BCC Minutes 03/23/2004 R
March 23, 2004
REGULAR MEETING OF
MARCH 23, 2004,
OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the
Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special districts as having conducted business herein, met on this date
at 9:02 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN: Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Jim Coletta
Fred Coyle
Frank Halas
ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Administrator; David C.
Weigel, County Attorney.
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
~
AGENDA
March 23, 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
March 23, 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.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Co-Senior Minister Debra Williams, Unity of Naples Church
e
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. February 24, 2004 - Regular Meeting
SERVICE AWARDS
Twenty Year Attendees:
1) Phillip Cramer, Water Department
2) Warren Keyes, Transportation
3) Susan Lemay, Emergency Medical Services
Twenty-Five Year Attendee:
4) Mary Esch, Emergency Medical Services
PROCLAMATIONS
2
March 23, 2004
Ae
Be
Proclamation to designate March 28th through April BOth, 2004 as Call
Before You Dig Month. To be accepted by Lynn Daffron, Robert Martzlof
of Risk Management for the City of Naples, Sandy Lloyd and Mike Nelson,
Collier County Deputies.
Proclamation to designate the month of April as National Sexual Assault
Awareness Month and to include April 2, 2004 as National Sexual Assault
Awareness Day. To be accepted by Jamie Willis, Victim
Advocate/Counselor.
PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Heriberto (Eddie) Harmack, County Veteran
Services Officer, Public Services Division, as Employee of the Month for
March 2004.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Mr. Fred N. Thomas, Jr., to discuss rural lands
efforts in the Immokalee Planning Zone.
B. Public Petition request by Mr. William B. Eline to discuss a new County
Water Park at the former Wiggins Pass Marina property.
ge
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Ae
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. SV-2003-AR-4652,
Richard Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A.,
representing the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce, Inc., requesting a
variance from Subsection 2.2.5.2.5.2. of the Land Development Code that
permits one wall sign for each single-occupancy parcel with single roadway
frontage to allow two existing wall signs to remain after a copy change on a
.43 acre lot located at 3620 Tamiami Trail North, and further described as
Gulf Acres Subdivision, Lot 4, Block B and the north 75.5 feet of the west
50 feet of Lots 75 and 76 of Naples Improvement Company's Little Farms in
Section 22, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
3
March 23, 2004
Ae
Be
Ce
De
This item to be heard at 3:30 p.m. Companion to Item 8F.
Recommendation that the Board adopt four (4) resolutions designating
Stewardship Sending Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4 (SSA) within the Rural Lands
Stewardship Overlay District (RLSA) including SSA Credit Agreements and
Perpetual Stewardship Easements for each SSA in response to a joint
application by Barron Collier Investments, Ltd., and Barron Collier
Partnership.
Board of County, Commissioners acting as the Community
Redevelopment Agency. Companion to Item 8E. Approve an ordinance
amending Ordinances No. 2003-61 (Impact Fcc Payment Assistance
Program) and No. 2003-62 (Property Tax Stimulus Program) to clarify the
effective date provisions of those ordinances; provide for conflict and
severability; and provide for an effective date. (Immokalee Enterprise Zone
Map Clarification)
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDZ-03-AR-
3831, Robert Duane of Hole Montes Inc., representing Robert Reed of Reed
Development Company, requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned
Unit Development to be known as the Calusa Island Village PUD. The
purpose is to increase the number of dwelling units from 47 units to 52 units,
reduce the commercial area from 0.45-acres to 0.12-acres, limiting the
commercial floor area to a maximum of 1,300 square feet while permitting
with 6 multi-family residential units, and eliminating the permitted
commercial uses that are not compatible with residential uses for property
located on the south side of Goodland Drive (CR 892) and west of Sunset
Drive in Sections 18 and 19, Township 52S, Range 27E and consisting of
6.2 acres.
Adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code
of Law and Ordinances, as amended by Ordinance No. 2001-13 (The Collier
County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, as amended) providing for an
update to the Library Impact Fee Rate Schedule to reflect a new rate of
$148.28 per one-thousand (1,000) square feet of living area for all residential
land uses, incorporating, by reference, the impact free study entitled "Collier
County Library Facilities and Items Impact Fee Update", establishing
indexing methodology, and providing for a delayed effective date of May 1,
2004.
4
March 23, 2004
9e
me
Companion to Item 8B. Adoption of an ordinance of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 2003-
63 to clarify the effective date provisions. Map clarification for Immokalee
Residential Deferral Program.
Fe
Companion to Item 8A. Petition SRA-2003-AR-4578 Ave Maria
University a resolution of the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners designating 960 acres within the Rural Land Stewardship
Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship Receiving Area, approving
the preliminary Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement for Ave
Maria, and establishing the number of Stewardship Credits being utilized by
the designation of the Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Ae
Recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Public Vehicle Advisory
Committee.
B. Appointment of members to the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee.
Ce
Requesting Board approval and authorization for Commissioner Coletta to
sign Memorandum of Agreement, creating a health information
infrastructure for the low income and uninsured in Collier County.
De
Discussion regarding the adoption of a resolution requesting that the
Governor, Senate and House not support taking dollars allocated for
affordable housing and place them in the general revenue stream.
Ee
This item to be heard at 2:00 p.m. Accept the final report of the Collier
County Revenue Commission, an Ad Hoc Advisory Body, created to
explore alternative revenue sources for meeting the County's numerous and
varied needs.
F. Appointment of member to the Tourist Development Council.
Ge
Reconsideration of Item 1 OF from the February 24, 2004 Board of County
Commissioners Agenda "Award of Bid #04-3616 Advertising of Delinquent
Real Estate and Personal Property Taxes for 2003". (Commissioner Coletta
request)
5
March 23, 2004
10.
11.
12.
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Ae
Adoption of FY05 Budget Policy. (Mike Smykowski, Director, Office of
Management and Budget)
Adopt a resolution authorizing the condemnation of fee simple interests in
the proposed right-of-way and/or stormwater retention and treatment pond
sites, as well as perpetual, non-exclusive road right-of-way, drainage and
utility easements, temporary driveway restoration easements, and temporary
construction easements, as may be required for the construction of roadway,
drainage, and utility improvements to Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR 864)
from Polly Avenue to Collier Boulevard (CR 951). (Capital Improvement
Element No. 77, Project No. 60169). Estimated fiscal impact: $2,495,000.
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
Ce
Adopt a Condemnation Resolution to acquire 0.49 acres of land located
within the area known as the Gateway Triangle for the purpose of
stormwater retention. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation
Services)
Approve an agreement for sale and purchase in the amount of $205,000 and
accept a warranty deed for 0.49 acres of property located within the area
knoWn as the Gateway Triangle for the purpose of stormwater retention.
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Provide direction to staff for
amending the Growth Management Plan Policy that addresses listed species
protection. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development)
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
This item to be heard at 12:00 noon. Closed Attorney-Client Session
pursuant to Section 286.011 (8), Fla. Stat., to discuss settlement negotiation
issues in Health Care Reit, Inc., v. Collier County Case No. 02-5002-CA and
Collier County v. Certain Lands Upon Which Impact Fees are Delinquent
Case No. 03-231-CA, now pending in the Circuit Court, Naples, Florida.
6
March 23, 2004
13.
Ce
De
This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m.. Request for the Board of County
Commissioners to provide direction in a closed session to the Office of the
County Attorney regarding settlement negotiations in Health Care Reit, Inc.,
v. Collier County Case No. 02-5002-CA and Collier County v. Certain
Lands Upon Which Impact Fees are Delinquent Case No. 03-231-CA, now
pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court for Naples, Collier County,
Florida.
This item to be heard immediately following Item 12A. Closed Attorney-
Client Session pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Fla. Stat., to discuss
settlement negotiations related to strategy/litigation expenses of the pending
litigation case ofAquaport v. Collier County, Case No. 03-1609-CA, now
pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida
and Aquaport v. Collier County, et al, Case No. 2:01-CV-341-FTM-29DNF,
now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Fort Myers Division and also pending in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the
Eleventh Circuit, Case Nos. 03-11291 -B, 03-13298, and 03-13133.
This item to be heard immediately following Item 12B. Request for the
Board of County Commissioners to provide direction in a closed session to
the Office of the County Attorney regarding settlement negotiations in
Aquaport v. Collier County, Case No. 03-1609-CA, now pending in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida and Aquaport v.
Collier County, et al, Case No. 2:01-CV-341-FTM-29DNF, now pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers
Division and also pending in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Eleventh
Circuit, Case Nos. 03-11291 -B, 03-13298, and 03-13133.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14.
15.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16.
CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of 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.
7
March 23, 2004
Ae
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Board of County Commissioners actin~ as the Community
Redevelopment Aeency: Recommendation that the Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve a budget amendment of
$154,782 from Fund 186 Reserves to Fund 186 Expenses for utility
and road projects in the Immokalee Redevelopment District.
2)
Approval of a resolution urging the Florida Legislature to reauthorize
and fully fund the State and Local Housing Trust Funds for Fiscal
Year 2004-2005.
3)
Request to grant final approval of the roadway (private), drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Glen Eden, Phase
One". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained, the water and sewer improvements will be maintained by
Collier County.
4)
Request to grant final approval of the roadway (private), drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Glen Eden, Phase
TWo". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained, the water and sewer improvements will be maintained by
Collier County.
5)
Petition AVESMT2003-AR5200 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the
County's and the Public's interest in a portion of a utility easement
conveyed to Collier County by separate instrument and recorded in
the Official Record Book 2429, Pages 3363 through 3368, Public
Records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 11, Township
49 south, Range 25 east.
6)
Approval of an increase of $40,000 from the previously approved
emergency contract with Tomasello Consulting Inc., for work to
perform studies in support of Collier County's Restudy of the flood
insurance rate maps recently rescinded by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
8
March 23, 2004
7)
8)
9)
12)
13)
Approval of a state funded subgrant agreement to receive a $50,000
grant through the Department of Community Affairs Residential
Construction Mitigation Program.
Request for forgiveness of administrative fees and interest and final
release of lien imposed against Mark T. and Midori M. Carroll.
Approve an amended intergovernmental agreement with the
Department of Environmental Protection to provide an increased level
of customer service relating to environmental permitting.
Approval of the Satisfaction of Liens for Code Enforcement Board
Case Nos. 2001-042, 2001-020, 2001-007 and 2001-077.
Adopt resolution supporting Florida Power and Light's Preferred
Corridor Siting Certification for a new transmission line from the
Orange River Substation in Lee County to the new substation in
eastern Collier County.
Execution of a Mortgage Subordination Agreement for a loan granted
to Creative Choice Homes XIV, Ltd., through the Affordable Housing
Rental Development Assistance Program.
Collier County Board of County Commissioners approve an
application for Job Creation Investment Program Participation by
March Performance, Incorporated, as a high impact targeted industry
and authorizing the County Manager to enter into a Job Creation
Investment Program Agreement on behalf of Collier County which
will be recorded in the Official Records of Collier County. ($40,000)
Be
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Accept grant funds for the stormsewer inlet-marking program in the
amount of $18,000.
2)
Award a construction contract in the amount of $515,931.50 to
Douglas N. Higgins, Inc., to enclose the Immokalee Florida
Specialties Ditch, Project Number 51015, Bid No. 04-3612.
9
March 23, 2004
Ce
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Recommendation to approve selection of qualified firm and award the
second project under ITQ 04-3583 "CEI Services for Collier County
Road Projects" for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Project, No. 60351.
Recommendation to approve selection of qualified firm and award the
first project under ITQ 04-3583 "CEI Services for Collier County
Road Projects" for the 13th Street SW Project, No. 69068.
Request the Board of County Commissioners to authorize certain
designated County Transportation Officials to certify disbursements to
the Florida Department of Transportation; repealing and superseding
Resolution No. 2002-477.
Board approval of Adopt-A-Road Program agreements.
Approve Settlement Agreement and release to remedy driveway
access issues to Alligator Alley Mobil Gas Station resulting from the
Davis Boulevard (CR 84) intersection improvements at Collier
Boulevard (CR 951), County Project No. 60170, Bid No. 03-3501.
Fiscal impact: Not to exceed $63,972.42 ($31,835.90 to be
reimbursed by property owner).
This item continued from the March 9, 2004 BCC Meeting.
Approve a resolution supporting the preservation of the State
Transportation Trust Fund.
Approve a resolution of the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners opposing proposed Florida Transportation
Commission and Florida Department of Transportation Legislation
which could reorganize the Metropolitan Planning Program in Florida
and undermine the independence of Metropolitan Planning
Organizations.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Adopt a resolution approving the Satisfactions of Lien for Solid Waste
Residential Accounts wherein the County has received payment and
said liens are Satisfied in Full for the 1994 Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal impact is $18.00 to
10
March 23, 2004
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
record the liens.
Adopt a resolution approving the Satisfactions of Lien for Solid Waste
Residential Accounts wherein the County has received payment and
said liens are Satisfied in Full for the 1996 Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal impact is $40.50 to
record the liens.
Approval and execution for satisfaction of a Notice of Claim of Lien
for Sanitary Sewer System Impact Fee. Fiscal impact is $6.00 to
record the satisfaction.
Authorization to execute and record satisfactions for certain Water
and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreements. Fiscal impact is
$34.50 to record the satisfactions.
Approve the satisfaction of lien documents filed against Real Property
for abatement of nuisance and direct the Clerk of Courts to record
same in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Fiscal impact
is $42.00 to record the liens.
Approve a change order to Work Order UC-059 for the City/County
Wastewater Inter-Connect in the amount of $30,098, Project 73162.
Approve Amendment No. 2 to Professional Engineering Services
Agreement with Water Resource Solutions, Inc., for the North County
Water Reclamation Facility Deep Injection Well System, Contract 00-
3122, in the amount of $284,628, Project 73948.
Amend Professional Services Agreement 98-2891 with Metcalf and
Eddy, Inc., for professional engineering services associated with the
design and construction services for SCRWTP Reverse Osmosis
Expansion Project, in the amount of $536,200, Project 70054.
Accept an amendment to a grant agreement ($50,000) with the South
Florida Water Management District, Project Number 73164, an inflow
infiltration study.
Authorize approval by Public Utilities Administrator of two
Engineering Services Work Orders under Contract #01-3271, Fixed
March 23, 2004
12)
Term Professional Engineering Services for Coastal Zone
Management Projects, with Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc., to
conduct bottom investigation for pipeline area, and to prepare final
plans and specifications, for Collier County/City of Naples Major
Beach Renourishment, Project 90527, in an amount not to exceed
$271,000.
Approve sending a letter to Congressman Goss' office requesting a
Congressional Budget Addition of $100,000 to fund the initial study
in support of initiating a Collier County Shore Protection Project.
Recommendation to award Bid No. 04-3608 - "Purchase and Delivery
of Sulfuric Acid" to Sulfuric Acid Trading Company Incorporated, in
the approximate annual amount of $200,000.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Authorization to enter into an agreement between the Collier County
University Extension and Wachovia Mortgage Corporation to provide
Homebuyer's Education and Counseling for their clients.
2)
Approval of attached application by the Board of County
Commissioners, and signature of the Chairman, permitting the Collier
County Public Library to apply for a State Construction Grant to
enlarge the Golden Gate Branch Library.
3)
Approve budget amendment in the amount of $30,000 appropriating
funds from General Fund Reserves for Engineering Services for repair
of the Clam Pass Drawbridge.
4)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the Chair to sign the attached grant agreement awarding Collier
County Public Library $7,500 for a Summer Reading Partnership Pilot
Project.
5)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
submittal of the annual application for funding from the United Way,
through the 4H Foundation and, if awarded, approve the acceptance of
the $24,000 to support a part-time 4H Customer Service position.
12
March 23, 2004
me
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
Award of Contract #03-3549 to Johnson Engineering Inc., for
consultant services to develop a Public Land Survey Section (PLSS)
base layer for use within the County's Enterprises GIS Database
($262,400).
2)
Approve Amendment No. 3, Contract #00-3173, to Spillis Candela
DMJM, for design of the new courthouse annex facility in the amount
of $129,518.
3)
Approval of a resolution authorizing the Board of Commissioners to
delegate limited administrative authority to the appointed Privacy
Officer and Security Officer for the purposes of compliance with the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
4)
Approval of a budget amendment to Fund 517, Group Health and Life
Insurance, to properly budget for premiums paid to Cigna Dental Plan
and to reflect a corresponding decrease in the Group Health Claims
Budget.
$)
Recommendation to extend Contract Number 01-3253 Installation and
Maintenance of Traffic Signals until May 30, 2004.
6)
Approve contract for Construction Manager at Risk for the proposed
Emergency Services Center, RFP #04-3609, to Kraft Construction
Inc. Targeted Construction Budget-$14,000,000.
7)
Award a contract for architectural services in the amount of $420,010
to Walker Parking Consultants for the design of the Vanderbilt Beach
Parking Garage, RFP #04-3582.
Fe
COUNTY MANAGER
1) Approve a modification to the FY04 Emergency Preparedness and
Assistance Grant accepting $41,897 and approve a budget amendment
to recognize and appropriate additional revenue.
2) Request that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
submittal of an application to FEMA for the assistance to Firefighters
March 23, 2004
Go
He
JJ
Grant Program for the Isles of Capri Fire Rescue District. ($290,000)
3)
Approval of a Tourism Agreement with the Marco Island Historical
Society, Inc., in the amount of $7,500 to complete the acquisition and
development of plans to build a museum on Marco Island.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1)
Commissioner Coletta is requesting approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose for the Spring
Volunteer Recognition Luncheon.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
a)
Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
17.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Approve the amendment to stipulated final judgment relative to the
fee simple acquisition of Parcel 174 in the Lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Michael S. Combs, et al, Case No. 02-2135-CA (Immokalee
Road Project #60018).
2)
Approve the stipulated final judgment relative to the easement
acquisition of Parcels 100, 101 and 700 in the Lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Faith Bible Church of Naples, et al, (Immokalee Road
Project No. 69101).
3)
Approve the Mediated Settlement Agreement as to Parcels 113, 713A
and 713B in the lawsuit entitled Collier County v. North Naples
United Methodist Church, Inc., et al, (Goodlette-Frank Road, Project
60134). Total cost of $96,938.50.
SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
14
March 23, 2004
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.
A. This item has been deleted.
Request that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a resolution to make
findings and to designate a Brownfield Area that is within a portion of a
Collier Enterprise Zone and does not include any area outside the geographic
boundaries of the Immokalee Regional Airport, all of which is in Collier
County and is owned by Collier county, for purposes of environmental
remediation, if needed, and for economic development of the designated
Brownfield Area; providing an effective date.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. SE-04-AR-5313, an
ordinance amending Ordinance 03-46, the Artesa Point "PUD" Planned Unit
Development to correct a Scrivener's Error resulting from the unintentional
omission of the official zoning map number 1603N in the transmittal copy of
the adopted ordinance to the Department of State for the property located on
the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and the south side of U.S. 41
(Tamiami Trail) in Section 03, Township 51 south, Range 26 east, Collier
County, Florida.
De
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2003-AR-3764,
Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development, Inc., representing
John J. Nevins, for the St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church, requesting a
rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Community Facilities
Planned Unit Development CFPUD, for a Project 14.89+ acre project known
as St. John the Evangelist PUD. The applicant is amending the schedule of
uses by deleting the adult assisted living facility use and changing the status
March 23, 2004
Fe
Ge
of several other uses from principal uses to accessory uses. The property is
located at 625 111th Avenue North, in Section 21, Township 48 south, Range
25 east, Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Companion Ilem:
VA-2003-AR-4708. RZ-2003-AR-3703, Immokalee Church of the
Nazarene represented by William L. Hoover, AICP, requesting a rezone
from the "P" Public Use Zoning District to the "CF" Community Facility
Zoning District for property located at the southwest comer of the
intersection of Colorado Avenue and 4th Street South in Immokalee, Florida,
in Section 4, Township 47, Range 29, Collier County, Florida. This
property consists of 1.55+ acres.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Companion Item:
RZ-2003-AR-3703. VA-2003-AR-4708, William L. Hoover, AICP, of
Hoover Planning and Development Inc., representing Immokalee Church of
the Nazarene, requesting variances from LDC Section 2.2.19.4.3.1., in the
Community Facilities "CF" Zoning District, from the 25-foot minimum
front yard setback to allow a 10.1-foot setback for an existing covered
sidewalk, and a 20.1-foot setback for the existing building located at the
southwest comer of the intersection between Colorado Avenue and 4th Street
South in Immokalee, Florida, in Section 4, Township 47 south, Range 29
east, Collier County, Florida. Consisting of 1.55+ acres.
Request the Board of County Commissioners adopt a resolution supporting
Satire Aircraft Company as a qualified applicant pursuant to Section
288.106, Florida Statutes; and providing an appropriation of $1,330,000 as
local participation in the Qualified Target Industry (QTI) Tax Refund
Program and Brownfield Area Program, and providing for an effective date.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
16
March 23, 2004
March 23, 2004
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. The meeting will
come to order for the Board of County Commissioners' meeting on
March 23rd. All rise, please. And do we have invocation this
morning?
MR. MUDD: Invocation will be provided by co-minister Debra
Williams from Unity of Naples Church.
MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning. Let us gather together for
prayer.
Creator God, we thank you for the beauty of this day and this
beautiful place in which we live. We ask your blessings on these
proceedings and the benefit of your wisdom as we discern the needs of
our community. May we be ever mindful of our responsibilities to
assure the common good of all, and may we say for all of our citizens
and for our community, the light of God surrounds us, the love of God
enfolds us, the power of God protects us and the presence of God
watches over us. Wherever we are, God is. Amen. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good morning. This morning do we have
any additions or corrections to the agenda?
MR. MUDD: David, you want to start?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Good morning, Madam Chairman and
Commissioners.
County Attorney has no further suggestions than those that are on
the change list that will be covered by the County Manager. Thank
you.
Page 2
March 23, 2004
MR. MUDD: Madam Chairman, agenda changes, Board of
County Commissioners meeting, March 23rd, 2004.
First item is add Item 4(C). It's a proclamation proclaiming April
3rd, 2004 to be recognized as Tag Day. That's at staff's request.
