -- I mean --
MR. DUNNUCK: That's where we would change-- we would
change the language to accommodate that.
The issue with cost benefits, that's an issue that will come up
when the specific application comes forward to the Board of County
Commissioners where we speak to the issue of how many ambulances
they expect to provide, what their scope of services are, and those are
the questions that we're in the process of that will eventually come to
Page 89
February 24, 2004
the county commission for recommendation on the licensing or not the
licensing, specifically to the hospital.
And from the standpoint of a private carrier, you're talking from
transport to transport. Right now you're right, it does speak to only the
hospitals. If you wanted to widen it out for the class two, the board
could direct it to be that way so that it's wider in the ordinance.
You're still going to have the issue, you know, when you're
talking about certificate of public necessity and need, you're talking
about what is the need for all the licenses. That's one of the issues.
You know, what we presented to you several weeks ago was, you
know, 90 percent of these transports post-hospital are from Naples
Community Hospital.
MS. DOLAN: They are.
MR. DUNNUCK: So from a competition standpoint, the reality
of it is, is you are not going to have a flood of licenses coming in
unless they can work out a deal with the hospital to do so, and if the
board agrees to that, to offering the certificate to a private carrier, if
they wanted to go that far.
This limits the scope based upon the board's direction that said
we want NCH to be able to do this. It doesn't list upon them
contracting out with a private contractor per se to do this under a
different certificate.
If the board wanted to save that for post-hospital, that could be a
recommendation made today and incorporated into the ordinance.
MS. DOLAN: Can I just have a few comments, too, please?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. DOLAN: I absolutely agree with Fay in regards to EMS
being the number one provider, no question about it. They are the
pre-hospital provider in Collier County and do a great job, and we
have worked with them for many years.
I also am a colleague and work very well with Dr. Tober and
have no intention of changing that, however, we do need to provide
Page 90
February 24, 2004
post-hospital transfers. We do need to transport our patients back and
forth to each facility and from Marco for a variety of reasons, but
mostly scope of service.
We need to do out-of-county transports when we don't have a,
mostly pediatric service, that -- where children need to have a
specialized service that we can't provide and have to send them to Lee.
So we are willing to take on the responsibility and are working
with EMS to provide post-hospital care. That's all. That's it. We
don't want to compete with EMS. We have no intention of doing that.
All we want to do is move our patients safely in the quality way
which we do.
We also serve one hundred -- as of last year, 110,000 patients'
visits between the two emergency departments between NCH and
North Collier. I would say that we provide excellent quality care to all
our ER patients.
The patients that we are transporting are patients that have been
stabilized and already seen by an emergency physician at either
facility and are going for a test or to a hospital bed where we could
provide a different service.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think most of my questions have been
answered. I had a bunch of them here. Let me see if I have anything
else that I was curious about.
Yes. Just for the sake of clarification, please, John. Under
section 12, item b, it says class two, and then it says, Collier County
hospitals, and should that not be restricted to -- should it be restricted
to just Collier County hospitals or should that be written that way?
MR. DUNNUCK: That -- that's a commission question. We
wrote it narrowly based upon the board's direction to provide it for the
hospital. If they wanted to have the flexibility for private carrier, you
would want to widen that definition a little bit.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is -- because as Gail Dolan was just
saying, they want to -- they want to send babies to Lee. Well, we're
Page 91
February 24, 2004
talking Collier County hospitals here.
I think that -- I think it -- there needs to be some revisions to this,
and I'm almost going to ask you to continue this until we can see about
the medical director as far as how we want to do that, to add these
provisions so that--
MR. DUNNUCK: Under-- under the direction, this is who it
would be issued to. It doesn't say this is where it could go to and from
necessarily. It would be -- if you broaden the language as
recommended by the hospital, this would allow them to transport out
of county, this definition, as it sits right now.
Our license is for Collier County license. And then similarly, like
how Lee County can send ambulances down to Collier County to pick
up patients to take them back to their hospital, that's how it could work
vice-versa with Lee Memorial County or Lee County. So from that
definition standpoint, that wouldn't be an issue here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'm also concerned with the
language. I haven't been able to read what the hospital wanted to add.
I don't know how that would work out with what we have, and I don't
even have anything to study to prepare for it, so -- to prepare for it.
So I'm a little uncomfortable right now unless I -- unless I --just
with this issue alone, not only did I read everything, but I called a
number of people to ask some questions and do a little research on my
own, and I can't research what they've just added. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is getting a bit confusing,
because some of the recommendations are not in our material, and it's
very difficult to assimilate them into what we have and understand
how it's going to work.
But let me -- let me ask a question then give you my impression
of this thing. The question is, is it our intent to apply standards of the
EMS care and transport that meet the 911 emergency levels to a
hospital transporting patients between their facilities not on an
Page 92
February 24, 2004
emergency basis?
And if we are requiring that, if this ordinance requires that, does
that create an unnecessary expense which does not result in a
corresponding benefit to the patient? So can you respond to that?
MR. DUNNUCK: Sure. I'll try to shed a little bit of light onto
that, if-- I think I understand your question correctly.
The hospital has agreed to the same protocols that we have from
a medical standpoint, which are extensive protocols, and that's a good
thing. Because one of our concerns from our standpoint is, as the
hospital indicated at the last board meeting or the previous time we
had this discussion, there are going to be times where we're going to
be picking up their patients still.
And on those cases, we want to make sure that the meds, you
know, from the standpoint of what they're putting into our ambulances
are the same thing that we would treat from a protocol standpoint.
That's why it's very important to have, you know, the same protocols
from the standpoint of ensuring that level of service.
Then you're taking it to the next level on the post-hospital side of
it, which is more through the application process itself and not
necessarily the ordinance, but as to what level will they provide those
protocols, what level of training will they have for their people and so
forth. And those are the economic issues that I think you're getting at
from their standpoint.
From our initial conversations -- I don't want to put words into
Gail's mouth, but from our initial conversations, they may not provide
to that same level as the past, but that will be an issue that -- we will
point out those things through the application process, that we will
say, this is what they intend to do, here's who they intend to have on
the ambulances.
We get down to that level of detail before we offer-- before we
issue any certificate to any agency. This is just the broadening ability
for them to get their foot in the door to be able to do that. And their
Page 93
February 24, 2004
issue is, we'll agree with the protocols, but we don't necessarily agree
with having that -- we have to use your staff medical -- i.e., medical
director to be able to get there on the protocol issue.
MS. DOLAN: That's correct. And we're talking post-hospital
transfer here. We are not talking about pre-hospital at all under any
circumstances.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It just occurs to me that we
are applying the same standards to both transports. Is that true or not
true? The same protocols?
MS. DOLAN: The same protocols.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's acceptable to you?
MS. DOLAN: That's acceptable to us as long as we train our
people the way we train our people for everything else.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, let me -- let me give
you my reaction based on what I've heard here today, and if it is the
desire of the commissioners to postpone it, at least you'll have some
input with respect to that.
I think the hospital should be able to do out-of-county transfers. I
think we should have an ordinance that is applicable to all hospitals
who are likely to ask for some kind of transfer or transport capability.
I am less tied to a medical director than I am to the protocols, as
are you. I am more concerned about maintaining the protocols than I
am about what that person's name is. And so -- and as long as we're
limiting this to post-hospital transfers, I feel reasonably comfortable
with those positions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I'll just say that one of the
things -- I'm all for NCH, you know, providing transportation between
their hospital facilities and out-of-county transports. I mean, we're not
-- you know, it then keeps our EMS people here to handle the 911
calls, and I think that that's fine.
What I just don't want to do is limit us, and that's the thing I'm
worried about, because we have to also think about the other hospitals
Page 94
February 24, 2004
that are in the area. And although we'd like to see NCH do this, I don't
want to limit us from allowing other hospitals to take advantage of the
same amendment.
MS. DOLAN: Well, just to give you a little bit of background
about that. We asked Cleveland Clinic -- because we also work with
them on a number of issues. We asked them how many out-of-county
transports they did. One.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, that isn't the point though. The
point is, even for that one, it might have been the -- saved that baby's
life or whatever. You know, we want to make sure that we offer the
same --
MS. DOLAN: Quality of care.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- quality of care and opportunity to the
other hospitals able to transport to you, for instance, or for you to be
able to transport to them in case there was a specialty that NCH
doesn't have. I jUst want to make sure that it's written there. And I
don't feel that this is -- I could never vote on what Gail Dolan
presented us. I don't -- I can't even remember what she said. I started
to try and write it down, and you know, it was a long paragraph.
So I really feel I would prefer to continue this, adding, if you -- if
you want to add whatever she had to say before. If you feel it
shouldn't, then she should submit it to us and ask us if we'd like to add
that provision.
So right now I'm not -- I'm not comfortable with this ordinance as
it is written. I would prefer to -- to have you come back at -- maybe
not the 9th of March, but maybe the following meeting in March
whenever --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're on a timeline with NCH for
out-of-county, and if we continue this, it will be at the next meeting.
We've got to get moving on this thing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. I don't care when we do it.
All we're here to do is serve anyway. I mean, it doesn't make any
Page 95
February 24, 2004
difference to us, if we're going to have a two-day meeting, to add this.
But I would like it to be written correctly. I don't want to vote on
something that I'm not comfortable with.
MR. DUNNUCK: Can I clarify a couple of the issues, you
know, from that standpoint then? Because this language reflects, you
know, the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council's
recommendation, which has the one medical director. It also is
narrow, and there are a few i~sues for out of county that need to be
modified.
Is it the board's direction, or Commissioner Coyle and his
comments, about, it doesn't need to be one medical director but it
needs to be consistent with the protocols, to write it -- I don't want to
be in a similar situation where we bring something back that isn't
really the board's direction.
And is it also the board's intent under the class two to open that
up -- right now it's open for all hospitals. But what you're really
talking about opening up is for private contractors to come in, like
Superior Ambulance, to come in and operate a license for
post-hospital potentially. And right now it's narrowly focused for just
hospitals. Would you like to see that broadened, and then you would
hear those on a case by case basis as their certificate comes forward?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would that then allow the other hospitals
to have an equal opportunity to --
MR. DUNNUCK: The other hospitals still do. I mean, under this
language that we have today, the hospitals still do. The question is
really about whether a private carrier would be able to for
post-hospital.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What about EMS? Do the -- do they
handle -- if Cleveland Clinic wants to take a baby -- I realize they
don't have baby services there. But say, for instance, an injured baby
came in there and they couldn't handle this baby and they wanted to
transport it up to Lee, do they call our EMS right now?
Page 96
February 24, 2004
MR. DUNNUCK: Very rarely. Cleveland Clinic doesn't, but
typically in those situations, a lot of times they will call -- Cleveland
Clinic more so is sending over to their east coast hospital of Cleveland
-- Cleveland Clinic affiliation, and they'll send somebody over from
that area to pick them up, take them out under the license of that
county, that particular county, but--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So they don't -- in other words, the
hospital that wants to transport a patient, HMA, Cleveland Clinic,
whomever, wants to transport a patient that they feel they don't have
the specialty to treat, to another hospital, do they call our EMS or do
they have to call a private contractor?
MR. DUNNUCK: It depends. What we're trying to do is get out
of that business of calling us --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
MR. DUNNUCK: -- and they can call a private contractor who
has a license in the county that they're being transferred to.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But that doesn't allow them to do that
right now, does it?
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes, it does.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It does?
MS. DOLAN: We do that already.
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes. We only control the license for Collier
County, and the board only controls the license for Collier County.
An ambulance service that calls from Lee County, they work under
the Lee County license, and they come in. And Lee County has
offered for private carriers, they do have limited licenses for private
carriers up there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the -- I'm not sure where
the board's going, but I -- I think all the issues are covered except for
the one burning issue, is one medical director, or can there be two or
three or half a dozen. You know, I understand the protocols will be
Page 97
February 24, 2004
the same, but I'm a little concerned of some -- a little bit of in-fighting
with medical directors from hospital to hospital. I like it the way it is.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That was what EMSAC also
recommended.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to make sure we clarify
this issue about hospitals being able to contract with private
transporters. They can do that now and they would do it under this
ordinance.
What we're not permitting to happen here is to license those
contractors independently to do the transports; is that true? Is that
essentially what you're saying?
MR. DUNNUCK: Well, let me clarify a little bit. For out of
county, yes, they can use private carriers who have licenses in those
counties where they're being transported to.
Presently, no, no private carrier has a license to operate in Collier
County. What this would do is it would continue to limit anybody
from a private carrier getting that license. But from a management
standpoint of managing part of the resources under the license of the
hospital, this wouldn't necessarily limit that. But that would be
something to consider during the certificate process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, the problem arises
with respect to inspection to assure adherence to the protocol. I'm a
little troubled by how we might try to do that both for private
ambulance carriers and also for those that the hospital does.
What is our procedure for assuring that the protocols are adhered
to?
MR. DUNNUCK: We review the license on an annual basis, and
we can go as far as to add language in -- and I don't know if the
hospital would be agreeable to it, too, that -- you know, that we have
regular quality assurance sit-downs with both medical directors to talk
about them -- talk about individual issues and so forth.
Page 98
February 24, 2004
And we can build into the procedures processes that mitigate that.
But ultimately, the biggest stick the board has is the fact that the
license is reviewed on an annual basis. And if there are concerns, you
know, we can address them through the licensing process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if there is a disagreement
between medical directors, that can be resolved during the licensing
process, and the interpretation of our medical director would prevail;
is that true?
MR. DUNNUCK: Under-- they -- they're -- they would be
required in the language as proposed by the hospital to require -- to
follow the protocols as set forth by the county's medical director. So
from your standpoint, yes, ultimately the protocols would prevail that
we would be recommending under our medical director.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
DR. BILES: That's not going to happen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So let me --just to clarify, that means
then that our medical director really has final say of anything that goes
on; is that correct? No matter -- if their medical director felt one way
and ours felt another, ours would prevail; is that correct?
MR. DUNNUCK: With respect to protocols. Where -- the issue
where the rubber will hit the road -- and there again, this is what I've
been -- I'm trying to communicate is, that through the application
process, how well and to what extent the applicant will go to ensure
that those protocols are followed, will be the question, and that comes
down to the training aspect and so forth, and those are the issues that
will come through the application process, to the county commission
ultimately, with feedback from our office explaining to you where the
pros and cons are, so to speak, of that process individually.
You know, it will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis on how.
That's where we'll answer the questions, who, what, when, where, and
how those -- those processes will be followed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, Commissioner
Page 99
February 24, 2004
Coletta, any questions? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, board members?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we going to vote on this?
I'm ready to make a motion to approve as it is.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: To --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I don't know what the
majority of the commissioners, whether they want to continue this or
not. I hear Commissioner Coyle, I hear yourself.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Make a motion, see if it gets
passed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we
approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have a motion on the floor
and a second to approve the recommendations -- or to approve the
ordinance by adding section 12 entitled classifications and certificates;
providing for inclusion and Code of Laws and Ordinances; and
providing for conflict and severability; and providing for an effective
date; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor and
second.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to ask some questions.
As it is currently written, does it permit out-of-county transports?
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes, it does. It does permit if you have the
license, the COPCN -- I think there -- honestly -- Jeffs telling me yes.
I honestly believe there needs to be three words added into -- to the
section, the class two, that says, and out-of-county transports.
Page 100
February 24, 2004
MS. DOLAN: And out-of-county needs to be added.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I amend my motion to add --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It does require one medical
director, right?
MR. DUNNUCK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Will it apply to any other
hospitals?
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes, it will apply to other hospitals but not
private carriers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we want to add private carriers?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can -- then for out-of-county hospital
transports for HMA, for instance, how do they accomplish that?
MR. DUNNUCK: They would have to apply for a license
through the same process that NCH is.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see. So they -- so we're not going to
leave anybody in the lurch by doing this; other people have the same
opportunity?
MR. DUNNUCK: That's correct. Other hospitals have the
opportunity.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But -- okay. But never a private carrier?
MR. DUNNUCK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And is that what we want, board
members?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But a private carrier can
accomplish this through a hospital who has met the requirements; is
that correct?
MR. DUNNUCK: Under their license, under the hospital's
license, they could -- they could, under the certificate, say we're going
Page 101
February 24, 2004
with
it?
to use a private carrier and accept all liability for that, and they could
put in an application for that, and then it could be reviewed by the
Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So are you all comfortable with -- okay.
No additional questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor of the motion as
amended and seconded, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a 5-0 on that one.
Now we are going to adjourn for lunch. We're going to lunch
the -- let's see. Leadership -- the master's leadership program, is
MR. MUDD: The Greater Naples Leadership Class, and it's
going to be over in our HR training room. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
MR. MUDD: And we'll reconvene, Commissioner, at 1:30.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Reconvening at 1:30. Thank you.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if I could please have you
take your seats.
Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
And we will resume our meeting here at 1:30 with a time certain.
Page 102
February 24, 2004
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2004-13 AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-
102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE
COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS: SECTION
TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE
SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: ARTICLE 3,
DIVISION 3.13, INCLUDING REVISIONS TO COASTAL
CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE VARIANCE; SECTION
FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE,
INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE
DATF.- ADOPTF. D
MR. MUDD: And this is 8(C). This item is to be heard at 1:30
p.m. It's an ordinance amending ordinance number 91-102, as
amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which
includes the comprehensive regulations for the unincorporated area of
Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section one, recitals;
section two, findings of fact; section three, adoption of amendments to
the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the
following: Article 3, Division 3.13, including revisions to the coastal
construction setback line variance; section four, conflict and
severability; section five, inclusion in the Collier County Land
Development Code; and section six, effective date.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: This is number 8(C) on our agenda?
MR. MUDD: 8(C), ma'am.
Mr. Schmitt and Mr. White will present.
Page 103
February 24, 2004
MR. SCHMITT: Madam Chair, good afternoon. For the record,
I'm Joe Schmitt, administrator of community development and
environmental services division.
I'm here to present the sec -- for your second hearing, the
proposed amendment to the Land Development Code, Division 3.13.
Before I start though, I need to make -- to have Mr. White read
into the record to note that this was properly advertised.
MR. WHITE: Thank you. Assistant County Attorney, Patrick
White.
Madam Chair, I've reviewed the Affidavit of Publication and find
that it's legally sufficient for the public hearing to proceed at this time,
and I'm going to turn over the original and affidavit to our records
keeper for recordkeeping. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: Madam Chair, I'll continue then, as directed
during the first hearing, February 11 th, and that was an LDC hearing.
Before you today is your second hearing, and that is regarding --
specifically, if I can direct your attention to page nine of your agenda.
It's actually page seven of eight of the actual ordinance.
And as you directed, we clearly noted, amending only section
3.13.8.3, and that is the paragraph dealing with beach nourishment and
maintenance dredging, and that will now make this process a
permitted activity rather than having to become -- come before this
board to seek a variance.
We also made two administrative changes further down the page,
3.13.9.3. There was a one. We eliminated that one. And on the last
page, page nine, paragraph B, you'll see where it says, first violation,
second violation, and third violation, and that is all existing language.
We crossed out the words "or more" because it made no sense.
Those are the only changes based on the direction of this board
during the first hearing. And as -- as I noted, that this ordinance would
go before the Planning Commission. It appeared before the Planning
Page 104
February 24, 2004
Commission on February 19th at a special hearing at 5:05 and that --
the Planning Commission approved this ordinance as written at a vote
of 7-0.
That concludes my introduction, my presentation. If you have
any questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one question I want to
confirm. This contains nothing new about seawalls?
MR. SCHMITT: Nothing about seawalls. Everything that -- the
only piece that was changed is what I pointed out, Commissioner, and
that's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I make a motion we approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have public --
MR. WEIGEL: Are there any speakers?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor to approve as
written, and a second by Commissioner Halas, and we have one
speaker.
MS. FILSON: Are you ready for the speaker, ma'am?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MS. FILSON: Bruce Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bruce Anderson. I'm here on behalf of the La
Playa Resort Hotel, and we rise in favor of this amendment.
The original proposal that came before you had some good
provisions in it, along -- but it was too tied in with objectionable
provisions.
We understand that the staff received direction from the Planning
Commission to look at simplifying the process. And I've spoken with
Mr. Schmitt about that, and we're perfectly willing to work with the
staff to try to simplify the process, and be glad to be brought in at the
Page 105
February 24, 2004
beginning of the revisions rather than at the tail end and look forward
to working with staff. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, just so you know, the Planning
Commission is going to send a recommendation to you about any
changes to this particular part of the Land Development Code. And
once you have their recommendations and you've had time to review
them, the staff awaits your direction at that particular time.
But I'm not willing to go there yet until I get to see what -- what
their chair has for the Board of County Commissioners as far as a
recommendation is concerned.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I just had one question.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I just wanted to make sure for the record
that this permit doesn't extend to anybody wanting to build over the
coastal setback.
MR. SCHMITT: It does not, ma'am. What this really is, is it's a
permitted activity to allow county sponsored beach renourishment
projects to proceed under a permitting process.
And the reason is, because they've already gone through the
public venting process through both the state permitting and through
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting. And then, of course,
you all, through your board actions, approve the funding. It was
somewhat repetitive to have to come back to this board to receive a
variance for something that you've already approved.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. I just wanted that on the record --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- just to make sure everybody understood
what this actually meant.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor and a second.
No other-- no other comments or questions?
(No response.)
Page 106
February 24, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Item # 10E
(ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 10, 2004 BCC
MEETING) FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM THE VANDERBILT BEACH
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO
PARTNER WITH THE MSTU IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
MASTER PLAN AT A COST OF ONE-HALF OF THE TOTAL
COST OF THE MASTER PLAN AT AN AMOUNT NOT TO
F, XCEF, D $407000_ MOTION TO DF, NY- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, that brings us to item 10(E), which is a
time certain of 1:45, and I think Mr. Lydon is in attendance.
10(E) is an item continued from the February 10th, 2004, BCC
meeting. It's for the Board of County Commissioners to consider a
request from the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee to partner with the MSTU in the development of a master
plan at a cost of one half of the total cost of the master plan at an
amount not to exceed $40,000.
And Mr. Feder will present.
MR. FEDER: Ms. Chairman, members of the commission, for
the record, Norman Feder, transportation administrator.
Page 107
February 24, 2004
This issue was brought to you by the MSTU under public
petition. You asked that staff look at the issue and come back with an
executive summary.
What we've provided to you in recommendation basically is that
rather than co-share in the cost of the plan itself, allow the MSTU to
conduct their plan, complete it.
Those issues that are identified out of that plan approved by the
community that are typical core services of the county, based on our
resources and priority throughout the county and looking at all those,
that we try to cost-share in the capital improvement items as they're
appropriate as opposed to necessarily in the planned development or
specifically in the further enhancement items that are really the reason
that an MSTU is formed.
They do have some funds to move forward on this. There are
options that they can borrow against future fimds, if that's part of the
issue. I will defer to Mr. Lydon to any specifics he'd like to present to
you.
But our recommendation, unfortunately, is not to participate in
the planned development, rather to look at the capital projects coming
out of that, and as appropriate, to implement consistent with the
community desire in that area as they would be services provided by
the county.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners, I tell you, I -- Dick, I'm
so sorry. Dick and -- Dick Lydon and I have been friends for 20
years, but on this one, I don't agree, and I have to tell you that the
Bayshore MSTU, that little group got together, I don't know, six,
seven, eight years ago.
They've been working hard. They never could get a thing done
for their community until they taxed themselves, they paid for it out of
their own pocket. Nobody's helped them to build anything, nobody's
helped them to create an overlay. They paid for everything by
themselves.
Page 108
February 24, 2004
And if they, along with other MSTUs that are in the same
situation, found that we gave not only half of the dollars to the
Vanderbilt Beach group but also intend to pay for half of the
construction of whatever is needed, they're going to want us to do the
same thing, and this is going to be something that's going to be spread
county-wide.
And I always believe -- and you guys know me pretty well by
now-- what's good for the goose is good for the gander. What's fair
for one is fair for all. So either we give it to him and give it to -- and
then reimburse everybody else, or give it to no one, as it stands right
now.
And I'm sorry that I'm so firm on that, but that's just how I feel.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I believe the same way, too.
I've known Dick for a number of years, since I've moved into
Vanderbilt Beach area, and Dick was instrumental in getting the
MSTU put together.
But I also believe that if they go forward and the -- determine
what their plan is, maybe at some later date, if it's something that
would benefit not only the residents in Vanderbilt but it would benefit
the residents, other areas of the county, such as the turn-around that I
know that they're working with Diane Flagg on, I think that we -- you
know, and it's in regards to beach access, I think that would be
beneficial.
And if there's any way that we can address maybe sidewalks, I
think that's also in an area that we could probably work with them on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, I know Bayshore built their own
sidewalks, but then they chose to have meandering sidewalks.
Lakewood partnered with the county for speed humps. They
have half of the speed humps, but that's because it's a county
thoroughfare that everybody uses.
I know Lely has had to pay for all of their own speed bumps
because it isn't a county thoroughfare, and so they've had to put it all
Page 109
February 24, 2004
up on the table before they could get any.
So what I'm saying is, I just want to make sure that we're all
operating from the same page and it's always fair. If we help one
person do sidewalks, then we should help another. If we-- you know,
if they choose to have sidewalks that meet county standards and that's
something --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what I was referring to,
yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- in the books, then we should be
building them. If they choose to make them a meandering sidewalk,
well, then, they can help pay for the meandering sidewalk. You know,
we would -- we would be putting the sidewalks in anyway as part of
the county ordinance, but to have a decorative sidewalk, fine.
Just like streetlights, same thing. You know, if the county was
putting in streetlights and they said, no, we want to choose this type,
well, then let them pay for the extra. And that's what I'm say, it's just
what's ever fair, you know.
Sorry, Dick, but that's the way I feel.
MR. LYDON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Dick Lydon. Chairman, it's nice to know that you're going into a
stacked deck.
Let me just clarify one thing, Commissioner Fiala. We are not
asking for partnering beyond the $40,000. The future determination
of how much the county and how much the MSTU will participate in
in any of these other projects is certainly open for negotiation.
Our thought was in fairness to your looking at paying for part of
it since you're going to be a part of it, and perhaps in many instances a
major part, in the actual providing of the infrastructure.
We are not an infrastructure MSTU. We are a beautification
MSTU. And I think we've done our share up there. Our -- you know,
people look at Vanderbilt Beach and they think that's a very rich
community, and it is. We sent 16 and a half million dollars down to
Page 110
February 24, 2004
this place last year. Five million of it went into the general fund.
We have a community that's blessed with community spirit.
We've added 87 new parking facilities for the beach. We've agreed to
the garage that will more than double the parking down at the south
end of Vanderbilt. We spent about $250,000 lately trying to get
Vanderbilt Beach back of-- the Vanderbilt Drive back to where it
should have been had the county done it right in the first place.
We have been working very closely with parks and rec. on the
park and the other things that they're trying to do in beautifying and
making those beach accesses available.
Our master plan will include utility lines burial, sidewalks on the
east side of Gulfshore, some traffic calming, some landscape upgrades
on Bluebill west of the bridge, which is direly needed, maintenance
landscape on that roundabout that we're hoping that some day we're
going to get to build up there. And our purpose today is really to ask
you for $40,000.
In the five-year plan over in Vanderbilt Beach, we looked at it,
and we can't find anything that's going on over there in the way of
expenditures of county money except the south end of Gulfshore
where we now have a merging road, sidewalk, and bike path. And
that was all -- as to right or wrong, because that was all permitted by
developers who -- landscaping, and in some instances, walls of their
community are in the public right-of-way.
Forty thousand dollars represents a very infanticible (sic) amount
of the five million. And so all we're asking for is just a little bit of
return on our investment.
And your agreeing to share with this will prove to the county
residents that through cooperative efforts we can enhance the quality
of life that we all desire.
And I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
Question?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Dick, I believe that the parks
Page 111
February 24, 2004
and rec. department is presently involved in enhancing a lot of-- or a
couple of-- the beach access there. I think they've gone forward to
put in paver bricks and whatever else. They're in the process of doing
that.
And that -- I don't believe that -- any of that money came out of
the MSTU. I believe that was put forth by county money. Am I right
or wrong?
MR. LYDON: That is correct, and we have Marla to let us take a
look at what she's proposing to go over there, and if, in fact, we'd like
to enhance that a little bit, we would certainly be willing to work with
parks and rec. to make those look like we want Vanderbilt Beach to
look.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I believe the other thing that
the county's also, right now trying to work on, and that's a new -- a
couple of designs for the bridges that are south of the main bridge on
Vanderbilt Drive there.
We realize that that's also a problem with the cyclists and the
pedestrians, and I think we're working on that. And I think that the
county is also hopefully putting on the radar screen to address the
Cocohatchee Bridge. That's definitely in need of being expanded or
widened so that it will accommodate both the cyclists and pedestrians.
So the county is in a partnership with the people up there, that
we're trying to address a lot of those issues. And I think the stuff that
you're looking at is basically beautification, which includes sidewalks.
But if it's a serpentine sidewalk, as Commissioner Fiala said, that
may be something that you'll have to endure the expense on. But if it's
just a standard sidewalk that meets county regulations, then I think we
could probably -- as we said earlier, might be able to assist in that
manner.
MR. LYDON: Let me clarify -- since you've taken up one of my
minutes.
Let me clarify, Commissioner Halas, that the -- that the two
Page 112
February 24, 2004
bridges in which-- the bike paths, there's no money coming out of the
general fund. That's a state grant. And that is, again, no return on our
investment of five million.
The other bridge, half of that belongs in our MSTU area.
Any other questions, thoughts, or desires? Again, thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we not
approve this 40,000.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor not to
approve, and I'll second that motion. There's a motion on the floor and
a second, by Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 5-0 to deny.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2004-62 RE: ACCEPT THE FINAL REPORT OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY REVENUE COMMISSION, AN AD
HOC ADVISORY BOARD, CREATED TO EXPLORE
ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SOURCES FOR MEETING THE
COl JNTY'S NIJMFROI JS AND VARIFD NEEDS- ADOPTED
Page 113
February 24, 2004
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9(B). It was
set as a time certain for two p.m. to try to get -- to make it doable for
Mr. Gibson, but Mr. Gibson couldn't be here to present this particular
item, so Mr. Schmitt's going to, since he sat through every one of the
revenue commission meetings, will present on this item.
But this is 9(B). This item to be heard at two p.m., accept the
final report of the Collier County Revenue Commissioner, an ad hoc
advisory board (sic), created to explore alternative revenue sources for
meeting the county's numerous and varied needs.
Mr. Schmitt, the community development's environmental
services administrator will present.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, again, good afternoon, and I'm
just the messenger.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Everybody put your weapons
down.
MR. SCHMITT: Actually, most of the meetings I attended. But
I was the -- I was the sponsor, staff sponsor for this, and I noticed Mr.
Fee just walked in, and he was the vice chair.
So I'm going to go through some slides just as an intro, so the
folks understand what this was about. I'll highlight Mr. Gibson's final
report. And barring that -- your discussion -- and with what I have -- at
least in the presentation.
As far as in-depth, I think I would have to -- I would turn it over
to Mr. Fee.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is Jim Gibson coming?
MR. SCHMITT: Jim is not. Jim was unable to attend. I think he
was not even available until like 6:30 in the evening. And rather than
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: -- the manager delaying this, we decided we'd
at least present this so -- you certainly want to have this come back,
and he can discuss it--
Page 114
February 24, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just proceed. Just asking.
MR. SCHMITT: Just for clarification, your resolution 2003-118
created the Revenue Commission, and they were asked to explore
alternative revenue sources to meet the county's numerous and various
demands.
They looked at identifying infrastructure requirements. And, in
fact, staff spent probably at least the first three meetings going over in
detail how we do AUIR and all the other type of activities associated
with -- at least from a staff perspective -- with those type activities and
the funding sources.
They were asked to explore both private and public revenue
sources to meet these needs and submit the written findings, which are
-- certainly they were -- they were enclosed as part of your agenda.
This was -- it was comprised of 16 members. Originally the
ordinance said 18, and those are -- I won't go through each one, but
those are the folks who sat on the b°ard, or on the commission, along
with the organization that they represented.
As soon as I -- you all kind of went through that, so -- for
background, they had eight regular meetings and three subcommittee
meetings. And the first meeting actually didn't start until July 8th.
You followed up in a follow-on (sic) letter where you asked the
commission to look specifically at four definitive areas; beach and
boat access, landscape beautification program, stormwater
management program, and burying of power lines. And that's quite
frankly, what they concentrated on. And this was, again, as you
directed on March 1 lth.
The 16-member panel met. And what I'm about to go through --
I'll just go through four bullets. They were the report that Mr. Gibson
provided that's enclosed as part of your -- your agenda packet.
General observations; quite frankly, they basically said no
additional revenue sources are needed to finance the requirements
within the county. They recommend that we modify and reevaluate
Page 115
February 24, 2004
and adjust accordingly to meet the fiscal needs within the county, so
that's basically what they stated.
Beach and boat access; they recommended that we look at TDC
funds, impact fees, or the general fund to fund these type of activities.
And impact fees, of course, would have to be -- most probable would
have to be an additional fee tacked to the parks and rec., but it would
be -- we think, would be difficult at best to define the level of service,
but that was one of the things they recommended.
Landscape beautification programs can be continued to be funded
through gas tax and the unincorporated general fund and, to a greater
extent, the countywide general fund.
Stormwater management program should be funded countywide
basically, again, through the general fund. And for those areas that are
deemed to be -- that are deemed to receive specific benefits of
stormwater projects, possibility of an MSTU or an MSTBU, that they
would provide special funding.
They also recommended that the currently existing -- and you do
have a regulation or an ordinance that -- for stormwater utility, that we
consider resurrecting the stormwater utility.
And lastly, the burying of power lines was considered low
priority. Communities wishing to bury power lines could seek their
own authority through an MSTU.
The last slide that I have basically shows that this was probably
their greatest concern. As all know, when we discussed this at a
recent workshop in regards to the backlog of work for stormwater
utility, significant issue, and it was considered their highest priority
and in most need of retooling.
But, again, as I pointed out, there was really nothing
recommended in regards to how this was funded other than through
the MSTBU or an MSTU and possibly the stormwater utility.
And then the last bullet back there was, frankly, talking about
creating bond -- bond issues or others that would be -- would be based
Page 116
February 24, 2004
on the stormwater utility, but quite frankly, would be based an ad
valorem-based program.
That pretty much concludes what you received in your packet.
As far as the details as to why; again, this was your commission. Staff
was only there to provide the administrative support and the
background necessary for the commission to arrive at their conclusion.
But as far as the reasoning behind it, or any other of the
justifications, I certainly am not prepared to defend.
And I don't know if Mr. Fee, if he wanted to -- if you wanted to
ask any questions. But that's pretty much the presentation.
This is the commission you formed. And the recommendation at
the conclusion was that the board approve the final report and consider
Revenue Commission -- Revenue Commission -- the mission of the
Revenue Commission completed and terminate the commission, and
that's what they recommended, and that was a recormnending (sic)
coming forward to this -- to the board of county commissioners.
Subject to your questions, that concludes my briefing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas -- it's going to be
kind of tough if you're not on that board, isn't it? Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Too bad Mike Smykowski isn't
here. I got the impression that the Revenue Commission feels that we
have an abundance of 1 11 funds and double 01 funds, and I believe
that's ad valorem taxes. And maybe you -- County Manager, can you
tell me if we have a bottomless pit of money here?
MR. MUDD: No, Commissioner, we don't have a bottomless pit
of money.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay.
MR. MUDD: And what we do have are -- every year we do have
new increased assessments. Thank God we have increased
assessments in Collier County. There are many counties that don't
have increased assessments. Their property rates -- their property
Page 117
February 24, 2004
values are going down. Ours are going up.
We do have some new construction in that year that -- in that
particular year that I just described. There'll be new -- there'll be
additional ad valorem dollars that come into the county.
Last year we were able to -- to budget everything we had in
Collier County, and we were able to bring $12 million of those
reoccurring dollars back to the board and asked the board what they
wanted to do with them. And you aptly put them against projects that
had been nagging this community for a very long time.
I believe this year we will -- we will have some dollars that we'll
be able to bring back to get at some of those issues that you have.
But I will tell you, Commissioner, no, ad valorem is not an
endless pit. You have -- you have increased costs that go into the
operation. This year the CPI is up around 2.1 percent.
You heard the judges today -- judges -- the judge today talk about
four new judges that might -- that we're in need of that could come to
Collier County, and if so, they're going to need additional space for
those people for courtrooms, suites, offices, their assistants, bailiffs,
you name it, all of those things come into play in that particular case.
We have a new jail annex that's coming onboard here that will
require new deputies to watch those inmates as our inmate population
increases.
So we're growing in population and we're growing in -- and we're
growing in needs. And so those increased ad valorem dollars will go
against those particular issues. And if we can squeak some dollars
out, we'll squeak those dollars out in order to make those available to
the board.
My budget guidance, mine -- Mike Smykowski's, myself and our
staff's budget guidance we presented to the Productivity Committee
this last week, and they unanimously supported that budget guidance.
It was a very austere budget guidance, and we'll be bringing that
budget guidance to the Board of County Commissioners the last
Page 118
February 24, 2004
meeting in March as we get it all drafted up for you.
So with that, that's about all I have. Now, Commissioner Coyle
was -- was there at the Productivity Committee, and he can talk about
that budget guidance in more detail if you'd like. But there were no
frills on that budget guidance. It was lean and mean, and we were
getting -- we were cutting to the chase again for another year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I've just got one more
question. And I also believe that the Revenue Commission basically
put in there that they didn't want us to proceed with looking at
franchising fees also.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. They basically -- that was one
of-- the position, there was no other-- no need for alternative sources
of revenue.
And Commissioner, we did go over in detail -- Mike Smykowski
went over in detail the budget, how each of these programs are
funded, the status of the bonds and where we are with the bonding
capability within the county.
We went over in detail in regards to each of those projects from a
standpoint that -- the beach and boat access, stormwater utilities.
Robert Wiley went over his program in detail, beautification and --
landscape beautification. Diane Flagg went over her program.
So they were fully aware of all the needs and requirements. And,
in fact, that briefing that you saw earlier actually towards the end of
last year where we discussed almost $500,000 of compelling needs out
there, $500,000,000.
MR. MUDD: Five hundred million.
MR. SCHMITT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Five hundred million.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, five hundred million dollars, half a billion
dollars worth of needs. So -- but, again, they formulated the opinions
as they did, and they had -- in their subcommittee meetings, and it was
-- and that's what was presented in the final report.
Page 119
February 24, 2004
MR. MUDD: Earlier, Commissioner, just so that you know as a
commission, that when -- early on when the Revenue Commission
started their meetings, okay, the staff, Mr. Smykowski in particular,
basically laid out the whole plethora of funding sources that are
available to this board and to this county as far as mechanisms to bring
in revenue.
So he went through the whole issue, and it went well beyond
franchise fees, transfer taxes, you name it. They were all on. And it
basically laid down the Florida statutes, what things are commission
doable, what things need to be done by the Florida legislature to give
you the latitude to enact those particular cases.
So they -- they went over every particular alternative or revenue
source that you could possibly use. So they knew all the revenue
sources that were out there too.
MR. SCHMITT: The only -- the only thing they -- was specific
was the issue in regards -- and I didn't cover it in detail -- but was the
additional percent on the tourist tax. And they did talk about that, but
you're certainly all aware of that situation. No need to address that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And just for the record, we're
pretty close to being fully bonded out; is that correct? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, it's my feeling that that
particular observation by the Productivity Committee (sic), that there's
plenty of money to get the job done without anything else fails to
recognize --
MR. MUDD: Revenue Commission, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Revenue.
MR. SCHMITT: Revenue Commission.
MR. MUDD: You said Productivity Committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Revenue, I'm sorry, yes -- fails to
recognize the realities of the current situation, and I think it makes
Page 120
February 24, 2004
some assumptions that there are huge quantities of dollars here and we
just play around with them and don't use them efficiently, and that is
simply not the case.
They did consider and discard what I think are some very good
ways of raising the money, but we can get into a debate about that
later. We're just merely accepting the record now; are we not?
MR. MUDD: Sir, you're accepting the report as written, and the
other recommendation is disbanding the advisory board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I won't get into a discussion
about the relative merits of the recommendations at the present time.
We'll have to deal with those during the budget hearing.
But I do have a question of the county manager. Do you want
me to get in -- get involved in a brief discussion about the budget
guidance issue now, or would you prefer to wait until that comes
back?
MR. MUDD: Sir, I would wait till we bring it back on the 24th
and everybody gets to see it in its written form.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, that's fine then.
In that case, I would suggest that we accept this report and
disband the Revenue Commission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Henning.
Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And Commissioner Henning --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the only thing I wanted to
say is, I wanted to second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I just had a couple comments
myself, and then we'll go to the vote, and that is, one of them I wanted
to -- I wanted to ask the county attorney, are the use of TDC dollars
for beach and boat access, is that illegal? And if you -- I realize we're
Page 121
February 24, 2004
not voting on that today. But I would love to have you come back to
me and tell me, this is what they recommended and this is what we're
doing, by the way. I just wanted to make sure that we're doing
everything legally.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The second thing I just wanted to bring
up just for my vote of confidence or -~ and that is the stormwater
utility funding mechanism that was never implemented. And we've all
said that stormwater management is a major issue with us, and I think
as we come into the budget process, we ought to be thinking about
that.
Anyway -- so I have a motion on the floor and a second. Oh,
yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One thing, I think it's important
that we recognize and we want to thank the members of this
commission for their time to give us the recommendations. And I see
the recommendations -- I know that there's some heartburn on some,
but what I see is some person who benefits is -- should be asked to pay
for it. That's what I see in there.
So I don't -- I don't think it was -- I think they spent a lot of time
on that and we need to thank them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. And I think that their
recommendations were excellent, and I'm glad you said that first. We
all need to thank them for volunteering all of their valuable time --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: By the chairman.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and efforts. Hmm?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Write a little note by the
Chairman, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, thanks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Chairperson.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, Chairman is good. I mean, I answer
to that.
Page 122
February 24, 2004
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. We have a 4-0 on that.
Item # 1 OD
APPROVE THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF GOODLAND BOATING PARK- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have some-- we have some
folks here that are here to talk or to give their comments on the
Goodland boating park, so I would -- I would recommend that we go
to -- and I told them after two. It's five minutes after two, so I think
we're people of our word.
That is item-- with your permission?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
MR. MUDD: Okay. That's 10(D), and that's to approve the
scope of work for the development of the Goodland boating park, and
Mr. John Dunnuck will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's still at lunch.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, let's have the Goodland people,
they -- as long as John isn't here.
The Goodland people have put together -- I was so impressed
with this. Let me -- let me -- before I ask somebody from Goodland to
come up and give a presentation -- maybe, Linda, it would be you --
first let me say that we've had a couple communities fighting a park.
We don't want a park, you know, we don't want anybody in our
Page 123
February 24, 2004
neighborhood, we don't want anybody driving, drugs, crime, sex, all
of that stuff.
And here are the Goodlanders, not only do they want a park, but
they got together and they made this a whole town project. I was just
so proud of them. They made this a whole town project where they
had this up all over their community center walls, the children had it --
had a project after school where they would meet, and they would
wish and they would dream and they put it on paper, what I want our
park to be.
And it was -- it was something that the entire community got --
without exception, absolutely every single person in the community
supports the park, and they have great ideas that we -- that I asked
them to submit.
I asked them to submit these to Marla because they had some
concern with the -- with the boat launching area in their community
because they felt -- there's already two boat launches there, and so
they felt that, you know, a tiny little community, it would impact
them. But I'm not going to say any more. I'm going to invite Linda to
come up --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I just say one thing?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was very impressed, in fact, I was
very moved with the information and the camaraderie-ship not only
between the adults, but also the children, where the children came up
with ideas and then the parents and adults came up with ideas.
And it was very interesting how -- the parallel between the adults
and the children in their concept and ideas and thought process, and
that community needs to be commended for the outstanding leadership
and whatever took place to get everybody together on the same plate,
and I wish that I -- someday my community and my area would work
like that.
MR. MUDD: Marla? John Dunnuck is --
Page 124
February 24, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: John Dunnuck is in the form of Marla
Ramsey?
MR. MUDD: Well, it's just -- she just transitioned. John,
looking pretty good.
Marla Ramsey, our parks and recs. director, will be presenting.
MS. RAMSEY: Good afternoon. Today I'm coming before you
to seek approval for a proposed scope of work for the Goodland park
and boat ramp.
And I have for you, which I'll place on the visualizer, the
schematic conceptual plan. Sorry about the quality of it. But it's a
schematic plan that was developed by staff and approved by the
Goodland Civic Association in a 9-0 vote back on July 18th of 2001.
There's a large history behind this particular parcel that is listed
in your executive summary that I don't necessarily want to go over all
of that, but I definitely would be able to answer any questions that you
may have on that.
The boat -- boat -- beach access and boat ramp report that we
presented to you a number of times has this property listed in it as
being one of the future boat ramps in our inventory.
The plan that's sitting here before you is a little bit changed from
the plan that was adopted on July 18th by the board when they sent
forward to you a request to purchase this piece of land for a park and a
boat ramp, the difference being that there are 22 wet slips on this site
plan that were permitted as part of the condo association, which, when
we transferred the boat slips to the county inventory, now can be
developed as part of our project.
The other thing that's a little bit different on this plan is there's
two courtesy docks that were added at the boat ramp location for
tie-ups of the boats coming and out.
And the third difference there is a small office space that could
be used as a dock master's location if you wanted to have the wet. slips
at this particular location as well as the ramp itself.
Page 125
February 24, 2004
There was a little bit of opposition when we talked to the
community -- and I have met with them on seven or eight different
occasions to discuss this project -- in the number of trailered parking
spaces that are on this site.
We have 76 proposed in this site. The national standard for a
ramp -- and there are two ramps -- two lanes on this ramp. The
recommended number of parking spaces is 36 per ramp in order to
accommodate all of the boaters inside the park location.
I know that Goodland has a number of boating activity (sic)
going on down there. As a matter of fact, this weekend one of my
staff was at the location of the Calusa, and he said that there were
about 75 trailers there at Calusa, and a number of them were outside
the parking area. So there is a need to capture some of those existing
boaters to get them off the properties in the Goodland area itself.
Again, my reason for being here today is that we have some
permits that are starting to -- will be soon expiring as they were listed
in your executive summary. The first one being in May of 2005 with
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and in May of
2005, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection submerged
land lease. Then we also have an Army Corps of Engineers, which
expires in February of 2006.
And given the amount of time that it takes to do a modification
on a permit and also design and do construction documents, that we
feel we need to get this project moving quite soon.
And we also have -- the funding is available in the budget. We
have about $165,000 allocated to do the design and the permitting this
fiscal year.
With that, I'd open up to any questions that you might have on
this particular location.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let's hear from the Goodland -- would
you mind if we heard from the Goodland people first?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was just going to ask one
Page 126
February 24, 2004
question.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what is the -- the end result as
far as boat access or boat parking there, trailer parking?
MS. RAMSEY: The end result at the moment -- staff is
recommending 76 in order to make sure that everyone parks inside the
park itself. That can be negotiated. I mean, not every one of our park
slips, as you know, has enough adequate parking in it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MS. RAMSEY: And-- you know, you can always go backwards
from it, but I did want to let you know what the national standard was
for parking. And we can accommodate it on a site; maybe not as
nicely as Goodland would like to have. They might like more green
space. So I think that's an area of negotiation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Are we going to speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have three speakers. Connie Fullmer. She
will be followed by Linda Van Meter.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can we take -- Linda, were you going to
present for Goodland? She was actually going to be the presenter.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Linda Van Meter will be first. Followed
by Ms. Fullmer.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's get somebody going here.
I only have three, and the other one's Debby
MS. FILSON:
Pappy.
MS. PAPPY:
And I'm not speaking.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So--
MS. FILSON: And your name is?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Deb Pappy.
MS. VAN METER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Linda
Van Meter. I'm here to present for the Goodland Civic Association
Park Committee. I'm not into the high-tech world just yet, so please
Page 127
February 24, 2004
bear with me for a moment here. One second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hold on. I think we can put that on
the overhead.
MR. MUDD: If you let me have those, I'll put those on the
overhead.
MS. VAN METER: I'll -- can it be seen all at once?
MR. MUDD: All at one time?
MS. VAN METER: Yes.
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. I'd have to do it in sections.
MS. VAN METER: Okay. I'll just hold it right here then.
Thank you. I can hold it. No problem.
Okay. My name is Linda Van Meter. I'm with the Goodland
Civic Association Park Committee. I'm going to read my notes so that
I can be brief.
I think most of you know me. I think all of you know we want a
park in Goodland. Members of our park committee have met with
most of you to explain what we'd like to see in our park. Thank you
for your time and patience.
I understand a lot of money was spent on this land with the
understanding that it would be a county park with a boat ramp to
generate revenue. But I am representing the residents of Goodland
who feel a boat ramp would jeopardize our village with the traffic it
would bring onto our winding roads and through our narrow streets.
We were asked to give positive input. You have been given
copies of all the input received from our residents and a summary of
this data. This information has preceded me.
As you can see, we are surrounded by boat docks and boat ramps.
We don't need any more of these.
What we do need is a park in Goodland, a park we can walk in
and play in and learn in for our residents and our children and our
visitors and tourists to get to know this area.
The plan proposed by parks and recreation speaks for itself. It
Page 128
February 24, 2004
isn't a park. It's a parking lot with a small area for a park. I offer a
park plan which incorporates the top 12 suggestions of the many
creative ideas given by over 125 of our respondents within a two-week
period.
I was also asked to give an alternative to the boat ramps in this
park. I offered the suggestion of placing the boat ramps and trailer
parking along State Road 92 as shown in this drawing and the color
copies you all received.
This is a practical alternative which would give Collier County
residents and visitors easy access to the water, and we could have a
park in Goodland we could all be proud of. Thank you again.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Your next speaker is Connie Fullmer.
She will be your final speaker.
MS. FULLMER: Good Afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Connie Fullmer. I am president of the Goodland Preservation
Coalition.
I'll read my statement as well, make it a little quicker.
I would like you to think back to the year 1998, six years ago.
Do you remember what you were doing? You weren't county
commissioners and maybe hadn't even yet considered becoming a
county commissioner.
It was long before the Wiggins Pass, Coconilla struggle, the
Naples Park issue and the Best Friend's Park, just to name a few of the
long, drawn-out issues you have had to face while you have been in
office.