The second item is to continue Item 8(B) to the April 13th, 2004
BCC meeting. The Board of County Commissioners acting as the
Community Redevelopment Agency. And that's to approve an
ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2003-61 and No. 2003-62 to
clarify the effective date provisions of those ordinances, provide for
conflict and severability, and provide for an effective date. And that is
at Commissioner Coletta and staff's request.
The next item is continue Item 8(E) to the April 13th, 2004 BCC
meeting. That's a companion to Item 8(B). That's adoption of an
ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, amending Ordinance No. 2003-63, to clarify the effective date
provisions, map clarifications for Immokalee residential deferral
program. And that's at Commissioner Coletta and staff's request.
Commissioners -- and David, you can help me here, if you will --
both those Items 8(B) and 8(E) were advertised to be done at today's
meeting. I think we're going -- before you approve the agenda, I think
you're going to have to have a vote from the board to continue those
particular items.
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. And whether you do a separate
vote or you include it in your motion, you would be continuing those
to the date certain. Probably the date recommended by staff. MR. MUDD: April 13th.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Maybe we ought to handle that right
now?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'd make a motion to
continue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
Page 3
March 23, 2004
MR. MUDD: 8(B) and 8(E).
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Both of them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 8(B). Make -- a motion to continue by
Commissioner Coletta to continue 8(B) and 8(A) -- I'm sorry, 8(B)
and 8(E).
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's included in my motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: To the second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And seconded by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much for taking care of
that business.
MR. MUDD: Thank you, ma'am.
The fourth item is to withdraw Item 9(D). And that's a discussion
regarding the adoption of a resolution requesting that the Governor,
State and House not support taking dollars allocated for affordable
housing and place them in the general revenue stream. And that's at
Commissioner Fiala's request. And the reason it's withdrawn is
because Item 16(A)(2) basically is that resolution that the
Commissioner was going to discuss. Staff was working it at the same
time.
The fifth item is to add Item 10(F). And that's to adopt a
resolution opposing proposed House Bill 1495 and Senate Bill 2774
Page 4
March 23, 2004
related to the unwarranted and unjustified elimination of local
government regulation of the wireless communication facilities. And
that's at staffs request.
The next item is Item 16(A)(1). And this is just a note. This
item, the board-- and this is on the consent agenda. The Board of
County Commissioners acting as the Community Redevelopment
Agency, when you approve the consent agenda for 16(A)(1). And
that's a recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency
approve a budget amendment of $154,782 from Fund 186 reserves to
Fund 186 expenses for utility and road projects in the Immokalee
redevelopment district. And Joe Schmitt, the Administrator, is the
staff person that's responsible for that particular item.
The next item is to move Item 16(A)(11) to 10(H). And that's to
adopt a resolution supporting Florida Power and Light's preferred
corridor siting certification for a new transmission line from the
Orange River substation in Lee County to the new substation in
eastern Collier County. And that's at Commissioner Coletta's request.
The next item is to move Item 16(C)(8) to 10(G). And that's to
amend professional services agreement 98-2891 with Metcalf & Eddy,
Inc. for professional engineering services associated with the design
and construction services of the south county reclamation water
treatment plant, reverse osmosis expansion project, in the amount of
$536,200, which is project 70054. And that was at Commissioner
Fiala's request.
The next item is to move Item 17(G) to 16(A)(14). And that's
request the Board of County Commissioners adopt a resolution
supporting Satire Aircraft Company as a qualified applicant, pursuant
to Section 288.106, Florida Statute, and providing an appropriation of
$1,330,000 as local participation in the qualified target industry, QTI
tax reform program and brownfield area program, and providing for
an effective date. And that's at staffs request.
Page 5
March 23, 2004
It was not an advertised item, and it was mistakenly put on the
summary agenda as 17(G). It should have been put on the consent
agenda. And the board has talked about this particular QTI over a
month ago when we first brought the Satire Aircraft proposal to the
Board of County Commissioners.
And last but not least, I'd like to at least notify the board of some
time certain items.
Item 8(A) and 8(F) will be heard at 3:30 p.m. And they have to
do with Ave Maria.
Item 9(E) is to be heard at 2:00 p.m., and that has to do with the
briefing by the revenue commission.
Item 10(E) to be heard at 10:00 a.m., and that has to do with the
glitch cycle item that the -- on listed species that the board asked to
come back to this board meeting.
Item 12(A) and 12(C) will be heard at noon in closed
attorney-client session.
And items 12(B) and 12(D) will be heard at 1:00 p.m., and that
has to do with the closed session and the directions that the board
wants to give to the attorney.
That's all I have, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Commissioners, do you have any additions or changes to the
agenda, or any ex parte to declare on the summary or consent agenda?
Starting with you, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Madam Chair, I have no
changes to today's agenda and I have no ex parte on the summary
agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no changes to the agenda
other than those that have already specified, and I have no ex parte
disclosures for the summary agenda.
Page 6
March 23, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no changes in today's
upcoming agenda. The only disclosure I have is in regards to 17(D);
talked both with the -- Michael R. Fernandez and staff on this. And
that's it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no additional changes to
the consent agenda. However, I do have -- I want to declare at 17(C)
that I received e-mails and phone calls, and I have them in my file.
From 17(E), I've also -- I received e-mails, and they're in my files
right for anyone to see who would wish to. And 17(F), I had one
e-mail from Ray Holland on that particular item. And that's it. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. And I have no changes or
additions to the agenda. My disclosure is for Item 17 -- I'm sorry,
17(C), Artesa Point PUD. I've met with staff a couple times; I've met
with residents of Eagle Creek and listened to their concerns, and I'm
still working on that particular item. Plus I've received some e-mails,
and they're all here in my folder for filing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
we approve today's agenda, the regular consent and summary, as
amended.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Henning, a second from Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 7
March 23, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good, pass 5-0.
Page 8
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
March 23, 2004
Add Item 4C: Proclamation proclaiming April 3, 2004 be recognized as Tag Day.
(Staff request.)
Continue Item 8B to the April 13, 2004 BCC Meetin.q: The Board of County
Commissioners actin.q as the Community Redevelopment A_clenc¥. Approve an
ordinance amending Ordinances No. 2003-61 and No. 2003-62 to clarify the
effective date provisions of those ordinances; provide for conflict and
severability; and provide for an effective date. (Commissioner Coletta and Staff's
request.)
Continue Item 8E to the April 13~ 2004 BCC Meetin.q (Companion to Item 8B):
Adoption of an ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collie,
County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 2003-63 to clarify the effective date
provisions. Map clarification for Immokalee Residential Deferral Program.
(Commissioner Coletta and Staff's request.)
Withdraw Item 9D: Discussion regarding the adoption of a resolution requesting
that the Governor, Senate and House not support taking dollars allocated for
affordable housing and place them in the general revenue stream. (Commissioner
Fiala request.)
Add Item 10F: Adopt Resolution opposing proposed House Bill 1495 and
Senate Bill 2774 related to the Unwarranted and Unjustified Elimination of Local
Government Regulation of Wireless Communications Facilities. (Staff's request.)
Item 16A1: The Board of County Commissioners actin.q as the Community
Redevelopment A~enc¥. Recommendation that the Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve a budget amendment of $154,782 from
Fund 186 Reserves to Fund 186 Expenses for utility and road projects in the
Immokalee Redevelopment District. (Joe Schmitt, Administrator C.D.&E.S.)
Move Item 16All to 10H: Adopt resolution supporting Florida Power and Light's
Preferred Corridor Siting Certification for a new transmission line from the Orange
River Substation in Lee County to the new substation in eastern Collier County.
(Commissioner Coletta request.)
Move Item 16C8 to 10G: Amend Professional Services Agreement 98-2891 with
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., for professional engineering services associated with the
design and construction services for SCRWTP Reverse Osmosis Expansion
Project, in the amount of $536,200, Project 70054. (Commissioner Fiala request.)
Move Item 17G to 16A14: Request the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
resolution supporting Satire Aircraft Company as a qualified applicant pursuant to
Section 288.106, Florida Statutes; and providing an appropriation of $1,330,000 as
local participation in the Qualified Target Industry (QTI) Tax Refund Program and
Brownfield Area Program, and providing for an effective date. (Staff request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 8A and 8F to be heard at 3:30 p.m.
Item 9E to be heard at 2:00 p.m.
Item 10E to be heard at 10:00 a.m.
Items 12A and 12C to be heard at 12:00 noon in closed attorney-Client Session.
Items 12B and 12D to be heard at 1:00 p.m.
March 23, 2004
Item #2B
BCC MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24,
2004- APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
to approve the February 24th, '04 regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. A motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
Item #3
EMPIJOYF~E SF. RVICF, AWARDS - PRF,SENTED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Now we have the delightful
presentation to give to the 20-year attendees and 25-year employees.
Commissioner Henning will lead us in that.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the service awards for today,
20-year attendees -- 20-year attendees -- 20-year employees.
Attendees, it's like they've been sitting here waiting for 20 years.
Twenty-year employees in Collier County. And it's a great pleasure
that I announce that Phillip Cramer is a 20-year employee from the
Page 9
March 23, 2004
Water Department. If Phillip could come forward, please.
Come on back for a picture, please. Thanks, Phil. Phil, you just
got to smile.
The next 20-year employee that it's an honor to recognize is
Warren Keyes from the Transportation Department. Warren, if you
could smile more than Phillip did, it would be greatly appreciated.
The next 20-year employee that it's an honor to recognize is
Susan Lemay from the Emergency Medical Services Department.
Okay, Susan, you can outdo their smiles. There we go. And you did.
Commissioners, we have one 25-year employee that -- to
recognize today, and that's Mary Esch, from the Emergency Medical
Services Department.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 28 THROUGH
APRIL 30, 2004 AS CALL BEFORE YOU DIG MONTH-
ADOPTFD
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Proclamations. This morning we have a
proclamation to designate March 28th through April 30th, 2004 as
Call Before You Dig Month. To be accepted by Lynn Daffron, Robert
Martzlof of Risk Management of the City of Naples, Sandy Lloyd and
Mike Nelson, Collier County deputies. Please come forward.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Chairman.
WHEREAS, each year in Florida lives are endangered, money
and time wasted, and property is destroyed because people fail to
understand facilities located before engaging in excavation or
demolition; and,
WHEREAS, the one-call center, Call Sunshine, that serves the
Page 10
March 23, 2004
State of Florida is the one-call agency that notifies participating utility
agencies of plans to engage in excavation or demolition, and this
underground protection system is a free service to the contractors, as
well as the homeowners in digging in his or her yards; and,
WHEREAS, the one-call center provides a toll free number to
call to help reduce damage to underground facilities, thereby reducing
the loss of time and money to both contractors and utilities; and,
WHEREAS, in addition to helping save time and money, the
one-call system helps excavating comply with the safety rules and
regulations of the construction industry, and also helps prevent injuries
to persons or property; and,
WHEREAS, anyone planning to do any type of excavation or
demolition should notify Call Sunshine, and if a line must be located,
personnel will be sent to mark the location of the line at no cost to the
inquiring party.
AND THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida that the week of March 28th
through April 30th, 2004 be designated as Call Before You Dig
Month. And hereby extend greetings and best wishes to all observing
Call Before You Dig Month, March 28th through April 30th, 2004, a
promotion to both private residents and contractors statewide to notify
Call Sunshine before engaging in any excavation or demolition
operations.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 23rd day of March, 2004. Donna
Fiala, Chairman.
And I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 11
March 23, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for being here.
MR. DAFFRON: Len Daffron. I'm the damage prevention
consultant for Sprint, and I chair the Collier County-City of Naples
Damage Prevention Task Force. And I certainly thank the
Commission and the City Council for your support through these
proclamations and recognizing our group as that group that are primed
to defend our facilities from underground damage.
I can report that the City of Naples, because they have been
doing some tracking since we started this, they've improved by about
68 percent in their damages, recognizing a lot of revenue savings to
the city, and also saving our folks who use those facilities a lot of
inconvenience. So believe me, it's working. Sprint has about a 65
percent, someplace near-- I do not have any figures from the county,
from your water department, or sewer department, but I'm sure it
would mirrored very closely in what the other entities have recognized
as improvement. But thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, Len, you handed out these booklets
to us.
MR. DAFFRON: Yes, Commissioner Fiala?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is there a place that people can pick these
booklets up?
MR. DAFFRON: Certainly. And I can provide them, anyone
who would like to have one or who needs them. And also I might add
that for your convenience, from Page 41 in the back is the actual
statute, as written. So if you have any requests as far as what the law
Page 12
March 23, 2004
says, it's very clearly there in the back of the book.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And if somebody wanted to get one that
isn't in the audience today, where would they go to pick one up?
MR. DAFFRON: They can go to www.callsunshine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Www.callsunshine.
MR. DAFFRON: And they will provide them with the
promotional items that they need.
MR. MUDD: And that website is on their screens right now on
TV, so--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I might also add that I'm sure if
they call our information line here at the county, that we'll also be able
to supply them with the 800 number.
MR. DAFFRON: Certainly. We appreciate your support.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF APRIL AS
NATIONAL SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH AND
TO INCLUDE APRIL 2, 2004 AS NATIONAL SEXUAL ASSAULT
AWARF, NF, SS DAY- ADOPTF, D '
Next we have a proclamation to designate the month of April as
National Sexual Assault Awareness Month, and to include April 2nd,
2004 as National Sexual Assault Awareness Day. To be accepted by
Jamie Willis, victim advocate/counselor.
And Commissioner Halas will read the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning. Come forward,
Jamie. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
WHEREAS, sexual assault continues to be a major social crisis
Page 13
March 23, 2004
in our society, where one out of every four women has been a victim;
and,
WHEREAS, every woman faces a threat of potentially becoming
a victim; and,
WHEREAS, sexual assault affects every child and adult from
ages four to 94 in Collier County as a victim of-- as a victim survivor
or as a family member, significant other, neighbor or co-worker of a
victim survivor; and,
WHEREAS, volunteers and service providers in our community
are working to provide a continuum of care to sexual assault survivors
through 24-hour hotlines, counseling, support groups, advocacy,
medical care and education; and,
WHEREAS, Project Help Crisis Center seeks to improve services
for victim survivors of sexual assault and to prevent future sexual
assault through public awareness, training, education and free services
for victims; and,
WHEREAS, this community recognizes the vital importance of
designating a time devoted to increase the general public's awareness
and support of agencies providing service to rape victims; and,
WHEREAS, Project Help Crisis Center holds forth a vision of a
community free of sexual violence.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, the month of April as
National Sexual Assault Awareness Month, to include Friday, April
2nd as National Sexual Awareness Day, and urge all citizens to take
part in observance designed to create awareness of the epidemic that
affects not just on a national level but on a social level as well.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 23rd day of March, 2004, Board
of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Donna Fiala,
Chairman.
And I move that we -- move that we accept this proclamation.
Page 14
March 23, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I second that proclamation -- that
motion, excuse me.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for being here with us today
and giving us this proclamation.
And if you'd like to say a few words, please state your name first.
MS. WILLIS: Good morning, Council members. My name is
Jamie Willis and I am the sexual assault counselor at Project Help
Crisis Center.
Sexual assault, what a tough subject. Rape, what an ugly word.
But I would like to accept this acknowledgement on behalf of our
executive director, Beth Kanackie (phonetic) and all the wonderful
people at Project Help that I work with, and to all of our sexual assault
survivors everywhere from ages three to 93.
Daily staff and volunteers hear the screams and anguished cries
of our clients. It is a humbling honor to work with people who are
surviving life's most traumatic crises, and to witness the magnificent
triumph of the human spirit. Together we walk the pathways of hope
and healing. Our clients are our heroes.
So on behalf of the thousands of men, women and children we
have counseled in the past 19 years, thank you for this
acknowledgement.
Page 15
March 23, 2004
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING APRIL 3, 2004 AS TAG DAY
- ADOPTF, D
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now we have a proclamation
regarding Tag Day, which will be read by Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And this proclamation will be
accepted by Cynthia Stasiewski. Cynthia, could you come up and join
us, please? If you'd just stand right here at front while I read this.
WHEREAS, a 1997 study of 1,000 animal shelters by the
National Council of Pet Population Study and Policy found that of one
million dogs and 584,000 cats, only 16 percent of the dogs and two
percent of the cats were returned to their owners, because many of the
animals did not have proper identification; and,
WHEREAS, in 2003, Collier County Domestic Animal Services
impounded 8,496 animals, many of which did not have proper
identification; and,
WHEREAS, an unlicensed pet is less likely to be reunited with
its owner because the pet, its owner and home address information is
not registered with the Collier County Domestic Animal Services;
and,
WHEREAS, nationally there's a 98 percent success rate of lost
pets that are registered through local animal welfare organizations and
are reunited with their owners; and,
WHEREAS, enhancing the number of Collier County pets'
registered tags will improve the county's effectiveness in returning
pets safely to their homes, because licenses are the first and best tool
for reuniting animals with their owners; and,
WHEREAS, Collier County issued approximately 28,000 animal
tags between January 1st and December 31st, 2003; and,
Page 16
March 23, 2004
WHEREAS, the American Humane Society recognized the need
for public awareness concerning the importance of licensing animals
for their safety and established National Tag Day as a means to
improve shelters' ability to ensure the safe return of lost pets to
owners;
WHEREAS, recognizing the importance of establishing
up-to-date animal records by connecting with owners of unlicensed
pets, Collier County Domestic Animal Services will recognize
National Tag Day, with the goal of improving pet/owner information
and education in Collier County.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, that April 3rd, 2004 be recognized
as Tag Day.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 23rd day of March, 2004, Board
of County Commissioners, Donna Fiala, Chairman.
Madam Chair, I would like to make a motion we accept this
proclamation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'll second that.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And thank you very much
for being here. If you'd like to say a few words, please feel free. State
your name first.
MS. STASIEWSKI: Thank you, Commissioners. It's a privilege
to accept this proclamation for National Tag Day.
Page 17
March 23, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #5A
HERIBERTO (EDDIE) HARTNACK, COUNTY VETERAN
SERVICES OFFICER, PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION,
RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR MARCH,
2004
And now I have the privilege of reading a recommendation to
recognize Eddie Hartnack, County Veteran Services Officer, Public
Services Division as employee of the month for March, 2004. Would
you come on up?
It's embarrassing to stand there, but please do.
Eddie Hartnack always encourages the veterans he meets to visit
the Veterans Services Department to explore any benefits that they
may be entitled to for serving our county from World War II to current
day soldiers. This has resulted in an outstanding network of veterans
who are currently being served by the Veterans Services Department
in the Naples, Bonita Springs, Immokalee, Everglades City area and
areas in other parts of Florida and the country.
Ed always goes the extra mile to visit veterans in the hospital, or
if a client has tried and cannot get a ride to a VA medical appointment,
he takes the veteran himself, when possible. If a veteran is in need of
a cane, walker, wheelchair, et cetera, Ed searches any and all
resources to get one for him or her. Ed is very active in his church, and
through it has helped veterans in dire need receive money for their
utility bills, rent and so forth. He is also active in Habitat for
Humanity and with Toys for Indigent Children at Christmastime. He
speaks, when asked, at nursing homes and clubs on benefits available
to veterans.
Page 18
March 23, 2004
Ed attends intensive, twice a year CVSOA, which is County
Veterans Service Officers Association training conferences. His file
has many certificates of his achievements at these classes. Even
though Ed is a retired 20-year Army man, he has been given honorary
membership in the Marine Corps League for exemplary service in the
interests of the U.S. Marine Corps and the Marine Corps League.
Ed also visits widows of his veteran clients when they request it.
His personal file is filled with letters of gratitude.
But most of all, Ed has been in the newspaper more than any
other county employee in recent years for his exemplary service in our
community. Almost always in the articles there's a reference to the
fact that because Eddie persevered through the system, VA, federal
government, et cetera, and fought vehemently for his clients, and
through this effort they received benefits when no one else was able to
procure them.
Ed's diligence to his clients has acquired them over $1 million in
retro pay. Ed is truly a Collier County employee passionate about his
work, and a superior role (sic) in customer service for all employees.
Ed, let me be the first to congratulate you.
This is little letter from me, representing all of us, a little check
for you from all of the county, and something to put on your wall.
Thank you.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. FRED N. THOMAS, JR.,
TO DISCUSS RURAL LANDS EFFORTS IN THE IMMOKALEE
PLANNING ZONE - TO BE BROUGHT BACK ON A REGULAR
A GFNDA IN 2-3 MF, FJTINGS
And now we come to the portion of our agenda, public petitions.
Page 19
March 23, 2004
Our first public petition will be read by Mr. Fred Thomas to discuss
rural lands efforts in the Immokalee planning zone.
MR. THOMAS: Good moming, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good morning.
MR. THOMAS: As an original member of your first Immokalee
Master Plan Committee and presently the chairman of your present
Immokalee Master Plan Advisory Committee, based on the motion
passed by our membership, I come to you to petition an extension of
time and a bit of the scope of the master plan committee.
To serve as a little background, because we have an interesting
dichotomy here in Collier County, and that can best be highlighted by
the following.
In any small town around this country or down central Florida,
elected officials and members of the Chamber of Commerce with
great pride would stand on the edge of town and say there's our
Wal-Mart, see the sign alongside of a Holiday Inn. And on this side
there's our K-Mart, and, see, there's a Best Western alongside of that.
That's what small town America is about and that's what they're proud
of. Whereas in Naples, Monterey, Palm Beach, they don't want you to
see the golden arches when you're sitting at the McDonald's. That's
the problem we're trying to deal with as we try to present our petition
to you.
Immokalee is the commercial hub to a four-county agricultural
area. We were doing very well until NAFTA, and now we're being
further impacted by the Westem Hemisphere thoughts of expanding
this NAFTA all throughout the Western Hemisphere, because it's very
hard for our farmers to compete with other countries where they have
to pay an hour what those countries can pay a day for labor, where we
have to have potable water in the fields and they still have mud pools
in some of those foreign countries.
And we have been working hard to try to resolve this problem.
Page 20
March 23, 2004
We went after and were successful to being a part of a federal
enterprise zone. Collier County's portion of it is the four census tracts
113, 114, 11204 and ! 1205. And because -- and we are very proud of
some of the decisions -- not some, many of the decisions that you
Commissioners have made in this last several years to help us in our
quest to become the economic industrial engine in Collier County.
You successfully in 1999 recommended to the State of Florida the
expansion of our state enterprise zone to cover those four census
tracts.
Back in November -- and we thank you very, very much for this
because this makes it possible for things like Satire to look at us and
Skytruck to look at us -- you approved some economic incentives in
those four census tracts.
You also approved and recommended to the state the rural lands
program that also encourages the controlled growth and monitored
growth of our rural lands in our area. And you, as a CRA, were
approached to approve the recommended expanding of our CRA
boundaries to cover those same four census tracts.
You were successful in getting our airport to be recognized by
the state as a Florida trade port. We are beginning to turn this
economic engine around.
And as a result of all these things, the Master Plan Committee is
trying to do the following: We're looking, as opposed to our history
and our -- first of all, we only looked at the urban area. But we're
looking at those four big zones, because beyond the urban area we
have to be concerned about transportation, getting corridors that will
go from four-lane, 27 down to four-lane 75, down 29. We need to
think about a corridor that goes from Exit 138 on 75 down roughly,
82, a four-lane corridor, over to 29 so we can get our manufactured
goods in and out, supplies in and out of this area and take some of the
pass-through traffic off of the road that's clogging up 75 from Daniels
Page 21
March 23, 2004
Road down to 951.
We also need to look at other support services that we need for
our Florida trade port. We're bringing major manufacturers in that are
bringing thousands ofjobs in. We need housing, commercial
facilities, residential facilities, recreational facilities, medical facilities.
So we as a master plan committee want to look at this total area
and begin to identify various zones for various land uses so that we
can begin to positively plan the future growth, not impacting
conservation areas but making this a wonderful place to be. And we
have that great potential.
This will take longer than the one year that was established for
the Master Plan Committee. We're going to need more time. So we're
requesting that you expand the length of time of this committee. We
want it to coincide with the next review of the rural lands, because
rural lands has a major impact on this overall zone that we have in
Immokalee.
We also would like to, as we create transportation corridors, land
use corridors, commercial districts, residential districts, tourist
districts, because we have in fact become a tourist destination point.
And we would have never thought about it 10 years ago, but when the
Seminoles brought the casino, folks came. And then the folks out on
Lake Trafford realized, you know, folks will come Lake Trafford not
to fish but just to see the wildlife. Then we have a motorsports
complex. We have become a tourist destination point, and we need to
make sure we develop transportation corridors to separate our
industrial traffic from the residential traffic, from the tourist traffic. It
takes time to do these kinds of things and make sure these things
happen.
And we need to continue to monitor this development, because as
rural lands begins to develop and as these companies begin to come in,
we can make sure that we have -- we are prepared for this growth and
Page 22
March 23, 2004
we're following in some sort of a consistent order.
So it's therefore for those reasons, and again we thank you for all
the things you've done to make these possible so that we can begin to
grow, and then allow us to bring more money to the table for the
county. Because for every dollar of ad valorem taxes the study 10
years ago told us that residential pays, they want a dollar and a quarter
services. Where industry only wants 77 cents back and ag. only wants
37 cents back. You see? We want to come to the table and help,
because we want to be the economic engine for this county. And by
expanding the duration of our committee, we can be in a better
position to monitor that.
We also want to include that we begin to recommend to you
some changes in the land development regulations. Because in order
to compete with central Florida towns, we've got to be as
economically feasible for development as anyplace else in Central
Florida.
As a member of your Community Redevelopment Advisory
Committee, we asked staff several months ago, look and tell us what
kind of land development standards and codes do they have in
Sebring, Lake Placid and Clewiston, quaint little Central Florida
towns. They came back and said none. I can't imagine how they
managed to maintain a nice ambiance with no standards, but it can
happen, and we think it can happen and we think it can happen in a
very positive way.
So we petition you to allow us to extend the lifetime to cover the
same time frame for reevaluating the rural lands, and also to allow us
to begin to look at the land development regulations that are
supportive of our land development zones that we'll be developing for
you.
Thank you. If I can answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any questions from Commissioners?
Page 23
March 23, 2004
Any comments?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I just have a question. We're
not going to be able to vote on that now, are we? This is a public
petition to put it on a future agenda, right? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I would defer to
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning had his
hand up before me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it that you want to meet on a
regular basis from now until --
MR. THOMAS: No, I don't think that's going to be necessary. I
think it's going to take us probably another nine months, based on
what staff is telling us, to have the master plan and all the final
amendments ready for you. We won't be able to make this first cycle,
but the second cycle. Because right now we're dealing with the ERA
problem part of it.
But after we get the major part of the work done when we can
present to you a master plan for Immokalee, showing the various
zones, the various land uses, and then the kind of land development
regulations for those various uses, then we only have to meet once a
year after that to monitor progress, see how things are going. And
probably we would want to do that in a timely fashion, so if we have
to make any amendments to the Land Development Code, because
there is only -- I think it's only twice a year that you're allowed to
make those kind of changes, we would meet just prior to that to get
ready for those kind of things. It wouldn't take a lot of staff
involvement once we get the major part done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that sounds great.
When do you think you might sunset at this time?
MR. THOMAS: I believe 2007 is when we last look-- we next
Page 24
March 23, 2004
look at the rural lands. We're talking 2007.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you're just going to
continue --
MR. THOMAS: As needed.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: -- as things are happening out
there --
MR. THOMAS: A lot of things are happening. I mean, you
know, if we look around tomorrow and we might have 1,000 jobs in
the next two years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm very supportive of your
endeavor.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I just want to compliment
Mr. Thomas and his committee. You've done a remarkable job
keeping everything on track. And we're in such a fluid situation now
where items are changing in Immokalee at such an unprecedented rate
that they need to be able to keep their hand in this to offer guidance to
this Commission in the future.
Once again, Mr. Thomas, we thank you, and next year I'm going
to see about getting your pay raised, maybe even doubled.
MR. THOMAS: I would appreciate that, sir. I need a few
billable hours, okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What is your motion, sir?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, my motion is that we
continue their -- continue that to year 2007.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you'll bring it back to the next
meeting?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, we will.
Page 25
March 23, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we'll bring this back to the next
meeting for discussion then?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Your motion, Commissioner Halas,
Commissioner Coletta seconded it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
In regard to the direction that comes from the public petition, if it
were to come back at the next meeting, you may not be able to
accomplish the full extent of the duration that you would like. This
committee exists pursuant to resolution right now, under our advisory
committee Ordinance 2001-55, and by resolution it can exist up to
three years. So just by mere resolution at the next board meeting you
could have extended it for two more years from its June termination
date. But if you wish to go to a specific date, up to 2007, for instance,
our ordinance, advisory committee ordinance, would have us at your
direction prepare and bring back an ordinance stating that. And if you
wish to give that direction, even today, then at the appropriate
advertised time, it would probably be about two meetings from now,
or possibly three at the outset, we'd bring back the ordinance and it
would be in a package ready to go for the -- to 2007, if that is your
directive today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My motion includes that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So does my second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have an amended motion on the
floor by Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We are -- yes, aye. But that means
Page 26
March 23, 2004
that we're going to bring it back in about two to three meetings from
now; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Aye.
All of those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. THOMAS: Thank you very much. On behalf of the
citizens of Immokalee and the Master Plan Committee, we thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You can see we're all pretty eager to
support your efforts. We're so proud of what you're doing. Thank
you.
And we're proud of you, Commissioner Coletta, for making all of
this happen and being so dedicated to that community who's needed
your representation for many years. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we have a vote on that?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You brought your little prickly sense of
humor today, didn't you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But actually, the whole
Commission deserves the credit. The whole Commission has been
stepping up to the plate every time without any reservations -- well,
reservations of course, but with guidance to make this happen.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. WILLIAM B. ELINE TO
Page 27
March 23, 2004
DISCUSS A NEW COUNTY WATER PARK AT THE FORMER
WIGGINS PASS MARINA PROPERTY- STAFF TO LOOK INTO
THE MATTER AND BRING BACK AS A REGULAR AGENDA
ITEM
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Our next petition request by Dr. -- or Mr.
William B. Eline to discuss a new county water park at the former
Wiggins Pass Marina property. Mr. Eline? And then I'd ask you to
state your name, please.
MR. ELINE: My name is Bill Eline. I live at the Vanderbilt
Yacht and Racket Club on Gulfshore Drive North. I've been there
since 1989 and I am a resident of this county.
I would first like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the
potential use of the land where the Wiggins Pass Marina was located.
All of my comments are in writing, and will be available.
Fortunately for me, I have a boat slip at the condo. Therefore,
my suggestions are not motivated by my need for boat storage or any
need to gain access to one of the best waterways one will find
anywhere.
Starting a little over a year ago I discussed my thoughts with
Commissioner Halas, and through his directions had discussions with
a group consisting of John Dunnuck, Marla Ramsey, Amanda
Thompson, Robert Steiger, who is the manager of the state park, and a
separate meeting with Jim Mudd. Thank you, I might need that, Jim.
And with a separate meeting with Jim Mudd this year. To
everyone, I have said I would volunteer to work on this project. My
suggestions have developed from discussions with many citizens,
bankers who are personal friends of mine, and users of the waterway
in the area.
To refresh our memories, Wiggins Pass waterway stretches from
Vanderbilt Road -- Vanderbilt Beach Road to the south, north to
Page 28
March 23, 2004
Bonita Beach Road, west to the Gulf and east of U.S. 41. And you
can go north to Fort Myers.
The entrances to this waterway are through the land at Wiggins
Pass Marina, the county park which is adjacent, and the state park. By
far, the best entrance is through Wiggins Pass Marina land, which
offers the only expandable entrance to the waterway.
As we all know, the whole area is a natural treasure, beautiful
beyond description, and should be preserved for the use of all citizens
of the county, now and in the future.
The question is how do we make this happen? My suggestions:
The county would create a trust fund very similar to the trust fund
established to build and maintain or interstate highway system. It
simply says whatever funds are collected must be used for a specific
purpose, in this case parks. The only difference I would suggest is to
allow private citizens or groups of citizens to make direct contribution
to the fund.
We are very fortunate to have many citizens who have the
wherewithal to make contributions to trust funds. And if they know
exactly what their contributions will be used for, there isn't any doubt
about this in this community.
As we envision this park, it will be totally self-sustaining for
revenues it will generate.
Last year, approximately 495,000 people visited the Wiggins
State Park. The source is Mr. Steiger. In my analysis, I used 200,000
visitors to the new park, certainly on the low side. And when we think
of the closing of Vanderbilt Beach Inn, it could be a lot more than
that.
The first step, the county buy the land. The money could be
raised either by a loan from the bank, holding the land today in trust,
or by selling revenue bonds, which, as you know, limits the county
liability.
Page 29
March 23, 2004
Keep in mind, this land will do nothing but appreciate in value.
At a modest increase of five percent per year, it doubles in value in 14
and a half years.
200,000 users would be charged a minimum of $1, the entrance
fee of 200,000 a year. 50,000 cars would use the parking facilities per
year at $5.00 per car: $250,000. That's four people per car. It's about
what the state uses.
Canoes, fiberglass fishing boats with electric motors, pontoon
boats for transport to beaches, et cetera, would raise 100,000 a year.
Barefoot Beach would be open, and you can go all the way down to
Doctors Pass and drop people off. Very simply.
Dry boat storage for 400 boats, average 20 feet at $15 per month
would equal, $1,440,000 a year income. Commissioner Coyle, there
would be no marine service. If a boat needs repair or maintenance, the
boat would be moved by the owner -- at the owner's expense to an
off-site area. Dry storage is a cash cow to provide the other benefits to
our citizens. When Wiggins Pass Marina was operating, 450 boats
were stored there.
Food service would be a franchise, something very similar to the
canteen you have on your property here. I've estimated a franchise fee
annually of $40,000.
Donations from tourist tax could be made, and justifiably so.
Because if known that Collier County has a world-class water facility
for family and individual use, people would come. My initial
suggestion is $100,000.
Donations from citizens in the beginning would be estimated at
100,000 a year. One could easily forecast a million.
The total income per year conservatively would be $2,230,000.
On the expense side, interest on a bond that I estimate would be
$20 million at four percent would be 800,000 per year. It would be a
revenue bond or it could be a loan or it could be a loan from our banks
Page 30
March 23, 2004
in the community, if they got behind the effort. The money would be
used for land acquisition, plus modification to make the area beautiful.
The work completed on Bluebill Avenue, Conner Park, supports that
the county does this type of work and does it well.
I have proposed a staff of $365,000 a year. Maintenance at
50,000. I have insurance at 100,000. And I have miscellaneous
expenses at 75,000, which is a total of $1,390,000. Estimated cash
flow over expenses, $845,000 per year.
If you increase the boat storage by 100 units, it would bring in an
additional 360,000 per year. And if the increase in attendance went up
by 50,000, the fees collected for the cars and the people would add
another 112,000.
I have not considered fuel sales. Facilities are on the property to
sell fuel. Today a gallon of fuel, marine fuel, is $2.34 for 87 octane
gas. There's a minimum of 70 cents per gallon gross profit.
It's a simple business to run. You bring in your credit card, you
go out and fill your boat and you sign your credit slip. Very simple
operation.
Nor have I considered seminars and other activities, nor ship
shore store sales. Because I didn't want to get in -- if you move ahead,
you have to decide you want to franchise that or do it as the county. I
would do it as the county. Somebody else might disagree.
In my opening remarks I said I would work with your staff, and
volunteer to do so. And I am confident we can obtain services of
individual citizens with far greater expertise than I have to do
likewise.
All that the citizens need now is your wholehearted support and it
simply can happen. I think this could become a positive community
action. Thank you. I'm one -- thirty seconds over my 10 minutes. Do
you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, sir. We have a speaker that has
Page 31
March 23, 2004
requested, but we don't normally take speakers on the -- MR. ELINE' That was Mr. Connolly, and he did that so I'd have
an extra five minutes. So that's, he does not want to speak.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Very good. Thank you.
If he wanted to come back, Item No. 11 is public comments.
That's later in the day.
MR. EL1NE: Okay, fine. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Actually, it wasn't Mr. Connolly, it was Mr.
Kirkpatrick.
MR. EL1NE: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Eline, I just want to
compliment you for all the research and all the statistics that you
brought forth. And I think that we as Commissioners need to step up
to the plate and figure what we're going to do with the additional
population that's going to be coming here to Collier County. I think
everybody realizes that in the last few years, we've lost a couple of
marinas in Collier County, one being Turner Marine and the other one
being Boat Haven. In both cases it displaced boaters to the point
where we've got-- presently have problems where people have had to
sell their boats, or we've had problems where code enforcement is
rigidly trying to enforce the codes in regards to people parking their
boats in driveways and everything else.
I also think that one of the great attributes of this area is the fact
that Collier County is a beautiful area for boating in a sense that when
you go out into the backwaters and see the pristine wildlife, especially
not only in north Naples but also in south Naples. And I had the
ability this weekend to go down and see the opening of Rookery Bay,
and that's another pristine waterway. And the more that we can get
people out there to see the environment, I think the better off we are.
And it also adds to the tourist attraction, and it also adds to the fact
that people can take their families out for a day of boating and fishing.
Page 32
March 23, 2004
So I commend you, and I hope that some way or another, that as
we discuss this this morning, that we can come up with some direction
here so that we can bring this forward on upcoming agenda item
before the Commissioners. Because I think it's very important that not
only Wiggins Pass, but we have to look at all areas, and I'm hoping
that if we have a trust fund, that that means that of course that it
wouldn't be just for any other Wiggins Pass or Vanderbilt Inn, but any
place that land would be for sale, that we could address that as buying
those assets for the citizens of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the Wiggins Pass Marina for
sale?
MR. ELINE: Yes. It's now controlled by the bank. And as you
know, Commissioner, there is a developer that has an option on that
land. He has not executed the option. My guess is, as a commercial
development property, it's not very attractive. But the question is, if
you were going to buy it, made it known to the bank that you would
be a buyer, you're not conflicting with his position. He's got to make a
decision, either buy the land or withdraw his option. He does not own
the land, he just merely has an option.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, can I follow up on that?
MR. ELINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When does the option expire?
MR. ELINE: It's now running on a monthly basis, and he's
paying a pretty healthy daily fee for it. I would hope if the
Commissioners said that they'd really like to try to do this, that as a
developer, he would back away, because that's only one piece of land.
They're from Tampa. There's hundreds of places they can invest their
money to develop, and maybe he will join the community and say
okay, I'll back away, if that's what you want to do. And he certainly
could do that without any loss to himself, if he hasn't got anything
Page 33
March 23, 2004
invested in it to begin with.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Eline, one thing. In East Naples or in
the eastern part of the county, we have -- we're very fortunate to have
an abundance of boat launch areas. I think that in the north end you
guys are really crippled by having none. Your people all have to get
onto the street to come out to the East Naples area. There's a plan
that's circulating around Goodland to -- well, let me say no more.
Let me say that Goodland people, raise your hand. See these
people? If you have a chance today, talk to a couple of these guys.
This guy here, Tom, Tom is the president of Goodland Civic
Association and they might just have a way to work out some dollars
to go into your park from their park. So maybe you could meet with
them today.
MR. ELINE: Well, that's why I proposed the trust fund. I think
there's a lot of avenues. People that are in the boat selling business, I
wouldn't hesitate to go to them and say, you know, we've had enough
of the complaints. We need funds. And put the funds in. I don't need
donations to do this. As we -- I say, the county does. We as citizens
don't. This will be a self-sustaining park.
And on a revenue bond, anybody looking at an underwriter
would say this is solid gold, because you have more cash flow. And
even my little figures, a million dollars a year would be small. And
you could use it at any park you wanted to use in the community,
because -- you know, the park there.
And I wanted to make one more comment. I'm thinking of all the
people with kids that want to go fishing, and you can't do it. And if
we let this area close up, they could go there for a few dollars, get
electric motor boat, put the kids in the boat, and you've got the best
fishing there is in all of Southwest Florida. In fact, if you go out there,
right by the dock, I can take a shrimp today, throw it in there, and
you'll see more snook than you'll see any place else in the world. And
Page 34
March 23, 2004
they just come.
And by the way, you know, it's adjacent to your park, the county
park now. So you could open that whole area. Okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Mr. Eline, ! hate to cut
you, off but we have to move on. Thank you.
MR. ELINE: All right, cut me off, you've given me more than
enough. I thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
Commissioners, anything you'd like to do?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would just like to say, I wonder if
it's possible that we could direct staff to look into this, and I'd like to
make a motion that we bring this back for discussion at a later date.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor for direction
to have staff look into this proposal and to bring this back at a later
date by Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coyle. And
we have comments from our County Attorney.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The speaker that had signed up today, Thad Kirkpatrick, is the
attorney for the current owner of the Wiggins Marina Enterprise, that
land. He had called me yesterday afternoon in regard to the agenda
item today, asking if he could speak, and I explained to him that it was
typically not the procedure to have speakers on public petition, that
the Commission frequently would ask -- may ask staff questions or the
staff provide information as the board may approach some direction, if
they chose to go that way.
So I wanted to -- I told him that would inform the board, not
knowing that he would in fact be here today anyway, that this
attorney, Mr. Kirkpatrick, on behalf of the current ownership of the
premises there --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You must be referring to Tree
Page 35
March 23, 2004
Plateau then?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I believe his reference to me was Wiggins
Marina, Inc. has said that the property is currently under a contract for
purchase and sale. And although the petitioner, the speaker, had made
some assertions regarding the contract, if you wish to entertain
specific questions from Mr. Kirkpatrick, he is here today. Although I
was not expecting him to be here, I thought I'd pass that on. And his
concern to me to relate to you was that it appeared to be a concern of
the board attempting to get involved in a project or toward a project in
which there already is a contract in place for the property.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, this is your district,
would you like to talk with the attorney?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I would. I very much would
like to speak with the gentleman. I would hope that if something
should come up that the person that's presently interested in this would
drop that option. Maybe that the person that's had a lot of time and
money into this, that we could come up with some type of negotiation
that we take care of his expenses so that the county or the people here
in Collier County would be able to have the ability to try to reopen
some day this marina, for not just the people in District 2, but I think
this also, also for everybody in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, I -- as much as we
want to hear from all the people on the subject, that is not the purpose
for public petition. This hasn't been advertised. We should not be
debating the merits of this issue one way or the other. The purpose of
this public petition was to decide whether or not we were going to put
it on a future agenda to be debated at that time. And I would like to
say that we should keep it that way, and that way we get everybody
who has an interest in this issue back here to discuss the issue.
Because quite frankly, we should not be debating the merits of this
Page 36
March 23, 2004
particular proposal at the present time. That's not what public petition
is for, and I think it would be unfair to everybody involved to continue
that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think you're absolutely right,
Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, how about this little suggestion?
And I also agree, by the way. Maybe at our 10:30 break -- we always
break at 10:30 for our stenographer to get a little rest there. At our
10:30 break, maybe the attorney and Commissioner Halas and Mr.
Eline can all have a little conversation anyway and at least understand
one another.
But for now, we have a motion on the floor and a second. Any
further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. We will be bringing that
back, staff will be working on it.
Thank you, sir, for being here. I'm sorry that we couldn't hear
you at this time.
Item #10E
DIRECTION TO STAFF FOR AMENDING THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN POLICY THAT ADDRESSES LISTED
Page 37
March 23, 2004
SPECIES PROTECTION- MOTION TO ACCEPT OPTION #2
(F1NAIJ PI~AN BY NOVF, MBER, 2004)
Okay, now, we have a 10:00 time certain, and that is No. 10(E).
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, this item is 10:00. Provide direction
to staff for amending the Growth Management Plan policy that
addresses listed species protection. And Mr. Schmitt will present.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, good morning. For the record,
Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development, Environmental
Services.