Well, in 1998, Goodlanders were talking with Commissioner
John Norris, appealing to him to encourage the county to buy a piece
of property known locally as Palm Point.
Commissioner Norris said the little more than five-acre tract was
too small to be considered a regional park and too large to be
considered a community park, and no money was available then to
buy the land.
Page 129
February 24, 2004
The corporation that bought land was Aqua Circle, the Fisk
family of Naples. They wanted to build a 76-unit, five-story gated
condo development on the land that would have doubled the
population of Goodland, tremendously increased our automobile
traffic, people traffic, and would be a huge change to the character of
the village.
This commission and staff has heard from Goodlanders in many
meetings over the past many years protesting the development of Palm
Point as an intense condo development.
Over the past six years, the commissioners have changed, the
property owners have changed, but the village of Goodland has not
changed in its desire and need to have a park.
Today you have heard from the Goodland Civic Association Park
Committee spokesperson. The committee has input from over 100
people, adults and children, on what they would like to see in the park.
We would all like the land to be just a park.
In December of 2001, I cast one of the 9-0 votes by the Goodland
Civic Association board of directors whereby we issued our support to
you commissioners for the settlement of the lawsuit between Nicki
Janich and the county wherein the county would take ownership of the
property and the rights to the 22 boat slips acquired for the proposed
condo development.
That 9-0 vote was predicated on the insurance from the director
of parks and recreation that the property would be as much a park as it
would be a boat launch facility and the community would have input
in the scope of services for the park, and those comments were made
in writing by our board to Chairman Carter.
Based on that vote, the commission entered into the settlement of
the lawsuit to the tune of $4.588 million.
First, I'm asking you to consider the request by the park
committee to use the land just as a park, incorporating the
recommendations for facilities in the park and looking to the alternate
Page 130
February 24, 2004
location on State Road 92, across the Goodland bridge, for a boat
launch.
Secondly, however, after your thoughtful deliberation, if you
determine that that is not a viable choice for you to make, please
consider compromise to the conceptual drawing initially presented
two years ago by parks and rec.
Please consider the increased traffic and impact that a facility
with 76 boat trailer parking spaces and two boat launches would have
on our small residential village.
A win-win compromise could be one boat launch with 36 boat
trailer parking spaces, one to two boat slips to be used for marine
patrol and a sheriff's boat, a heliport for emergency evacuation for our
residents and emergency needs of the Ten Thousand Islands in the
Gulf, consideration of shell and grass parking, park facilities that can
be used by increasing child population in the village and the physical
exercise needs of the adult population, needed green space for
community events such as our Christmas bazaar, birthday celebration,
and community picnics. We are in great need of green space.
Please consider that Caxambas has 36 boat trailer parking spaces
at that facility, Bayview has only 20, Cocohatchee, approximately 36,
and 951, only 20 spaces. But that has plans to expand to a total of
approximately 89 spaces.
Your decision today can result in a wonderful win for all
concerned at the end of a very long six-year travel through time.
Please make a decision that will not negatively impact the
village, as that is what this six-year struggle has been all about. Do you have any questions I might answer?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Just -- I'll catch you in just a minute.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You said Calusa has 36 spaces, and then
you compared it with other places. For clarification, is Calusa on
Goodland?
Page 131
February 24, 2004
MS. FULLMER: Caxambas, 36. That's at the southern end of
Collier Boulevard on South Marco -- Marco Island, 36 spaces.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And do you have -- do you have spaces
right there in Goodland that --
MS. FULLMER: We do. Caxambas -- or Calusa Island Marina
has parking spaces there for boat trailers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How many; do you know?
MS. FULLMER: I don't. Marla might know that answer. It's
considerable.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you have a boat launch there?
MS. FULLMER: We have a boat launch at Calusa Village,
there's a boat launch at -- at the property at Staffs. The others put --
do put their boats in. Smaller boats are able to put in over on 92. And
of course, the Walker's Marina, they're on the tip in Goodland also,
has the ability to put boats in, and is a commercial marina.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think those are pretty much the
same questions I was going to ask.
Exactly what is available to the public as far as boat ramps there
in Goodland at the present time? That's what I wanted to get a good
clarification on.
MS. FULLMER: Well, most of the -- of course, the residents in
Goodland have boat docks behind -- facilities behind their homes. So
we don't really have much of a need for boat docks or for boat
launching. Canoe and kayak boat launching would be great, but
almost all of us have our own facilities for doing that.
So the purpose for the boat launch would really primarily be for
people coming in from outside the community.
And there was concern about -- Marla had said she especially --
one of the reasons that they -- I'll speak a little bit for her, just based
on my conversation with her -- is that the reason they went -- opted
Page 132
February 24, 2004
with the full 76 trailer spaces is, they're -- they don't want to run into a
situation where people come and then they end up not finding space to
park, and they park in the lawns and swales.
We have that situation fairly well covered in Goodland because
of the location of the park, and there would be fencing around it. And
there are homes immediately next to where the park will be, and those
individuals are pretty good about being able to keep folks off of their
swales. We've run into that problem on Sundays with the activity
going on at Stan's, and folks in town are kind of able to handle that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have any questions. But
I just want to take us back in time when we stripped away a permit
from a developer because it wasn't fitting to the character of the
community of Goodland. Thank you.
So stripping away that permit cost us almost a million dollars an
acre down in Goodland. And it was a -- it was a tough one to
swallow, but I think everybody at that time was fully aware that we
were going to develop this for a boat launching site.
In fact -- and I appreciate the comments about 92. Maybe that's
something else that we need to take a look at as far as a facility for a
boat launch. But the -- I can tell you talking -- I put my boat in at
Calusa Island Marina on Goodland. I know the owner. I've talked to
him a couple times. He is a private owner of land, just like the
Wiggins Pass. And he has a right to develop -- in fact, he wants to
develop into a resort filling in that hole that they call a ramp down
there. Another opportunity lost for people to access the water down at
Goodland.
I appreciate the desire of the community for a neighborhood
park, but that is an expensive neighborhood park.
And I would really like to give direction to our staff not only to
Page 133
February 24, 2004
try to maximize more parking for trailers, but put dry storage on this
site so we can try to recoup as much money as fast as we can on this
site. Because not only do we -- are we going to have to improve this
site, but also the road going into it.
Fully realizing that, after the discussion, I would like to make a
motion to maximize this site to its fullest potential.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, then
Commissioner Coyle, then me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do recall the conversation that
took place when the Goodland folks came to us in desperation. That
-- four and a half million dollars, wasn't it? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The only reason I went along
with it was the idea that, as expensive as it was, we were going to have
an access point for boats. And I mentioned at the time, we're probably
going to hear from people later wanting to do something else with it.
But this is the destination that we all agreed on at that point in
time. We committed that four and a half million dollars of the
taxpayers' money -- and we committed it for a public purpose, not
something exclusive which was going to serve a very small number of
people.
I've seen some of the drawings, you know, that have been put
forward, you know, with 16 parking places, which doesn't quite
measure up to what needs to be done.
I can't agree with you, Commissioner Henning, as far as dry
storage. I think the present arrangement we have with a small park
there and the open spaces and everything, would be more conducive to
the Goodland community, and it would -- that was part of the original
agreement when we met. We talked about the -- that number of slips.
And this is basically what we agreed to do at that particular point
in time. I can understand what the needs are out there. This doesn't
even come close to fulfilling it.
Page 134
February 24, 2004
And it really pains me to have to tell people, you know, that a
community park is not -- especially after all the times we have people
come back and tell us, don't put a community park in our
neighborhood.
But I'll tell you one thing, when the day does come, if this little
park that's there doesn't meet the needs of Goodland, you know, for
the small kids, at that point in time, if we want to come up with funds
to buy a couple of houses at some point in Goodland and demolish
them and put in a small park there, that's something we can open up
for consideration.
I do believe in trying to make these opportunities available, but
four and a half million dollars, this is supposed to be for a boat
facility. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I had the opportunity to
meet with some of the residents concerning this issue, and I was
impressed with the work that they had done planning this out. Of
course, I had no background considering the -- the circumstances
which resulted in the purchase of the property, because I wasn't --
wasn't here on the commission at that point in time.
Since then I've taken a look at it, and I ,- and I was sort of under
the impression that there had been no property rights suits that had
been successful in Collier County. I've heard people tell me that, and
this one was certainly successful, because in my estimation it was an
outrageous price, and had I been here, I never would have voted to pay
that kind of money for that.
But the state -- or the commission did do that, and we spent
$4.588 million because we didn't want it developed.
We better have a darned good plan for what we're going to do
with this property to benefit the residents of Collier County after
having put $4.588 million into it, and a playground for children, as
much as it would be desired by the neighborhood, certainly doesn't
Page 135
February 24, 2004
justify this kind of expenditure in my mind.
And I would hope that we can find a way to make this -- this fit
for the neighborhood and still make it a reasonable investment of
taxpayer dollars.
But absent the opportunity to do that, I wonder how much we can
sell this property for nowadays and how much we could go back and
get -- buy somewhere else that would be appropriate.
We might find that we could make a profit on this property and
be able to provide facilities for-- boat launch facilities to an even
greater degree than we have it here.
So I -- I know it would be disappointing to the residents there.
But I'll have to tell you, I'm not in the habit of spending $4.5 million
of taxpayer money and creating a playground. It just -- it just isn't
fair. And so I would -- I would strongly suggest we find some way to
make -- make proper use of this property for the taxpayers of Collier
County, or else we sell it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. After -- do you want to go before
me or after me? I'm in line, but I'm presiding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ladies first.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You go first.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
So precisely. I understand how you-all feel as far as taxpayer
dollars, and it is truly a lot. And being that you-all have been down
there, you-all understand what the -- what the community is like.
It's one square mile. That's all it is in the whole island, one
square mile, has very, very small roads. And to travel through-- I
mean, you can't even hardly pass two cars on a road, much less a
pickup truck trailering a boat.
Now, we're talking about 76 going in and out of there, and that
76 to park inside. Now, if they fill up 76 parking spots, then where do
they go? We're talking about parking out on the -- in the -- well, you
can't park on the street because there isn't any room. And it's
Page 136
February 24, 2004
surrounded by homes, so there isn't any room.
I think what the people are trying to say here is, it's not we're
altogether against boat trailers; they're not. They're saying, can we use
them for other purposes? Can we reduce that amount to a -- to a
reasonable amount, figuring where the location is. You have to go
through the town in order to get there, through all these tiny little
roads to get there.
The people just ride their bikes. There are no sidewalks there.
They ride their bikes and they ride in golf carts because it's a tiny little
place that we're going to now just be impacting.
What they're saying is, maybe we can have -- we can have a
launch for kayaks and canoes. Now, that would be another use, and
yet you would just have a car with them on the top rather than a trailer
behind them, so you'd be able to fit them better.
Maybe -- maybe there could be a fishing dock there so people
could come. There'd still be the parking spaces, although they don't
have to be cement parking spaces then. You could have these grass
areas where you have the little brick pavers, and still you have the
water permeating rather than, you know, hitting a cement area, and
people could use it as a fishing dock.
You could even have a place there, if you wanted to have a dock
out there where charter boats could come up and pick up their -- their
fishermen who want to charter for the day, and this would be a great
thing for the Tourist Development Community.
Now, you're talking about -- it isn't only just a playground. What
they're talking about here is building a park so that -- we all know how
they get thousands and thousands of visitors in there every weekend.
This would be a place where visitors could go to a picnic if they want
to, to bring their lunch and sit down under a little canopy or whatever.
They can utilize this park.
It's not just a park for their community. It's a park for everybody.
And they, unlike other -- they, unlike other areas, aren't saying, we
Page 137
February 24, 2004
don't want anybody in our park. They're saying it's for everybody to
come and use our park.
So it isn't like we're building -- I realize the land is expensive, but'
it isn't like we're building it just for some kids to swing on a swing.
There are a lot of opportunities. They're just saying, not so many boat
trailers, please. I don't think our community can handle it.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And this is for staff. Can they
basically tell us, or tell me and probably the rest of the commissioners
also, we probably have the same question, is there a way that we can
have a fair amount of boating activity here and still have some
resemblance of a park and some green space? MS. RAMSEY: Well--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because I would imagine that
people that are trailering boats would like to have a picnic lunch
maybe before or after.
MS. RAMSEY: Currently, Caxambas is 4.2 acres, and it has a
fairly good green space surrounding it. Bayview has 4.2 acres, and it
has a fairly good green space around it.
I have talked to the community about the 76 parking spaces. I've
talked to them numerous times about trying to find locations where
there could be overflow parking because, granted, you're not going to
have 76 people down there every day. They're going to come on
heavy weekends and holidays, just as they do in our other locations.
So I think there's a way that you can blend the parking facilities
and have some overflow area, then that can be used for a boat ramp,
but then maybe could be used for festivals and some other things, too,
and have a win-win mix on that.
They maybe would be -- I'm not really into a lot of paving on this
particular location anyway. I think overflow parking as we have at
Caxambas, where we have 36 parking spaces, but we can park over 50'
in the green areas when we need to. I think there is a win-win there.
Page 138
February 24, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So did you say at Caxambas on Marco
Island you only have 36 spaces?
MS. RAMSEY: There's 36 trailer spaces, and then there's car
spaces as well. I think there's a total of 36 trailers and 16 car parking
spaces paved right now and then you can --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's on 4.7 acres?
MS. RAMSEY: Four point two acres.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: This is five acres?
MS. RAMSEY: This is, yeah, a little over five, I think.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So that's double and--
MS. RAMSEY: Like I said, it's paved areas, and then we have
the overflow parking at Caxambas, which is green space, and it looks
green when you come in, because they're not using it on a regular
basis.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And where would you put overflow
parking here? Because you just have homes there and a tiny little
road.
MS. RAMSEY: It would be on this site. The conceptual plan
that you have in here, we have not tweaked it since the beginning
when we talked to the community.
The reason for being here today is to approve a scope of work so
that I can bring in a professional that can help us with the engineering,
the conditional use, the master plan of this, and part of that scope is to
meet with the park committee from Goodland and to continue to have
the conversations so that we can maximize it for both entities and try
and come up with a win-win on this park.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner
Coletta, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think I will not ask my questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Dunnuck or
Page 139
February 24, 2004
Marla Ramsey, if I may, a couple questions, doesn't matter who
answers them.
What's the shortfall for boating slips in Collier County for -- I
mean -- excuse me -- parking areas where people can launch with their
boats? I know this has been a hot issue for a long, long time.
MS. RAMSEY: Well, honestly, every park site that has been
done in the past has been done inadequately. We have Bayview that
has currently -- I think there's 42 parking spaces there. I think there's
about 20 -- about half of those are boat parking, and they're parking all
the way up and down that roadway, all the way out to Fern.
We have not done, as a county, a very good job of providing
parking that goes with the boat access areas at any of these facilities.
It probably was adequate 20 years ago when we built these, but as we
are now growing and have 12,000 people trailering their boats, we are
in a deficit.
According to national standards, we are about 27 ramps in
deficit. Will we ever make that up? Probably not. But I think the
goal that the parks department has, as the rest of the county, is to take
the existing and trying to enhance the existing, look for some
additional locations, and trying to ease the pain that we see coming.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And also, too, these
other places that were mentioned, did we pay millions of dollars for
these other locations, or were they part of settlements? Cambier?
MS. RAMSEY: I think there's some of both in there. I know we
paid for Cocohatchee. Caxambas was, I think, a tradeoff for beach
access at Hideaway. I'm not -- I think -- I don't really know about
Bayview off the top of my head. It's an older park. It was part of the
city when they, you know, annexed and whatnot, so it's been around a
long time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you tell me, or Mr.
Dunnuck or someone, if we went the other way back to the
condominiums that were originally proposed there, what would be the
Page 140
February 24, 2004
impact of those as far as traffic goes and amount of units? I can't
remember now what the developer had proposed. Do you, Mr. Dunnuck?
MR. DUNNUCK: Well -- for the record, John Dunnuck, public
services administrator. You're asking me to put on my community
development hat because I was administrator at that point in time. And
unfortunately Mr. Yovanovich isn't here, because he represented the
client at that time. But I think you were looking at about 72 units.
So you'd do a traffic count -- Norman could tell you better for
residential, what that would be. But I would suspect it's comparable,
because when you go out fishing, you're not -- you're not turning them
over per se, you know. You're only doing -- you're going out once
and you're filling out that space typically for the full day, and then
you're coming back, and you don't have a consistent turnover.
From the aspect, though, of what Marla mentioned earlier, will
you have 72 people there every single day? Doubtful. We don't -- we
don't maximize out on a daily basis, but we do handle for the -- for the
big rushes on weekends.
And, plus, you're talking about being the kickoff point to go to
the Ten Thousand Islands, and it is a valuable fishing commodity from
that standpoint on the land.
And the final point I just wanted to make, you know, from the
standpoint, we took to you a master plan last May and you adopted it
on a 5-0 vote, and really said, these are two key issues from a parks
and rec. department standpoint in boat launch and beach access.
And we can't afford -- we can't find land in other areas, and that's
what Marla talked about. We're trying to enhance existing parking
areas. We get -- we get, you know opportunities every once in a while
if a developer wants to sell.
We mentioned one up in the Wiggins Pass area which will
provide 100. The future project we have right now on 951, frankly, is
only going to displace people who are parking alongside the road. It's
Page 141
February 24, 2004
a safety issue.
You know, so the 55 we're adding really isn't adding to the
inventory. It's basically moving people off parking on the road to a
safe environment.
And certainly we can look at the issue on 92. I know there may
be some concerns similar to what they were for 951 -- you know,
Collier Boulevard by the same token.
But from our standpoint, it's hard for us to give up -- give up
anything as a position from a staff perspective on trying to -- trying to
maximize use, because that's what we told you we needed to do during
the boat launch and beach access master plan.
And I think Marla laid out a good plan to sit down and work with
the community. There may be other opportunities for neighborhood
parks in the community as well. You know, we have -- we still have a
process for neighborhood parks for people to apply and look at land
within the communities. And there may be other opportunities.
I know we've had some discussions down in Goodland between
Marla and myself about additional opportunities that may be future
sites for neighborhood parks in the area where we could work with the
community on those aspects as well.
It's just really hard from our standpoint to give away land when
we know there's very little out there, and -- from a boating standpoint.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have to agree with you. It
would be hard from my standpoint, too, to give away --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, but what about -- you know, we're
not talking about a neighborhood here. We're not even talking about a
whole section. We're talking about an entire community located on
one square mile, and we're -- and we're going in talking about
maximizing. We're talking about destroying a whole community.
Yes, we are.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're talking about destroying --
Page 142
February 24, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. I'm sorry. We're talking about
destroying a fishing village. That's exactly what we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, we're not, Donna.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Why can't we find --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why did we agree --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wait. Let me finish. Why can't we find a
way to negotiate this or to work this out so that it doesn't impact the
whole island? Why can't we find some way, instead of maximizing
and -- why can't we find something where they can have a park and
have some boat trailers, but not 76? Let's face it, they can't park 76 on
any one of these places that they've mentioned so far, and they're --
this one is just as big as they are. I think we're -- we're destroying
their whole community.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Donna, I hear you, and you're
very passionate about it, and I --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You bet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and I think it's beautiful,
you're passionate. But you sat here with five commissioners, and we
listened to the Goodland community who said, please, get us out of
this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But we never talked about a 76 trailer --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, we did. What was the
amount we -- when we approached this whole thing in the beginning?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Started originally -- what did it start
originally at?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ten thousand.
MS. RAMSEY: The plan that was -- that was in this July 18th
letter you have here with a 9-0 vote, is this plan minus the boat slips
and the -- and the courtesy docks.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's just what I thought. We
agreed to something, now we're going to turn right around and say it's
Page 143
February 24, 2004
no longer applicable.
The commission committed itself to a large investment based
upon this being a boat launch. If that's not going to work, then let's go
ahead and get the money from it, put the money someplace else where
we can get a boat launch. Still, parks have to be built in Goodland, I
agree with you, and I'll help you with that when the time comes. This
is not the location for a park.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned about the character
of the community also, and I'm wondering what it's going to cost the
county here to widen the boat -- the roads here to accommodate
pickup trucks and boat trailers. Do we have any idea?
I like the concept of what we have here presently because it does
incorporate a park and it does incorporate picnic tables or picnic
shelter, right, and rest rooms. So I think we got a good blend here.
But I'm concerned, because on weekends down there in
Goodland, there's a vast amount of people that travel through that area,
and I would hate to see that after we fill up the 76 spaces, that people
start parking all over the swales and everything else, that some way or
another we should be able to police that, and that's a concern that I
have, because there's a very serious parking situation there now on
weekends, and I don't want to impact the people any more.
And I realize the county spent four and a half million dollars, and
yes, it should be a boat facility here.
We went through a big ordeal last weekend -- or las -- two weeks
ago. And I'm in favor to get as much boating as possible, but I'm also
-- we need to also look at the idea of how this impacts the people
down there so that we don't end up with -- if we exceed 76 boats, if
that's what we set at here, then we also figure out how we're going to
accommodate it so that people don't continue bringing boats in here
and parking all over the lawns.
Page 144
February 24, 2004
MR. DUNNUCK: And I think all those things could be handled
through design from our standpoint.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got to figure out how we're
going to design so that people don't launch the boat and end up
parking on somebody's lawn or in the swales. MR. DUNNUCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Which happens everyplace else.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have parks and rec. enforce
the parking around this ramp no different than 951, Collier Boulevard.
In fact, we passed an ordinance to do just that.
I can see that I'm not going to get support for a three-tiered dry
slip with more parking than just 76, so I'm going to make a motion to
approve staff's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, this is all about an
unreasonable impact on the community. The property was purchased
by the taxpayers of Collier County because they wanted to protect the
community from an unreasonable impact. The community now feels
that what we have in mind for the property is an unreasonable impact.
And I just want to ask a question before we vote on this of the
county manager. What is your reaction to determining the value of
this property for sale? And if you were able to sell it for substantially
more than we purchased it for, where could we are find additional
property we could buy for this purpose? What is your reaction to
that?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would -- I would tell you that we
would be hard pressed to find five acres that's next to the water in a --
in a situation like this anywhere else in Collier County.
Page 145
February 24, 2004
Now, there is an opportunity that we're trying to find right now
on Davis in order to -- in order to try and see if we can't work
something out, stormwater and boat launch there.
But these opportunities are few and far between. I mean, we
were trying to look at the street the other side of-- on the back side of
Windstar where we have a launch, and there's some properties there
that aren't in very good shape, and trying to buy some of those for
parking spaces, and we're not having much luck in that particular case.
I don't know what they're waiting for, windfalls or whatever, but --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let's presume this property
has gone through its reasonable appreciation over the past two or three
years or so. You could very easily expect to get six million dollars or
more for it. That's almost 30 percent of the cost purchasing the
Wiggins Pass Marina property.
And I'm wondering if you think it's worthwhile to even consider
moving in that direction. And what I have in-- what I would have in
mind is not to saddle the community with something that's so intense
that it destroys the community.
It would appear to me that we very well might find an
opportunity to develop that property at substantially less density than
was originally proposed.
But nevertheless, this is hypothetical. I'm just asking the
question, do you think it's even worth considering? And that's my last
question before I'll vote on this issue.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, based on the permits that are
sitting out there as far as the boat slips on the wharf and the 12 boat
slips on the pier, a developer could come in on this particular property
within zoning constraints and build a profitable development. But I'm
not too sure it's going to fit into the community as the community
exists today.
And we're going to -- and they're going to have the same problem
they had a while back when they wanted to have a development and
Page 146
February 24, 2004
they asked the county to intercede, and that's got us to the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it seems to me that the choice
is some kind of activity in a park or some kind of activity in a
development. One or the other is likely to happen. But -- okay.
We've got a motion. I'll quit pursuing that line of questioning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right. There's an overlay in
place now.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just to kind of explore the
opportunity here since we're on the dais, and this is the first time we've
really discussed this. I'd like to ask my fellow commissioner down at
the other end what his ideas were in regards to a storage barn. Are
you talking about a storage barn for boats and then maybe alleviating
some of the parking area?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You mean --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Your idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My idea is--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We could accommodate more
boats that way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We could accommodate more
boaters.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct, but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Without trailers all over the place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not hearing the support of
the board for that. I already--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm asking you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because I -- I'm asking you,
because I -- when you brought that up the second time, it struck a
nerve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah. It's -- you know, I
Page 147
February 24, 2004
see opportunities that, instead of pulling a trailer down there, is you
already have your boat down there and they have facilities throughout
the county like that, but they're disappearing quickly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I think --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, they -- I'd be happy to
amend my motion for some dry storage.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm amending my motion for
dry storage.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
on my motion.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
Well, you already have a second
COLETTA: I'll withdraw my second.
HENNING: You withdraw your second?
HALAS: And I'll second yours.
HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would look at where we have a
combination of-- not maybe so many slip -- or parking spots down
there, but having maybe 50 of them or 40 of them, whatever, and then
have a storage barn there so we can launch boats out of there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the motion was staff's
recommendation. I amended it to put dry storage in. That was my
motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
more time.
Okay.