At your request, we're bringing back this issue on listed species
for discussion. Basically we're here this morning to address the issues
that were addressed by the board at the last meeting. And we're at
Item 10(E) in your book is the item number.
With me this morning, Bill Lorenz, Director, Environmental
Services, and Marti Chumbler, our outside counsel, here to answer
your questions and your specific issues in regards to this -- I guess this
somewhat controversial subject.
I think what we'll start out, I'm not going to go through the
executive summary. What I'd like to do is have Bill go through a
briefing. That briefing will highlight, I think rather succinctly, the
issue in regards to the glitch that currently exists in the Growth
Management Plan language. And we're here this morning basically to
receive your guidance.
We have a couple of proposals. And this gets into what Jim had
said in the past, at the past meeting. You're kind of damned if you do
and damned if you don't. And that's kind of where we are with this
policy. With have looked at coming back in the glitch cycle with a
neutral policy. We had hoped that would at least get us through the
interim period until we could come back later in the year with a more
definitive analysis of the issue, but frankly, we have not been able to
Page 38
March 23, 2004
develop a neutral position, and that's where we really are.
So without further ado, I'd like to have Bill come up and run
through the issue. And I know we have public speakers. If you have
questions during Bill's presentation, just for clarification, you might
want to stop and ask him, but we do have public speakers and then I
think at that time we would be -- it would be best suited for staff to be
able to answer your questions, along with Marti's assistance. So Bill?
MR. LORENZ: Thank you, Joe. For the record, Bill Lorenz,
Environmental Services Director.
Just as -- starting out with a little bit of background on this
particular policy. This policy was generated through the Growth
Management Plan amendments that were required by the Governor
and final order for the rural lands assessment. And although it
addresses countywide policies, and they're very specific with regard to
excluding the Eastern Lands in the -- out in the Immokalee area, they
do -- they are applied countywide, both in the urban area and also
within the rural fringe area. So just to clarify that.
But that was required as part of that process. And the particular
policy language that we have now was adopted by the County
Commission in June, 2002. Of course we just began to implement that
as a result -- after the administrative challenge that we went through.
The language was developed as part of the process, as I noted. It
was worked through the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee, which
was one of the committees that was established to address the
Governor's final order. It also went through the Environmental
Advisory Council.
It also went through the Collier County Planning Commission.
And there was a change at the Planning Commission between
adoption and transmittal that you may hear some discussion today,
which eliminated the -- and I'll just right for the moment, I'll use the
term may versus shall, and as we go through the language, I'll cover
Page 39
March 23, 2004
that in detail.
But it did go through the public hearing process, and it was -- of
course it was adopted. And in addition, it received review by the
Department of Community Affairs, of course, and they signed off on it
as well.
What I'd like to be able to do is set up a little bit of an analogy
here for you and kind of use the computer software analogy that we
have where, you know, with your computers you have a default
setting that you use without any change to it, and then you can also
customize a lot of different things, and so you can go in and fine tune
some things. So I'm going to use this little analogy here to talk about
the policies in general that we have for the listed species.
The Growth Management Plan establishes certain policies that
are listed in the plan by reference and some explicit policies that deal
very specifically with how to deal with listed species. This is what I'm
referring to as the default standard. So if a developer comes in and
doesn't have any additional information from federal and state
agencies, we would-- staff would simply apply the default settings or
the existing policies in the Growth Management Plan.
However, it was recognized, as we were going through the whole
process for listed species protection, that we have two agencies,
federal and state agencies with -- very specifically set up, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service and the Florida Game Conservation Commission.
And those agencies have very specific expertise and their mission is to
ensure that listed species are adequately protected. They have a core
group of experts and they've developed most of the recommendations
that we've referenced. And so therefore, those agencies, through
letters of technical assistance and recommendations, may come in and
customize the Growth Management Plan for very specific site -- for
very specific projects that come to them, there could be unique
situations that exist on the ground where those agencies' expertise may
Page 40
March 23, 2004
say, for instance, for a bald eagle secondary zone of 1,500 feet, which
is the default standard that we've referenced, they may say, site
specific information, may say that that can be reduced to 1,000 feet.
And therefore, we would then utilize those recommendations from the
state agencies.
And that's what the policy basically says. The policy says that we
shall consider and utilize those recommendations from those agencies.
So the last bullet there, that the county shall rely on these
recommendations when they were provided.
Perhaps what the better question for this title of this slide is what
is the intent of the Board's policy? And I've set this up in a question
format, because the question for the board is ultimately when you
debate this issue and hear all the public speakers, I think the policy
consideration breaks down in these two questions.
When we rely upon these recommendations -- the assumption is
here that we'll rely upon the recommendations for this discussion --
shall we rely upon these recommendations in all cases? So whatever
case -- whatever recommendations we get from the agencies, we will
rely upon them, even when the recommendations may result in a take
of an individual animal. So if we have an absolute statement that
we're going to rely upon the recommendations from these agencies,
that would be -- that's a consequence of that statement.
Or would we rely -- would we qualify that statement to say that
we would rely upon those recommendations, perhaps only in certain
circumstances, of which we'll have to try to define? And one of the
little parenthetical notes on this slide is that we have policy language
within the listed species wildlife policies that talk about directing
incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats.
That was language that was very similar language or exact language
from the final order. That was what we were attempting to do with
regard to the Growth Management Plan amendments.
Page 41
March 23, 2004
So again, what is the intent of the policy? What is the board's
intent of the policy? How do you want to see this be developed?
Should we rely upon the agency recommendations in all cases, or
should there be certain circumstances where we may condition that
reliance on?
So let's talk a little bit now, going from that question to maybe
how do you -- what criteria can you help them make that -- answer
that question?
Well, there are some text changes that can remove the glitch.
And what we'd like to be able to do is be in front of you as staff and
say if we make this few text changes, we keep the policy the same as
it is and it's just a matter of clarification. As Joe indicated, he called
that a neutral condition. It's -- we're unable to get to that point.
So a change one way or the other, at least the way we've looked
at it, is going to have a tilt one way or the other. And it's that tilt, that
leaning which is a policy direction that we really need from the Board
of County Commissioners.
So you need to understand that there are some implications of a
fix that are going to change the policy direction. And also, I think
there's obviously considerations of what that fix will be with regard to
the cost of implementing the policy, the cost either in staff time or
securing outside consultant expertise to either create standards or
review projects as an outsource reviewer, almost. Those could be
potential costs, depending on which way the board goes with the
policy direction. And also, there could be time of review, review
time. It would take staff longer to review a particular project. So
those would be some considerations for any of the fixes.
We haven't generated those actual numbers for you today, but
obviously those are important items for you to have some
consideration on what other direction you give to the staff.
So let's go to this very word-packed slide. This is the policy
Page 42
March 23, 2004
that's the problem. It's one of the policies of wildlife policies. It's two
sentences. And the first sentence basically sets up the fact that the
county shall. And then here's where the problems come in yellow:
Consistent with applicable GMP policies. Consider and utilize
recommendations and letters of technical assistance from those two
agencies that would use those recommendations in issuing developing
orders for potential development.
Now, the second sentence then goes on and says that it's
recognized that these recommendations, on a case-by-case basis, may
change the requirements. Again, this is a customization to the default
standards that I spoke of earlier. Within those policies, that any such
change would be deemed consistent with the Growth Management
Plan. Because again, if we have -- if we have made a reference to
some document that says a setback is 750 feet and the agencies come
in and say well, gee, we've reviewed this and because of site
considerations we'll allow you 500 feet, then this language here would
upset or customize those default standards. So that was the intent of
this policy.
So where we have the glitch then is how do we reconcile the first
sentence that says consistent with applicable GMP policies with the
last sentence that talks about that would change the consistency?
Marti Chumbler is here, and after I go through the presentation,
she may be able to elaborate a little bit more of the concerns with that,
but that's a major concern here.
Also, I noted earlier in the presentation that I indicated that there
was a change from the Planning Commission. I believe it was the
transmittal hearing, maybe the adoption hearing now. But the original
language was that the first sentence: The county may consider and
utilize recommendations of letters of technical assistance. Which gave
the county some discretion to determine whether they would or would
not utilize those recommendations. But the thinking at the Planning
Page 43
March 23, 2004
Commission level, and at least I'll speak for myself and the way I took
the language when they presented it and made the recommendations,
was this made it more -- this strengthened the policy because we
would utilize those recommendations from those technical agencies.
Again, a little bit of the law of unintended consequences. And I
think the reason we're here is because if the agencies make
recommendations and say that we will allow an incidental take, and
we've gone that far, that's -- to me that's the problem. Because now
we have an example where the agencies' recommendations would
allow incidental take, so therefore a particular animal, a listed species
animal, then is determined by the agencies to be, my term,
expendable. So if that animal then were to leave, either to die or leave
that particular area, the agencies are saying that's okay.
So then the question comes is how can that be consistent with our
other policies when those policies indicate that we need to direct
incompatible land uses away from listed species, if you will, not the
other way around.
So this is -- I think this is the heart of the matter that came about
in the past six to nine months in terms of the way that the policy is
written.
We have -- we have simply looked at that policy and said okay,
there's -- the consistency references the problem, so there's a
consistency reference in the first sentence, of which we could try to
modify. And there's a consistency reference in the second sentence,
which we could modify, and so we're just presenting to you these two
options at the moment for discussion and for further debate. And you
can see how possible changes to these sentences would -- what the
implications would be.
The option number one is if we took out the consistent with
applicable GMP policies, that would be the first option. So that says
that the county shall consider and utilize recommendations. That
Page 44
March 23, 2004
means we are bound by those recommendations, whatever those
recommendations are, in issuing the development order. And that
those recommendations, again, would customize those standards
within the Growth Management Plan. So simply strike that language
and then that's what you're left with.
Option number two would be simply to remove the second
sentence completely. So that means that we would -- the county shall,
consistent with applicable GMP policies, consider and utilize. The
way this works is the consideration and utilization of those
recommendations would have to be consistent with other policies
within the Growth Management Plan. So that would put staff and the
County Commission in the position to decide that indeed those
recommendations have to be found consistent with the Growth
Management Plan. In some cases they may not be, and in some cases
they may. But we have to go through that exercise.
So the considerations, the couple of points, now that you've heard
both of those options, the option number one, which is to take out the
consistent with language in the first sentence, we will accept any
recommendations without regard to other policies. So that would be
no additional time for staff review, we simply get the material from
the agencies, the stipulations go right into the staff reported. So
review time or any additional staff or expertise would not be needed
for that particular option.
The second option is a little bit more complicated. We will
review the recommendations for consistency with the Growth
Management Plan objectives and policies. Now, this would include,
and this is -- myself, this is what I would say: This includes the
general policy direction that directs incompatible land uses away from
listed species and their habitats. Therefore, any statements of
incidental take from the agencies are questionable. I don't want to say
that they would be completely not allowed, because there could be
Page 45
March 23, 2004
some mitigation or compensation or creation of habitat here or there,
elsewhere that may allow staff to make a recommendation that that
incidental take would be appropriate. So at the moment, I'm just
saying it would be questionable.
But this would require -- it doesn't require additional staff or
expertise, because we'd be simply reviewing it against policy -- the
existing policies. In other words, we're not going to go into the
science of that particular animal and debate the agencies on whether
the science is correct or not. We will simply determine whether it's
going to be consistent with the other policies. But it would probably
take some more review time.
I mean, we would, as staff, we would have to sit down together,
work it out ourselves, bring some of that up the chain, get the county
attorney's office involved, maybe the outside counsel involved for the
consistency determination. So that would be where we would see
some of the implications for option number two today.
So really, what we really hear is because we can't really get to
that policy neutral implication, we really need to have board direction
to go through.
Now, there's a third option I didn't mention. The third option is
we do nothing for the moment for the glitch amendment. We work
towards it later on, but we just live with the glitch amendment. Of
course, the question then you would have of your staff, and rightly so,
is well, how would you implement the policies? And we would give
you the answer and then you need to tell us well, is that a good answer
or not. And so we would still have that little bit of a problem, but
maybe that becomes on a case-by-case basis, and we just present it to
you and each case-by-case basis comes to you before and until we
have a final policy that would have to be amended.
But the question -- so the question for you today is should we
proceed with a change to the policy in the upcoming glitch summary?
Page 46
March 23, 2004
And if yes, and if you want to see a change, then how should staff
proceed? Either straightforward with option one, option two, or
maybe there's some other hybrid with public input, and you may have
some better direction for us after hearing all of the comments. With that, that finishes my presentation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta has a question, and
then we'll be breaking. I just want to tell you, that's one of the best
presentations we've ever had. It was so clear, so concise, giving us
options. Great job.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to second that. Really good
presentation, Bill. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Bill, it was a great presentation,
but obviously there's a lot of concern out there in the community. I
see a number of representatives from the environmental community,
special interests in the environmental community, as I see a number of
representatives here from the special interest and developmental
community.
Obviously there hasn't been a lot of give and take between the
two groups prior to this meeting. And they're going to be coming
from two different avenues, I would imagine.
Has there been meetings that took place in any way to discuss
this with the groups on a whole, where they actually sat down and
talked about it back and forth with both factions represented?
MR. LORENZ: Yes, we had two meetings that I facilitated in
December and January, I believe. And then we had a third meeting
which was looking at glitch amendments overall. And there was some
discussion at that particular point what the direction would possibly
could be. But that was simply -- that was an opportunity for
everybody to discuss it, but it really wasn't one of the full-blown
meetings that we had for the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Was that meeting a staff
Page 47
March 23, 2004
meeting where you had invited participants to it, or was it a meeting
put on by somebody that you attended?
MR. LORENZ: It was a stakeholders meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
MR. LORENZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
Stakeholders meeting?
And that stakeholders meeting
had everyone that's present here there? Were they all notified of it?
MR. LORENZ: Well, I'm not sure who all is here and isn't. We
have a distribution list.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do we have minutes of those
meetings?
MR. LORENZ: No, we don't.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we really don't know what
took place there. And here we are where you have everybody in the
room, and obviously there's a tremendous amount of disagreement
with what we came up with. It's one side or the other side and no
middle grounds, from what I understand. And we're forced to make
that decision and we're going to have to argue it out here today.
I'm a little disappointed this didn't take place out in the public
before it came to us and you worked through the process so when they
came through the door, even if they weren't walking in hand-in-hand,
at least they had a better understanding where everybody was coming
from, rather than battling it out in this room. I don't appreciate that.
We've been doing an excellent job with different PUDs and other
developments where before it ever arrived here, it was more or less
worked out.
So that's another option that we may want to consider when it
comes down to the end. If there's a tremendous disagreement, we may
want to send it back and have these people work it. But I would
suggest we do it under a more formal aspect of government, where we
can have an open public meeting, advertised or something, where they
Page 48
March 23, 2004
attend. If we're not going to go with the Sunshine through a select
committee, then at least do it in this room with an advertised meeting
where we can have it take place and then we find out what's taken
place between them. That would be my suggestion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You mean invite the public,
too?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it might be a novel
approach, but I would suggest we think about it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners -- oh.
MS. STUDENT: I think if you have such a meeting -- Marjorie
Student, Assistant County Attorney, for the record -- you might want
to consider it a workshop type meeting and then it would be duly
noticed and so forth.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I could live with a workshop.
That's about as close as we're going to get to Sunshine on this one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it my turn?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. We're going to be breaking shortly.
Do you want to talk before or after the break?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, take your time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me talk about this issue before
we break, okay?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me give you some potential
problems. We have a committee called the Immokalee Housing
Initiative, which is not a Sunshine committee. There are five members
of that committee who are also on another committee, which is a
BCC-created committee.
Now, the problem there is that the people who are on the
Immokalee Area Master Plan Restudy Committee, who are also on the
Immokalee Housing Initiative, County Community Planning
Initiative, can't talk about the same subjects in both meetings. If they
Page 49
March 23, 2004
do, they're in violation of the Sunshine Law. So our choice is to ask
those people to withdraw from those committees and thereby deprive
ourselves of some of the best qualified people in the community to
help us make those decisions.
We have the same conflict with the Golden Gate Parkway
downtown zoning overlay. That is a community planning initiative.
It is not an officially designated board by this -- by the Board of
County Commissioners.
And possibly as many as four of the people are also members of
a homeowners association, a civic association, and I'm sure they must
discuss the same kinds of things at both of those meetings. If they do,
they're in violation of the Sunshine Law. And some of those people
are also members of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy
Committee, which is a Sunshine committee. Now, how do they
function in both places? It's a very difficult problem.
So I would suggest to you that either we require that people who
are on different committees not be part of the Sunshine Law, or that
we require them all to be part of the Sunshine Law, and that creates
some very, very serious problems for those committees to operate
effectively.
So what I would suggest to the Commissioners who object to
members of the public coming in and offering their input to staff and
then going through a public process, a public hearing process, there's
nothing wrong with that, we do it all the time. And everything that
will be determined as a result of that process will come out in public,
because the staff will send it through the advisory committees where
it's done in public; the staff will then be required to present it to us,
where it will be done in public.
So I would encourage, unless you're willing to make some very,
very major changes in the way that we're already doing business in
your districts, that we not sideline this discussion into one about
Page 50
March 23, 2004
whether something is being done in the Sunshine. It is being done in
Sunshine, it will be done in the Sunshine, and it's being done in a way
that permits people to participate, and not exclude some of the most
qualified members of our community from providing input.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I don't want to drag this out
forever.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll try to make it very short.
But I want to respectively disagree on just a couple of points there.
The assumption is that there is violations of the Sunshine Law taking
place. Now, I can't speak for every one of the committees out there
that Commissioner Coyle mentioned, but I can tell you that the Master
Plan Committee, I sat in on their meetings, and I sat in on some of the
others. I never sat on the Housing Authority Committee -- or excuse
me, the one on affordable housing, whatever that is, so I can't tell you
on that. But I can tell you on the others parts of the element, that they
are very careful about it and they bring it up continuously about we
can't discuss this, can't discuss that, they go to great extremes. And I
give our county attorney's office credit for that, holding their seminars
on a regular basis, informing the people throughout the county -- I
assume throughout the county, at least I know it's taking place in
Golden Gate and Immokalee -- that the Sunshine Laws, what they are,
what the limitations are and how they come into play.
Very difficult sometimes, I admit. At civic association meetings
I attend, sometimes they have to be careful how subjects are broached.
They have speakers come, they speak, and the members have to stay
quiet, they can't have open debates. Very easy to obey the Sunshine.
There are rules that were put in place to protect the public's interest,
and we have to obey them. If there's violations for it, we have to
address it. I havefft seen those violations.
Page 51
March 23, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
But I do appreciate your concern, Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I was just merely saying that
if there is a concern that every meeting and every advisory group that
we have conduct their work under the Sunshine, then we need to take
action on all of these organizations, from the Immokalee Housing
Initiative, the Community Planning Initiative, the Golden Gate
Parkway Downtown Zoning District, and a number of others. As a
matter of fact, the East Naples 41 Overlay is not a Board of County
Commissioners designated organization, or board. And so -- and there
are members of East Naples Civic Association on that committee.
Now, we either exclude people like that or we're going to have to
make the East Naples Civic Association subject to the Sunshine Law.
We're going to have to make the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce
subject to the Sunshine Law in order to solve the problem --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we go ahead and break?
This is really getting out of hand, really getting off the topic.
It wasn't me who brought it up.
And with that, we will break for
10 minutes.
and
(A brief recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Let's continue.
Joe, did you have -- do you have any more presentation here?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, the presentation is done.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: There was discussion amongst the Commissioners,
I think we have 16 public speakers, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: Seventeen now.
MR. MUDD: Seventeen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Call the first speaker, please.
Page 52
March 23, 2004
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Dick Macken. He will be
followed by Nancy Payton.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, are we doing three minutes per
speaker because of the number that we have?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We are. We've made a couple of
exceptions to five minutes. But just on a couple instances. I've
checked with the environmental community and they're fine with that.
They have all of their presentation concise and they will presenting --
be presenting that way.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sue?
MS. FILSON: Okay, Mr. Macken, go ahead.
MR. MACKEN' My name Is Dick Macken and I live in Naples.
I would like to thank the County Commissioners for allowing me to
speak.
What kind of face is Collier County trying to present to the
world? Two recent statements, one a new tourism slogan, the other,
language from Collier County govemment's just released annual
report for 2003 indicate that the county wants to be seen as
environmentally friendly. Our local convention and visitors bureau
has just introduced a new slogan, Florida's Last Paradise, and adopted
a new destination brand name for Collier County, Paradise Coast. The
word paradise conjures up an image of a beautiful verdant garden
filled with many different plant and animal species.
The same recognition of the importance of the environment is
picked up in the introduction to the Collier County government's 2003
annual report, where the third paragraph states, quote: Aspiring to
answer the needs of a dynamic and diverse community, county
government constantly address the challenge of striking a balance
between protection of our coveted natural resources and abundant
wildlife with the demands of growth and prosperity, end quote.
Page 53
March 23, 2004
The county's annual report goes on to say, quote, focusing our
efforts and energies on learning from the past and applying these
lessons to the present, we strive to plan intelligently and deliberately
for the future to ensure that our exceptional quality of life will be
preserved, end quote.
That is exactly what I am asking you to do today, to make sure
that the county plans intelligently and deliberately for the future of its
listed species. The county cannot play a positive role unless it has
decision-making power. By relying on state and federal wildlife
agencies for regulating listed species issues, the county has given up
its ability to adequately protect its wildlife, because state and federal
guidelines focus on the survival of a given species at the state or
national level. Unless the entire species survival is at risk, the state and
federal wildlife agencies cannot do anything to protect the county's
listed species.
The county needs to include in the upcoming glitch cycle
language stating that while state and federal guidelines for listed
species will be taken into consideration, the county may make its own
decisions regarding what is best for its wildlife. This is the only way
to adequately protect our listed species, and it needs to be done
immediately.
You need to become active players in keeping Collier County the
paradise it's advertised to be. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nancy Payton. She will be
followed by Nicole Ryan.
MS. PAYTON: Good morning. I'm Nancy Payton, representing
the Florida Wildlife Federation.
The Federation supports staffs first course of action in your
executive summary, or option number two presented today. This
action proposes a revision in the upcoming glitch cycle to provide
direction to staff on the degree to which Collier County will rely on
Page 54
March 23, 2004
state and federal agencies to protect and manage individual species
and listed species' populations found within the county.
And I brought with me today a poster that emphasizes the
direction that Florida Wildlife Federation would like to see the vote
today.
During this glitch cycle, the Federation recommends a precise
clarification to Policy 7.1.2(3), that addresses the Growth
Management Plan's conflicting language. This clarifying or
deconflicting amendment will simply give staff the ability to
determine if state and federal agency recommendations and letters of
technical assistance are consistent with our county's Growth
Management Plan.
And I also wanted to point out that Policy 7.1.2(3) does not apply
to single-family homes. That would be primary Golden Gate Estates.
And does not apply to the rural lands stewardship areas. So those are
two major areas that the listed species policy does not apply to.
The Federation renews its pledge to work with the varied
community interests, the stakeholders group, the Environmental
Advisory Committee, which is a county appointed committee, the
Planning Commission, your staff and you, the Board of County
Cormnissioners, in developing and implementing listed species
management programs or recommendations over the following year.
And I urge you today not to be sidelined or misdirected toward
discussions that are really discussions that are appropriate for your
stakeholders committee, your EAC and your Planning Commission,
and that is the details of the program. What -- the determination today
is that we want to move forward with investigating and evaluating that
program, and in the interim, staff does have the direction to use the
letters, the agency recommendations appropriately and consistently
with our Growth Management Plan, our community's vision, our
blueprint for what we want in our county. Thank you very much.
Page 55
March 23, 2004
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nicole Ryan. She will be
followed by Jeffrey Carter.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I have a different color?
MS. PAYTON: Oh, I only have green.
MS. RYAN: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
Today's issue deals with a very specific clarification. And this
clarification needs to be dealt with now, because the county is going
through a GMP glitch cycle amendment process. And you have in
Policy 7.1.2(3) on listed species what is termed a glitch. There is
conflicting language. Therefore, what better place to deal with this
glitch than in the glitch cycle which is going on right now?
The issue today is not what the county's ultimate role is going to
be in protecting listed species. That intent of policy that Bill Lorenz
discussed earlier will be discussed in the future for many, many
months to come in the stakeholders groups, at the advisory committees
and ultimately in front of you. That intent of policy will be worked
out.
This is something very different, it's separate, and it's dealing
with the CCME 7.1.2(3). Why? Because the two sentences in
Sub-paragraph 3 contradict each other. What does this mean? It
means that your staff does not know how to apply these policies,
therefore, they're in a sense paralyzed. They're not quite sure what
they're supposed to do and how to apply the policies.
The resolution: Clarify in the glitch cycle. This is the direction
that you gave on January 29th, and it was discussed at the last
stakeholders group meeting, which was January 30th. In that meeting,
your staff discussed one potential way to fix the glitch, and that was
what Bill showed as option two, and that was dropping the last
sentence in 7.1.2(3). That would work for clarification. This option
two would allow your staff to make the determination of whether the
Page 56
March 23, 2004
agency recommendations and letters of technical assistance are
consistent with the Growth Plan.
This would not automatically mean that Collier County is being
more protective or regarding listed species, and it would not
automatically set up a costly new program for regulating listed
species. It would simply allow staff the flexibility and the discretion
to determine if these agencies' statements are in fact consistent with
our Growth Plan. This is the first step.
And like I said, the second step where we look at whole intent of
the policy and how we're going to treat listed species protection will
come in the future through the stakeholders groups, through the
committees and ultimately through you.
So again, the Conservancy is asking that you move forward, give
direction as you did on January 29th, and to go with option two,
remove the last sentence of 7.1.2(3). This gives staff some flexibility
to make determinations. And we would ask that you move forward in
this manner and ask that something be brought back during the current
glitch cycle. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jeffrey Carter. He will be
followed by John Hickey.
MR. CARTER: Jeff Carter, with the Friends of the Florida
Panther National Wildlife Refuge.
Local perspectives for local issues. The county has done and
should continue to do the best that it can for all local issues. This
requires that the county consider these issues from a local perspective.
For example, clean water. Let's say that there's plenty of clean water
in every other state in the country. Does that mean we don't need or
want clean water here? Likewise, just because there may be greater
numbers of a specific listed species or a type of habitat or healthy
ecosystem in other places does not mean that we don't need them for
health of our environment here. Don't forget that the health and
Page 57
March 23, 2004
abundance of our water is dependent on the health of our local
environment.
I came up with kind of a metaphor here to explain what I'm
talking about. The county's tool box. The county should have the
most diverse set of tools available to it to maintain the good health of
its local environment. Yes, this means that it should acquire, consider
and possibly utilize biological advice from federal and state agencies.
Biological recommendations are an important tool that the county
should have in their tool box. However, it is the choosing of the best
tools for the job at hand or the decision at hand from that tool box that
is the most crucial. The ability to choose the best tools and not the
requirement to only choose certain tools is the ability and authority
that the county should have.
The issue before you today regarding listed species protection
requires each and every one of you to make a decision that is one of
the most important decisions that one can have the authority to make.
You may make many decisions through the course of this day
regarding many issues: Building roads, zoning issues, et cetera. All
of these kinds of things in the greater scheme in life are temporary
things that albeit are important and needed for this place at this time,
they are not, however, one of the decisions for all time that you will
make.
Teddy Roosevelt said, of all the questions which can come before
this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great
war, there is none which compares in importance with the great
central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants
than it is for us.
This is one of those times and one of those decisions that you
have the power to leave this land of ours a better land for our
descendants than it is for us.
So we do support the second option there, and hope that you will
Page 58
March 23, 2004
direct incompatible land uses away from listed species, as it says.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Hickey. He'll be
followed by Gary Edson.
MR. HICKEY: Madam Chairperson, I'm John Hickey,
community relations chairperson of the Beachwalk Residents
Association. I speak for 356 owners and residents who support this
statement. We support changing the Growth Management Plan
wording of 7.1.2(3), from the county shall, et cetera, et cetera, to the
county may consider and utilize recommendations and letters, et
cetera.
Our sense is that this will enable the county to establish a Growth
Management Plan that will be stricter than state or federal mandates.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Gary Edson. He will be followed by Tim
Durham.
MR. EDSON: Hi, my name is Gary Edson, I live right off
Vanderbilt Road in -- or Vanderbilt Drive, and am a resident here in
Naples.
I think the thing that's interesting that's happened with the
Commission is that there's a great deal of confidence that is being
placed by homeowners in the decisions made by this county
government. It's a far cry from what it was in years past, and it's to
your credit that you have started to represent the people of the county
and not just the business interests. And from one homeowner to you, I
want to say thank you.
With regard to this particular issue, there are those of us who
have found a simple solution to suggest that may replacing shall
would be a way to do that. Because we have confidence in you, that
you will represent our interests. Now that's a big risk. Because when
you leave, the next guy might not feel the same way. But we believe
Page 59
March 23, 2004
that you would be able to see the importance of overriding those
recommendations by outside people that aren't in the best interests of
our county.
And as has been presented here, you know, we've got our own
fish bowl. The ocean has a lot of fish. And just because there's a lot
of fish out there doesn't mean that I might not want to have one of
those special fishes in my little aquarium. And this is our little
aquarium right here. And that eagle is pretty important. There might
be others.
So certainly the shall or may, that would be one consideration.
The recommendation has been here to get rid of the conflicting
language. Either way, the intent is that we believe in you, that you
will protect us as homeowners and as citizens of this county. And
with that trust, we think that you will make the proper decision and
trust that that decision will be made today. Thank you so much.
MS. FILSON: Tim Durham. He will be followed by Bruce
Anderson.
MR. DURHAM: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Tim Durham, environmental consultant with Wilson-Miller. I've been
getting permits here for 20 years now in Southwest Florida, gone
through the process, the listed species process, on a number of
occasions.
I'm here probably representing the consultant community more
than anything else. I've talked to a number of other environmental
consultants in Southwest Florida. And I think we all feel very similar,
anyway.
The debate that's going on, it's a very polarizing issue. And I'm a
little bit concerned that I hear terms thrown around that people may
not understand as well as they should. When we say incidental take,
for example, I think a lot of people picture some animal being plucked
out of a tree and stuffed in a bag and dragged off. You know, that's
Page 60
March 23, 2004
kind of extreme. But an incidental take in the federal permitting
program could mean that your project located somewhere, say, you
know, near the coast may generate traffic and some car may end up
driving on Immokalee Road 20 miles away and a panther could get hit
because of increased traffic. In that situation, your project along the
coast may get an incidental take for a panther impact. And I'm being a
little overly dramatic here to make a point.
But the point being, you can have a very obscure, minor
possibility of some damage happening to a species and to protect
yourself from that, you may, as a project, get an incidental take permit
for that situation. All right? So there's a use of an incidental take
which is very different than is being used here.
And I think it probably dramatizes one point, is that I think we
need to really have some more discussion on this issue. The two
different fractions that kind of look at this thing are coming from two
different directions. And I think if there's a little bit more
communication about what the terms mean, what the concerns really
are, then I think some of the solutions might be less painful, we could
reach some kind of resolution.
The roles of the Game Commission and Fish & Wildlife Service
are often misunderstood. Those agencies are asked to comment on
permit applications often. They're asked to write letters to the
counties. In the permitting scenario, they make comments to the
regulatory agencies, be it the Corps of Engineers or the Water
Management District or DEP. And in those instances those wildlife
agencies are able to kind of basically say, here's what we would love
to have happen for a particular species. You know, they do not have
to balance the other interests or other concerns that are going on with
that project. They can purely take the wildlife perspective and put
recommendations out there. Whether they expect them all to be
followed or not, sometimes yes, sometimes no, but they often have the
Page 61
March 23, 2004
luxury of being able to let the regulatory agency, the Corps or the
Water Management District, help make the decision about which
recommendations make it into the permit itself.
What we're talking about doing here now at the county level is
basically saying let's take those things from the Wildlife Commission,
the Fish & Wildlife Service, bring those letters in and let us start being
the arbiters of which considerations need to be done, which ones don't.
That's not going to be an easy process. And I think you're going to get
yourselves on the horns of a dilemma quite often, because these are
not simple issues always. Yes, there are often clear-cut cases where it
would be easy to make decisions, but there will be a lot of them that
will be a lot more subtle.
And I finish up with one quick item. Often in the permitting
scenario, one of the most rewarding aspects is being able to come up
with creative solutions to wildlife situations, be it some off-site
mitigation, some program that dovetails in with another wildlife
rehabilitation program. Sometimes a creative solution is where we do
the most benefit to the creatures. If we start putting in strict
prohibitions against certain activities or certain land uses or certain
impacts, I think we start losing some of our creativity and ability to
have some positive impact on the species. So I just recommend
caution as we proceed here. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Bruce Anderson. He will be followed by Brad
Comell.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Bruce Anderson.
And the focus has been on this one paragraph, without any
reference to the rest of the policy of which it's a part of. Policy 7.1.2
makes seven different separate references to its own Paragraph No. 3,
in addition to Paragraph No. 3 itself.
In that policy, five different specifically identified listed species
Page 62
March 23, 2004
are identified as being subject to Paragraph No. 3. On those five, the
county has decided to follow state and federal recommendations, if
those recommendations are different from what the comprehensive
plan might otherwise require.
I'm not at all prepared to concede that there is a glitch that needs
to be fixed. This can be interpreted consistently. The five species that
are subject to Paragraph No. 3 are also identified as being the subject
of a U.S. Fish & Wildlife multi-species recovery plan that was
adopted in May, 1999.
In other words, it seems clear that when agency
recommendations are to be followed is when the listed species are
already included in a multi-species recovery plan where the state and
federal agencies have developed special expertise and resources and
plans to protect that particular species.
DCA, when they reviewed this policy and the rest of the
Comprehensive Plan, they didn't view this policy or this paragraph as
being internally inconsistent. And that's one of the grounds they look
at.
This policy can be interpreted in a manner that makes sense
without having to go through the amendment process. And I'd just
point out that every time you amend the Comprehensive Plan,
whatever you're amending, you open it up to a new opportunity to
challenge it on the basis that it's not in compliance with state statutes,
including internal inconsistency.
The real question is not whether option one or two is the one to
choose, but there's an option three, if you want to even go to that, and
that's whether Paragraph 3 should be amended to apply to all listed
species, or only those five species that are already identified in Policy
7.1.2.
My recollection is that it was clear -- it was the clear intent of the
Rural Fringe Study Committee that their recommendation that the
Page 63
March 23, 2004
county not attempt to duplicate state and federal programs in the rural
fringe.
And I just urge you again to consider the fact that it can be
interpreted consistently with the rest of the plan. And also, if the
county wants to impose stricter requirements, there's a procedure to do
that, and it's called the ST overlay process, which involves notice and
a public hearing, if you want to impose something more strictly.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Brad Comell. He will be followed by Donna
Caron.
MR. CORNELL: Good moming, Commissioners. Brad Cornell,
with Collier County Audubon Society. I will be very succinct.
I want to point out first that the executive summary today implies
that the glitch fix is an all or nothing proposal. And as we hear people
come up and speak, we're hearing some issues that really are to be
decided in a public forum through your advisory committees in the
coming months, not right today.
The glitch change aims only to take out the conflicts in Policy
7.1.2(3) and give discretion to Collier County on assessing whether
agency recommendations are consistent with the Growth Management
Plan. That's it. And you saw a very good presentation by Bill Lorenz
relative to that specific issue.
Collier County Audubon Society recommends option number
two that Bill Lorenz outlined, and that is to delete the second sentence
of that Paragraph 3. This would accomplish the best situation for
Collier County listed species. It would allow for deferral to
appropriate outside agency recommendations, as long as they were
consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and it would not
require any more staff resources or expertise locally. We can do this
with, as Bill Lorenz pointed out, no more staff and no more expertise.
Option two is what we would recommend to you, and thank you
Page 64
March 23, 2004
very much.
MS. FILSON: Donna Caron. She will be followed by Doug Fee.
MS. CARON: Yes, for the record, my name is Donna
Reed-Caron. Thank you, Commissioners, for allowing me to speak.
I'd just like to say that I think that the presentation that was made
by Bill Lorenz was made to you very, very succinctly.
I am here to support option two, and I hope that you will give
your staff the direction that they have asked for today and give them
option two. Thanks.
MS. FILSON: Doug Fee. He will be followed by Mimi Wolok.
MR. FEE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Doug Fee, and I'll be very brief as well.
I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to speak this morning.
And I also would go along with option No. 2, eliminating the second
sentence and allowing staff, applicable with the policies, to determine
the future. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON' Mimi Wolok. She'll be followed by B.J.
Savard-Boyer.
MS. WOLOK: Good morning, Commissioners. This is Mimi
Wolok and I am an attorney in town. I've been practicing -- or dealing
with endangered species issues for 11 years, and before that I was a
wildlife biologist.
I would support option two. It was stated today that the role of
federal and state agencies is to protect listed species. I would say
that's not entirely correct. Unfortunately the mission of these agencies
is to implement federal and state law, respectively, and unfortunately,
neither state or federal law are specifically designed to protect the
listed species in this particular county.
We have a good example that's going to be coming before the
board fairly soon. Signature Properties just recently received a no
jeopardy opinion from the Fish & Wildlife Service. And what that
Page 65
March 23, 2004
means is the Fish & Wildlife Service analyzed whether an eagle nest
that you've recently dealt with, CO-19, was -- the Fish & Wildlife
Service said that this nest is likely to be lost, but it's not significant, if
you look at the entire State of Florida eagles' nests. And so nobody is
looking specifically at the 23 to 24 eagle nests that are left in Collier
County specifically.
Also, I would say that the language, as it exists now, is already
internally inconsistent with other GMP provisions. For instance,
Policy 7.1.2, Section 2(A) requires a developer to use the bald eagle
management guidelines, but the provision, as it now stands, says that
Fish & Wild -- that you are to follow Fish & Wildlife
recommendations, which may actually ignore their own bald eagle
management guidelines. So thank you.
MS. FILSON: B.J. Savard-Boyer. She will be followed by Bob
Diffenderfer.
MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Good morning, Commissioners. B.J.
Savard-Boyer. I live in the Vanderbilt Beach area.
I agree with what Nancy Payton said, and all of the former
speakers spoke very well on keeping the decision of listed species in
our own backyard. Our neighboring Lee County has those laws in
force. They've protected the manatees, they seem to be protecting
their endangered species, and I don't see why we can't. And yes, we
do need to protect our land for our children and grandchildren. So I
believe that our government is doing very well and I think that you
will come up with the right decision. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Bob Diffenderfer. He will be followed by Tom
Logan.
MR. DIFFENDERFER: Thank you, Madam Chair, members of
the Commission. My name is Bob Diffenderfer of Lewis, Longman &
Walker in West Palm Beach. Following me today will be Tom Logan
and Steve Godley, both of whom are wildlife biologist experts. And
Page 66
March 23, 2004
at this point in time, I would just like to offer their credentials for the
record at this time.
As we appear before you again, yet again today, bear in mind the
context of where we are and what you're being asked to do. When we
last appeared before you, February 1 lth, 2004, the issue in front of the
Commission was how to develop Comp. Plan language regarding
listed species. Sounds familiar. There was no question the county
wanted to proceed to resolve an ambiguity that it perceived in the
Comp. Plan. And the discussion at that time, on February 1 lth, was at
considerable length on the efficacy of a non-Sunshine stakeholders
process or a formal advisory committee, the proceedings of which
were to be conducted in the Sunshine.
At the urging of a narrow community of interest, the board
determined to proceed with a stakeholder review process to develop
Comp. Plan language and forego a more formal advisory committee.
No problem.
To date there has been no effort to convene that stakeholders
group, since February 1 lth, or to invoke that process to help clarify
the Comprehensive Plan. We're not any further behind in clarifying
the plan than we were six weeks ago. It's just that nothing has
happened with this process that you set up at that time.
Instead, today the board is again being asked by that same narrow
community of interest to forego even that process and proceed directly
to a preemptive Comp. Plan amendment which would put this board
on a collision course with the Florida Constitution.
The stated topic of this discussion is listed species generally, and
their treatment in the plan. Let's be candid and recognize this
discussion is entirely motivated by reactions to the proposed
regulatory treatment of a pair of nesting bald eagles on my client's
property.
In an attempt to effect a result for individuals of one specific
Page 67
March 23, 2004
species at one particular location at one point in time, you're being
asked to draft general Comp. Plan language affecting all species, all
situations, all times in Collier County.
Because a plan needs to be comprehensive, it has to be supported
by data and analysis. You're being asked today to ignore that
requirement and to proceed directly to a result intended to affect this
specific example.
You'll hear from the experts in the field. You'll hear that the bald
eagle as a species has recovered. You'll hear that the species has met
its recovery goals. You'll hear that the current population may
approach historic densities. That's information which is relevant to the
development of any policy concerning this listed species. That's
information which is reflected in the decisions of the regulatory
agencies. That's information that this community of interest doesn't
want you to have by a simple preemptive policy. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
MR. DIFFENDERFER: In conclusion, I think you don't need to
clarify your county staff's current interpretation of your current plan.
You need to take the time to have a fact-based policy development.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON' The next speaker is Tom Logan. He will be
followed by Steve Godley.
MR. LOGAN: Thank you very much. I'm Tom Logan. I'm with
Breedlove, Dennis and Associates. I provide overview on wildlife
matters for the county. I'm just a year into the private sector. I've
already spent a career in government wildlife work. I've worked
almost four decades -- almost four decades in primarily wildlife
research, with most of that time spent in the research of listed species.
I came to Florida in '79 as Bureau Chief Wildlife research. And most
of what we did was wildlife research. And retired a little over a year
ago as Endangered Species Coordinator for the agency.
Page 68
March 23, 2004
So ! would love to talk to you the rest of the day about listed
species, because that's my interest, that's what I like to do. But that's
not the purpose here. It's my understanding, from what I've been told
and listened to today, that it's suggested that perhaps changes are
appropriate in county code that would facilitate more of an
involvement, and you and your staff, in the making of decisions that
would be beneficial to the conservation of listed species here in the
county. I wouldn't disagree with that. What I would disagree with,
though, is the suggestion that perhaps you should do that independent
of other agencies.
It's been already stated that the bald eagle -- and I'll just use this
as one species, and of course you have many listed species here in
Collier County. It's a species that's been recovered. It still is listed
legally as a threatened species, but the fact is the bird is biologically
recovered. That didn't happen all by itself. It didn't just happen
independent of actions that agencies, both federal, state and local were
taking and have been taking essentially since the mid-70s when the
Endangered Species Act was enacted. At that time, there was an
estimated 88 pairs of bald eagles in the State of Florida. The recovery
goal for Florida for bald eagles was 1,000. The population now is
inventoried at approximately 1,200 breeding pairs a year. Collier
County, during that same period, started with approximately seven
documented pairs of eagles in the county. They're now somewhere in
the neighborhood of a couple dozen breeding pairs in the county.
The Endangered Species Act has worked. The management
actions that have been taken under that act have worked. The
management actions that have been taken by the Fish & Wildlife
Service and the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission
also have worked, and they still are working.
Should you play a role? Very definitely. You're one of the
parmers. But they also continue to be a partner in this matter.
Page 69
March 23, 2004
The Endangered Species Act is perceived as a regulation that
provides protection that prevents certain things. Well, it does that, but
it's much more than that. The Endangered Species Act does many
things. It provides a process for acknowledging that a bald eagle is a
species that appears to be in danger of extinction. It places mandates
on several actions to be taken. It establishes -- it puts in place
regulations. It provides special protection of the species. It provides
money to be put into management in a timely manner. More
importantly, perhaps, it provides dollars on cost share bases with states
to implement research of these species that is designed to gather the
kind of information that is necessary to understand the factors that are
responsible for a species being on the brink of extension.
There's been a great deal of money and time and agency
involvement at every level in the research of the bald eagle in Florida.