Now say -- say your motion one
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My motion is to accept --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wait. Let me hear his motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My motion is to accept staff's
recommendations and amend it also to pursue dry storage.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the first second has been withdrawn,
Page 148
February 24, 2004
and the second second is Commissioner Halas. Okay. Oh, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. We're going from --
we're going worse, as far as I'm concerned. This is probably going to
end up being more of an intense use. But here we go now. If we go
without the boat parking facility and we go with dry storage for say --
I'm sorry. Did I misunderstand the motion? Yes or no? I didn't
understand --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You did misunderstand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Combination.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Combination.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a combination of--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: As written, plus add boat storage, dry
storage.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's more intense, that's what
the neighbors -- I mean, they're concerned about what's planned now.
And if we put this in on top of them, I think that's even going to be
more intense.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was thinking --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's exactly what he's looking for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm looking to --
Commissioner Fiala? I'm looking to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maximize.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- maximize our profit on our
return.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I would-- I'd like to retract
my second, because I would like to alleviate some of the trailer
parking, okay? That was the main -- that was kind of where I was
leading this is to alleviate some of the boat trailer parking if we're
going to accommodate this by dry storage.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That way it wouldn't be a larger --
Page 149
February 24, 2004
that big of an impact on the community down there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we take a
1 O-minute break.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion approved without a second. No,
I'll second.
Take a 1 O-minute break.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Meeting is back in
order. And Commissioner Coyle, you have a button on. And then I
wanted to hear from Debbie also.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's go ahead and hear the speaker
and then let me make a statement afterwards, okay? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Debbie had -- Debbie, I'm sorry, I forgot your last name.
MS. PAPPI: It's Pappi.
Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to speak and
letting me change my mind.
A couple of things we've -- in listening to all that's gone on, I
think it's real important for us to remember, one, we in Goodland do
understand that you did pay this money for us. And the agreement
that was made back when the 9-0 vote with the county was a park and
boat ramp, not just boat ramps or parking, it was a park. It wasn't for
dry storage. We have dry storage in the area. One of the places that
has dry storage, over 250 boats, with the ability to add more, is where
Mr. Henning puts his boat in every weekend, and that property is at
Calusa Island--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I wish I did put it in every
weekend.
MS. PAPPI: -- or marina. And that's where he -- well, that's
what I had understood you to say, I'm sorry.
And the other place we have is at Walker Marine on the other
Page 150
February 24, 2004
end of Goodland. And both of these places surround Goodland, and --
or are on either side. And they also have dry storage there with the
fork lifts and the ability.
And then we have another place that is trying to add a launch and
dry storage -- or not dry storage, wet slips.
And also, this plan that Marla presented today is not the
agreement that the Board of GCA came to meet on and approve.
There were no boat slips, and there were no docks on the end. She just
added those. Now, they may have been permitted, I don't know, but
that is not what the original agreement was.
The other thing that I would urge you in thinking about what a
marine -- boat slips are like, you have 951, it has four lanes of traffic.
The ability -- it is not in a community. If people go by 951 and they
see that it is full, then they continue to travel over on Collier
Boulevard, over the Jolly Bridge, through Marco Island community,
into Caxambas. And if they find that full, then they go back out and
they go back through Marco traffic, down 92 and into the town of
Goodland.
We don't want our roads widened. This is an authentic -- one of
the last in the State of Florida, authentic fishing villages. We have
homes that date back to the 1900's. Every place in Collier County
should enjoy and appreciate this place, learn about what an authentic
fishing -- working fishing village is. We don't mind having people
come into our town. We relish that. We are a pedestrian community.
We have a flavor of old Florida that shouldn't be paved over.
When and if you make the decision, I would ask, instead of
building the max that you can build, look at it, see if possibly one boat
ramp with half the parking would be sufficient. And then have the
ability to go and add to it.
There is no way in any of our lifetimes or all of our lifetimes put
together that we would ever realize the dollar value of the investment
that the county made on behalf of this five acres of land. But, you
Page 151
February 24, 2004
know, sometimes it's more than just the bottom line. It's about the
people. It's about the people that live here, the people that live in
Collier County, and the people that come to visit us. And I think we
have a responsibility, as caretakers of our heritage, to keep the flavor
of this fishing village. Thank you so much. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You presently have an overlay; is
that correct?
MS. PAPPI: Yes, sir, we do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that -- so that would control
what can be built there and everything else, right?
MS. PAPPI: Well, we have an overlay district. And I guess
somebody else could answer that question better than I. It only
pertains to residential, not to any commercial.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay -- so that if we --
MS. PAPPI: And it's two over one at 35 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So then if decided that our
best opportunity would then may be to sell this land and then a
developer would come in there and work with you as your overlay,
then that would probably better -- be a better situation?
MS. PAPPI: I don't think so. I don't think that's really conducive
to -- I mean, we made an agreement, you said we made an agreement.
You want boat ramps and a park, I can deal with boat ramps and a
park. What I am asking for is no dry storage, no roads widening, and
instead of paving it over at the beginning, at its inception, hold back,
see what it looks like before. See if there's a demand there and then
go back and revisit it. Don't put all of your capital improvement into a
park that may not -- a parking lot that may not be used.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's why I'm asking you these
questions, because this is -- we have to look at --
MS. PAPPI: I don't think our community wants that
development. We came to you six years ago and asked that you help
Page 152
February 24, 2004
us, and you did, and we are so appreciative. And at this time, we want
to make it a win/win situation. You want boat ramps, you need water
access, and I think that we need to look at it as a win/win situation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'm just trying to get some
ideas here, because we have to make a decision here, and so I'm trying
to get as much information as possible so that I can work out the
problem, okay? That's why I asked, if you had an overlay study and if
we decided to sell the land, then obviously you're not going to have
the impact that you had when the county bought the land, whereby
they were going to build a five- or six-story condominium there.
MS. PAPPI: That's true.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay? So that gives you the
opportunity to work with that person if we decide to sell the land back
and then use that money to do -- to get our boat access somewheres
else. All I'm trying to do is just trying to figure out the best way so
that we can accommodate your concerns, but we also take care of the
rest of the residents here in Collier County. Because that's -- we have
a big impact that's coming up in the future. Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, if I could just plug some
information in, okay, so that you have the information.
The area is still zoned commercial with boat docks and max
height on that is 75 foot.
MS. PAPPI: It's VR. VR, village residential.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development, Environmental Services.
I just looked on the zoning map. It's C-4 boat dock. I did not
confirm that there's an overlay, but C-4 is 75 feet. I can -- I'll confirm
if there's an overlay. The overlay that you passed recently had to do
with storage of ancillary fishing items and other type of things in back
yards, and also, it basically waived some of the signage requirements
in Goodland.
Page 153
February 24, 2004
But there's a 35-foot height limitation in the residential, and I'll
confirm on the commercial right now. But as far as I know, and what
I just looked up, it's 75 feet for that area. If there's an overlay, I'll
check -- I'm going to check the zoning map again.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Connie, one minute. Commissioner Coyle
is waiting also to ask a question, but you can respond.
MS. FULMERE: I'm sorry, Mr. Schmitt, it's Village Residential.
Village Residential is multi-family. The Village Residential was the
big issue about why we came to you six years ago, because the first
developer was going to build such a large development, a multi-family
condo.
We do have an overlay, but part of our agreement was, when we
came to you was -- excuse me, Mr. Schmitt. It's a 3 5-foot height
restriction and VR. Again, there are only three or four places in the
county that have VR zoning, and Goodland is one of them. And --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
MS. FULMERE: Fulmere. Excuse me. We certainly hope that
you will abide by the agreement that was made when the property was
purchased. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We do still have a motion on the
floor.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Didn't we have the second withdrawn?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll withdraw my second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, we don't -- then the motion dies for
a lack of a second. So we have no motion on the floor presently.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And what is the -- what is the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now we've got a motion on the
floor.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What motion did you second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The motion about the storage
Page 154
February 24, 2004
facilities, boat dry storage.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: To maximize that--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, no, no, not to maximize
anything. I understood Commissioner Henning's motion to be to give
the staff direction to explore dry storage, accommodation of dry
storage and boat launching facilities. Am I stating that correctly?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Staffs recommendation is with
dry storage.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With dry storage, okay. And I still
second that motion. And here's why. The residents say they don't
want the roads widened. If you're not going to widen the roads, I
think it might present a safety problem, having so much traffic going
down there towing boats, so that a dry storage facility would by
necessity reduce the number of parking spaces for cars with trailers.
So it would diminish the amount of trailer launching capability of this
particular site. So you wouldn't have quite as much traffic coming and
going if you had the dry storage facility.
So I would still second that motion, and merely provide staff the
direction to explore the possibilities.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor to accept
staffs recommendations and include dry storage by Commissioner
Henning, and a second by Commissioner Coyle. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you so much for the
opportunity to speak. And you've been very good about it, by the
way.
job.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not that I want to be.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you're doing an excellent
There's a couple points I want to bring up. Dry storage in itself is
not cost feasible. You have the problem with you only have so many
units. A very small number of people are going to benefit from those
Page 155
February 24, 2004
dry storage units at the expense of what?
Also, too, you have the problem with the time it's going to take to
be able to get a Comprehensive Plan.
How -- Mr. Dunnuck, what would be involved with putting dry
storage into this plan at this point in time?
MR. DUNNUCK: Well, we first go through-- we go through the
design phase, which is the direction we're looking for today. And then
we'd have to evaluate through the conditional use process' if it's zoned,
you know, Village Residential. So we'd have to bring it back to the
County Commission through a conditional use process, at which time
we'd have the same discussion about height and the same situation that
you had a couple of years ago with that respect, and going forward
with that. And that would be -- that would be the essence of the
process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And from what I gather talking
to the audience during our 1 O-minute break, dry storage was not an
option they wanted to see on this particular location.
Also I'd like to point out to you, everybody keeps mentioning the
roads. These roads have been accommodating pickup trucks with
boats for a long, long time. When the people bring their boats down to
use a boat launch facility, they come usually fairly early in the
morning, they park, they're gone, when they come back, they load
everything up and they're gone again. There's a minimum amount of
traffic from 76 boat launching sites. I don't see where that's going to
be that much difference if some of it's dry storage, except you won't
have a trailer, you'll just have the cars coming down.
But how are you going to do it? Somebody gets a lease for one
year and they keep renewing it, so you've got maybe about 50 some
very privileged people in Collier County that will have a boat storage
spot on a county facility. And I'd love to see the cost breakout on that,
what it would cost us to subsidize those people to park boats in these
barns.
Page 156
February 24, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I pass.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion on the floor and a
second to take -- to approve staff's recommendation and add a
provision for boat -- dry boat storage.
.All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those opposed, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we have three opposed and that's
Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Fiala.
Those for the motion are Commissioner Henning and Commissioner
Coyle.
Okay, I'd like to make a motion to accept staff's recommendation
but cut the trailer parking spaces in half to 38. It's that being that no
other place of this size could accommodate this intense use, I would
cut the trailer parking spaces in half to 38. That's my motion.
There's a motion on the floor and it has died.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I was going to say, if you
could up the number to 67, I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know what? I don't think it can
accommodate that. If their 4.7 acres and the 4.2 acres that we already
have can't accommodate anything but 32, why would you do that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just trying to reach a
compromise to get it down.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, that's not -- the compromise is 38. I
mean, that's a compromise. That's better than none, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, get a second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: A second? Do I have a second?
Page 157
February 24, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Going once.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That -- I want to tell you, what I
was trying to do was save a historic fishing village here, and I'm sorry
that I didn't get any cooperation. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll withdraw my dry storage and
make a motion to accept staffs recommendation so everybody in the
county can enjoy this fishing village.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's 76 parking slips,
correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whatever is in there, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor to accept
staffs recommendation from Commissioner Henning and a second by
Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed? Aye.
4-1, Commissioner Fiala dissenting.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2004-63 RE-APPOINTING MORRIS JAMES
LOUIS AS A MEMBER TO THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE
CONTROIJ DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 9(A). I
Page 158
February 24, 2004
figure we'd do 9(A), then go right to 9(C). 9(A), and that is to appoint
-- appointment of member to the Isles of Capri Fire Control District
Advisory Committee.
MS. FILSON: And--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Didn't you want to do Jack Wert first?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I figured this was just a member.
Normally they don't take very long to go right into --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve Morris James Louis
for the Isles of Capri Control -- Fire Control District.
MS. FILSON: This particular member -- I'm sorry, this
particular member has served two terms, so you'll need to waive 7(B)
of Ordinance 2001-55.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I waive 7(B) of 2001 --
MS. FILSON: Dash 55.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Dash 55.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I have a second from Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's part of my second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's part of his second.
All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
And opposed, like sign.
Very good. 7(B).
MR. MUDD: Brings us to -- 7(B) was already done, and the
Board approved 5-0.
The next one -- and that had to do with the revenue commission,
Page 159
February 24, 2004
you basically approved their UB -- you approved their report, not that
you liked everything that was in it, and you disbanded the particular
commission.
Item #9C
REVIEW A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COLLIER
COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (TDC) ON THE
ADDITION OF A FOURTH PERCENT OF THE TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT TAX IN COLLIER COUNTY- REPORT
ACCEPTED - CONSF, NS[ JS
That brings us to 9(C), which is review a recommendation from
the Collier County Tourist Development Council on the addition of a
fourth percent of the tourist development tax of Collier County. And
Mr. Jack Wert, the director of your tourist development staff, will
present.
MR. WERT: Thank you, Mr. County Manager, and Chairman
and Commissioners. I am Jack Wert, Tourism Director.
And the Tourist Development Council had a work session on
January the 26th, and they discussed the addition of a fourth cent of
tourist tax to be used for promotion and advertising.
The consensus of that workshop was that -- and we did hear from
the tourism industry, we heard from hoteliers, both big and small, and
there was not support for adopting the fourth cent at this time.
There was some other discussion, though, related to the present
configuration of the tax and how the allocations are set up. And part
of the recommendation from the Tourist Development Council
workshop was to provide money to the county museums for
promotion only, not for promo -- for the operating expenses as it
currently is. And those operating expenses to come from general fund
outside grants, which the workshop group felt would then generate a
Page 160
February 24, 2004
little over a million dollars to then assist us in promoting the county
through advertising.
Also, there was some discussion about the overall Category C in
general, which is both county owned museums and non county owned
museums. And there was a recommendation that we look at the -- that
overall category and determine how they -- those museums, both
county owned and not county owned, would be funded in the future.
And finally, the Category C-2, which is the non county owned
museums, they felt that for the balance of fiscal year 2004, because
both the Naples Botanical Garden and Palm Cottage are both in a
restoration project, for Palm Cottage and some promotions for the
Naples Botanical Garden, that that funding stay in place as it is for the
balance of this fiscal year.
That was the recommendation from the Tourist Development
Council. Staff is bringing that recommendation to the County
Commission today for some direction on that recommendation on the
fourth cent and also how to proceed on that recommendation related to
the museum funding in Category C.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner
Halas, then Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to ask a few questions
concerning the additional 1.3 million for advertising and promotion.
What is the current average occupancy rate of our hotels in
Collier County?
MR. WERT: Year round it would be in the 70 percent range.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is the target rate; a
reasonable sustainable target rate?
MR. WERT: Average daily rate?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. WERT: The average daily rate runs for the year over 100.
In season it's higher. But the average over the year is a little over
$100.
Page 161
February 24, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, no, I'm talking about the
occupancy rate.
MR. WERT: Occupancy rate?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. What do you expect to be
the reasonable attainable occupancy rate in Collier County for the
hotel -- current number of hotel beds we have?
MR. WERT: Well, in season it runs over 90 percent. And in the
off season, it will run in the 60's. So the average is -- the high 70's
would be an average rate of occupancy over the year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm sort of looking for a
target level. In other words, if you had a 96 percent average
occupancy rate, would that be sufficient, or are we always going to be
looking for 100 percent? What is the target rate that we're looking for
in--
MR. WERT: I'm not -- Commissioner, I'm not sure I can answer
that on behalf of the industry. They all have different amounts of
money that they need to sustain sort of a break even. They'd all love
100 percent, obviously, but that's not going to happen in the off
season.
It really is a combination, though, of occupancy and average
daily rate. You can have high occupancy but you may get there by
lowering your rate a great deal, which in effect then affects your
revenue, not only the hotels but ultimately our hotel tax as well.
That is really the situation that we've been in for -- since 9/11.
Hotel rates did in fact have to be cut in order to sustain some
occupancy. And it's -- it takes a long time, once you drop those rates,
to bring them back.
That's what the industry is currently facing in terms of their
accomplishments in the last couple of years. They don't feel they're
back to the levels they were pre 9/11. And it's going to take perhaps a
little more time to get there. In season, they're probably doing pretty
well.
Page 162
February 24, 2004
But our challenge, and when we promote and when we spend our
money for promotion, is in the summer months and the shoulder from
Easter to early November. That's when we spend our money, because
we're trying to kind of level it out for the year so we can bring those
60's up into a little higher numbers and eventually bring back the
average daily rate as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I -- what I'm really getting at
is two things: Number one, I'd like to understand how we identify
success in this effort. In other words, what is the target rate, who are
you trying to get to, what's reasonably sustainable, and how much
money should we spend on getting it there?
And the other thing is, to get recognition that the more money we
spend on attracting more tourists, the greater impact we have on the
roads and the traffic and the infrastructure, which means that with our
concurrency management system, we have to begin making some kind
of allowances for that. And if we're going to add another 10,000 or
20,000 visitors to Collier County, we need to understand the impact of
doing that so that we can hopefully eliminate any potential problems.
So basically that's where I'm going with this thing.
My feeling is really that at some point in time we reach the point
of diminishing returns in trying to attract more and more and more
tourists. Because the natural progression is, you attract more tourists,
then there are going to be more hotel beds built, and then you're going
to need more tourists to fill them up and we wind up chasing our tail
almost constantly.
It would appear to me that there is some objective we're trying to
achieve here in terms of numbers of visitors, and I would just like to
feel more comfortable about how we're managing to get there.
MR. WERT: And I -- if I might just add to your comments,
Commissioner. Part of that impact that we need to look at when we
get more visitors to the area is the positive impact as well, because
those new visitors are also spending money in our community, we're
Page 163
February 24, 2004
collecting sales tax, which some rolls back to our community. We're
collecting gasoline tax from them, which helps to improve our roads.
and keep them up. So they are really contributing to and kind of
paying their way, if you will.
The other thing that I think is important to remember is: Visitors
to our community really do help all of you overall during the year in
trying to balance the budget. Because our research shows that our
Collier County residents would probably be looking at about $500
more in taxes a year if we didn't have those visitors. And whatever we
can do to level it out, have people working year round in our industry
certainly helps everyone in the community.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I guess I would argue with
that somewhat, because the people we have working in the hospitality
industry are not really high income earners, and it's not a healthy
situation.
But I would also say that permanent residents contribute
substantially more to the economy than do visitors. I mean, we buy
automobiles here, we buy homes here, we pay taxes here. Whereas a
visitor comes here, spends some money going out to dinner, a movie,
a show, hotel, and then leaves.
I think with respect to the impact that they have, the impact they
have far outweighs the potential benefits of the additional income in
my mind. But you've heard me say before, I'm not an expert in this
area.
But I was just sharing some of my concerns. It would be really
helpful to me if I knew where we were going, what our ultimate goal
was. I just don't like the idea of investing millions of dollars to trying
to increase something. It's like saying, you know, how close are you
to completing this project and you say I'm 90 percent completed with
the project. Well, the other 10 percent might take 10 years. So that's
just my concern and I've voiced it and that's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
Page 164
February 24, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I have some concerns also.
We're trying to get -- you said you were out here to advertise for
people to come to Collier County not only to go to our beaches but
also to go to our museums. And I feel that a museum is very closely
associated like a library, and that is it's a -- the ability to learn about
the particular area you're in. And so, therefore, I think that the tourists
ought to put money into our museums, and especially our county
owned museums. And we've got some very good displays there.
They come down here to see the replica of the Marco cat and a few
other things here. And I really feel that that's part of the tourist
development tax and that is to fund county museums.
And, you know, we just talked to -- here earlier today about the
revenue commission and giving us some ideas, and there wasn't too
many ideas out there for us for generating new revenue. So as long as
we have that hanging over our head, I really believe that we need to
make sure that those revenues stay in place to assist in our museums.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Jack, if I may, the money that we raise for tourist development, is
that mainly targeted for the summer months, the off season? MR. WERT: It is, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's when we normally have a
decrease in population.
MR. WERT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We own the roads and get into
the restaurants within five, ten minutes. MR. WERT: True.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I recognize that. Right now I
can't get off 951, but I'll wait. The time will come after Easter.
But I understand what the purpose is, it's trying to develop an
economy that will be self-sustaining year round. This point in time
very often in the hotel industry, restaurant business, they have these
Page 165
February 24, 2004
peak seasons and they have a hard time bringing in staff to hold them
for a full year when they're running on a six-month schedule for
income. So by doing this, we have a more sustainable economy that's
not going to be impacting our local residents to any large degree. I
mean, summertime is usually wide open and a good number of us go
otherplaces for a short time -- well, most of you do. I stay here and
watch the store. But I just wanted to bring that into -- for
comparisons.
Also too, along with Commissioner Halas, I have a very great
concern of where we're going with this. The recommendations here to
drop the museums for funding and use outside -- what do you -- Palm
Cottage and the -- and what, the Botanical Garden and shifting the
money to them, I mean, I can't picture why I would want to support an
outside county facility when the county facilities are what we have a
responsibility for and they do serve a purpose.
I thought we reached an understanding some time ago with the
TDC that we would help them and they would in turn work with the
museum. In fact, last year they were very receptive. Even came across
with $100,000 extra money that we didn't have for the museums. I
don't know why this sudden turn. Do you know why it is all of a
sudden they're turning on the museums this year?
MR. WERT: I -- there have -- obviously I haven't been here for
more than a year, so -- my history has been it's been -- it's been a
difficult -- through the budget process, there was a good deal of
discussion related to the funding of the museums.
I -- speaking for the Tourist Development Council and what the
feeling of the majority of that group seems to be, I'm not so sure it's
total funding of the museums that they're concerned about. I think
they would be comfortable if some of the tourist money were used for
promoting museums.
Right now literally what we give through tourist development tax
money to the museums is operation only. There really is no money in
Page 166
February 24, 2004
their budget to promote the museums. And that's unfortunate, because
that's the way we need to get the word out to people, where the
museums are, what they have to offer and so forth.
Now, we can help them. In fact, we just this year helped fund a
joint brochure for all the museums in Collier County to for the first
time promote their product as one instead of just little individual
museums, everybody together. So we're trying to help through some
of our funds to help promote the museum and perhaps move in that
direction, and we're just -- I'm really the messenger here, if you will,
for the TDC.
And I know that the museums are an important part of what we
offer. Nature heritage cultural tourism is probably one of the -- it is
the fastest growing part of tourism. So that's something that's part of
our promotion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand, Jack. And
maybe later, with the Chair's permission, I might be able to call Ron
Jamro up here for some historical questions to help me get a better
perspective, why this year the situation's so much different than it was
last year when they were embracing the museum. But I'll -- if some
point in time you come back to me, then maybe I'll be allowed to do
that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. The other thing that concerns
me, I think you said in your opening statements there that we were
looking for more support for Palm Cottage and the Botanical Gardens.
It was my understanding before I came on the Board of
Commissioners here that eventually the Botanical Gardens was going
to be a self-funding situation. And I believe that it was either this
coming year -- this year or the next year that the Botanical Gardens
were going to be a self-sufficient, self-funding identity. And I just
wonder where we are in that -- in that situation.
Page 167
February 24, 2004
MR. WERT: Commissioner, what we've done this year with the
money that the Botanical Garden got, that was -- first of all, it was
considerably less than it has been in the past. And we shifted their
funding request not to bricks and mortar in building infrastructure, but
really promotion. And their monies this year are going toward
promoting what they have now, building up a self-guided interpretive
tour of the area, and a few other things. The Palm Cottage restoration
was exactly that, a restoration project that is a one-year project only.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, you didn't answer my question.
I said that that was supposed to be a self-- eventually it was going to
be a self-funding to where we wouldn't need to put TDC funds
continually into the Botanical Gardens.
MR. WERT: And in fact that is true with all of our grants and
sponsorships. We wanted it to be seed money. And it is written into
the application that way, that after a period of time we begin to back
down the funding, and in fact did that this year with Naples Botanical
Garden. I think it was 340,000 rather than 500,000 this year.
And if I might just clarify my early remarks, what I meant to say
was what the TDC's recommendation was, that really the funding for
the county owned museums, if any change at all were made, it would
be for promotion rather than bricks and mortar. And all they said
about Botanical Garden was that we wouldn't change anything in this
fiscal year up through September. That's all that was said.
So in the budget process that's coming up in a month or two, that
whole thing is up for another look. And every year they have to apply
like everyone else. So we would have the opportunity at the TDC
level and also with the County Commission to review all of that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But presently we don't have the ad
valorem taxes to support the county museums as they should be
supported, and so that's why we use the supplement of the TDC funds.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we have one speaker.
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am, William Doyle.
Page 168
February 24, 2004
MR. DOYLE: Good afternoon. I'm William Doyle, general
manager of the Edgewater Beach Hotel; also the vice president of the
Collier County Hotel and Lodging Association, as well as for the
Naples Visitors Bureau chairman.
And Commissioner Coyle, I think just going back to your
comments earlier about our occupancies, we are not at a sustainable
point of occupancy in this county to -- at some point, even Mr.