We know a great deal about this species now. Information begins to
make things simple. I could tell you a lot of things about bald eagles
real quick, or I could talk the rest of the day, as I said earlier, and
won't do that. And I could oversimplify the biological needs of the
bald eagle.
Primarily in Florida, even though we have birds that are here the
year round, the primary role that Florida plays regarding bald eagles in
the Southeast is that it provides adequate nesting habitat. And nesting
habitat is anywhere there's structure to build a nest in close proximity
to a food base as a source for feeding the young in that nest.
I'll wrap up real quickly. We've learned a lot. It would be a
mistake to do as I've heard, I think I've heard suggested, exclude these
other agencies that now have invested 30 years in the conservation of
this species and take the role on yourself. Become a partner, demand
to be a partner, if that's what you want, and proceed in that manner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Logan, I have to stop you. Thank
yOU.
Page 70
March 23, 2004
MR. LOGAN: I have two summaries that I'll put into the record.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Steve Godley. He'll be followed
by your final speaker, Rich Yovanovich.
MR. GODLEY: Commissioners, I'm Steve Godley, president of
Biological Research Associates in Tampa, Florida. I, too, have been a
professional biologist and environmental consultant now going on 30
years. Since 1997, I've served as a member of the bald eagle recovery
team in southeastern United States. I'm the only non-agency
representative. I was appointed because of my expertise in bald eagle
management issues. I've completed approximately 30 bald eagle
management plans in the state already. I have another 15 underway
here in Florida in 11 counties. I also am doing work in Maryland and
Pennsylvania on bald eagles.
I'm not going to talk only about eagles, because you've heard a
lot from Tom. He has a wealth of information. I want to give you a
broader perspective of where you're heading potentially and some of
the things that you should be thinking about.
The issues that you are facing are very complex biologically, and
accordingly they're also very complex from a public policy decision,
in my opinion. It's not just about eagles or any one eagle nest, it's
about Collier County and listed species.
I'm going to hand out to you a summary of the listed species that
are in Collier County. I'm going to give you a quick count of
vertebrates, that's animals with backbones like ourselves and eagles.
Twenty-two federally listed vertebrates, 33 state listed vertebrates. In
plants, 121 species of listed plants by the Florida Department of
Consumer and Agricultural. Sixty listed plants by DCA.
Your Comp. Plan provides management guidelines, not for five,
as you heard, but only four species. Yet you or someone has to make
management decisions for almost 150 listed species. The question is
whether you're going to rely on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and
Page 71
March 23, 2004
the Commission, or them and yourself as the final issue.
Let me provide some perspective on that. Vero Beach Fish &
Wildlife Office alone has 100 biologists. The Conservation
Commission has approximately 30 biologists, that work exclusively or
in large part on endangered species, that review your projects. That
means what you have is about 130 biologists who have a combined
2,000 plus years of experience on literally tens of thousands of
different projects.
You need to utilize the expertise and the training of those
individuals to help you make wise management decisions. I don't
think that your -- that your four management plans help a lot in that
regard. Understand that all projects are unique to some degree, and
the four management guidelines that you have are cookie cutter
generic recommendations, often that are very antiquated. The bald
eagle guidelines are since '87. In 1987 all we had was 400 pairs or
500 pairs of birds. Now we're up to 1,200.
I want to clarify also what incidental take means. You've heard
your staff say they have concern if there is incidental take. Here's what
it really means: It's activities incidental to development that results in
actual injury or death of wildlife. That's what incidental take really
means.
Collier County has adopted -- as part of the growth policy, you
will not allow an incidental take of a gopher tortoise on a project,
correct, and require them to be relocated. And in that view, you think
you are eliminating incidental take. Here's what the biology says.
Fifty percent of relocated tortoises never stay, most of them die. That
is incidental take, even though you have moved the development out
of harm's way, so to speak, the take does occur. The take occurs if the
county builds a road or if on a development a fox squirrel runs across
the road.
In the case of bald eagles, it's interesting, the Jacksonville office
Page 72
March 23, 2004
of the Service recently summarized over 300 permitting decisions that
they have made in the last 15 years and went back and looked at the
outcome of those. In many cases, those were incidental take
statements that they issued in order to protect the applicant, the county
and the agency. Not one recorded case of abandonment of a nest or a
chick-- in other words, no death of any eagle has ever occurred or
been recorded as a result of an incidental take statement being issued.
In a few cases, and only a few cases, the actual nest was abandoned,
and in most of those the birds built a new nest and went on with
reproduction.
I don't think you should consider option two for sure, and you
need to understand that incidental take actually doesn't occur in many
situations, and it occurs in other cases where you permitted.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Godley.
MR. GODLEY: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Rich Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich
Yovanovich. I'm just going to introduce on the record the rest of Mr.
Diffenderfer's presentation, since he didn't get through it all. I'm here on behalf of Signature Communities as well.
I want to point out that we all know the reason we're all basically
here is one pair of eagles that came to light basically because of
another project, and most notably Signature Communities' project.
What's being proposed is in reaction to that one project. They're
trying to simplify an issue that is obviously very complex. The
solution is not as simple as tinkering with a few words, because the
result of tinkering with a few words could lead us down to a whole
new policy direction by the county by entering into -- the county
entering into its own environmental permitting.
Because what they're proposing is let's just change the words to
you may follow those -- may follow the recommendations. But there's
Page 73
March 23, 2004
no guidelines as to when you're to ignore them or when you're to
follow them. They just want to have the discretion with no specific
guidelines.
That is going to result in your staff, who they've already admitted
are not experts in the issue, making decisions that they're not qualified
to make. There will be no sound scientific basis for these decisions,
they'll just be political decisions.
What we need to do and what I think was the recommendation
originally from the Commission was if we're not going to have a
formal structure or structured committee, we would use the committee
that was in place, the stakeholders that we're meeting, and we met
twice, we would use that committee and we would talk through these
issues and we would come up with recommendations.
Since we had that direction from the Board of County
Commissioners, we have not had a meeting. All of this language that
is before you has not been shared with the stakeholders. We're to react
today and make recommendations as to what's better or worse.
I think this is a complex issue. We need to take our time, we
need to do this right, and we need to make sure that we come up with
a Comprehensive Plan that we all can live with. That was the direction
that was given originally. That was the direction that I believe was
bought into by the property owners as well as the environmental
groups. Somehow that direction changed. I can assure you it wasn't
changed by the direction of the property owners, when this matter was
then brought again, was asked to be added to an agenda outside of the
public.
I think we also need to point out how did we get here in the first
place? Well, there was reference to the Governor's -- Governor and
Cabinet's order. The Governor and Cabinet's order was in reaction to
our old Comprehensive Plan that admittedly did not have very good
environmental protections in it.
Page 74
March 23, 2004
The Governor and Cabinet said we needed to use planning
techniques to direct development away from listed species and
important habitat. We did that. We were told to create a study area,
and we created a study area. And that study area specifically excluded
the urban area, by the way.
Will you give two -- one more minute, may I? Thirty seconds?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thirty seconds.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. The purpose of the order
was to look on this globally. We did that. We created the rural fringe
area. We have the Eastern Lands where we have isolated and
prohibited development in those areas. It was never intended to come
up with your own permitting process. Once we identified areas where
development was permitted, we were to rely on the state and federal
agencies to do that. We recommend that we continue with that
approach and that we look at this thing globally and not on an isolated
quick fix. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Time for discussion,
Commissioners. Anybody have any comments that they would like
to.
Make? Yes, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I, Commissioner, with your
indulgence, I'm not sure -- there was a speaker that was implying
something, and I just need some clarification. And Mimi Wolok made
some statements that the issue with Signature Properties going to
come back to the board, and I'm not sure what that means. Can you
enlighten me on that?
MS. WOLOK: Yes, staff is dealing with the application now.
And I was just assuming that it was going to come before the board in
its final stage, whatever that is.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Okay. Are you talking about
the eagle management plan?
Page 75
March 23, 2004
MS. WOLOK: Within the development order that's being sought
is an eagle management plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we already dealt with the
development orders, so I'm not sure why it would come back to us.
MS. WOLOK: Are you talking about the Coconilla PUD, or
Signature Properties?
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Well, I think you were talking
about Signature Properties when you came up here.
MS. WOLOK: Yeah, that's at county staff right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's coming back to
us?
MS. WOLOK: Your staff would have to answer that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you want to hear from staff?.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE' I'd like to -- Bill, would you come
up to the mic.? I'd like to ask some questions about how you would --
under the present policy, as it is, unchanged, how do you go about
making decisions with respect to protection of listed species, and how
would you do it in the future, if it remained unchanged?
MR. LORENZ: Currently the recommendation we followed, and
I'll use the example of the Coconilla project, because that's what came
forward. We basically stipulated that the project follow the
recommendations of the agencies, and what those recommendations
would be is what would be allowed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But do you or the staff have any
particular expertise that is appropriate for questioning or changing the
decisions by any of the state or federal agencies?
MR. LORENZ: I certainly don't. My staff are generalists.
They're not a bald eagle expert, or they're not a RCW expert. That's
Page 76
March 23, 2004
why we were relying upon the state agencies for their scientific
expertise.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would it be reasonably obvious to
you or to the staff if one of their interpretations was somehow not in
the best interest of Collier County and our Growth Management Plan?
MR. LORENZ: Well, we kind of get back to the one issue of the
incidental take, that if the agencies' recommendation is to allow for
some harm to come to a particular animal, in the absence of any types
of mitigation or compensation or some other creative process by
which that could be mitigated for, that would be something that we
would -- we would be looking at. But again, we would be looking at it
from the standpoint of does that exist or does that not exist, not so
much as to whether we would be judging as to whether the agencies'
recommendations from a technical standpoint would work or not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you feel that the staff and I
guess we as a board have the right under the existing policy to make
changes to the federal or state interpretations as they apply to Collier
County?
MR. LORENZ: No, we--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then I guess the County
Attorney would have to really make that.
Magi, what would be your reaction to that?
MS. CHUMBLER: Marti Chumbler, outside counsel to Collier
County.
I think that's the problem, Commissioner Coyle. The way the
language is currently written, you've got one sentence that suggests
those recommendations would be used only if they were found to be
consistent with the Growth Management Plan. But then the second
sentence says well, it's recognized in some instances it won't be
consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and that's okay, we'll
use them anyway. That's sort of the dilemma that's faced by staff
Page 77
March 23, 2004
today is you've got language confined within the same numbered
subsection that seems to be inconsistent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did you have a quick fix for this
glitch?
MS. CHUMBLER: The two options that Mr. Lorenz has spelled
out are really the two options. I mean, there's been some suggestions
from speakers that the word "shall" be replace with "may". But
frankly, that does not resolve the problem. You still have two
inconsistent references within the same sub-paragraph. It would give
the county more discretion, but it still doesn't resolve the
inconsistencies.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if we were to accept the intent
of the suggestion made by Ms. Payton, which essentially gives the
staff or the Board of County Commissioners the authority to
determine if such change is consistent with the Growth Management
Plan, is that substantially different from option two?
MS. CHUMBLER: That-- if I understood your question, I think
that is option two. Option two would be striking the second sentence.
And if that were to occur, the staff would take the recommendations
from the state or federal agency, compare them to the words of your
Growth Management Plan and say yes, this is -- there's nothing in our
Growth Management Plan that contradicts that or is inconsistent with
that, or we look at 7.1.2 paren, whatever and their comment conflicts
with that, and therefore, we cannot use that recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Here's -- and I just have a couple
more recommendations, if you don't mind, and then I'll stop.
Here's one of my concerns: This is a glitch.
MS. CHUMBLER: I believe it is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've already given the staff
direction. The board has given the staff direction to develop a
comprehensive wildlife management plan for Collier County and to
Page 78
March 23, 2004
solicit information from all the stakeholders in order to determine that.
We would hope that would be done within several months.
So whatever decision we make with respect to this particular
language will be superseded in a few months and in fact replaced by
what we hope would be a plan that is mutually agreeable by all of the
stakeholders, or at least get as close as we possibly can.
I am concerned about trying to deal with something for a few
months in what appears to be an apparent attempt to apply that
temporary change to our Growth Management Plan, retroactively to a
development that is already and has been under consideration for a
long time. I consider that to be fundamentally dishonest and unfair.
So I'm very concerned with that concept. I am very committed to
making sure we have a comprehensive wildlife protection program for
Collier County going forward, however.
So that's the problem I think I've got to struggle with. But the
thing I'd like to emphasize is that whatever we do will last for a period
of a few months.
Now, my final question I guess goes to staff. Does staff know of
any development that is currently in the planning stages that is likely
to come before us before we can develop our comprehensive wildlife
management program?
MR. SCHMITT: Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development, Environment Services.
To answer your question, there exists a possibility. And it would
be the Cocohatchee PUD, if in fact the development forces a
requirement to modify the eagle management plan, that modification
to the eagle management plan would require an amendment to the
PUD.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: So we are looking at an SDP right now that
frankly is a three-phased SDP that does impact at least the secondary
Page 79
March 23, 2004
zone of this specific eagle that's been in discussion. So that still is yet
to be determined. But there's a very strong possibility, yes, it could.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But beyond that one development,
do you know of any that is in the pipeline that might be --
MR..SCHMITT: I can't think of any other development,
Commissioner, that right now that is impacted. And I'm looking --
Barbara, do you?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So let me not leave -- let me not
leave the Cocohatchee issue. If there is going to be a petition to
change the PUD in any way, we will have a chance to make a ruling
on that and hear the debate about that at that point in time? MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So that's not something that
should be the subject of a Growth Management Plan modification, in
my mind. That is something that should be the subject of a future
debate where all of the people concerned about it can come before us
and make their argument and we can make a decision on that. That
has nothing to do with this Growth Management Plan change, okay.
MR. SCHMITT' Yes, and in fact, but I have to mm to Marti,
because your decision, based on the wording, may or may not create a
challenge to that decision.
MS. CHUMBLER: In either case, Commissioner, whatever
policy decision you make on that PUD or any other applications that
should come before you in the interim, this body is going to have to
take the step of deciding what this provision means. Whether you
change it now or you don't change it, a decision is going to have to be
made about what it means. If the language is not changed, you're
simply open to challenge from the side that doesn't agree with you that
you've misinterpreted the language in the Comp. Plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What's your recommendation then
for the change?
Page 80
March 23, 2004
MS. CHUMBLER: It's a policy decision, Commissioner, it's not
a legal decision. Either way, there are some constitutional constraints,
but either one of these changes I don't think is going to make it
unconstitutional. And I hate to just bounce this back to you, but it
really is purely a policy issue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Marti, so what you're saying to us
now at the present time is that we're in a position as Commissioners
that we really don't have any true direction for staff in regards to -- if
we leave it as it is today, we really don't have any true direction for
staff; is that correct?
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, if it's left as it is today, each permit,
and there may not be very many, but each application that comes
before you in the interim, until a more permanent or larger change of
these provisions occur, you'll have to make the policy decision then.
Of course there are legal constraints. You cannot decide one policy
one time and another policy the next time. You've got to be
consistent.
Policy decision's going to have to be made either on a
case-by-case basis, as developments come before you, or by changing
the language in the Comp. Plan so that staff knows when it's actually
processing an application, what the rules of the game are going to be.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And also, that's basically
what came up in the January 29th discussion, isn't that correct, that
you said that staff should give direction in regards to which way we
should go in this matter as just -- as a temporary stop gap. Not to
address everything, but just as a temporary decision for staff so that
they know in what direction to go; is that correct?
MS. CHUMBLER: It certainly assists. And I defer to Mr.
Lorenz, but it certainly assists staff when they're processing an
Page 81
March 23, 2004
application to know what they're supposed to be doing. Are we
supposed to be looking to the Comp. Plan to determine whether it is
inconsistent or, and frankly easier for the staff, to simply say we have
to take what the state and federal agencies tell us and apply those.
MR. SCHMITT: And I need to clarify, for Commissioner
Coyle's question, because there are instances, again on this project, the
Cocohatchee project, if in fact it doesn't require an amendment to the
eagle management plan, and then staff is faced with applying a policy
to this -- the approval of the site development plan. In those instances,
it would not come back to you. It's basically a staff decision, because
SDP's do not come back, it's basically how do we apply this rule in
this instance. And again, that puts -- that's where staff is somewhat
faced with trying to deal with it. And that's what brought this up of
course with the Cocohatchee -- or I'm sorry, the Coconilla PUD. But
frankly, through the application process is where, when staff kind of
stumbled upon this and said we have an issue here, because we did not
get guidance at that time from the state agency and we proceeded with
processing the project. And that's where we had some, shall I say,
some dispute as to whether we should even have had this project come
before the board, because of what was perceived to be an --
inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: With the information that has been
given by the two parties the last few moments, I'd like to make a
motion that we adopt option number two.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second that motion. More discussion?
There's Commissioner Coletta, myself and Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate it. I'm not too sure
which one of our staff members can answer this, but earlier there was
a statement made that this or the eventual listed species wouldn't
include Golden Gate Estates or the land to the -- I'm sorry, I'm not too
sure what it was, the rural fringe or whatever. What was that
Page 82
March 23, 2004
statement? Can you tell me what that meant?
MR. LORENZ: Correct. The policy does not apply to
single-family homes. Now, that means single-family homes still have
to get all federal and state approvals, but they do not have to go
through all the rigors of this policy with regard to a staff review.
This policy also excludes the Eastern Lands, the rural
stewardship overlay, to the degree that -- and I want to put a little
condition on that-- to the degree that for those projects that
voluntarily are part of the stewardship program, it excludes that. But
we have similar language for those projects in the Eastern Lands that
do not voluntarily -- are part of the stewardship program.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, so we still have
something in the way of species protection planned for out in that
area?
MR. LORENZ' That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're not talking about there's
not going to be species protection out in that part of District 5?
MR. LORENZ: That's correct. For those projects that do not
voluntarily participate in the stewardship program, we have those
Policy 5 policies, Goal 5 policies that provide those minimum
standards.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I -- and so when this --
what happens now is if this passes by three or four or whatever, it has
to come back to us as a land development change? MR. LORENZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that takes four out of five
Commissioners?
MR. LORENZ: Well, the direction we would take, let's say if
Commissioner Halas's motion passes, is we would make this -- we
would make that language change as proposed glitch amendment
language to go through the process for an amendment transmittal.
Page 83
March 23, 2004
So this, together with the other glitch amendments, would go to
the Environmental Advisory Council, to the Planning Commission and
to you for adoption as transmittal. Then it would go to the DCA for
DCA's review, then come back through that same process again for
the adoption process. I believe you can transmit with a 3-2 vote, but I
think you have to adopt it with a 4-1 vote. MS. STUDENT' That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One question, if I may, too, and
I'll tell you what I'm getting to in just a minute.
This process we're going through, when we reach that point in the
road where the final decision will be taken as far as four or five votes
to be able to pass it on, I don't know where I'm going to be when that
time comes. It depends on how everything takes place between now
and then. If at that point in time you only get three Commissioners
voting for it, then where are we?
MR. LORENZ: At adoption?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I mean, would we have
to start all over again, or what? Could we amend it at that point in time
if we found some way to make it work where maybe it was all
encompassing to the point where it took care of a lot more needs than
it does now?
MR. LORENZ: At the point where you would have -- at the
point where you'd have a 3-2 vote at the adoption hearing, your choice
then would be to try reconcile the language here in this room and get a
4-1 vote for revised language. I guess there would be a consideration
that if that revised language was so far afield from what was being
advertised, that possibly would require another public hearing process.
I'd have to defer to the attorneys on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Another question, too, going on
the same line: If this passes and it goes forward, would this in any
way be binding on anyone? It doesn't make -- nothing can happen. I
Page 84
March 23, 2004
mean, you can't apply this particular rule until we get it through the
whole process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Correct.
MR. LORENZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So I'm lost. The way it's
narrowing down, it still goes back to the one business with the eagle's
nest there, what is that, Coca -- Cocanina, whatever -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Cocohatchee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Cocohatchee? It still all goes
back to that particular thing. They could bring it back and be gone by
then; is that correct?
I'm just trying -- I'm just -- in my mind I'm trying to come up
with a rationale how everybody's thinking on this on both sides, where
this is all leading us and why we're going down that road.
Like Commissioner Coyle, I do have concerns about the way this
comes down. Maybe my concerns aren't quite the same as his. But
I'm not going to belabor the point. I've got a feeling I know how -- the
way this is going to go today. I'm sure over a period of time we're
going to have those public meetings and we're going to get a lot of
questions answered and there might be something in the way of
agreement out there between the development special interests and the
environmental special interests. I thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. I'm going to take a turn next,
then it's Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Coyle, but I hope that
we can vote pretty soon.
What I'd like to say is, what concerned me the most when you
were talking about defaulting to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife or the
Florida Fish & Wildlife, it's kind of like FEMA. We've just had a
tremendous experience with FEMA. FEMA decided what our flood
zone maps were going to look like. They weren't here, they weren't
looking at them. They didn't take anything by a case-by-case basis.
Page 85
March 23, 2004
We had to come in and fight like -- tooth and nail in order to be able to
now submit a revised map that shows a case-by-case basis. And I
really feel that that seems to be necessary in this case as well.
I hate to have somebody up in Washington telling us what we
have here in Collier County, because they're not looking at it. I truly
believe this should -- we should have local control, and we need to
give staff better direction so that they are able to evaluate each
concern on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Henning?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, can I correct the record on the
FEMA, though?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
MR. SCHMITT: Just to make sure you understand that that was
information that the county provided to the federal government back
in the mid '90s, from -- that was information from South Florida Water
Management District. It was the best information that we had
available.
So I just want to make sure that -- I'm not protecting the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, but it was information provided by
the county that did produce those maps.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for defending them.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just like FEMA, we based it on
science. We hired an expert to base it on science. And my concern,
when we make policy changes, it should be based on science or facts.
And that's what David Weeks goes through when we go through the
Growth Management Plan amendments is facts. And I think what this
is is a community standard. That science should be plugged into that.
The problem is fixing it at the glitch, we're not going to get that
science based information at this point.
So -- but I think I could support the motion as it is, although I do
Page 86
March 23, 2004
have a lot of concerns. We're really not getting to the bottom of the
issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I agree. This is, I suspect, an
exercise in futility. By the time this motion works its way through the
process of approval, we should have a comprehensive listed species
management program for Collier County to be considered.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, yes. By the time you go
through transmittal and adoption, it will be November before this is
applied. I just want to make sure you understand the timeline.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Exactly. And my point is here, can
we as a board perhaps set some kind of deadline or schedule for the
creation of this listed species management program so that we can be
assured it does exist as quickly as possible? Because we really are
going through an exercise that isn't going to accomplish anything.
We'll get it in the glitch cycle and it'll go through this long process of
review, and it will never get implemented before we actually have the
real plan to put in place.
But nevertheless, I have a couple of questions concerning the
proposed change. Is there a need to specify the listed species that will
be addressed by this particular change?
MS. CHUMBLER: It's all of them. It's not just -- it's all listed
species.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All listed species. I heard
somebody say we were responsible for only four or five.
MS. CHUMBLER: That's incorrect. There are some specific
standards in the plan for seven species, but this policy applies to all
listed species.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, refresh my memory on the
exact wording of this particular proposal. So you're taking out that
entire paragraph rather than saying specifically that the staff will have
Page 87
March 23, 2004
the opportunity to make a determination whether it is consistent with
our Growth Management Plan?
MS. CHUMBLER: It will be the staff's obligation to make that
determination.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And then that is implied. It
does not have to be stated here?
MS. CHUMBLER: Well, it says -- that sentence that will be left
says the county shall --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Consistent with the applicable.
MS. CHUMBLER: Consistent with the applicable, right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, right. And that is sufficient as
far as you're concerned?
MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I pass.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. So we have a motion on the
floor by Commissioner Halas to accept option two of the glitch cycle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I, Donna Fiala, seconded that motion.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE' I just have one question. Do you
think it's appropriate to include in that motion direction to staff to
work toward a specific date to having the Collier County listed species
management program available? Do you want to imbed it in that -- in
that motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I would like to put that in, but
I'd like to make sure that we have enough leeway here that all people
involved in this will have input into it. And so what time line are we
talking about? Can staff give us some kind of a guidance here?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, like when is the glitch -- is that
Page 88
March 23, 2004
what you mean, when is the glitch actually --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not the glitch.
COMMISSIONER HALAS' Not the glitch, just when we'll get
to come up with a--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The future amendments to it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, the final plan.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The final plan, yes.
MR. LORENZ: I think we'd be looking at some time in
November.
COMMISSIONER HALAS' Okay. I would like to put that in
my motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You'll add that we have a November time
line for the final plan?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'll include that in my second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas, which I've repeated. Do you need it again?
And a second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have Commissioner Halas, Fiala and
Coyle in favor, Commissioner Henning and Coletta opposed. That's a
3-2 vote. Thank you.
Item # 12A
Page 89
March 23, 2004
CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION TO DISCUSS
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS ISSUES 1N HEALTH CARE
Item #12C
CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION TO DISCUSS
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS RE LITIGATION CASE OF
AQI JAPORT V. COIJ,IF, R COIINTY
Now, folks, we are going to be breaking for lunch, at which time
we're going to be meeting with the County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In a closed door session.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: In a closed door session, thank you. And
we will be back here at 1:00. Thank you.
(A recess was taken.)
Item # 12B
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS IN HEALTH CARE REIT, INC.,
V. COLLIER COUNTY- MOTION TO CONTINUE LITIGATION
APPROVF, D
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're back in session.
MR. MUDD: We've got to do 12(A) -- excuse me -- 12(B) and
12(D), and then we go right to 7(A), and then we go right to 8(C).
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 12(B)?
MR. MUDD: 12(B) and 12(D).
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 12(B) and 12(D).
Page 90
March 23, 2004
MR. MUDD: Time certain, 1:00.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Item 12(B) before
you is the subsequent item coming from closed session, item 12(A),
and we were talking about the direction from the Board of County
Commissioners concerning settlement negotiations, the Health Care
REIT, Inc., versus Collier County, case number 02-5002-CA, and
Collier County V. certain lands upon which impact fees are
delinquent, known as case number 03-231-CA, both pending in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court for Naples, Collier County, Florida.
And, Commissioners, there has been provided to the county
attorney representing the county in regard to school board impact fee
litigation from the counsel for the defendant here, Health Care REIT,
Inc., a settlement proposal offering to not pursue their prospects of
counterclaim to the county concerning slander of title, and not, in fact,
having the county collect what the county believes is due as school
board impact fees, and the county being forgiven from a potential
return of transportation impact fees, which the figure has grown from
9,000 to several thousand more than that, based upon the interest
calculation.
So the question before you is whether we should accept the
proposal for settlement that has come from opposing counsel, or if you
would direct the County Attorney Office to continue with litigation
toward trial.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Continue litigation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's the motion, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion from Commissioner
Henning to continue litigation, and a second from Commissioner
Page 91
March 23, 2004
Coyle.
Do I have any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All those in favor of the motion,
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.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Madam Chairman. And so the
record will reflect that -- that there has been direction to continue
litigation, which is a rejection of the proposed settlement, and we will
report back to you from time to time.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh.
Item #12D
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS IN AQUAPORT V. COLLIER
COUNTY- MOTION TO OFFER SETTLEMENT OF ALL
MR. MUDD: The next item is 12(D), and that's an item
immediately following the closed-door session, and it had -- relates to
item 12(B).
It's a request for the Board of County Commissioners to provide
direction in a closed session to the Office of the County Attorney
Page 92
March 23, 2004
regarding settlement negotiations in Aquaport versus Collier County,
case number 03-1609-CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, and Aquaport versus Collier
County, et al, case number 2:01-CV-341-FTM-29DNF, now pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle Direct of Florida, Fort Myers
Division, and also pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit, case number 03-11291-B and 03-13298 and
03-13133.
County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Three.
Thank you very much, Jim, for reading that. This item, 12(B), is
being -- excuse me -- 12(D) is being heard following the closed
session noticed meeting, 12(C), and we have brought to your attention
questions of pending litigation, a pending trial date coming on the
state case, and have discussed and would look for your direction in
regard to any -- any discussion or direction concerning offer of
settlement or direction towards the pros -- continuing preparing --
preparing and going forward to trial in these cases that have been
listed before you.
Mr. Ted Tripp, our outside counsel, is here to answer any
questions as well as Mike Pettit and myself.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE' I have one brief question.
Is it -- is it true that there was a settlement proposal approved by
the board before? Without getting into amounts or reasons or anything
like that. Is -- was that settlement proposal presented?
MR. TRIPP: There was a settlement proposal presented in the
federal court litigation prior to the time that the summary judgment
order was entered by the judge. That matter is now on appeal. There
have not been any settlement orders, settlement offers, either
authorized by this board or presented in the context of the pending
Page 93
March 23, 2004
Bert Harris Act litigation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But would it be appropriate that we
make a motion that the settlement offer be reduced to a maximum of
$500,000, which represents a reduction from the prior settlement
proposal?
MR. TRIPP: I am certainly happy to convey that message to the
plaintiffs in both the state and federal court. I understand the direction
to be that the county would be willing to entertain settlement, but only
of all pending claims in whatever court.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So that is the motion by you,
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. That would be my motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I have a second by Commissioner
Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And would our county attorney read that
motion back into the record, please.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. It appears that we have a motion and a
second for county attorney, outside counsel, to relay direction from
the board to offer a settlement of all outstanding claims on all cases so
related in this agenda item in an amount not to exceed $500,000. And
I'll add, other than that, without acceptance of that, that we proceed
toward the appropriate court and trial dates.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And is that -- does that agree with what
your motion is?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It does. I only emphasize the
reduction from the prior settlement offer to indicate that we're not
increasing the stakes here. We're actually decreasing them as far as
Collier County taxpayers.
Page 94
March 23, 2004
MR. WEIGEL: I think the record is clear on that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Halas, you agree with
that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct. That's my motion --
or my second, excuse me.
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: And that's a 5-0.
Thank you.
MR. TRIPP: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much.
Item #7A
RESOLUTION 2004-84 RE PETITION SV-2003-AR-4652,
RICHARD YOVANOVICH, ESQUIRE, OF GOODLETTE,
COLEMAN AND JOHNSON, P.A. REPRESENTING THE
GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC.,
REQUESTING A VARIANCE THAT PERMITS ONE WALL SIGN
FOR EACH SINGLE-OCCUPANCY PARCEL WITH SINGLE
ROADWAY FRONTAGE TO ALLOW TWO EXISTING WALL
SIGNS TO REMA1N AFTER A COPY CHANGE ON A .43 ACRE
LOT LOCATED AT 3620 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, GULF
Page 95
March 23, 2004
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 7(A), the
Board of Zoning Appeals, and it's the only item.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by the commission members. It's
SV-2003-AR-4652, Rich Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette,
Coleman, and Johnson, P.A., representing the Greater Naples
Chamber of Commerce, Inc., requesting a variance from subsection
2.2.5.2.5.2 of the Land Development Code that permits one wall sign
for each single occupancy parcel with single roadway frontage to
allow two existing wall signs to remain after a copy change on a
.43-acre lot located at 3620 Tamiami Trail North and further described
as Gulf Acres Subdivision, lot 4, block B, and the north 75.5 feet of
the west 50 feet of lot 75 and 76 of Naples Improvement Company's
Little Farms in section 22, township 49 south, range 25 east, Collier
County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd like to -- first of all, Commissioners,
we need to declare our ex parte, starting with you, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I talked to staff.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have talked with the petitioner
and the counsel, and I did not talk -- I did not talk with staff about this
one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only one that I talked to was
staff on that. I had a meeting set up with the petitioner, but that didn't
come to pass. So the only people I talked on it (sic) was staff.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I talked with staff, and
also I met with Rich Yovanovich on that.
Page 96
March 23, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I myself have spoken to staff
and also to Rich Yovanovich, and I took a ride out there to take a look
at the sign for my own satisfaction.
Okay. And I'd like to swear in -- you would swear in our --
anybody who wants to speak on the subject. (The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Speak, Richard. Speak while she's getting her
thing up.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. For the record, Rich Yovanovich,
representing the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce.
Your staff report is very thorough. And basically what we're
trying to do is replace the two existing signs that exist on a very
narrow building with a new name of the Chamber of Commerce.
It went to the Planning Commission. Your Planning Commission
recommended unanimously -- recommended to you unanimously that
the sign variance be granted. It's a very narrow building that fronts
U.S. 41. The portion of the building that fronts U.S. 41 is all windows
so we cannot put a sign on the front of the building.
We're not -- we don't have a wide enough parcel to qualify for a
pole sign. So in order to be able to really identify the Chamber of
Commerce, either traveling north or south, you're going to need a sign
on each side of the building to have the traveling public be able to
identify the building.
I think everybody acknowledges that the Chamber of Commerce
serves an important purpose in the county, and that was the basis for
the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval of the
variance, and it recognizes that the variance is only applicable to the
Chamber of Commerce, and if any commercial user were to come in,
Page 97
March 23, 2004
they would have to go through the variance process again. So without
getting into --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any 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.)
MS. MOSCA: Excuse me. If I may?
MR. MUDD: It's done.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I didn't close the public hearing.
Can I close the public hearing and then vote, or --
MS. STUDENT' The vote has already been accomplished.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Then I'll close the public hearing
after the vote.
MS. STUDENT' I don't know if there's anything that staff
wishes to add, but I think what you may be able to do is to re -- it's
kind of an awkward situation-- to reconsider, because you can
reconsider the motion at the same time if there's any change.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Doesn't the executive summary
inform us of all the details of the staffs recommendation?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the only clarification-- and Mr.
Yovanovich said it in his statement -- that the -- this variance is only
Page 98
March 23, 2004
for the present tenant. When the tenant changes, the variance goes
away and they'll confirm to the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE' And that's in our packet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And it says that in our packet.
MR. MUDD: And it's in your packet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's -- part of my motion was
what the executive summary was.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That was very clear. Okay. So -
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2004-20 RE PETITION PUDZ-03-AR-3831,
ROBERT DUANE OF HOLE, MONTES, INC., REPRESENTING
ROBERT REED OF REED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM"PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE CALUSA
ISLAND VILLAGE PUD LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
GOODLAND DRIVE AND WEST OF SUNSET DRIVE-
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 8(C), and
that item -- this item requires that all participants be sworn and ex
parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
Petition PUDZ-03-AR-3831, Robert Duane of Hole Montes, Inc.,
representing Robert Reed of Reed Development Company requesting
a rezone from PUD to PUD Planned Unit Development to be known
as the Calusa Island Village PUD.
The purpose -- the purpose is to increase the number of dwelling
units from 47 units to 52 units, reduce the commercial area from .45
acres to .12 acres, limiting the commercial floor area to a maximum of
1,300 square feet while permitting the six multi-family residential
Page 99
March 23, 2004
units and eliminating the permitted commercial uses that are not
compatible with residential uses for property located at the south side
of Goodland Drive, CR -- County Road 892, and west of Sunset Drive
in section 18 and 19 townships 52-S, range 27 east, and consisting of
6.2 acres.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Duane?
MR. DUANE' Good afternoon. For the record, my name is
Robert Duane --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, do you have any disclosures and you have
to--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Ex partes and swearing in, excuse me.
Commissioner Henning, do you have any ex parte?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received an email from the
Goodland Civic Association.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have spoken with residents of the
Goodland area concerning this particular problem, and I've also met
with Mr. Reed and Mr. Duane concerning this petition, and I've also
talked with staff about it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I received email from the
Goodland civic's group, and I also met with the petitioner about a
week ago.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And I received various
correspondence and met with staff and also met with Connie Fullmer,
Richard Pappy, Bob Duane, and George R. Herman -- Hermanson.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I, too, have spoken with staff.
I've spoken with Bob Reed and with Robert Duane, and I've spoken
with -- actually I've gone down to the Goodland Civic Association
Page 100
March 23, 2004
meeting and sat in on their meeting, as well, gone by and taken a look
at the property and received emails, and that's all in my file here.
Swearing in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
MR. DUANE: Again, for the record, my name is Robert Duane.
I just want to clarify that we have changed our proposal to reflect the
Planning Commission recommendation, so we are not before you for
52 units today. We are before you for 50 units. And we have also
made some provisions to remove a wall that was currently under
construction.
We've made some other concessions to the residents of Goodland
which are in the form of now two civic associations. One is the
Goodland Preservation Coalition, Inc., and I think that refers to the
email that some of you may have referred -- that you saw -- to
yesterday, and I think there's a representative from the Goodland Civic
Association that we've also worked closely with, and I'll let him speak
for himself, as I see that he raised his hand today.
I don't want to go into a -- my presentation is going to be very
brief. You've got a full day.
The zoning that we're proposing today is better than what
currently exists. I can elaborate if you want to go into any more
detail.
I want to make one point of clarification. When we gave up our
wall, we were allowed to have signage on the wall, and it's important
that we retain some signage adjacent to the Goodland right-of-way
and Angolar (phonetic) Drive. And, in fact, there is a large colorful
meter assembly on the comer, and I think there's a consensus that
people would like to see that hidden.
I have made, you know, some minor corrections to the document
to basically allow that signage to be located adjacent to those two
Page 101
March 23, 2004
aforementioned streets. And I believe that Ms. Fullmer, in her letter
from the Goodland Preservation Coalition, also supports the
construction of signage at this location.
And I'll conclude my presentation unless there are any questions,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Do you we have any
speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have one speaker, Madam Chairman. Rich
Pappy.
MR. PAPPY: Good afternoon, Commissioner Fiala and
Commissioners.
I'm here on behalf of the Goodland Preservation Coalition, and
more specifically on behalf of Connie Fullmer, who is the president of
GPC who sends her regrets and regards for not being able to attend
herself.
We have sent a letter by email to affirm our current position on
the application as amended and as recommended by the county
Planning Commission. And if I can just take about one minute, I'll
read the substance of the letter.
Connie Fullmer writes, in reference to this current application,
the Goodland Preservation Coalition is willing to support Mr. Reed's
current application provided Mr. Reed is willing to abide by the
February 5th recommendations of the Collier County Planning
Commission, specifically that no more than 50 residential dwelling
units be permitted in the PUD, that the planned wall along Goodland
Drive be eliminated, that the number of dwelling units in the
commercial mixed use area be reduced from six to four, and the other
recommendations made by the Planning Commission be incorporated
into the new PUD.
With respect to the elimination of the wall along Goodland
Drive, the Goodland Preservation Coalition would oppose the creation
Page 102
March 23, 2004
of any kind of landscaped barrier that would be dense enough to
qualify as a vegetative wall. We would support a vegetative barrier
which would be staggered, clustered, and could be seen through.
Furthermore, the Goodland Preservation Coalition also supports
the construction of signage as detailed in the enclosed drawings
providing that the grade datum for the bottom of the signage and
associated piling fences be no higher than the median grade of the
PUD property, meaning the bottom of the signage be at the same
elevation as the PUD.
The Goodland Preservation Coalition believes Mr. Reed has been
very cooperative in the process of negotiation with the GPC and
supportive of the concern of Goodlanders. We offer Mr. Reed our
enthusiastic wishes and good fortune with the project.
Signed, sincerely yours, Connie Fullmer.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS' The gentleman just covered all the
areas that I was going to ask, and that was that, when we make a
motion, to make sure that we include everything that the Board of
County Commissioners -- or the planning board had recommended.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a couple other things, but not for
you, Rich. Thank you.
I just wanted to make sure as -- when I attended the GCA general
membership meeting the other day, some of the things they brought
out -- and I know that this is all in agreement, but I just wanted it on
the record so everybody understands.
This has been -- this has been a great community effort to work
with the developer. The developer has given a lot. The community
has worked with them. And I'm glad to see it working out so well.
The 50 units, you've already stated on the record, the no wall, and
you've already stated that. I think the sign to cover that obstruction
Page 103
March 23, 2004
there is certainly agreeable with the GCA.
One of the things they asked about were parallel docks, and you
might just say on the record where the docks are planned so that
everybody understands.
MR. DUANE: There are no -- there's going to be one contiguous
dock. Actually a portion of it doesn't show up on this aerial photo, but
a portion of that dock has been constructed about to the midway of the
property. It's just parallel to the shoreline and there'll be a further
continuation of that along the shoreline.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I know that that meets the approval
of the members of the GCA and of the residents of Goodland, but I
just wanted that on the record anyway.
About the landscape berm, you were -- you were saying that it
would be some type of a landscaping effect that could be seen through
so that you can see the water; is that correct?
MR. DUANE: The -- actually the requirement is for a type D
buffer, which is trees spaced on every 30 feet, so it's not a dense
vegetative barrier like you'd have between a commercial or a
residential development.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And there's no -- there are no time-shares
planned for this; is that correct?
MR. DUANE: There are no time-shares planned for this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And the last thing was, there was
-- you're going to have some type of landscaping to conceal the
bathhouse or boathouse; is that correct? Yes?
MR. DUANE: Oh, the bathhouse?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
MR. DUANE: Oh, okay, yes, that is correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. DUANE: That is correct. In fact, we shared the elevation
of that structure.
Page 104
March 23, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Well, being that all of our
concerns are satisfied, I would like to make a motion to approve --
approve this item -- oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Coyle has a
question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Just for the record, Mr.
Duane, could you acknowledge that you accept the stipulations
contained in the GCA letter that was just read?
MR. DUANE: Yes. We're in agreement with those stipulations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So then my motion is to
recommend, with the stipulations that have -- just posted on the
record, and that Commissioner Coyle has mentioned that we --
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Close the public hearing.
MR. OCHS: -- could we get you to close the public hearing,
please.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Thank you. I always forget
that. I'd like to close the public hearing at this point. Now I'll make a motion.
You have to hit me a little bit and remind me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I forgot, too.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
I make a motion that we accept this petition as stated on the
record with the provisions and recommendations as stated on the
record.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'd like to second that
motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion on the floor to accept as
stipulated by Commissioner Fiala and seconded by Commissioner
Coletta.
Comments?
Page 105
March 23, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, please. I just want to take
this opportunity -- every once in a while when something goes right
and you have a developer and an attorney willing to step up to the
plate and work with the community -- I think everyone deserves credit
for this, especially Robert Duane. He hung in there, he got there, he
worked with the community.
The civic association and the -- what is the other one -- the
preservation association, they were ever present making sure that they
met the standards of their community.
But this is a case where they walked through the door and
everybody's in agreement. This is the way I like to see it, and I
assume that the other commissioners would like the same thing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And it was a process. I'll state on the
record that it wasn't just that the developer walked in and decided to
do this and the people acquiesced. They all had to work it out --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and it took some time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good work.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we came to a good final --
MR. DUANE: Well, your words are very kind. I would put
myself at the lower end of that list, but on behalf of others that made
more contributions than I did, we all thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Thank you.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 106
March 23, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
It was good to see you.
Opposed, like sign.
And that's a 5-0. Thank you.
Thank you, Goodlanders, for being here.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2004-21 AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE CODE
OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, TO UPDATE THE
LIBRARY IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE- ADOPTED WITH
MR. OCHS: Next item, Madam Chairman, is 8(D). That's the
adoption of an ordinance amending chapter 74 of the Collier County
Code of Law and Ordinances, as amended by ordinance number
2001-13, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance as
amended; providing for an update to the library impact fee rate
schedule to reflect a new rate of $148.28 per 1,000 square feet of
living area for all residential land uses, incorporating by reference the
impact fee study entitled "Collier County Library Facilities and Items
Impact Fee Update," establishing indexing methodology, and
providing for a delayed effective date of May 1, 2004. Ms. Patterson will present.
MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Amy Patterson. I'm the impact fee manager at
community development.
We're here today to present to you the update to the library
impact fee.
Page 107
March 23, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
MS. PATTERSON: The requirement for the library impact fee
update is set forth by the consolidated impact fee ordinance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me interrupt you just a minute. I've
already got a motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, and a --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second on the floor by
Commissioner Halas. And so -- and comments by Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE' Yeah, I have a question. It's
unclear, at least from my reading of the executive summary, whether
or not the staff intends to cap this impact fee at 4,000 square feet, or
do we keep increasing it all the way up?