Gunderson is here from the Beach Club, we were speaking earlier.
In terms of a profitability sense, in the off season there is a great
disparity between what we go through in the winter months to the
summer months. And the residents of this county and the employees
in our hotels rely on the hotels' business in order to sustain themselves.
And we don't have the impact that I think you were referring to
on the roads. We've paid our impact fees, as all the hotels that are
existing in Collier County. And I think even in January, season isn't
so much fixed as some people think. I mean, there's still a lot of
growth opportunities for us in the winner months of this industry,
which is what this tax is dedicated to do, is to really promote this area
in times when we need it, which is the summer.
And what we're asking for is for you just to reconsider how some
of the tourist tax dollars are allocated. We've been very impacted by
some of the changes that have gone on, particularly in terms of beach
access and boat access. And I heard some of those arguments earlier.
Those were funds that we're trying to move around to support different
interests.
The fourth penny that came before the TDC was really to support
more beach access by procuring the money that we already have today
allocated for promotion over to a different area, increasing the taxes,
making us a little bit less competitive than we face against our other
counties in the community. So it really wasn't an issue of do we want
more advertising dollars for Collier County. It was really a shift of
dollars going on before us.
Page 169
February 24, 2004
What the industry was upset about or concerned about is nobody
came to ask us how we felt about that. And that's where we saw
dollars moving around behind our-- in a very short period of time,
within 30 days, we had to get an emergency workshop together to
really -- to think this through.
So that was our concern in terms of the dollars. And we really
brought up the question of the museum so that it gave you -- it gave us
some other alternative, as opposed to just slapping another penny tax
on our industry. And it's a penny tax that we can't support right now.
It's not to say that at some point in the future we can do that.
You asked what is the potential for our industry. It's not 100
percent; nobody can operate at 100 percent. But certainly 80 percent.
And I would certainly -- I can vouch for two of the major hotels in
this county, the Registry and the Edgewater, we're barely at 70
percent. One of them is below 70 percent. That is -- that is not good.
That is not good for our owners, it's not good in terms of the taxes that
keep going up on us every year. We have to really work towards
fixing the summer months for our hotels and this industry to continue
to benefit the employees and the taxpayers of this county. So that is
why we came out opposed to the additional penny.
The museums, we're simply asking for some accountability.
Myra Daniels doesn't come before you to ask for money for her
museum. It's promoted, it's operated out of money that doesn't come
from a tourist tax, as well as some of the other museums which
operate in this county. We just -- we have never really been exposed
to what is the budget for the museum and what does it support.
I see a lots of the children's stuff here today. Those are the
people that benefit from that museum, not the tourists. The tourists of
this county, I guarantee you, do not use the museum. A very small
majority compared to the dollars that are spent. $1.2 million spent on
a museum, $750,000 spent for advertising promotion of this entire
industry. Just doesn't seem logical. So that was our point.
Page 170
February 24, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I apologize to you and to the industry for
not telling you I was going to come up with that idea. It was one of
these ideas that just was born, and it was out of my mouth before I
ever thought of going to anybody. But I do apologize --
MR. DOYLE: Well, we're not -- it's not that we're in general
opposition of it. I think at this time it was just too quick for us to give
you the answers that you're asking for. A year from now we did ask
the TDC also to look at, you know, exploring -- I've asked the same
question, what is it going to take to market this county properly, what
does that cost? And then we'll figure out how to get the money to get
there. So that's -- we're not in total disagreement in terms of the point.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And by the way, you know what? When
did we establish impact fees? What year? 90 -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: '86.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: '86? Okay. And nobody paid impact fees
before 1986.
MR. DOYLE: We built a new tower in 1986, as well, so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Because I knew that you were
here before I was--
MR. DOYLE: As the golf course, as well as the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and I've been here 30 years and I didn't
pay -- okay, Commissioner--
MS. FILSON: I have one additional speaker, too.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pardon me?
MS. FILSON: I have one additional speaker, when you're ready.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- Coletta.
Okay, well we'll take the other speaker, then Commissioner
Coletta, then Commissioner Coyle.
MS. FILSON: Jim Gunderson.
MR. GUNDERSON: Hi, I'm Jim Gunderson. I'm the general
manager of the Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Club, and I appreciate
the opportunity to speak before you today.
Page 171
February 24, 2004
I agree with everything my colleague has said concerning the
issue concerning the museums. It's a little disturbing in some respects.
I think that for whatever reason our -- we continue to be sort of
demonized as -- our industry, as what's responsible for anything that's
bad that goes on in this area. You know, and it's a little discouraging
in some respects that there isn't perhaps a greater sense of appreciation
for what it is that we do.
You know, the folks that come and stay in our hotels and our
resorts do nothing but come and enjoy this community and everything
that this community has to offer. They come, they pay taxes. And the
number of folks that are employed as a result of tourism, directly as a
result of tourism in this county, is tremendous. And the financial
impact and all of that is significant.
We at the Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Club employ almost 500
people. And I don't understand why constantly it's referred to as low
paying jobs. Our average -- the average income of our-- of a member
of our staff is in excess of $30,000 a year. That's including, you
know, management, hourly employees and whatever. That's -- maybe
I'm not -- not understanding, but that doesn't seem to be a terribly, you
know, low income kind of a position.
It -- these folks are clearly affected by the swings in our
occupancy and the levels of our business. When I wake up every
morning, I have a responsibility to try to generate revenue and profit
to hopefully provide for these 500 individuals, myself included, a
sustainable business which, you know, quite frankly is a very, very
clean, wonderful industry that is -- provides a lot of goods and
services to a great many residents of this -- of this county.
I think what we were discussing before about the museums is
we're not against museums as an industry. We like museums, we
believe in museums and whatnot. We simply don't believe, however,
that the funding of the museums should be saddled on our backs when
-- I agree with Bill Doyle in that quite frankly, very few of the visitors
Page 172
February 24, 2004
that come here do indeed take the time to visit the Collier County
Museum or to go out to the ranch or some of the others. Not to
suggest that they are bad facilities or that they lack interest or anything
else. But the reality is that they do come here to enjoy the beaches,
they do come here to take advantage of golf or tennis or shopping or
fishing or some of those activities, and they don't necessarily immerse
themselves in our local history and culture and things of that sort. It's
not that they're bad people, it's just they don't have time. They're only
here for a few days and they need a break.
So, you know, again we're just simply looking to avoid -- A, to
avoid the fourth cent. We think that right now that would be
devastating to our industry. As Bill said, we are not at our
pre-September 1 1 th occupancy rates at this point. And it makes it
very, very difficult in the meantime -- as any business, our expenses
are going through the roof. And it's making it -- it's just putting a very
-- putting things in a very difficult situation.
The bed tax, the monies that are set aside for the advertising and
promotion, we really feel does need to be increased as much as
possible. We looked at, you know, questioning whether or not the
museum funding out of that is wise at this time. We didn't suggest,
you know, cutting them off at the knees at this particular juncture, we
supported let's get through the whatever fiscal year, have some time to
plan and look forward and go forward. And -- but going forward to
have a different -- a different plan in place. This one should have
never been in place in the first -- to begin with. And, you know, we're
looking for you to help us correct what should not have happened to
begin with. And, you know, I just hope that we can -- you know, that
you can appreciate our position on this.
The off season marketing is tremendously important. You know,
we're not -- we compete against one other another, but we also
compete against the -- we compete against the world. And there's a lot
of folks out there, a lot of communities, a lot of destinations out there
Page 173
February 24, 2004
that are outmarketing us like crazy. And we just need a little bit of
your help and support in that effort. So anyway, thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I need to address a couple of
things. I've obviously upset you about some of my remarks. It's .okay,
we're not going to have an exchange here. And it's -- I need to explain
to you my position concerning all of this.
I think one of the most dangerous things we can have in Collier
County is an economy based upon the tourist industry. All of you
who have been in this business have seen changes in tourist patterns.
We desperately need a balanced economy in Collier County. I have
said for some time that when Cuba finally opens up, a lot of the
investment dollars that used to come to South and Southwest Florida
are likely to go there, and so are a lot of the tourists. We don't want to
sustain that kind of economic impact, and I think we need to plan
ahead to make sure we soften it, if it ever does really come.
But beyond that, what I'm really asking for is some way of
measuring success in the expenditure of our tourist development
funds. I do not want to increase the taxes. I agree with you, I don't
think that's appropriate. I think we should use the funds we have
better I want a way of measuring success. Where do you want to go
with the occupancy rate, how much money is it going to take to get
there, and how do we know when we get there, and what are we going
to do about it?
The average salary of $30,000 is not impressive at all. A person
with an average salary of $30,000 in Collier County has a real hard
time living here. We have our-- the salary for affordable housing
category, $29,000; is that not correct? And we have people who
cannot possibly afford to live here for that amount of money. MR. DOYLE: That's households.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, either way. Some of them are
Page 174
February 24, 2004
individuals. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Assuming they're both employed an
average of 30,000, which many cases they're not.
So the objective of this Commission has been to try to diversify
the job market in Collier County. And I don't intend to do that at the
expense of the tourist industry. But I want you to understand that my
remarks are based upon a desire for a truly balanced economy, not for
one that continues to be unbalanced. And very specifically, what I'm
asking for is a plan that says our average occupancy rate off season,
our target level is such and such. We expect to be able to get there
with an expenditure of "X" number of millions of dollars in "X"
number of years, and that's our plan to get there. And that's all I'm
asking for. I want to be able to measure progress against an attainable
goal, which is not unreasonable in any business. And so that's -- I
hope explains my position on this issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if I may, I'd like to call
Ron Jamro up, the Director of the Collier County Museums, to try to
get some historical perspective of where we've been, where we are
now, where we could go in the future.
Ron, as you heard, it seems that this year you're not one of the
favorite sons of the Tourist Development Council. Why is there such
a big difference between last year and this year? I'm totally perplexed
by this.
MR. JAMRO: For the record, Ron Jamro, your museum director.
That's a surprise to me too, Commissioner. Every year we go
with our budget proposal. It is in advance of the Commission's budget
process, so we're a little early and we don't have all the numbers
precisely at that point. We give a pretty good idea of what's required
for that year. And for the last two years, they've reviewed our press
book, our promotional materials, 99 percent -- you get those books,
too, 99 percent of which we get for free. Our promotions are for free,
we don't pay for them.
Page 175
February 24, 2004
And I might add that, you know, we point out the same facts
every year to Mr. Doyle and the others on the council. 70 percent of
our visitors are out-of-county residents. They are -- they're just that,
they're tourists here. Twenty-eight foreign countries. I can give you
their names. I don't know how we can improve this any more
dramatically. We have an extensive school, school children program.
I won't apologize for that. That is a residual benefit for the residents
of Collier County from the tourist tax. And I think that's a pretty
legitimate use of that and we'll continue to encourage school
participation to make better citizens for this county, more informed
citizens. So I don't think that's a bad thing.
But every year, for the last two years anyway, we have gone and
gotten a unanimous vote of support from the TDC for our budget
recommendation, which we eventually take to you. So this is news to
me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I can't figure out what
you're doing wrong this year. I'd like to know.
But also, too, can you tell me why there's not support for the
county, that they want to take and put the county, this money here
that's coming in to Botanical Garden and to the Palm Cottage? That is
even farther off the mark. Is there some rationale to this that you can
understand?
MR. JAMRO: No, sir, there isn't. I know that we have future
plans for a museum on Marco Island. We are talking now to (sic) a
very historic property in Naples about a -- possibly a fifth museum of
the county system. So I would think that those would be of priority,
of interest to the Commission. But again, those are your decisions, not
mine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The way I feel is I'd like to -- I
agree with the Tourist Development Council about promotion money,
and I'd like to get that promotion money from what we're spending
outside the county for other museums to be able to use it for the
Page 176
February 24, 2004
museums here. I think that's the direction we ought to give serious
consideration to when budget time comes. They're right, we need to
do more promotion for the museum.
MR. JAMRO: Oh, we would welcome that. We just don't have
the funds to do that. We're -- we're operating -- and they're correct in
that, in that analysis, that the museums' operating and personnel
staffing is coming out of this, this allocation every year. Now with
some support from the general fund, this past year the Board provided
some additional funds from the general fund because the TDC looked
to be about 995, it looked a little short of the mark we needed.
But some additional promotional funds that we could really take
the -- our message further afield, that might be something that the
hotels would feel was a worthwhile expenditure. I would certainly
hope so.
We've considered ourselves to be part of the visitor experience.
The county museum started as a public archive or museum archive for
just public information. We've evolved into sort of a tourist attraction.
We're not there yet. We hope to one day reach that and we're
working very hard to get there.
But we consider ourselves to be partners in this whole process of
making the tourist visitor experience here a worthwhile one.
And frankly, the facts that you were given fly in the face of every
study of tourism I have ever seen. Florida is one of the top 10 states
for heritage tourism. 70 percent of Americans are now looking for
destinations like the museums to go to. Every newspaper article that I
read in the last week about the museum alludes to people who have
stayed here or come here specifically to attend a museum event or to
see the museum. So I don't know where those concepts are coming
from. I'm working hard to change those concepts. But you mustn't,
you mustn't -- the facts are the facts. I can provide those to you any
time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Page 177
February 24, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Commissioner Jim Mudd
(sic), can you set me straight here --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He's not a County Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I mean, County Manager.
Sometimes he is a county commissioner.
But County Manager, didn't -- we had a workshop and I think in
that discussion we were talking about the addition of one cent. If we
allocated an additional one cent in the tourist tax, that we basically
would promise the hoteliers that that would up their amount of money
used for advertising. If my memory serves me right, I think we started
off with $1.3 million under the three cents, and if we increased it by a
penny, then that would basically give them about $3.3 million for
advertising?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the -- let's hope to get the answer
to your question. The only way that you can put a fourth percent on
the tourist tax is to have some kind of convention center or to use the
money in toto to other-- not the convention center -- to advertising.
Normally a percent of the tourist development tax gives you about $3
million. Just -- if you just put that in your head as a general term, you
know, it goes up and down a little bit, but if you think about every
percent or in some people's vernacular every penny that you have on
the tourist tax bringing in $3 million.
So that fourth penny or fourth percent addition, the conversation
during the workshop would be all -- could only be used for
advertisement. And that would significantly almost double -- more
than double what they have right now as far as an allocation for
advertising in that particular case.
And then the dialogue went from what are we going to do with
the money that's already there, the $1.3 million or $1.2 million that's
allocated to Mr. Wert's agency to do the advertising? The discussion
was well, we can use it for beach access. Then discussion, there was
Page 178
February 24, 2004
another Commissioner who talked about well, it can go -- it can go for
beach renourishment. Another Commissioner said, well, heck with
that, just use the money for advertising, okay, and it would be $4.3
million, instead of $3 million. It would give them the fourth penny
plus what they've got right now.
With that, and with no consensus among the Commissioners at
the workshop, the Commission basically said let's send a fourth penny
discussion. And then there was a lot of-- there was a lot ofhoteliers
that day that raised concerns about the fourth penny, and basically
asked the Board to defer that particular decision or direction to another
time. The Board basically said let's take that discussion down to the
Tourist Development Council and ask them to survey the hoteliers and
the moteliers in Collier County to see what they want, okay? What
we got out of that discussion was what Jack presented to you today,
was they don't want the fourth penny right now and the fact that they
believe they're still recovering from the 9/11 issue, and any increase in
their room rates would hurt them.
And then the dialogue went in other places, well, we can find
money, we'll take the museums and put it onto the general fund and
we'll use those dollars to increase the advertising revenues -- or
advertising funds in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're talking about probably
raising the room rates by five cents if we collect a penny?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I -- you're out of my league at this
point --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, okay. I'm just kind of using
that as general conversation. It would seem to me if they're still
recovering from 9/11, that the additional one penny would be
advantageous to them because they're going to double their
advertising and hopefully would that -- that would bring more people
in to their hotel here. So, I mean, I don't understand the -- quite
understand the whole equation here. Because if you have more money
Page 179
February 24, 2004
for advertising, it would seem to me that anybody that's in the
advertising world, the more impact you have in advertising, the more
return you get on your-- on the dollar. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And it would seem to me that, you
know, we're talking a penny here, and that wouldn't mean that much
as far as increase in the amount of impact to the people that are
coming here to Collier County.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- the way I look at this is
this is just a report. It doesn't take any action by the Board of
Commissioners?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I can see with my
colleagues, it's going to be some heartburn about, you know, Collier
County museum, taking money away from that, using general fund
money. And I feel the threat about taking the money away from Palm
Cottage or the Botanical Garden.
And let me just throw out there, why don't you allow me to work
with the industry and try to bring something back that's favorable to
all?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: With the tourism industry?
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Or museum industry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Tourism industry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How do you feel about that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'll leave that up to you.
You're the representative on the TDC, which might be a conflict for
you to talk to them in the Sunshine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't know that. I wouldn't be able to --
if-- how would that work? If you were working with the tourism
industry to come back with a compromise, would they then be able to
Page 180
February 24, 2004
discuss it with me being their chairman?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Anything-- the way I
understand Sunshine Law, being a -- the chairman of the Tourist
Development Council, the members on that Tourist Development
Council, it has -- if it has the ability to come before that board, you
should not discuss it.
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct.
MR. DOYLE: Can I add a comment?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have to decide -- excuse me, I
just have to figure out this.
So if you, like, go to one of their meetings, then I should not be
there while you're discussing it with them, right?
MR. WEIGEL: This thing, any Commissioner that's on the TDC
cannot speak with other members of the TDC on matters that would
come before the TDC. Likewise, two Commissioners on the Board of
County Commissioners obviously cannot speak outside of properly
noticed meetings with minutes and facility, et cetera, without
otherwise be in violation of the Sunshine Law.
Now, if Mr. Henning, just to pick an example, talks with
members in the industry who are not members on the TDC, and he
happens to be a member of the TDC, that kind of a discussion can be
had by him or any of you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But I'm the only one on the TDC now, so
he's free to talk to anybody, isn't he? MR. WEIGEL: He is.
And I'd also recommend that he's not being directed by you as an
agent of this Board to become, you might say, an element of the Board
to come back. He's expressed a desire to kind of investigate and come
back to you, and that would be his own individual effort.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. He just couldn't come before like
the TDC as a -- at a workshop or something where I'm sitting in, right?
I mean, unless it's a publicly advertised meeting. Because otherwise,
Page 181
February 24, 2004
I can't know what he's doing.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, yeah. No, those workshops and things
will be properly noticed for the TDC members. They won't
necessarily be noticed for Board of County Commissioner members to
attend and interact.
But as you know, Commissioners, anyone on committees can in
fact be in the same room together, can in fact be at citizens' forums
and other occasions, as long as they don't do indirectly what they can't
do directly, which is communicate to each other. So a person who's
not on the TDC but is a Commissioner could be there, could in fact
speak, you know, with care if the spirit moved him or her.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But he can contact anybody he pleases on
the outside, right? Is this what you're talking about, Commissioner
Henning, is just go and visit with people and come up with some kind
of a compromise and then have that presented back; is that what you're
saying?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's all legal, right?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, that's legal.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that --
MR. WEIGEL: Independent fishing expedition; come back to
the Board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Well, it's fine with me if you'd like
to volunteer to do that.
Let's see, do we have any other speakers? No?
MR. DOYLE: Could I add a comment?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
MR. DOYLE: I think what Mr. Henning has volunteered to do is
to do exactly what your TDC has done, which is meet with the
industry. We did have a workshop, we talked and we dispersed a lot of
different thoughts, and the recommendation from the TDC, which is
what Mr. Wert presented to you today, is to not adopt this fourth
Page 182
February 24, 2004
penny.
What I also mentioned in that, and I'm not a member of the TDC,
is that our industry is willing to work, together with Jack, because we
all support what Mr. Wert has to do for this county, and we do have a
goal, but it's not to come through this additional fourth penny. We
would like some more time to work with both the museums, our own
industry, as well as the beaches to figure out how can we get more --
and this conversation has come up about more state and federal
money.
We spend all of our tourist tax dollars on beach here primarily. If
you look at other counties in Florida, which Mr. Wert has prepared for
you, we spend a disproportionate amount of money on the beach here,
even though we -- as compared to what we collect than most counties
in Florida. Many more spend a lot more on advertising with us, much
more smaller counties than what we've had.
And also to Mr. Coyle's comment about our industry, I can tell
you that I think without a doubt, probably 80 percent of the cases,
anyone who has bought real estate in this county has stayed in a hotel
prior to moving here. And those folks are supporting the other
industry of this area which is the community development and the real
estate, which everybody's enjoyed here.
So we are seeking out a balanced community as well. We live
and work here and raise our children here as well. That's not -- we're
not selfish in that respect. But at the same time I just would ask that
you-- it's a very honorable thing for Mr. Henning to do that, but
you've already done it. That's why the TDC exists. It's their
responsibility to administer the tax. The tax is to grow tourism. It's
not to subsidize museums, it's there to promote tourism so that our
county is sustained during the off season. So that's what I would
recommend that you do is listen to that recommendation. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I'll be honest with you, I
Page 183
February 24, 2004
understand where Commissioner Henning's coming from. And, you
know, we have many more hotels than just the ones on the beach. We
have a number of them inland that would benefit greatly if more
money was put into beach access and boat access. Now the hotels that
have the beach property aren't concerned with that. That's not their
problem. They're looking for sand on the beaches --
MR. DOYLE: I speak to you on behalf of--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, sir.
And I for one would want to encourage Commissioner Henning
to go and talk to everyone in the industry out there, try to get a feel for
it. I'm not up to putting an extra penny on the industry if it's totally
opposed across the board.
However, I can tell you for a fact I've talked to a number of local
hotel people that were supportive of this. And I'm not on the TDC
anymore, but I can tell you, those hotels were not on the beach. And
they would benefit from that beach access. They would benefit from
the boating access. They'd benefit from all that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They'd even benefit from the extra
advertising.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And they feel -- and
also, too, I'll tell you something, they felt like they were -- they felt
intimidated by the hotels on the coast.
So I think it would behoove us that Commissioner Henning on
his own go out and talk to people in the industry and try to get a true
perspective of what's taking place out there, and I encourage him to do
it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, just one last comment. In
light of the four cents, I think there was also -- we wanted to take that
1.3 mil that was set aside for advertising and use that also for--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- beach renourishment. So it was
Page 184
February 24, 2004
a win situation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not for beach renourishment, I'm sorry,
beach access.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Beach access.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Beach and boat access.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But anyway, that was a win
situation not only for the people here, but I think it would be a win
situation for the people that are in the hotel business, because people
like to get out to the beach or they like to be able to rent a boat so that
they can travel some of our waterways.
And when they go back and tell their friends up north what a
wonderful trip they had through the estuary system and the fine hotel
that they stayed at, such as yours, I would think that they would be
knocking down your door to get-back down here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was going to say, we've got to
remember too that there's also other funds that come in from tourist
development tax that aren't from the hotels. They come in from the
people that rent residences for, what is it, six months or less? And they
have to pay for it, too. And those people need to be able to access to
these features such as the beaches and to the boating facilities and the
museums. I imagine they'd be some of your biggest clientele is our --
is our, quote, what are called seasonal residents that are paying this
tax. They would probably be one of the people that would utilize the
facilities more than the people that come down for a week at a time.
So I think there's more of a balance to this than meets the eye.
And that's where I stand on it. You know, I don't think we need to
take a vote to send Commissioner Henning out in the field. I think he
stated he's willing to do it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, I would love to hear a report back
from Commissioner Henning as he talks with other people. And of
course we don't have to take a vote on this, we're just accepting this
Page 185
February 24, 2004
report right now; is that correct, County Manager? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Doesn't mean we have to agree
with it, though.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, that's right. It doesn't mean we
have to agree with it either. It's just that we're accepting this report,
and we've given comments one way or another. And then
Commissioner Henning has offered to do some extra work for us.
So with that, do we have any further comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we're going to be adjourning for 10
minutes. Actually, we're going to adjourn for 15 minutes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need to leave in 15 minutes
and I would like to hear 10(C).
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 10(C) is what, the overpass?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I was going to try to hold it off until
Commissioner Coyle got back. So now what do we do? Coyle will
get back at about 5:45. Can you be here by then, back?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No? Okay.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, we'll be back by 5:45.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Then we'll just -- do you -- if we're
done at -- we'd better wait until -- to break until Commissioner
Henning has to leave then. At least we get 15 more minutes in. All
righty.
Okay, 10(C) it is. We're going to skip to 10(C).
Item #10C
Page 186
February 24, 2004
RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE THE FILING OF A PETITION
TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING TO CHALLENGE THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS' NOTICE
OF INTENT TO FIND THE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF
NAPLES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN COMPLIANCE AS IT
PERTAINS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF OVERPASSES AND
FI.YOVERS- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: 10(C), ma'am, is a recommendation to the Board
of County Commissioners to improve the filing of a petition to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs for an administrative
hearing to challenge the Florida Department of Community Affairs'
notice of intent to find the amendment to the City of Naples
Comprehensive Plan in compliance as it pertains to the construction of
the overpasses and flyovers.
Now, Commissioner, I will tell you that I've had a conversation
with Mr. -- with Dr. Lee, who's the city manager in the City of Naples,
and he had some concerns on this process. And I said, first of all, Dr.
Lee, you've got to understand that, you know, we have a 21-day time
period in which we have to respond to this particular issue or the
window closes, in the hopes that this administrative proceeding would
be a way to come to some kind of an agreement with the Comp. Plan
amendment for the City of Naples without going into costly court
proceedings.
I said, Dr. Lee, you have to understand, we only have 21 days to
do it. You received your approval notification last week, am I
correct? He said yes. I said, understand that this is not vengeful on
anyone's part, but we have -- we only have a certain period of time in
order to bring the item to the Board to make the 21-day window. If
you don't do this today, you lose that opportunity. And that's what I
Page 187
February 24, 2004
told him, he understood that, and he was going to convey that to the
Naples City Council. That's all I have, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only thing that I wanted to
convey is their whole Growth Management Plan, part of it was also
the Heart of Naples. And we know that that redevelopment will be
more intensive as far as commercial uses, and I don't see any
affordable housing within the City of Naples.
Now, this really has nothing to do with the overpass, but it's
going to have to do with the future infrastructure that the county's
going to have to provide for those impacts going into the city.
So the only thing that I want to add is that they -- during our
objection that they amend it to add affordable housing within the
Heart of Naples redevelopment area.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a good addition.
And, you know, I think that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, you go, please.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think that it would be nice also if we call
another meeting, and rather soon, of a joint workshop between the
county and the city, because we have a whole new Board-- are you
going to be coming back?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you allow us to vote on a
short period of time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, we've got till 4:30 to discuss.
MR. FEDER: Madam Chairman, if I could for the record --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Anyway, joint workshop, because it's a
new day at City Hall, and I think that they're going to have to be living
by whatever amendments are filed, and maybe it wouldn't be the
amendment they would have filed, so I would like to see if we couldn't
put together a workshop rather soon.
Page 188
February 24, 2004
MR. FEDER: Madam Chairman, if I could, let me be very brief.
Again, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator.
As Jim pointed out, basically because of DCA's -- Department of
Community Affairs in Tallahassee's -- stated intent to find the Naples
Comprehensive Plan in compliance, we're put in a position that within
21 days we have to express our desire to file for an administrative
hearing. If we don't do so, then we're basically estopped from taking
that action any time in the future.
We do look at this, though, as hopefully, as you point out, an
opportunity to continue the dialogue, and hopefully not end up in the
administrative hearing. But if need be, we're more than prepared and
feel very comfortable that the issues relative to consistency with the
state Growth Management Act, the internal consistency, as I think
Commission has pointed out, within the Naples Comp. Plan,
consistency with our Comp. Plan, consistency with action on the
development of regional impact on Hallstatt DRI and other issues that
prompted even the regional planning council after the January joint
city/county workshop to support the position that in fact, one, the Item
10 as they put it, the transportation provision, is much too vague,
doesn't have any established criteria for how you meet the conditions.
And two, that any reasonable criteria have been met through our
study and analysis to date.
So regardless of whether changes in their Comp. Plan, we could
proceed and we have a strong argument that we have already met any
reasonable analysis or consideration of all viable alternatives.
But nonetheless, to establish consistency between our
comprehensive planning process, internal consistency and consistency
with the state and other actions taken, we would request your action to
appeal, therefore, at least putting in that place holder for us, and we'll
continue to try and work with the city.
I did advise Dr. Lee that this was on the agenda. I didn't want it
to be a surprise to them. And I know Jim has spoken to him. We have
Page 189
February 24, 2004
talked about setting up ongoing staff meetings on a regular basis on
transportation issues, and I'm going to follow through on that.
But we also have -- and I believe it's April, although we wanted
March, and I think we're trying to find a date that works for everybody
-- the follow-up meeting to the January meeting scheduled with the
city, and hopefully we can resolve this issue long before then through
discussion.
But regardless of that, we do need to take the action today.
To the issue raised by Commissioner Henning, I understand that
concern. They do have two portions of this Comprehensive Plan that
was -- is at least right now in the process of the 21-day review to see if
there's any issues of concern. One of them is the transportation
provision that is very vague but says generally no overpasses within
the city, and the other is the Heart of Naples.
What we've recommended to you for staff is only that we are
looking to appeal relative to the transportation item. And that's really
before you today.
The issue of affordable housing is something you might discuss
and the nature of what that does to transportation demand, including
the potential overpass here at Airport and Golden Gate. But if your
direction is that we appeal both, I need to know that. We had not
sought to appeal the heart of Naples portion of their Comp. Plan
amendment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I for one would just as soon
leave the Heart of Naples part alone and just concentrate with what
we've got at hand. And this is without hostility at all. I mean, in order
for us to be able to keep moving forward to be able to reach whatever
the final agreement we're going to, we have to move this forward, we
can't let this lie.
So I make a -- I make a motion that we go with staff
recommendation, that the Board of Collier County Commissioners
Page 190
February 24, 2004
approve the request for permission to invoke the administrative
procedures and request a hearing on the matter from the DCA.
And that's without malice, that's without -- I'm not trying to
create an adversary position. I think that we are going to become
better neighbors because of this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion on the floor. Do I
have a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have this motion on the floor by
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Coletta.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Coletta -- whatever your name is -- to
approve staff's recommendations, and a second by Commissioner
Halas. And we have three speakers on this subject.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have a joint workshop with the
City of Naples scheduled for the 6th of April.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 6th of April.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. Okay.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Bill McKenna. He will be
followed by Bill Tinally (phonetic), who will be followed by David
Ellis.
MR. MCKENNA: For the record, Bill McKenna, self appointed
representative of thousands of motorists tied up on Golden Gate on a
regular basis.
Today I want to express opposition to the petition, simply
because the overpass is not necessary. And in 10 slides, I'd like to
show you how you can have your voters drive every day, starting
tomorrow, on Golden Gate Boulevard without any delay.
The first slide essentially shows the scene of the crime. And
what you're looking at there in yellow is a backup on the western side
of this intersection that's sometimes over a mile. If you spend any
Page 191
February 24, 2004
time at the intersection, you'd find that the other three legs, if you will,
all the traffic would literally clear at every interval of the light. What
that suggests is that there's a timing problem. Jim?
The way it is now, 70 percent -- excuse me, there's 160-second
cycle on the light. There's 70 seconds for east-west traffic, 90 seconds
for north-south. But the traffic flow is exactly opposite. It's at a ratio
of 90 versus 70. So the light is mistimed.
What you have is essentially 50 seconds that goes eastbound,
there's 20 seconds of the 70 seconds east-west that is reserved for left
mm lanes onto Airport-Pulling Road.
Now, let's take a look at the next slide. If we did it the way the
traffic dictated, which would seem to be a rather basic assumption,
what you would have is an interval like this. I don't have a lot of time
but I'm going to take you down to the bottom line. Essentially, instead
of 50 seconds eastbound, you would have 80 seconds eastbound. It's a
60 percent increase in throughput through the intersection with
absolutely no impact on anything else. 60 percent improvement on
timing of the lights.
Now, let's look at the second item. Second item says that the
second turn lane is really unnecessary. In fact, that triggers no right
on red for those two lanes because there's two of them. We don't need
two, we need one. And we can convert that to straight through.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which one?
MR. MCKFiNNA: One of the two right turn lanes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
MR. MCKENNA: Pardon me?
focusing on always going --
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
On where?
This is -- this is all -- I'm
On your side of the road.
MR. MCKFiNNA: -- to the east, to the east, which is the
bottleneck peak evening hour traffic. We convert one of those to
straight through. That increases the straight through from two to
Page 192
February 24, 2004
three. It's a 50 percent improvement.
Now, on the other side we have three lanes, but it's a very short
third lane, it merges to two. It should be extended at fairly little cost.
But we would increase dramatically the throughput through the
intersection.
Now let's look at the third item. There's three things taken in
context here that I think it will knock your socks off in terms of the
total throughput through this intersection. Sequencing the light so that
left, right and through. Currently what we do is we begin with 20
seconds of left mm and then we follow that on with 50 seconds of
right turn and through. The problem is the left turn lane's empty but
the traffic is blocked from getting into them by the traffic that is going
straight through that is blocking the entrance to the turn lane.
If in fact -- next slide -- we sequence this light so that the signal
cha.nged to allow simultaneous green lights for all eastbound
movements -- let's take a look at another one, Jim -- we would in fact
increase left turn traffic from 20 seconds to 60 seconds, which is a 200
percent increase in left turn traffic flowing through that on a single
cycle. At no cost to the taxpayer.
So let's go ahead -- this is all short term I'm focusing on. Let's
add it all up. We've got three lanes straight through, timing the lights,
sequencing the lights, start/stop time would improve the efficiency of
the intersection, because we have less stops because we're going 80
seconds straight through instead of 50.
When you do a weighted improvement, you're going to get over
100 percent increase in the throughput with literally no cost to Collier
County taxpayers. And in fact, if the transportation division was
instructed to operate this intersection this way this afternoon, you
could have your constituents driving through this intersection without
delay tomorrow night.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir. I'm sorry, but we have to
-- each speaker has five minutes.
Page 193
February 24, 2004
MR. MCKENNA: Could I speak for Ben Tiley who is my
associate?
MR. TILEY: I'm backup second speaker, I'll give him my five
minutes.
MR. MCKENNA: Can I do that?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Pardon?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I think we're
confusing the issue. We can still argue the point of what kind of
improvements we get there, even up to the last day before we make a
decision.
MR. MCKENNA: The position that I have, Tom, is that by
going down this route of the petition, we're being to spend additional
money in legal fees, there's going to be additional distraction from the
staff, and in fact what the staff should be doing is focusing on, okay,
eliminating the delays at this intersection. In fact, the other -- another
slide, please. And we're just about at the ends of this, for your -- if we
go one step further and implement what at this intersection for a
long-term plan, in fact what we would do is go to a modified base case
proposal, MBCA (sic), which means makes better sense alternative.
And we would four-lane this intersection on each of the east and
westbound legs.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: See, but you aren't addressing what we're
-- we're just addressing here. You're telling us how to build the
roadway or making it more efficient.
MR. MCKENNA: What I'm saying is is that the overpass
alternative is really a moot issue. And to spend our time and our
money on legal fees and whatever when we could be doing this
beginning tomorrow makes a lot of sense to us. And that's where we
think that you ought to be focussed as a Board of County
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. If I may, Mr. Feder,
Page 194
February 24, 2004
every time we have a challenge to what's being looked at out there,
we've done all sorts of research, we've looked at it 1,000 different
ways, we had five different consultants. Can you comment on what
you've just seen here?
MR. FEDER: The first question I'd have is what engineer has
signed and sealed these 60 percent, 100 percent increases of efficiency
that I keep being told about?
MR. MCKENNA: Could I answer that question?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
MR. MCKFJNNA: I happen to be a graduate engineer who spent
my lifetime running manufacturing plants and am in fact responsible
for as many as 50 of them where all I did was look at throughputs and
very complicated production processes.
This is very simple. If this man goes up in a helicopter, which he
told me he did, and he goes up there and sees this big backup in one
direction only, and in fact it's only one direction, and then he comes
down and he doesn't tell his traffic department hey, guys, get out there
and change the light, for God's sake. We know that the problem is is
we don't have enough green in that direction.
So anyhow, I'm a graduate engineer, and I spent my lifetime
dealing with production flow problems. And that's what this is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'm sorry, I'm addressing
the questions to Mr. Feder.
MR. FEDER: IfI could, first of all, I was up in the helicopter
recently. I wasn't the only person there. And the traffic backup wasn't
only simply one direction.
Now, having said that, I think what has been raised here is a good
item that we're working on right now for the near term. And that is we
did set up a computerized signal system on Airport to establish a
progression along Airport, and actually you're getting a much better
progression, and that's why we don't see as long a backup on Airport
right now.
Page 195
February 24, 2004
But I will submit to you that we're looking at the numbers right
now, we're going to work with that timing this Friday and the
beginning of next week to see if we can add a little bit more time to
the eastbound, because possibly on that progression on Airport we
have put a little bit of a penalty to Golden Gate, and I don't disagree
with that, in the p.m. eastbound.
But that still doesn't address the nature of the issue before you
today. Regardless of whether or not we continue to look at
alternatives -- and by the way, we did look at this, we looked at the
four-lane merging to three, I can tell you it doesn't work. I have here
Kimley-Horn who has evaluated that in great detail and done
simulation studies on it, and they assumed four lanes all the way
through, not even on the merge situation, and it doesn't work.
But having said that, the issue at hand is that we have a 21-day
clock that we need to appeal. We'll continue to look at things. This is
one more in a long liturgy of issues we've looked at. And I would be
happy to get Mr. Dave Montine (phonetic) up here just to give you a
feel for it, just so you have a feel for the issue.
But we are looking at some of the timing. I think it's very valid
that we need to do what we can to try and continually tweak those
intersections. What we've got is six on six without a grid pattern,
without a collector road system, so we're constantly going to have to
work with the intersections and try to get the most efficiency we can.
It actually makes the point for the issue, and that is that we can't
address this at grade because we do have issues on the northbound, as
well as on the eastbound in the p.m. in the west and the south in the
morning. But I'd ask for your indulgence just for a minute. Mr.
Montine did the analysis --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We still have one more speaker, Norm.
Should we --
MR. FEDER: Well, I'd like to have Mr. Montine address this, if
I could. I don't know who the other speaker is, but hopefully that will
Page 196
February 24, 2004
answer your question, ifI could. Dave?
MR. MONTINE: Hello Commissioners, Dave Montine with
Kimley-Hom. There's been over a year in which we've been trying to
figure out what kind of at grade solution could we come up with to
make it work. And while some of the things that the previous
gentleman, Mr. McKenna, mentioned, there's some of the basic
fundamentals of traffic engineering. And single timings, yeah,
looking at that now is a good thing. But we're looking at something
quite a bit out in the future and building something that will last a
while once you build it. And I'd have to submit to you that I have yet
to hear or review documents or analysis from anybody from the
county, from the city or from the opponents of any material from a
qualified transportation engineering professional that has been trained
and educated in this particular arena.
Now, once you get your professional engineering license, it -- by
state law, you're not allowed to practice outside of what you've
supposed to be involved in. There's no way I could comment on
manufacturing plants. I would lose my license if I did that. And I'd
just submit to you that every single person and every single firm that
has reviewed, trying to look at an at grade solution, I'd be happy to tell
you if there was one, I'd tell you that there's a solution. But nobody's
come up -- everybody's come up with the same answer. And that is,
it's impossible, by 2025 to get an at grade solution to work. No matter
what kind of sophisticated signal system you have, there's only so
much sand you can fit through the hourglass. And that's what we have
right now.
So I'd propose to you that when you hear some of the opinions of
the other side, opinions are what they are, opinions, and they only
come from professional, qualified people, and I'd just like to throw
that out. That's something that we do to preserve the integrity of our
profession.
I'll let you know that I went ahead and evaluated an at grade
Page 197
February 24, 2004
situation that had four lanes each direction on Golden Gate, three
lanes each direction on Airport. I had a southbound triple left turn,
because we do have high volumes there. I added a couple of right turn
lanes in. I had the signal phasing as such when, say, a left turn
movement was happening, the opposing right turn could happen at the
same time. Every possible thing you could do to blow up an
intersection to the size of something that Naples hasn't seen yet, and
the operation of that intersection didn't even come close to getting out
of the level of service F category. I couldn't even get it to come close.
It was just failed miserably, to the point where we have to come up
with some other solution other than an at grade solution for a roadway
that you want to build and make it last for a long enough period of
time where the cost to benefit ratio would be feasible.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I was on that helicopter flight
with Norm Feder, and I can assure you that we also -- the largest
backup was definitely on the Parkway, but we also were incurring
traffic backups heading north at that particular time.
I haven't got the ride in the morning yet, but in the evening, there
was a high amount of impact going through that intersection in the
northbound direction on Airport.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker -- are you ready for your final
speaker?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Actually, I know your button is on,
but we have one more speaker waiting in the wings. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is David Ellis.
MR. ELLIS: Commissioners, I'll be brief. My name's David Ellis
and I'm with the Collier Building Industry Association. And just a
few quick comments.
What we're talking about today is really part of the evolution of
what we've been planning for a very long time in Collier County. Not
only have you planned it, you've put into place dramatic and solid
Page 198
February 24, 2004
funding sources to fund the plan that you've actually -- you've already
planned before. You put together an elaborate concurrency
management system to actually trigger and make sure the plan
continues to work.
And the last step of this plan continues to be, we need to build the
plan. The plan that we put together, we've used good science and
good folks that understand the process. We put together the money
through impact fees and other sources to make sure that the money's
there.
Take the appropriate action and continue to fight for what you
need to do to build your plan in Collier County. I know many of you,
when you were running for office, we did a survey, and some of you
have continued to follow. One of the greatest cries from your
constituency is build roads. Make sure that the road network keeps up
with growth. We've put together every piece of the puzzle in place
except for the last one, which is building that plan. I know that 10, 12
years ago, actually citizens came around and said let's not build
Livingston Road, we don't need it, it's going to create problems.
Today it's being built and it's solving problems in our system. But
unfortunately solving them at the wrong time, after the problem was
created. Actually, this problem exists in itself already in 2006 or
2008, whenever the over -- whenever the exit off of 75 opens. That
problem will continue to be exacerbated.
I'd encourage you to follow the staffs recommendation and
challenge this situation so that we are sure that we can move forward
with that overpass that's been planned, funded and recommended by
your staff. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Norm? Mr. McKenna's
recommendations are relatively simple to implement. It probably
shouldn't take more than a day to implement some of those
recommendations. Wouldn't it be nice, at least for the remaining
Page 199
February 24, 2004
period of this peak tourist season, to have those lights timed to permit
more eastward movement on Golden Gate Parkway?
MR. FEDER: As long as we don't overly constrain the
northbound movement as well, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that something we can do fairly
quickly?
MR. FEDER: Yes, sir. As I noted, we are taking the analysis
right now. We are looking at modifying the timing, probably this
Friday, and then further adjustment the first of the week. We will give
more time to the eastbound, at least to the extent of not moving any of
the total progression, if you will, on the northbound movement.
What we are not ready to do is to take the right mm lane out.
While it's stated generally it's not needed, the data shows that it is
needed. You don't have the ability to receive it on the other side. As a
matter of fact, the reason you have a short area reception of it,
originally that was a merge, much like Vanderbilt, which was touted
as -- that's a good example of it, if you've been at Vanderbilt and
Airport, you know what the merge situation is. You've got a very
short one there. That right turn lane is needed. We're going to look at
the data some more to confirm again that statement.
But as far as timing and giving some more green to that
intersection, trying to create more of, what's that called, lead lag, we
are going to try and do some of those things and that's underway as we
speak.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's been pointed out and it's
absolutely true that we're not here today to design the intersection, so I
won't spend a lot of time on that. But it would seem to me that we
could get some substantial increases in efficiency in that intersection if
we would take some of these recommendations and implement them
as much as possible.
MR. FEDER: We can assist some more and we're going to
continue and try and tweak every ounce out of it that we can.
Page 200
February 24, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, let me address the issue that's
before us --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, can I just -- I have tasked and I
have challenged the transportation department. Every idea we've
gotten from any constituent taxpayer, I don't care -- except for the
tunnel, okay, I won't go to the tunnel -- and we won't go there, but we
have looked at every alternative and we will continue to look at every
alternative to make sure we have exhausted every option.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know you have done that. But
like everyone else who drives on those roads, I can drive on them and
I can come to the conclusion, these lights aren't timed properly. You
know, it leads -- and the members of the public reach those
conclusions every day when they get tied up in traffic --
MR. FEDER: Whichever direction they're stopped in, they
conclude that that one isn't timed correctly, that's true.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if the perception is that we're
not staying on top of these kinds of things, then they lose confidence
in the decisions that are being made. And so that's what I'm trying to
encourage, is that we stay on top of these things.
I would-- I could come in to you tomorrow and say, yeah, I was
stuck in a place where I know the lights are not timed properly. But
that's not why we're here to talk today. We're here to discuss the issue
of whether or not the Board of County Commissioners should approve
a challenge to the City of Naples Comprehensive Plan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor and a
second, by the way.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, yes, I understand.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My feeling is that, number one, the
City of Naples Comprehensive Plan amendment serves no purpose, no
practical purpose. And our agreement to challenge it probably serves
no purpose, because if the City of Naples wishes to challenge our
Page 201
February 24, 2004
decision, they'll do so anyway, and we'll wind up in some kind of
court fight.
My reading of the language doesn't seem to indicate that there is
necessarily a reason for confrontation on this issue. But so you know
where I'm going, I don't -- I also don't think it's a good idea to spend
our money on legal challenges or anything else at this point in time,
and that we can do that later, if it's necessary.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, when you weren't here, what I was
pointing out is we are set with a 21-day window, based on DCA's
process. We agree that we don't want to pursue this any other way but
continue communications and resolution without necessarily having to
go through an appeal. But at the same time, we cannot forestall that as
we continue the discussion. I think we've seen some openings, and if
it's to try and address -- we had a good meeting in January, we have
another one coming up in April. So while we are recommending this
to you, we're also recommending that we keep the dialogue going and
that we try to resolve this in a much better way than an administrative
hearing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is not -- this is not an action
that will necessarily precipitate legal action, it's merely an indication
that the staff and maybe the majority of Commissioners want to
oppose including that in the City of Naples Growth Management Plan.
Is that essentially where we are?
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
No further discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 202
February 24, 2004
MS. ROBINSON: Excuse me, good afternoon, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Opposed?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have 4-1. I'm sorry.
MS. ROBINSON: I'm sorry, I just wanted to clarify a point that
was raised by Commissioner Coyle, and that is if the petition is filed,
it will become an action, an administrative action, which could be
considered litigation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we had a motion on the floor to accept
the recommendations as presented by Commissioner Coletta and
seconded by Commissioner Halas, and we had a final vote and the
vote was 4-1, with Commissioner Coyle dissenting. Okay?
Okay. We are going to take a 1 O-minute break and rest your
weary fingers.
(A brief recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you. the meeting is
back in order.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2004-64: A JOINT RESOLUTION WITH LEE
COUNTY TO PURSUE A LEGISLATIVELY ESTABLISHED
EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY TO MAKF. IT POSSIBLE TO
WIDEN 1-75 THROUGH TOLL FINANCING AS OUTLINED IN
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS' EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY BILL
- ADOPTF. D
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to a 9(D), which is to
approve a joint resolution for Lee County -- with Lee County, excuse
me, with Lee County to pursue a legislatively established expressway
Page 203
February 24, 2004
authority to make it possible to widen 1-75 through toll financing, as
outlined in Representative Davis' Expressway Authority Bill.
And Mr. Don Scott, the Planning Director for Transportation,
will present.
MR. SCOTT: I just handed out -- it should be in front of you if
you don't see the copy. This joint resolution was changed, minor
changes this morning by Lee County when they approved it. So this is
the latest version that they approved this morning.
Essentially their two minor changes were: Under 1, limitation to
I-7 5, they took away saying "tolled expressway lanes", but said
"including but not limited to tolled expressway". Essentially if they
can do -- get money from any other source, they would leave that
open. They didn't want it to be limiting.
Under 3(b) it said the authority can proceed with a PD&E study
for-- before it said "its proposed project", says "any proposed
project". Essentially covering anything that might go through a
PD&E study approval by the County Commissions. Essentially that's
been approved by Lee County.
And are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. By any chance did
anyone check this out with Mr. Mike Davis or one of his assistants? Is
there any problems with these changes, or are these something that are
just minor little cosmetic changes that really won't affect the
endorsement of the bill?
MR. SCOTT: My counterpart in Lee County has been in
constant contact with Representative Davis' office on the changes that
have been made.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And they're all okay with him?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
MR. MUDD: They're pretty much -- they're pretty much in the
Page 204
February 24, 2004
bill as it's written, okay, and the draft that's out there right now, and all
32 pages of it. So the context is they just basically brought a
resolution out with a page and a half that basically has 32 pages of
legislation that supports --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve from
Commissioner Coyle, a second from Commissioner Halas and Coletta.
I couldn't tell. We'll try Halas this time.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just thank you very much, Mike
Davis, Representative Mike Davis.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: From all of us.
All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MR. SCOTT: Thank you.
Item #9E
APPROVE A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE
PRESERVATION OF THE STATE TRANSPORTATION TRUST
FUND- TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE MARCH 9 BCC
MF, F, TING- APPROVF, D
Page 205
February 24, 2004
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9(E), and it's to approve a resolution
supporting the preservation of the State Transportation Trust Fund.
And Mr. Norman Feder, the Transportation Services Administrator,
will present.
MR. FEDER: I'll be very brief. The trust fund, the State
Transportation Trust Fund is set up with gas tax revenues and motor
vehicle tag fees. Those are set up in a trust, as the name implies, to be
used on transportation. And yet last session, over 200 million of that
was brought in to cover issues in the general revenue. This year
there's a proposal for another 100 million plus to possibly be pulled
out of that trust fund.
What we're asking you is authorization for us to send some
correspondence, making it clear that we want to maintain the trust in
the trust fund. I think the nice little literature you have says stop
highway robbery, but basically it's to keep the trust in the name trust.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Couple things. First of all, there
are a number of omissions in this particular draft. It says therefore --
now therefore, be it resolved that the blank, urges Governor Bush and
Florida's legislature to do these things. And then there are some other
MR. FEDER: What you have is an effort statewide to get
different local governments, as well as legislators, to basically sign on
to say that they want to maintain the trust. And so the blank here
obviously would be Board of County -- Collier County Board of
County Commissioners. That is the form--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, there are -- there are some
others, though, like not to include A, another transportation. You
know, it needs to be cleaned up.
And secondly, before I would sign on to it, I think we need to
take out the inflammatory language, like stopping highway robbery.
I'm not going to go on record as accusing the Governor of Florida --
Page 206
February 24, 2004
MR. FEDER: I appreciate that. I think what you're saying to us
is go ahead, and based on -- if I get that vote, send our concern, but
not necessarily utilize that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wording.
MR. FEDER: -- item that has been standardized that others are
using.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With-- you know, what is it going
to say and how is it going to -- is it going to be another resolution
that's drafted and brought to us for approval? Is that what's going to
happen?
MR. FEDER: I think what we will do is send out to our
legislator delegation what the results were and maybe the minutes
from whatever action you take in a minute or don't take.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we not do that next week
when we're up there?
MR. FEDER: That's fine, if you want to do that, but I don't
know if you can represent that as the full action of the Board. That's
what we're trying to do. But I'm at your disposal, however you'd like
to address that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have any problem with the
resolution to protect the funds in the Transportation Trust Fund. But I
think it should not be so inflammatory. It should be advisory in
nature. We're not trying to pick a fight with the Governor and his
Cabinet. We understand that voters have put them in a very, very
difficult situation with some of these mandates, these constitutional
mandates. So they have to look at unusual ways to deal with the
problems.
So I would like to get something that I think is a bit more
professional here, and -- before I would sign on to it, I'd have to see it
whenever it's drafted.
MR. FEDER: Okay. Would you like us to draft something and
bring it back to each of the members? Or how do you want that done?
Page 207
February 24, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know if we can do it that
way. Can we do a resolution individually?
MR. FEDER: Or by motion would you like to recommend what
you feel the basic language should be? I realize that's drafting up
there and that's not the appropriate -- we just provided what was the
outside language, or you could handle it in your lobbying effort, if
that's the way you'd like to approach it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I hear where
Commissioner Coyle is coming from, and he's right, you know, you
don't get people to support you by telling them they're a dummy first
and saying now give me a cookie.
In this case here, how about just a petition to restore our highway
funds or something like that? I'd even be willing to leave -- oh, Jim
Mudd's got it right down there.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, why don't we just postpone this,
continue it till the next meeting? That will be the 9th of March. You'll
have seen it --
MR. FEDER: And we'll provide the resolution.
MR. MUDD: -- and we'll tone it down. I'll put it on consent
based on -- your basic -- what I'm seeing, I'm seeing nods you support
it, you don't like the inflammatory language, you'd like it to be toned
down just a tad. We'll do that. It will still be timely, because they just
start their legislative session on the 3rd of March. So you'll still have
time. They won't get anything -- they won't get this solved in the first
week, I'll tell that you right now. And it probably won't get solved
through the end of summer.
So I think if we continue this item until the next meeting and
we'll give everybody the opportunity to see the final product and I
think we'll be a lot better, and we'll still -- we'll basically still keep our
intent, our word intent to the Lee County Commissioners that we
would support that, basically what you told them at the joint,
workshop. And I think we -- that would be a better product.
Page 208
February 24, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You want a motion to continue?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, so moved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to continue and a second. Motion
to continue by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner
Coletta.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Unanimously 4-0.
Item #10A
ITEM CONTINUED FORM THE FEBRUARY 10, 2003 BCC
MEETING. RECOMMENDATION TO RATIFY A TRI-PARTY
AGREEMENT BETWEEN EVERGLADES CITY, OCHOPEE FIRE
CONTROL DISTRICT AND CLUB EVERGLADES
DEVELOPMENT GROUP FOR FUNDS DONATED TO PROVIDE
NEEDED FIRE AND RESCUE EQUIPMENT AND TO APPROVE
THE AWARD OF BID NUMBER 04-3604, FOR THE PURCHASE
OF A POWER CATAMARAN BOAT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$43,713.50 TO TWIN VF. FJ INC.- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10(A). This
item was continued from the February 10th, 2003 BCC meeting. It's a
recommendation to ratify a tri-party agreement between Everglades
City, Ochopee Fire Control District and Club Everglades
Page 209
February 24, 2004
Development Group for funds donated to provided needed fire and
rescue equipment and to approve the award of a bid No. 04-3604 for
the purchase of a power catamaran boat in the amount of $43,713.50
to Twin Vee, Inc.
Mr. Dan Summers will present this particular item.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, Dan Summers, Director of
Emergency Management. And I'll tell you, as the new guy, I'm
certainly impressed still with your patience and perseverance on a
long day.
I want to bring you to -- down with the process of a couple of
items associated with this agenda item. I too will read through some
notes for clarification.
Part A of this action, if you will, is to ratify and place on the
record a third-party agreement -- or a third, tri-party agreement, rather,
that was inadvertently signed by Chief Paul Wilson, who is the fire
official of record for the City of Everglades. It was his intention to
sign and participate in this agreement only as the need to adjust
locations of fire hydrants within this project. This -- his intent was not
to bind the county in any agreement between the City of Everglades
and the developer.
The second part of this action today is also to make record of a
$21,000 donation from the developer as part of a development order
with the City of Everglades. This $21,000 cash contribution was for
ancillary equipment in support of and connects with the boat that is --
we are requesting to be purchased.
This was -- this $21,000 was inadvertently placed in a volunteer
donations account and held and not spent, but was again tied into the
purchase of the boat so that the equipment could be coordinated, et
cetera. The Clerk of the Court has that $21,000 check.
I might also ask that the second part, if you will, part B of this, is
to request your approval to authorize the purchase and to award the
bid of the fire rescue boat for Twin Vee. That boat was also currently
Page 210
February 24, 2004
budgeted for in the current budget year as well. And again, that boat
purchase construction and coordination ties into the $21,000 donated
by the developer to integrate the equipment for fire protection, fire
pumping, fire rescue services, et cetera.
That is the best way I know to describe what is basically three
parts within this agenda item. I have Chief Wilson here, if you have
any additional questions. And I know that the County Attorney has
some additional comments to share with you on new information.
MR. MUDD: Since, since Commissioner -- I'm not the County
Attorney. David, you're going to have your time to talk on this one.
But this $21,000 mistake, because it was deposited in the wrong
account, supposedly the check -- and I've seen at least a copy of the
check, was basically made out to the Ochopee Fire Department. Mr.
Wilson put that check into his voluntary account.
About two, two-and-a-half weeks ago, the Clerk brought it to our
attention about the $21,000 and asked for a public records request. We
provided the data that we had to him at that particular item. And
indeed the $21,000 was in that account that we can ascertain. The
only part of this that's missing as far as making the taxpayers of
Collier County whole is the interest that this particular amount of
money made in another account. And I'll even go farther than that.
It's what the clerk could have made out of the $21,000, as far as
interest is concerned over that period of time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What was the period of time?
MR. MUDD: Was it 2001 or 2002?
MR. SUMMERS: 2001, I believe it was. Mid-year, 2001.
12/01 ? I'm sorry, December of'01.
MR. MUDD: And the -- that period of time, and whatever that
interest payment was, to at least let us know what that is, so that we
could move those funds out of this particular account and put it into
the right fund from the Clerk.
Best I can ascertain on this one, Chief Wilson made a mistake, I
Page 211
February 24, 2004
don't think it was made to -- in any kind of secretive or illegal thing. I
think the guy put it in the wrong place and when noted that it was in
the wrong place, removing those dollars to the right thing and try to
make the accounts right.
Now the County Attorney in his part, please, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think as you Commissioners are now
aware, at 3:44 yesterday a lawsuit was filed by the Clerk in the local
court here, suing the Board of County CommisSioners as ex officio,
the governing body of the Ochopee Fire Control and Rescue District.
Additional --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is an election year, so we can
expect several of these between now and November.
MR. WEIGEL: And the Clerk faxed the copy of the complaint to
me, starting at 4:21 yesterday. So when it came out of the machine, I
saw it about 4:30, I reviewed it quickly and noted that not only is the
Board of County Commissioners sued as a party defendant, but also
two county employees as individuals, Mr. Paul Wilson and Linda
Swisher.
Interestingly, the complaint has the Board of County
Commissioners, a la the governing body of the Ochopee Fire District,
essentially as a nominal defendant. There are two counts to the
complaint. Both those counts are allegations and charges against the
individuals and not the county itself as the governing body.
I presume it was a courtesy copy that was sent to me. I do not
know, nor would purport to respond for the individuals as to whether
they have been served or not. I will note that upon service, there will
be a civil procedure, a judicial time clock running, for response to be
made by those individuals to the charges raised in this complaint
against them.
A couple of things I note, with a very brief time to review the
history, and that is if I were a litigation attorney -- I used to be, haven't
practiced for a long time -- but I'd ask a few core questions. If you'll
Page 212
February 24, 2004
MR.
present at
MR.
indulge me I'll ask a few questions right now.
Mr. Mudd and Mr. Ochs, did you in fact conduct a division staff
administrators meeting this past Wednesday, February 18th?
MR. MUDD: Yes, I did.
WEIGEL: Okay. And was a representative of the Clerk
the meeting?
MUDD: Yes, he was.
MR. WEIGEL: And was the agenda, including this agenda Item
10(A), reviewed during the course of the discussion? MR. MUDD: Yes, it was.
MR. WEIGEL: And subsequent to the meeting with the division
administrators and the County Attorney and chief Assistant County
Attorney and a few others, did you and Mr. Ochs and Mr. Dan
Summers meet with that representative of the Clerk specifically in
regard to agenda Item 10(A)?
MR. MUDD: Yes, we did.
MR. WEIGEL: And did you have what you believe to be a
complete and full discussion of the matters pertaining to a $21,000
payment made by a developer by and through and with the City of
Everglades in December of 2001, pertinent to the agreement that
appears in the agenda package?
MR. MUDD: Yes, we did. I thought we were going to return the
dollars, along with any kind of interest payment that was the owed and
that was the end of this particular thing, and we basically said it was
an honest mistake, and that's the way we were going to end.
MR. WEIGEL: And were you informed by that representative of
the Clerk that this was not an issue and that the matter could in fact
proceed as an agenda item?
MR. MUDD: We were informed that way.
MR. WEIGEL: In fact, was that not so stated prior to the private
subsequent meeting but at the general division staff meeting as well?
MR. MUDD: Yes.
Page 213
February 24, 2004
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. And then subsequent, at your more
private meeting with that representative and your specific and factual
discussion of this agenda item, you received the same ex -- the same
comment or answer?
MR. MUDD: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. We have a lawsuit that's been filed with
the -- and yet with the participation of the County Manager, County
Manager's staff and subsequent to a rather pervasive public records
request that was responded to very quickly, and then the subsequent
meetings and the responses which I've just illustrated to you through
questioning.
So obviously with the complaint there will be a requirement for
the County Attorney, County Manager, Mr. Summers on behalf of his
respective position, supervisory, to spend significant resources,
because this is a lawsuit, I'm an officer of the court and we must do so.
Additionally, the two individuals that are individually named in
the complaint will have to respond as well.
I note in the complaint itself, there's a litany of factual assertions
of the power of the Clerk to not only be custodian of county funds but
the audit powers that he has. And I would submit that the very
functions that are being complained of here could have been handled
in terms of an audit and/or professional courtesy administrative
request if the outcome of the investigation and review were to indicate
that there was potentially less interest earned than could have been
earned with this particular deposit.
Now, a couple other comments I'll make right now. As I start to
look at the history of this and make the appropriate assignments within
my office, the agreement that is described here in the agenda package,
dated December 24th, Christmas Eve, 2001, has three signatories. It
has the City of Everglades, it has the developer, it has Paul Wilson
signing in a capacity. Now, the attorney filing the lawsuit on behalf of
the Clerk and his firm are also in fact and have been for many years,
Page 214
February 24, 2004
and I expect but I can't say for sure, the attorney of record to the City
of Everglades, they are city counsel to the City of Everglades.
And I've been in local county government for a long time, a
student of the law and a practitioner to the client, and it's pretty
apparent to me when I review agreements for the Board of County
Commissioners and review them for legal sufficiency that in fact I
look to the propriety of the signatories to the agreement that's coming
before my client. And it's pretty basic local government law that the
Ochopee Fire and Rescue District is a dependent municipal service
taxing unit of which the Board of COunty Commissioners is the
governing body.
It's very apparent, and it should have been on the face of the
agreement, that the appropriate signatory was the Board for this kind
of thing. And yet here is an agreement that's come forward and again,
perhaps the facts will differ, but I do know that the firm was the coun
-- has been for many years counsel to the City of Everglades and is
conterminously, at the same time counsel to the Clerk.
So I think we have a little investigation of our own to do, as well.
And that's my statement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So let me make sure I have this
right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're getting sued.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The Clerk has the right to audit the
Ochopee Fire Department-- MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to find out if there was any
wrongdoing with respect to the handling of the funds.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. And I believe the record shows already
with the dialogue had with the county, starting with the public records
request and then the dialogue had in the offices of the County
Manager is that there's been full attempt and compliance to respond to
Page 215
February 24, 2004
the questions and factual issues that have come to become apparent, or
at least raise themselves as questions.
And the Clerk has asserted numerous times before that he has the
power, as auditor and custodian, to review county funds. This is not
something that was kept from him, it was in fact provided him and
intention was made, you may note even at the February 10th agenda,
and now at the February 24th agenda, to bring this matter to the Board
of County Commissioners. There's been a lot of time and opportunity
and in fact follow-up intention to work with the Clerk to resolve the
issues, or at least resolve them to the point where there may be an
administrative claim or fact to be brought to the Board.
And it appears that filing a lawsuit in court is the -- is the -- part
of the decision-making process of the plaintiff in this case.
We will respond on behalf of the Board. I don't need your
permission to respond. I am in fact forced to respond as the attorney
to the Board of County Commissioners, because you are now held in a
defendant capacity.
But possibly at the next Board meeting, Mr. Wilson and Ms.
Swisher may in fact have -- may in fact have a bit of a discussion item
in regard to the counsel that they may need to defend them. Because
at this juncture, I do not expect that the County Attorney will be able
to represent both the Board of County Commissioners, which is the
primary client, and the two individuals who have been sued in their
individual capacities.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me make sure also that I
understand that this is a situation where an official of the Ochopee Fire
Department received a check that was supposed -- he was -- that was
supposed to be turned over, and he in fact did deposit it in the
Ochopee Fire Department account. Not his personal account. There's
no allegation that any of this money went to personal use.
But by doing that, they failed to turn the check over to the Clerk
who, had the Clerk possessed the check, would have perhaps earned
Page 216
February 24, 2004
some interest off of that check during the intervening period.
MR. WEIGEL: Purportedly that's the argument. I'm not really
going to respond to the allegations of the complaint or such, they need
to be reviewed rather carefully to provide definitive responses in
regard to individual use, lack of individual use and things of that
nature. Quite frankly, the Board of County Commissioners, as I
mentioned, a named defendant, but the allegations are not made
against the county itself. So I will not purport to respond for the
individuals that are so named, notwithstanding that I have concern.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I wouldn't want to
characterize our discussions as an attempt to inhibit any kind of an
investigation concerning this issue. I think it's -- MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- something that we certainly
should do. And if anything was really wrong, we should certainly
pursue the appropriate course to resolve it.
But my question is, why is it that a lawsuit seems to be the only
way something like this can be resolved? Why couldn't we have an
investigation of that situation and then if we found that it was an
administrative error, we could then go about correcting the
administrative problems and/or assessing any sanctions or penalties
against the people we felt were responsible. Do we not have the
capability to do that?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe we do. I think it's a good question. I
see no reason why there isn't a good answer.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And by doing it that way, we could
get to the bottom of the issue much faster and spend much less of the
taxpayers' money. But now we're going to be locked in a perhaps
protracted legal battle that is going to cost us a fair amount of legal
fees that come out of the taxpayers' pocket. And I would suspect the
amount of money being spent on this issue by the Clerk far exceeds
any interest he might have earned on a $21,000 check over the past
Page 217
February 24, 2004
year or so.
So it is curious to me, although you know my private feelings
about this, this will get him some newspaper headlines and make him
feel good and perhaps get him some votes for November. But I think
it's a really, really bad way to go about taking care of the taxpayers'
business in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I approve those remarks that
Commissioner Coyle just related to.
Yeah, as I was sitting here looking at this thing, it looks like that
basically the lawsuit is involved in the amount of interest lost. And
maybe the possibility of some delinquency on the part of a person, not
intended to be delinquent in putting -- turning the check over to the
Board of County Commissioners. But when you look at the whole
equation here and you look at what it's going to cost the taxpayers, and
as Commissioner Coyle related to, that basically we're just looking at
the interest that could be incurred in that period of time, something's
not really right here.
And I'm quite surprised, because every Monday prior to a
Commission meeting, I always meet with the -- some representative
from the Clerk of the Courts. And I always ask that one question
before they part, is there any storm clouds on the horizon? And
obviously these blow up real quick, because I don't get any indication
that we're in -- not in compliance with what we feel we're trying to do
here.
So that really bothers me that -- and I think my meeting with the
Clerk of the Courts is around 11:00 every Monday prior to the
Commission meeting. And of course I know this happened at 3:45, so
it must be one of these no name storms that just cropped up on us.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what -- and all that stuff set aside,
we still have an item that's before you today. We kind of laid out
where the 21,000 was, where it sat, where we moved the check over to
Page 218
February 24, 2004
the Clerk. I've had assurances from staff that that money was put in
that account for the sole purpose of outfitting this boat once the boat
was purchased. They've been waiting on this boat for a while because
they've got that development in Everglades City. They can't -- you
can't get there by any other means besides boat.
So we basically have two actions here: One is a ratification of the
agreement that Mr. Wilson signed, he shouldn't have signed at the
time. He thought it was just to figure out where the fire plugs were
going to be, because the fire plugs and where they're supposed to be
are something that he can dictate and he can sign off on. But he
shouldn't have signed this agreement. The agreement did, with his
signature on it, did mean something that should have went before the
Board of County Commissioners. We need some kind of ratification
to that agreement.
The second issue is the purchase of the powered catamaran and
then the outfit of that particular boat. That action will come back to
the Board as those items are identified. And we have vendors that
have been solicited and will come back to the Board for those
particular dollars in the future. And that's what that $21,000 was there
for.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I just want to say that it's
disheartening to have this come down this way. I mean, some time
ago we seemed to have all sorts of difficulties with the Clerk of Court.
And we really went out of our way to try to straighten the problems
out. We brought the Clerk of Court into our decision-making process.
We even, through numerous requests, got him to sit personally on this
dias with us, and when he wasn't here, he had his own representative.
And that was very much appreciated. I thought we were going in a
wonderful direction, we were getting some tremendous feedback.
I'm totally lost where we are with this. I mean, this is the second
issue. The first one was Immokalee Road. How we could work so
Page 219
February 24, 2004
closely with a person and then find out that we were totally wrong
after the fact is beyond me.
What is wrong with the communications between us? I have no
idea. I don't know what we can do to better extend ourselves to him to
be able to avoid these conflicts in the future. I mean, government's
never going to be perfect, I mean, it's an imperfect product to begin
with. But by God, I'll tell you, every effort's been made and will be
continued to be made to try to bridge any kind of gaps.
I'm at a loss on this one. I just wish that he could respond. I
know he can't because he's got a lawsuit, and that of puts him into
nevernever land as far as any response goes. But I'm very interested
what's going to be coming from this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So on Wednesday, when you spoke with
the people from the Clerk's office, they never mentioned this? They
never mentioned the lawsuit?
MR. MUDD: No, we were working-- we were working through
the issue, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And when they were in your
office on Monday. They were in my office at 3:00 on Monday and
there was no mention of it either.
And that's -- let's face it, that's what it's all about. Why are we
not communicating? Why do we have to cost the taxpayer thousands
of dollars to get what, $26 back from interest? That doesn't -- when
you could just sit down and talk it all over and not take employees and
make them feel like criminals when they did nothing wrong. The
dollars have been found, they've been put in the right pocket and taken
out of the wrong one. They've -- all we need is the extra interest,
everybody's willing to do that. And now we have to pay thousands of
taxpayers' dollars instead ofjust sitting down and talking it over. I do
not understand.
Anyway, back to the issue. May I hear a motion, please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
Page 220
February 24, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now that's the motion to approve -- the
Board of County Commissioners ratify and acknowledge the tri-party
agreement noted. Is that -- is that it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: In attachment one. Award bid No.
04-3604, as outlined herein, and approve associated budget
amendments.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That is your motion, sir?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion and the second by Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #1 OB
APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH V.K.
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF WISCONSIN, 1NC.,
WHICH AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTS THAT PORTION OF THE
WENTWORTH ESTATES PUD, WHEREIN THE COUNTY
AGREED THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD RECEIVE, ON
PAYMENT OF ONE-HALF OF THE ESTIMATED ROAD
IMPACT FEES ($2,836,419.25), CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC
Page 221
February 24, 2004
FACILITY ADEQUACY FOR TRANSPORTATION FOR 1200
DWELLING UNITS, 85,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL
COMMERCIAL USES, AND AN 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE, IN
EXCHANGE FOR THE DEVELOPER, AMONG OTHER THINGS
(1) IMPROVING THE INTERSECTIONS OF US 41/SOUTHWEST
BOULEVARD AND US 41/NORTH ENTRANCE TO THE
WENTWORTH ESTATES PUD; (2) PAYING COUNTY $392,800
TOWARDS IMPROVEMENT TO THE INTERSECTIONS AS US
41/AIRPORT ROAD AND US 41/RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK
ROAD; (3) PROVIDING UP TO $250,000 TO SUPPLEMENT THE
FUNDING FOR THE INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHTING
BY THE COUNTY ALONG US 41 FROM BROWARD STREET
TO COLLIER BOULEVARD; (4) IMPROVING SOUTHWEST
BOULEVARD AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $350,000; (5)
CONVEYING, AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY, APPROPRIATE
EASEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LELY-
MANOR WESTERN OUTFALL CANAL AND LELY-MANOR
EASTERN OUTFALL CANAL STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
FACILITIES; AND (6) REDUCTION OF 1,000 VESTED UNITS
FROM THE I~F,I,Y RESORTS Pl JD/DRI- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10(B), which
is to approve a development agreement with VK Development
Corporation of Wisconsin, Inc., which agreement implements the
portion of the Wentworth Estates PUD, wherein the county agreed that
the developer would receive on payment of one-half of the estimated
road impact fees, which equates to $2,836,419.25.
Certificates of public facility, adequacy for transportation for
1,200 dwelling units, 85,000 square feet of rental -- excuse me, of
retail commercial uses and an 18-hole golf course, in exchange for the
developer, among other things: Number one, improving intersections
of U.S. 41 Southwest Boulevard and U.S. 41 north entrance to the
Page 222
February 24, 2004
Wentworth Estates PUD.
Number two, paying county $392,800 towards improvements to
the intersection at U.S. 41/Airport Road and U.S. 41/Rattlesnake
Hammock Road.
Number three, providing up to $250,000 to supplement the
funding for the installation of street lighting by the county along U.S.
41 from Broward Street to Collier Boulevard.
Number four, improving Southwest Boulevard at an estimated
cost of $350,000.
Number five, conveying at no cost to the county appropriate
easements associated with the proposed Lely Manor western outfall
canal, and Lely Manor eastern outfall canal stormwater management
facilities.
And six, reduction of 1,000 vested units from the Lely Resorts
PUD/DRI.
Mr. Norman Feder, Transportation Services Administrator will
present.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me interrupt you. Let me just say that
we have never seen a developer of this caliber before. Norm keeps
shaking his head. He can't believe this guy. Actually, not only does he
work with him, but he makes promises and he keeps them without any
question, without trying to needle or take back things. And I'm just so
pleased. I think he should give classes on how to be a great developer,
by the way. But neither here nor there. I want to make a motion to
approve this wonderful -- this wonderful agreement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll second.
MS. FILSON: And I have a speaker, too.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And the speaker is waiving.
Okay.
Motion by Commissioner Fiala, a second by Commissioner
Coyle, who would like to say something?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I would merely just like to say,
Page 223
February 24, 2004
this is nothing more than ratification of an approval that we have
already done. So that's why we're getting through it very quickly, that
we spent many hours going through this at another publicly advertised
meeting, and so we're just ratifying the agreement.
MR. FEDER: This is just bringing the agreement that you
structured, and it's exactly the same instructions previously.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we've read all of our stuff anyway.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So all those in favor-- oh, you're all done,
right?
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That passes 4-0.
Item #1 OF
AWARD OF BID #04-3616 "ADVERTISING OF DELINQUENT
REAL ESTATE AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR 2003
- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10(F). And
10(F) is to award a bid of No. 04-3616, advertising of delinquent real
estate and personal property taxes for 2003. And Mr. Steve Camell
will present.
MR. CARNELL: Yes, ma'am, for the record, Steve Carnell,
Purchasing, General Services Director.
This is part of an annual statutory process that we do in support
Page 224
February 24, 2004
of the Tax Collector's office in terms of him doing his due diligence
and statutory obligation to notify property owners who have not paid
their property taxes through an advertising process that's specified in
the Florida Statutes. And under those statutes it calls for the Board of
County Commissioners to select the newspaper of advertisement, and
we have accordingly sought bids for this and received bids from two
publications and we are recommending award to the Naples Daily
News in the amount of $56,000. And that price, by the way, is about
five percent lower than last year's bid.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in -- oh, a motion, please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make a motion to approve that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coyle --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and seconded by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
And opposed, like sign.
Thank you.
Okay, public comments.
MS. FILSON: I did have a speaker, but I think they've left. Mr.
and Mrs. Kenneth Thompson.
MR. MUDD: Yes, he left. He talked to me and left.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
County Attorney's report? We have--
MR. WEIGEL: No particular report. Looking forward to the trip
Page 225
February 24, 2004
to Tallahassee on March 4th. Thank you.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAIJ COMMI INICATIONS
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think we're down to staff and
Commission general comments.
Do you have any words of wisdom for us, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. First I'd like to introduce the Board
of County Commissioners to Mr. John Torre, who's in the back of the
room. John, if I could get you to stand up or come forward just a
second. Mr. Torre is our new Director of Communications and
Customer Relations. He was the one candidate out of 300 applicants
that was finally selected. So I would tell you that probably the
application process and review thereof was more tenuous -- or
strenuous on the staff before we finally got it. But we've been at this
for almost eight months now. And I'm glad that he's on board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And his title again?
MR. MUDD: He's the Director of Communications and
Customer Relations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we station him in the Clerk's
office?
MR. MUDD: But we'd have to give him hazardous duty pay.
No. We can -- he's going to -- he's going to -- I'm looking forward --
I'm looking forward to his help with making sure that the information
that the Board does and that the Board of County Commissioners does
gets out to the public, and he is -- I think he's ready to go. He's got
some great ideas for us and we welcome him to the staff as a very
valued professional.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Welcome on board.
(Applause.)
Page 226
February 24, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Anything else, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the -- I received a request on--
from Mr. Yovanovich on the 17th of February, and it was basically a
request for reconsideration of the Coconilla PUD. I sent a -- I sent a
memo to the two Commissioners who could have reconsidered that
particular item, because they voted against it, and they have -- both
have said no, they don't want to reconsider, so it is dead. And I just
want to make sure that you -- that you -- as far as reconsideration, it is
a dead issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand that, but I checked
with Mr. Weigel, but I think you had to go with the majority, whoever
voted on the majority could recall it.
MR. MUDD: No, sir, it was the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that right?
MR. WEIGEL: It's -- actually, it's -- you're right in most cases,
but on rezones, it's with the minority who voted against when there's a
denial. It's -- the one kind ofjumps out at you, but it's -- it's the way it
is.
MR. MUDD: So I just wanted to make sure that I put it on the
record that that item was considered and had no takers for
reconsideration.
That's all I have, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Let's see, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some concerns. We just
found out that the Clerk of the Courts has sued not only the fire
commissioner from Ochopee, but I believe there's another individual
that's involved in this. And do those employees of the county, do they
have any coverage by a lawsuit from the Clerk of the Courts that we
can some way or another take care of their litigation? I think one
person is a single mother that's going to be involved in this, that's
Page 227
February 24, 2004
going to have to acquire an attorney. So I'm concerned about the
people that are so dedicated to the county here. So maybe you could
give us some insight here?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I appreciate your concern and am happy
to respond.
The Board of County Commissioners does have a policy in place
by resolution which -- we call it the safety net, which provides for its
Commissioners, county employees, it includes advisory board
committee members, where -- there may be in fact a couple of ways
where if a lawsuit is filed, there may be protection or counsel
provided.
Now, when the County Attorney Office cannot provide that
counsel, and I would suggest in this particular case, because the
county is a defendant in the case itself we probably cannot, although
the resolution policy appears to address a little more directly criminal
allegations and whether there's acquittal or not, it does have a
provision for lawsuits in general.
The Board of County Commissioners has -- will have the option
of determining whether to pay for outside counsel upfront or if upon
acquittal or in this case a dismissal, something other than a conviction
or, if you want to call it that under this particular lawsuit, success by
the defendant, the defendant, having had outside counsel, can either be
-- have counsel provided by the county or have it paid for upon the
successful conclusion.
The Board has always been very careful in the past when there
have been lawsuits against individuals in the employ of the county,
such as the wastewater workers a few years ago, and those were
criminal charges, to be careful that the taxpayers mo -- the taxpayers
were not out money and a big bill be run up by counsel that maybe
could not be paid back. It's a difficult road, in any event, for the
counties that have found themselves in a position of risk this way.
I would suggest that, to my knowledge, I have little at this point,
Page 228
February 24, 2004
having had no opportunity to communicate with those individual
defendants, other than I know that Mr. Wilson is aware of the
complaint, but I do not know that he's had formal service.
The fact is, as I mentioned, a clock starts running after formal
service to respond. And if in fact service comes a few days from now,
as opposed to very quickly, we would have an opportunity to formally
review this with the Board of County Commissioners at the next
meeting prior to response.
I would hope, at the courtesy of counsel, and particularly local
counsel, meaning the counsel for the -- counsel for the plaintiff and
the fact that the plaintiff himself is an attorney, that there would
perhaps be some professional courtesies extended if necessary to these
individuals with the timing of their response to the courts.
But I will keep you posted, both informally and potentially
formally at the next Board meeting as well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Who were the two individuals that
were served? Or was it three?
MR. WEIGEL: Two. A Paul Wilson--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, no one has been -- you used the
word served.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well --
MR. MUDD: I do not know of any--
MR. WEIGEL: They are named in the complaint as defendants.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Excuse me, named in the
complaint.
MR. MUDD: Are Chief Wilson and his secretary, Ms. Swisher.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's enough.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, let me clarify one point.
Linda Swisher is the sole income provider, she is not a single mother.
But is -- and that's all I need to say at this point. She is the sole
provider in that family.
Page 229
February 24, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Yeah, I want to
remind this Commission too that it's not too long ago that we were all
sued, not the newer members of the Commission. And the county
stood behind us through that process, which is still ongoing at this
point in time. Of course this is something we have to weigh
case-by-case, but I think we ought -- we should give some insurance
for our employees if things happen that are beyond their control that
their county government will be there to protect them.
With that, I'd just like to say this has been a very, very interesting
day. And you did a wonderful job of running the meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, thanks, sir.
Yes, I have a couple of things also. First of all, I'm just terribly
disappointed in Dwight Brock. I wish he would have talked with one
of us instead of-- or anybody at all rather than going about charging
the taxpayers a lot of dollars and frightening these poor individuals.
There was a lot better way to do that and I want to say that on the
record.
Secondly, I got something from the County Attorney which I
thought was interesting, and I told him -- I asked about public hearings
and so forth, and he gave me a nice little packet here that I read, and in
there, lodged in there it says that staff and the presenter will limit their
presentations to 20 minutes. And sometimes, you know, we've had
presenters up there for an hour, hour-and-a-half. And then staff is up
there for a while. I didn't realize that we could limit everybody to 20
minutes. I think that's a marvelous idea.
And so I was wondering -- and expert witnesses can be limited to
10 minutes, plus, of course, speakers five minutes or less. So I was
wondering, fellow Commissioners, would that be all right if I invoked
this actual -- the rules for public hearing?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, could I just make a
comment? You know, I think one of our problems has been that we've
Page 230
February 24, 2004
gotten into the business of just letting things go on and on and on.
And the reason for that is that we try to make sure the public
understands everything we're doing. And it's certainly true that if we
start limiting things, they're not going to get all the same kinds of
information.
But this is a period of time when we are trying to do the
government's business. And I think we should do it as efficiently as
possible, which means to me that staff presentations should not be
repetitive, they shouldn't go over a lot of stuff that we already know
and it's in our packet. We hit upon the high points that are essential to
let the public understand the nature of the decision that we're making,
but I think that you're absolutely right, we can do these things much
more quickly and still make sure people are properly informed. It's
just a matter of focusing on the bottom line and leaving out a lot of the
details about how you get there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I found that when I limit people to three
minutes rather than five minutes in their -- when each one is a speaker,
they get right to the point, say what they have to say and get off rather
than waffling. So I thought that might work. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course that 20 minutes
wouldn't include our cross examination when we get to ask direct
questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, that's the second point. What I was
going to say to you, if this is okay with you guys as well -- and I'm
asking you this because we're all working together on this team -- oh,
and communicating, right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, yeah. We communicate. Even
though we're forbidden to talk with each other outside this meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. So -- and that's why I have to ask
you up here, by the way.
The second thing is I was thinking, to run a more efficient
meeting possibly after we've heard from the presenter and from staff,
Page 231
February 24, 2004
maybe we'll go right into the speakers before then we take over.
Would that be okay with you?
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
where we'll move from here on in.
Yes, try that.
Very good. So that's -- that's
Let's see, is there anything else?
Oh, I had one more. I had another one of my sterling ideas. I
mean I really have sterling --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We didn't finish the first one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You have to take the people in
alphabetical order, the Commissioners, and that the one -- the ones
with the C's get 30 minutes and everybody else gets --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The H's get six minutes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We are getting punchy and it's only 5:47.
The last thing, one of my sterling ideas, I'm so glad Norm is here
yet. Norm, I was wondering if something like --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Change the lights.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- if something like this could ever be
considered, even. I know that you've got your hands full trying to put
together a road system that works and functions and that's efficient
and so forth. But when you inherited this county, as we inherited this
county, we also inherited a road system that where the intersections
were antiquated, really, and they were poorly designed and really,
they can't accommodate the traffic today.
I was wondering if, you know, like you take on this project of
Livingston and you make it work and you take on the project of
Immokalee. Could you ever take on broken intersections and make
them more efficient? I mean, and have that be a project that you -- MR. FEDER: Yes, it's all part of the transportation system,
Madam Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But I mean, take them on as a whole
rather than when you get to them.
Page 232
February 24, 2004
MR. FEDER: Yes. First of all, we've got, though your
metropolitan planning organization, a congestion management
program underway that its main thing is to look at operational features
as opposed to just the add lanes issues.
Additionally, we're doing an awful lot in trying to work through
the computerized signal system and in the timing of the system. We
are going to have some constraints, I'll make sure you're aware of that,
because we do not have a grid. But we are trying to work through
some of those issues. We've done an awful lot in adding turn lanes
throughout. I've got one group of designers that their sole role is to
work with median modifications -- as you know, you approved a
number of those -- to try and make different intersections in the
overall system work better.
So we have not abandoned-- and I will tell you that just like with
the add lanes, we're continuing to run as fast as we can to play
catch-up. But we are very much committed to try and make as
efficient use of what we have as we can, as well as try to add
additional lanes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, I just thought that would be -- that
would certainly enhance the roadway and help the projects that you're
putting in move a lot better.
MR. FEDER: That and the transit system and everything else
we've tried to do with your assistance to address transportation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They've been talking about timing those
traffic lights since I was running for office, and they were talking
about the -- what is it ITS then? And we're still --
MR. FEDER: As you know, we took it over from the state
because of some of the delays. We did finish Phase I, we're moving
into Phase II.
But I appreciate what you're saying and it's something that we
understand your desire for as a Board and our need to address as part
of the transportation solution.
Page 233
February 24, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Well, I don't want to belabor that
any longer.
Anything further, Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: With that--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, don't do this yet. I got one alibi. I
just want to make sure that everybody knows that Commissioner
Coyle and Commissioner Henning will not be at the joint workshop
tomorrow with Everglades City. So three commissioners that are up
there, it's imperative that you be at that meeting tomorrow so we can
have that joint workshop with them. It's start at 9:00. That's all I have
to say.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's here, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And it's here. Thank you. Meeting
adjourned.
*****Commissioner Coletta 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
RESOLUTION 2004-58: PETITION AVESMT2003-AR4981 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE WATER RETENTION
EASEMENT CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY BY
SEPARATE INSTRUMENT AND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL
RECORD BOOK 808, PAGES 1899 THROUGH 1900, AND IN
THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT CONVEYED TO COLLIER
COUNTY BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT AND RECORDED IN
OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 808, PAGES 1901 THROUGH 1902,
Page 234
February 24, 2004
PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
LOCATED IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
F. AST. COIJI,IF, R COl JNTY. FIJORIDA.
Item #16A2
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2004-02 GRANTING BENNY STARLING,
EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR OF IMMOKALEE CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE,A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL FROM
FEBRUARY 26 THROUGH MARCH 7, 2004 ON PROPERTY
IJOCATFD AT 110 NORTH 1sT STREF. T. IMMOKAI,EF,.
Item #16A3
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "WHITE LAKE
CORPORATE PARK PHASE FOUR", APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PF, RFORMANCFi SF, CI IRITY - W/STIPI II.ATIONS
Item # 16A4
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "TERRABELLA OF
PELICAN MARSH UNIT TWO", APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PFRFORMANCF, SFiCI IRITY - W/STIPI IIJATIONS
Item # 16A5
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2004-03 GRANTING PEG RUBY, SPECIAL
EVENTS COORDINATOR, COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND
Page 235
February 24, 2004
RECREATION, A PERMIT TO CONDUCT THE ANNUAL
COUNTRY JAMBOREE CARNIVAL ON MARCH 12, 13, AND
14, 2004 IN THE VINEYARDS COMMUNITY PARK AT 6231
ARBOR BOULEVARD - WAIVE THE OCCUPATIONAL
IJICENSE AND SIIRETY ROND
Item # 16A6
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "CAYO COSTA, UNIT
ONE", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECI ~RITY - W/STIPI JI,ATIONS
Item # 16A7
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "CITY GATE
COMMERCE CENTER, PHASE ONE", APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT, APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF
PERFORMANCE SECURITY; AND ACCEPTANCE OF
CERTAIN REQUIRED OFF SITE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS
WHICH ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THlS PROJECT.
Item # 16B 1
AWARDING WORK ORDER NO. UC-090 TO DOUGLAS N.
HIGGINS, INC., FOR THE PALM STREET OUTFALL PROJECT
(PROJECT NO. 51804) IN THE AMOUNT OF $594,525.00,
APPROVING OF TWO DONATION AGREEMENTS, AND
ACCEPTANCE OF TWO DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS, TO BE USED FOR STORM WATER SITE
Page 236
February 24, 2004
IMPROVEMENTS AND TEMPORARY STAGING WITH IN
AREA OF THE PROJECT
Item # 16B2
A SIX (6) MONTH EXTENSION TO COMMERCIAL LAND
MAINTENANCE, INC. FOR BID NO. 99-2955 FOR IMMOKALEE
ROAD GROIYNDS MAINTENANCE SERVICE
Item #16B3
AWARDING BID #04-3597 TO ADVANCED LAWN, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $84,956.00, FOR THE DAVIS BOULEVARD
PHASE II MSTD ROADWAY GROI INDS MAINTENANCF.
Item # 16B4
CONTRACT #03-3559 WITH SPRINKLE CONSULTING INC.,
FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE UPDATE OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PATHWAY PLAN
(NOT TO EXCEED $99,976.00)
Item # 16B5
FINAL CHANGE ORDER NO. 9, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$253,938.35,TO BE REMOVED FROM THE PURCHASE ORDER
WITH BONNESS, INC., FOR THE LIVINGSTON ROAD PHASE
IV PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 65041, BID NO. 02-3364. AMOUNT
TO FiE PI.ACED INTO TRANSPORTATION'S FIl IDGF. T
Item # 16B6
Page 237
February 24, 2004
AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO STEMIC
ENTERPRISES INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $96,000.00 AND
ALLOCATING $9,600.00 (10% OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS)
FOR CONTINGENCY PURPOSES TO DREDGE NATURES
POINTE ALONG THE GOLDEN GATE MAIN CANAL
(PROJECT NO. 51601, BID NO. 03-3530)
Item #16B7
THE ADDITION OF 2 POSITIONS TO THE STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT TO BE FUNDED BY THE
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/BIG
CYPRESS BASIN TO ASSIST STAFF WITH THE PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY CANAL SYSTEM (ESTIMATED AMOUNT
$169.000~
Item # 16C 1
A SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
CARLTON LAKES, L.L.C., EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE
EXISTING LEASE TWELVE ADDITIONAL MONTHS TO
DECEMFIER 307 2004. (TOTAl, REVENI ~F, #8.820.00~
Item # 16C2
RESCINDING THE AWARDING OF BID #03-3533 TO CRANE
EQUIPMENT & SERVICE, INC. AND AWARDING IT TO
FLORIDA HANDLING SYSTEMS, INC. TO PURCHASE AND
INSTALL A TWO TON BRIDGE CRANE AT WASTEWATER
COLLECTIONS IN THE PUMP SHOP TO LIFT HEAVY PUMPS
FOR THE SAFETY OF STAFF. (IN THE AMOIJNT OF $26,800.)
Page 238
February 24, 2004
Item #16C3
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO TASK ORDER NO. 6 WITH
YOUNGQUIST BROTHERS, INC., TO PERFORM NORTH
COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWRF) DEEP
INJECTION WELL CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACT 01-3193,
PROJFJCT 73948 (IN THF, AMOIJNT OF $7477040.50)
Item #16C4- Deleted
Item #16C5
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY FORM FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY INJECTION WELL, IW 1., TO
PERFORM PLUGGING AND ABANDONMENT OF THE
INJF, CTION SYSTF, M.
Item # 16C6
WORK ORDER UC-093 FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY
CONTRACTING SERVICES RELATED TO THE SOUTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY,
INJECTION WELL IW-2, PROJECT 73154, TO MITCHELL &
STARK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. IN THE AMOUNT
OF $396,550
Item #16C7
WORK ORDER ABB-FT-04-04 FOR ENGINEERING SERVICE
FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION OF A
MASTER PUMP STATION UNDER CONTRACT 01-3290 -
Page 239
February 24, 2004
FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES,
PROJECT 73153, TO AGNOLI, BARBER AND BRUNDAGE
(Al:lB) IN THF~ AMOIFNT OF $158~150.00
Item # 16D 1
THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES AND
COLLIER COUNTY REGARDING THE IMMOKALEE
COMMI JNITY PARK (FISCAl, IMPACT $925.00)
Item # 16E 1
AUTHORIZING THE SALE AND DISPOSAL OF ALL SURPLUS
COUNTY-OWNED ASSETS AT THE SURPLUS AUCTION
SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 13, 2004 - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXFJCI ITIVE SI IMMARY
Item #16E2
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE CARRY FORWARD
REVENUE AND RE-APPROPRIATE $462,232.00 IN
ENGINEERING FEES FOR THE FLEET COUNTY BARN
FACII,ITY. PROJECT #52009.
Item #16E3
THE ANNUAL GROUP INSURANCE ACTUARIAL AND
BROKERAGE SERVICES WORKPLAN FOR 2004 WITH THE
WILLIS CORPORATION AND APPROVING THE
AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING AGREEMENT (TOTAL
COST OF SFRVICF, S 1N 2004:$1457000.00).
Page 240
February 24, 2004
Item # 16E4
REJECTION OF ALL PROPOSALS RECEIVED UNDER BID 04-
3610 AND REISSUING AS A NEW BID TO OBTAIN VENDING
MACHINE SFRVICES IN A COST F, FFECTIVE MANNER.
Item # 16E5
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
IMPROVEMENTS AT GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY PARK
AND THE HARMON TURNER ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
(BUILDING F) TO ACCOMMODATE ACCESS FOR PUBLIC
VISITORS WITH DISAFtlI,ITIF, S
Item # 16F 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT, BA #04-123, ALTERNATIVE
TRANSPORTATION MODE (FUND 101), FOR FUNDS NEEDED
FOR THREE ADDED POSITIONS; AND APPROVAL OF THE
BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT, BA #04-131, MSTD
GENERAL (FUND 111) NATURAL RESOURCES, FOR FUNDS
NEEDED FOR RENT EXPENSES TO SATISFY THE LEASE
AGREEMENT FOR LEASED PROPERTY AT 3050 N.
HORSF, SHOE DRIVF,~ SI HTF, 1457 THROIIGH FFJlaIRI IARY 2004.
Item #16H 1
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $75.00, TO ATTEND THE AMERICAN
BUSINESS WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION LUNCHEON TO HONOR
Page 241
February 24, 2004
"WOMEN 1N HISTORY, REMEMBER WHEN..." ON FRIDAY,
MARCH 12, 2004 AT THE RITZ CARLTON. THE PURPOSE IS
TO VISIT WITH THE COMMUNITY, TO HONOR THE GUESTS,
AND CELEBRATE THE IMPACT OF THE WOMEN'S
MOVFiMF. NT INTO THE WORKFORCF..
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT, 1N
THE AMOUNT OF $50.00, TO ATTEND THE FLORIDA
TRADEPORT BRIEFING & BARBECUE LUNCHEON AT THE
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT ON FEBRUARY 27, 2004.
THE PURPOSE IS TO GARNER INFORMATION ON THE
FLORIDA TRADEPORT FROM LT. GOVERNOR TONI
JF, NNINGS.
Item # 16H3
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR PAYMENT, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $50.00, TO ATTEND THE FLORIDA TRADEPORT
BRIEFING & BARBECUE LUNCHEON AT THE IMMOKALEE
REGIONAL AIRPORT ON FEBRUARY 27, 2004. THE
PURPOSE IS TO GARNER INFORMATION ON THE FLORIDA
TRADF. PORT FROM IJT. GOVERNOR TONI JENNINGS
Item #16H4
APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR
PAYMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $75.00, TO ATTEND THE
AMERICAN BUSINESS WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION LUNCHEON
TO HONOR "WOMEN IN HISTORY, REMEMBER WHEN..."
ON FRIDAY, MARCH 12, 2004 AT THE RITZ CARLTON. THE
Page 242
February 24, 2004
PURPOSE IS TO VISIT WITH THE COMMUNITY, TO HONOR
THE GUESTS, AND CELEBRATE THE IMPACT OF THE
WOMEN'S MOVEMENT INTO THE WORKFORCE
Item # 16I 1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE- FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
Page 243
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
February 24, 2004
FOR BOARD. ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
Re
Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for
the period:
1. Disbursements for January 3, 2004 through January 9, 2004.
2. Disbursements for January 10, 2004 through January 16, 2004.
3. Disbursements for January 17, 2004 through January 23, 2004.
4. Disbursements for January 24, 2004 through January 30, 2004.
H:Data/Fomat
Item #16K1
February 24, 2004
APPROVAL OF AGREED ORDER AND AUTHORIZING
PAYMENT OF $6,000.00 TO THE WILLIAMS, SCHIFINO,
MAGIONE & STEADY TRUST ACCOUNT ON BEHALF OF THE
PROPERTY OWNERS FOR APPRAISAL FEES IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. DA VID J. FREY, ET
AL., CASE NO. 03-2353-CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
PROJECT #60027)
Item # 16K2
APPROVAL OF THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
RELATIVE TO THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 219 AND 219T
IN LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. KATHRYN
HANKINS, ETAL., CASE NO. 00-1296-CA, GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD PROJECT NO. 63041. (PAYMENT OF $7,100.00
TO BE PAID TO RESPONDENTS, KATHLEEN G. SEDLACEK
AND DONALD E. CLINE AND $1,386.00 FOR STATUTORY
ATTORNEY FFiF, S.~
Item #16K3
APPROVAL OF THE AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT
FEES RELATIVE TO THE FEE TAKING OF PARCEL NO. 194 IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ROBERT W.
PIEPLOW, ET UX., ETAL., CASE NO. 02-2133-CA, IMMOKALEE
ROAD PROJECT #60018. (DIRECT STAFF TO PAY THE SUM OF
$9,400.00 TO ROF, TZF, I~ & ANDRESS TRI~ST ACCOI JNT)
Item #16K4
Page 244
February 24, 2004
APPROVAL OF THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
RELATIVE TO THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 199 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOSEPH DELUCIA,
TRUSTEE, ET AL., CASE NO. 00-0938-CA, GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD PROJECT NO. 63041. (STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE
ADDITIONAL SUM OF $1,500.00 INTO THE COURT
REGISTRY)
Item # 16K5
APPROVING THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE
TO THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 161 STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. JOHN W. SCHIEBEL, ETAL., CASE NO. 03-2872-CA,
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT #60027. ($28,014.00 TO
BE PAID TO RESPONDENTS JEAN DISARRO AND NICOLA
DISARRO)
Item # 17A
RESOLUTION 2004-59: PETITION AVPLAT2003-AR4683 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 ALONG THE
REAR OF LOT 4, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "VILLA
FONTANA UNIT ONE" AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 16,
PAGES 71 THROUGH 72, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 49
SOI~TH~ RANGE 26 EAST
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2004-60: REGARDING PETITION CU3-2003-4856
Page 245
February 24, 2004
GRANTING JAMES K. KEISER, REPRESENTING SOUTHERN
EXPOSURE OF NAPLES, INC., A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF
AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE FOR A CLOTHING
OPTIONAL SOCIAL CLUB LOCATED AT 1311 JAYBIRD WAY,
IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATEI,Y 8.71 ACRES.
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2004-09: AN ORDINANCE REPEALING
ORDINANCE 77-58 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE MARCO
WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT (MWSD); PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES;
PROVIDING AN EFFF, CTIVE DATE
Page 246
February 24, 2004
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:50 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
'DONN~ ~'I~LA, Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on ~.
presented / or as coxected
, as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS AND CHERIE
NOTTINGHAM
Page 247