My recommendation always has been to cap it. I think we
discussed that at the Productivity Committee meeting. Most people
seem to be in favor of that process.
I think it might be appropriate to hear from staff on that issue
before we take a final vote on it.
MS. PATTERSON: If I may, Steve Tindale from Tindale,
Oliver, and Associates is here, and he's going to present some
information on the cap on this fee.
MR. TINDALE: Good afternoon. Steve Tindale, 1000 North
Ashley, Tampa, Florida.
To be honest with you, I didn't know about your 4,000. I guess
she's mentioned that during a meeting. I had staff run through an
analysis. We looked both through the census data and some data just
under the general activity of buildings, and we'll add it to the report,
and we come up with 4,000 square feet. So I'll tell you, it was not --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Great minds work alike.
MR. TINDALE' -- I had not heard your number. When I told
staff it was 4,000, it was like -- and I talked to someone. So we'll add
Page 108
March 23, 2004
that to the report.
I've always been very careful, if you have -- if you do something
to try to come up with justification to where somebody comes back
two years from now and wants to know why we picked 4,000, we
actually have the series of calculations of why we think that's a
legitimate size.
I'd just as soon not go into it this afternoon unless you want me
to, but that's -- we'll add that to the report. And the fee schedule will
show per 1,000 square foot with a footnote saying that it is capped at
4,000 square feet in terms of the fee schedule.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. We have one speaker on the
subject?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Madam Chairman, David Ellis.
MR. ELLIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name's David
Ellis. I'm with the Collier Building Industry Association.
Certainly I want to start by saying we think libraries are a very
important part of our community. We need to make sure that we have
those there, that we have a good established level of service, that we
follow through with the construction of them, and that we fund those
schools.
And like on so many other issues though you'll hear me say I
have a great deal of concern that when we look basically and only to
impact fees as the force of-- the source of funding for any
infrastructure in our community.
I realize when you look at this fee, you may say, well, it's not a
big increase. As a matter of fact, in some cases there will be a
decrease in the fee. That -- I just want to continue to reiterate, our
reliance on impact fees is dangerous for the economic diversification
of our community and for affordable housing and anything else.
There is one other thing I'd like to point out on this particular fee,
and it is a concern, although the consultant just explained it. Until
Page 109
March 23, 2004
today, I hadn't heard on the record any official notice that told us
about the capping of the fee.
I talked to staff. It had been brought up in a meeting that I was
in. And I still, honestly, haven't seen the methodology that would
back it up.
I think it's important that we look at it. Last time we did this fee,
three years ago, we had a different tiering. As a matter of fact, there
was an original tiering, and then we changed that tiering based on
what we thought would actually match our numbers better.
Up until today, I had the sense that if you lived in a small house,
you didn't read much. As your house got bigger, the more voracious
of a reader you became. And if you lived in a really big house,
apparently all you did was go to the library. Now, we all knew that
that wasn't right. But it speaks to the methodology and how we do
these fees.
I mean, where I come from, people would say, it's like you're out
into the full moon rubbing chicken bones together just coming up with
numbers that fit what you want. And again, I realize that may not be
the case, and I'm sure if I sat down with Mr. Tindale, he could explain
it in very clear terms.
He hasn't explained it on the record to anyone else. And I -- it
just continues to make us feel uncomfortable when we see how they're
calculated. It's no small task-- it's no small issue, because we'll be
seeing other impact fees in the furore, bigger impact fees that have a
lot of importance.
And when we get into these details, it's really -- continues to
make us uncomfortable when we see where we come down on the
technical aspects of these fees. It's important, it's very important every
time we tax new businesses and new homebuyers in our community,
that we make sure and that we feel in our hearts we're doing it right.
And we thank you very much, Commissioners. Again, I realize it
Page 110
March 23, 2004
appears by your demeanor and what you've already said that you're
going to approve this fee, and I recognize that, and at the same time
recognize the important responsibility you have in approving those
fees to making sure it's right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And with that, I will close
the public hearing. And--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Maybe it is important that we
address some of those -- although I don't agree with some of the
statements, but I think it's -- there's a justification for addressing some
of those concerns and answering some of those questions. So if we
could have our consultant do that -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I think it will be well
worthwhile.
MR. TINDALE: I have two responses. The general
methodology I presented in the administrative building, the persons
per household, we have the census data, have all the detailed data in
the report, and we feel very, very comfortable with persons per
household and persons per thousand square foot in the relationship.
As far as changing the methodology, we haven't. We all looked
at it. We just get better, and we're very careful with that.
The sequence was, you had a single fee for all homes. When we
did transportation, we had three different groupings, and it was
because of the travel changes in three different groupings, and it's -- an
improvement last time was to take the libraries and bring it up to three
groupings.
Well, after we did that, which was an improvement, we said, wait
a minute, we really have data on persons per household rather than
travel that is linear and we can do it by square feet. And it's so much
Page 111
March 23, 2004
better not to have someone come in with a 1,202 square foot home and
decide to build an 1,199 square foot home, so we basically improved
by just saying, let's take the cost per square foot.
So the sequence and the methodology is not changed. All we've
done is enhanced the application, made it better for the staff, and
clearer as far as a general methodology.
As far as the capping, to be honest with you, we had to be
creative. We went to the census data. And the census data goes up to
2,500 square feet and it stops. I mean, the number of persons is 2,500
square feet or greater, okay, so that would be the first cut is -- we don't
have the data for it to go out.
So we went back. And there's a data base called the National
Personal Transportation Database, and it has the amount of activity,
the amount of travel people go through. And basically, as you hit
about 25 to 3,000 square feet, the amount of activity out of building
per square foot really levels off, okay? And we'll show this in the
details in terms of it.
So we basically said, the amount of activity in and out of
building levels off in terms of the people and their activity, and we
looked at it about -- right about 4,000 square foot was a legitimate
point to say, it probably doesn't make sense to charge twice as much
for an 8,000 square foot home as you do for four when there -- it's
very flat in that area.
We'll have the specific data, and it is data showing the amount of
travel and activity out of each home by size. That's the data set we
went to. We don't ever, in any impact fee, not have some form of data
to some proportional and relational information. So that was the data,
and we will note the data set. It's tremendous -- it's national
information. We have it by county, by -- by each of the MSAs, et
cetera.
So we will provide that information, and we do have a legitimate
Page 112
March 23, 2004
point we pick. So we feel comfortable with the general methodology.
We feel comfortable with modifying the groupings the first time and
now going to the 1,000 square foot. It's really an enhancement. And
we feel comfortable with the 4,000 square foot, and we will add that to
the technical report showing you the specific information that says
that's a legitimate point to cap it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So Commissioner Henning has a motion
on the floor.
Did you want to amend that to put this 4,000 cap?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's already there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, it is already there?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right? No?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll amend that motion then.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll amend my second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. We have a motion on the
floor to accept this -- the impact fees with a cap of 4,000 feet by
Commissioner Henning, and a second by Commissioner Halas.
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: And that's a 5-0.
Page 113
March 23, 2004
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #9A&B
RESOLUTION 2004-85 DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE
PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND
APPOINTING ALAN WALBURN; TONY MAR1NO, RANDALL
SMITH, MICHAEL MENDEL AS REGULAR MEMBERS AND
RUSSELL BERGHUIS AS AN ALTERNATE MEMBER-
MR. OCHS: The next item -- the next item, Madam Chair, is
9(A), recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Public Vehicle
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
wanted to ask a question on. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would -- is anybody going to
speak?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle to approve and a second by Commissioner
Coletta.
Any conversation on that matter?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Oh, I'm sorry. That's not the one I
In that case, I'll make a motion to
Page 114
March 23, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MR. OCHS: Next item, 9(B), appointment of members to the
Public Vehicle Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, I would like to
nominate Allen Walbum and Tony Marino, Allen Walburn because he
is an alternate and has been serving as an alternate for some time. As
a matter of fact, through mistaken figures -- or mistaken procedures,
the other board members thought so highly of him, they actually
elected him as chair of this -- this committee not knowing that they
couldn't elect an alternate member as a chair.
So I would hope we could move Mr. Walbum from his alternate
position to a permanent position. And I would also nominate Tony
Marino and -- for two of the positions, and then I'll leave -- leave the
other nomination to somebody else.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, now, let me -- before we go on any
further, first of all, can we nominate somebody that isn't on the list?
MS. FILSON: He currently serves as an alternate --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
MS. FILSON: -- member, and I did phone him yesterday, and he
did express an interest in becoming a regular member. He was
concerned prior to that because they had nominated him as chairman
because we'd had so many vacancies, he's served on the board as a
regular member, and I guess they'd forgotten he was an alternate
member.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: So -- but he would really like to be regular
Page 115
March 23, 2004
member.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, the second question I have
is, if we then take this nomination for Mr. Walburn to be on the
regular committee, will that then open a vacancy as an alternate?
MS. FILSON: Yeah. You'll need to appoint three members that
are affiliated. And if you move Mr. Walbum up to be a regular
member -- he currently is nonaffiliated-- you'll still have to appoint
one nonaffiliated member as an alternate.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. So--
MS. FILSON: Or you can -- or you can appoint one
nonaffiliated member as a regular member and affiliated member as an
alternate, whichever way.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So, in other words, I could -- I guess each
one of us want to nominate somebody, and we have four vacancies,
three affiliated, one nonaffiliated, plus if we -- if we choose Mr.
Walbum, then his place becomes vacant. We still have four -- MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- but, I mean, it's just rearranged as --
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- to who --
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- what areas. And you want to nominate
Mr. Marino--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Marino and Mr. Walbum.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- Mr. Walbum, Walbum.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: As regular members.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: As regular members.
And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'd like to nominate Randall
R. Smith as an affiliate member.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We'll second the motion just
Page 116
March 23, 2004
adding that, and Mr. Commissioner Coyle can amend his motion --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I think--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and we can vote on it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Or--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We need one more alternate.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, we need some more, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: An alternate?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, and -- wait a minute now.
MS. FILSON: One more affiliated member, and then you need
to select an alternate member.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And did you have somebody that you --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have the same one that
Commissioner Halas just nominated.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So then I would like to nominate
Mr. Mendel as the -- as the third affiliated member, and then Russell
Berghuis as the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nonaffiliated?
MS. FILSON: He would become the alternate, not the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right, right. So now we have -- we have
people that we've all mentioned on the floor here, Mr. Walburn
moving off of the alternate and onto nonaffiliated member of the
board, Mr. Marino as affiliated, Mr. Smith as affiliated, Mr. Mendel as
affiliated.
So we have three affiliateds and one nonaffiliated on--
recommended for the board, and one nonaffiliated recommended for
the alternate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll modify my motion as to
reflect all those nominations mentioned.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. So Commissioner Coyle's
motion mentions all five --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
Page 117
March 23, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- that I just stated on the record.
COMMISSIONER HALAS' You have Mr. Smith in there; is
that correct?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir, I do. Yeah.
MS. FILSON: Would you like me to read the names over so that
you have them correctly?
I have Tony Marino, nominated by Commissioner Coyle;
Randall Smith, nominated by Commissioner Halas; Michael Mendel,
nominated by Commissioner Fiala. Those are all three regular
affiliated members.
Allen Walburn, nominated by Commissioner Coyle, will become
a regular member, nonaffiliated; and Russell Burgess, nominated by
Commissioner Fiala, will become an alternate member.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. So I have a motion on the
floor. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second by Commissioner Halas.
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: Very good.
Item #9E
Page 118
March 23, 2004
FINAL REPORT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY REVENUE
COMMISSION, AN AD HOC ADVISORY BODY, CREATED TO
EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SOURCES FOR MEETING
THE COUNTY'S NUMEROUS AND VARIED NEEDS-
PRESF, NTF, D
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have a time certain for two
o'clock, and it is two o'clock.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, my.
MR. MUDD: It is item 9(E), and it's to accept a final report of
the Collier County Revenue Commission, an ad hoc advisory board
(sic), created to explore alternative revenue sources for meeting the
county's numerous and varied needs.
To be presented by Ms. Janet Vasey. And I don't know if Jim's
going to be here or not.
MS. VASEY: No.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
MS. VASEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, Janet. I have a question. He said he
wanted to hear it again because he wanted to be here to give it. What
happened to him this time?
MS. VASEY: Well, this time -- well, he has a family medical
problem, and he isn't able to come, and he sends his very strong
regrets, and he has deputized me to take care of the presentation.
We'd already discussed it, and I'm just going to do his part and
my part.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. VASEY: We felt it was important for you to hear the
committee's, you know, rationale for the recommendations that we
had, and that was really why we wanted to be here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The only reason I asked is because it said
Page 119
March 23, 2004
it in here --
MS. VASEY: Yeah, Right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I thought, I better just put it on the
record. Thank you.
MS. VASEY: Okay. Janet Vasey, for the record. And before I
start, I would like to introduce a couple of our members that are here
today.
Joe Moran from the United Arts Council, if you'll stand up. He
was on our cormnittee, on our Revenue Commission. And Clive
Walcott is here from the Naples Area Hotel/Motel Association.
And has anyone else from the group come in?
(No response.)
MS. VASEY: Okay. I just wanted to be sure, because they put
in a lot of time and effort, and I wanted you to at least see them.
As you know, the Revenue Commission recommended against
the franchise fees for the four programs that you had asked us to look
at, and that was stormwater management, beach and boat access, the
landscape along the roads, and the burying the power lines.
And while we did not support the franchise fees, we did want to
give you some what we thought were better alternatives and more
appropriate alternative funding sources.
Now, the good news is, I've already addressed the stormwater
management issues with you at the stormwater workshop last week.
And I'm not going to ask you to sit through that again. So -- unless
you have some questions on it.
And to refresh your memories, the franchise fees if a 5.9 -- a
potential 5.9 additional charge on FPL bills, and for a home that has a
$200 a month electric bill, that would result in about $140 a year in
franchise fee.
And the problem that we keep -- we kept running into on the
Revenue Commission was the fact that franchise fees are only
Page 120
March 23, 2004
collected in the unincorporated area, so you lose 40 percent of your
revenue base when the cities aren't counted. And that means that the
money that you would collect is only from 60 percent.
And if you look at the beach and boat access program first, I
think I've got some -- something we can put on Elmo here.
I'm not sure if this chart will come up as being readable, but it's
page six on your executive summary, if you can't see it.
Initially the program was identified as $134 million. And during
the course of our deliberations, we found out that -- we learned you
had eliminated beachfront properties, like the marina and Vanderbilt
Beach -- Vanderbilt Inn from the discussion and wanted the staff to
concentrate on park and ride facilities.
So we took those two items out and ended up with a 1 O-year
program going from '05 to FY-'14 of $65 million. And you can see
how that is on the chart.
In considering our franchise fees, the first difficulty was that
beach and boat access programs and projects have historically been
funded out of the entire -- out of the county-wide general fund. The
entire county has paid for those in the past.
And, in fact, in your FY-'04 budget, you had over $60 million in
unfinanced requirements that you were looking at that were
unfinanced requirements against the general fund, the county-wide
general fund. So we did not consider franchise fees to be an
appropriate funding source for this.
And we reviewed each one of these projects and looked at them.
We annotated the costs, whether they were for beach access, boat
access, the acquisition and development timing on it, and we also
recognize that a lot of these projects would never happen because of
community resistance, and you've seen that on several areas already.
In reviewing the projects, it appears that most of them are needed
for the future. They're going to be needed for the time frame between
Page 121
March 23, 2004
where we are now with 300,000 people, to when we go to 600 or
800,000. And as you know, that's the exact rationale for impact fees,
and that's what we came up with.
We felt like, that impact fees should be examined as a possible
funding source. They could either be added to the current parks and
rec. fee, impact fee, or have a separate one for beach and boat access.
And we strongly recommended that you take a look at this
through a study, because it would be important for you to know how
much it would cost. Looking at the numbers and some of the
experience that I've had looking at impact fees with the Productivity
Committee, it could be as small an amount as 3- to $350 per home.
And if that's the case, that turns out to be about 20 dol -- 20 to
$24 a year on a mortgage, which is $2 a month. Now, that is not
going to take anyone out of the housing market.
So if you would have the study done and look at the costs, I think
that would help in making the decision whether this is, in fact, the
right way to go, and also, it would help you to know how much TDC
money you might need.
Right now you've got, we estimated, $7 million over this 1 O-year
time frame that will be coming in for beach and boat access from
TDC, and that may be too much, too little. You won't know until you
do the impact fee study to see what other resources you need to go
along with impact fees. So we were really strong on that.
And I know there's been a lot of discussion about it lately, but
basically you had a group of about 16 people that represented a very
large cross-section of the county from all your civic -- from four major
civic organizations, the Chamber of Commerce, the EDC, the
Productivity Committee, United Arts Council, the Hotel/Motel
Association, you had the Conservancy. You had a large group of
people that have looked at this, and they recommended impact fees.
So I think there is something of a mandate there for you to
Page 122
March 23, 2004
consider when you make a decision about going forward with that part
of it.
The next thing I'd like you to look at is the landscaped part. And
under this one -- on the landscape master plan, this is -- this is for the
landscaping along the roads, medians and side of the roads. And you
had a program identified of $26 million in capital costs, and you had
initially had about, what, $18.9 million identified to gas tax funding,
5.8 for the unincorporated general fund, and 1.3 million for the
county-wide general fund.
And the idea here was to have the landscaping go in conjunction
with the new roads. And the gas tax money was going to pay for the
new or improved roads' landscaping and then the other two funds were
going to do the catch-up program. And so that's the way the program
came in to us.
One of the things that we came across as we were evaluating the
program was that there was some policy guidance that you had issued
that needed to be followed, and that's this chart.
And your policy here is that the landscape beautification master
plan calls -- requires the gateway -- community gateways that serve as
main entries and corridors into Collier County be funded under the
general fund. And so when we looked at the individual projects -- and
you can see here what they mean by the major, you know, corridors
into the county. It's everything off 1-75, it's the -- Livingston and 41
coming in from Collier County, and then Davis Boulevard coming in.
And so we looked at each one of the individual projects to
determine, you know, where it falls in the funding scheme, and we did
find that there needed to be a realignment.
And basically, that's on page eight in your executive summary.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Before you-- before you move off that
one --
MS. VASEY: Sure.
Page 123
March 23, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- could you just tell me where the Marco
Island East Trail gateway is?
MS. VASEY: You mean what roads?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
MS. VASEY: Well, we assumed that that was coming in on 951.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So you're saying 951 between the
East Trail and Marco Island?
MS. VASEY: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But what about the East Trail itself
coming in as a gateway from, like, the east coast? Is that also
considered part of that; do you know?
MS. VASEY: I would have to defer to staff.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's a state -- that's a state road,
and I'm assuming -- I've heard this before, so I'm going to tell you
what I've heard, that it's a state project in order to put the landscaping
in for -- for East Trail, U.S. 41 that goes from 951 into that process. It
isn't a county landscaping project. And we're talking about taking
general funds to work on the county roads for the main arterial.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. The state's already given us the
money for that East Trail, and I understand that we're working it into a
project. I just -- in fact, it's going to be starting later on this year from
Rattlesnake Hammock, it's starting to work its way out to 951.
I just wanted to know if-- you know, if-- because I didn't see it
in writing, I just wanted to make sure it was still there.
MR. MUDD: These are general fund funded projects. It isn't
state funded where you get those cost shares from that one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
All right. That agrees with everything you say, Norm?
MR. MUDD: Yeah, Norman's thumb was in the air, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay, good. That's plenty for me.
Thanks, Janet. I just wanted clarification.
Page 124
March 23, 2004
MS. VASEY: Basically when we applied this guidance to the
individual projects, we said that the $26 million needed to be slightly
realigned. And it comes up to be $14.6 million in gas tax, 2.5 in the
unincorporated general fund, and 8.9 in the county-wide general fund
when you follow that guidance.
And this shows you by year how that -- how that comes out. And
the point I wanted to make here is, when we looked at the funding, we
did not feel that the general fund amounts -- it is an increase to general
funding -- to the general fund over the six-year period, but it's not
substantial.
You put a million three in it in FY-'04, you have about a 600,000
increase in '05,600,000 increase in '06, and then it drops, and then you
have nothing for a couple years, and then the last road segment comes
in in FY-'I 0. So we did look at the costing and felt like this was -- this
was achievable.
And the last program that you asked us to consider was burying
the power lines. And this program was considered to be a very low
priority by everyone on the committee. We recommended that, to the
extent that communities wanted to bury the power lines, that an
MSTU, multiple -- Municipal Services Taxing Unit, should be set up
to do so.
And that's pretty much the explanation of our report, if you have
any questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Janet, it appears that we have
relied, or you have relied heavily on the county-wide general fund for
funding all of these three items. And-- and you've made the statement
that you felt that the impact on the county-wide general fund was not
excessive.
Did you -- when you tried to reach that conclusion, did you look
at the other demands on the county-wide general fund, like the
Page 125
March 23, 2004
sheriffs department and other constitutional officers and that sort of
thing?
MS. VASEY: We were not aware at the time that we were
meeting that the sheriff was coming in with a large increase. We had
had a couple of briefings from Mike Smykowski talking about the
general, you know, funding issues. But I think that was a late
development that we found out how much the sheriff was asking for.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Knowing that we have other really
great demands on the general fund, would that change your
recommendations with respect to the amount of the contribution of a
general fund to any of these projects, or are you pretty well where you
were at that point in time?
MS. VASEY: Well, I guess looking at what we were suggesting,
like under stormwater management, we were looking at a $4 million
increase over the base of 3 million that you've had over many years in
FY-'05. It might not be possible to make that big a leap, but it was
over time that we were looking for you to build up 2 or $3 million a
year. And, you know, that makes it a little more difficult in that one.
There may or may not be any -- any funding required, general
fund moneys required in beach and boat access. It may be that the
combination of impact fees and TDC would take care of that.
And on the landscape, you know, a couple hundred thousand
didn't seem -- doesn't seem even now all that significant. So I don't
know. I guess it would look -- it would depend on what the total
outlook is.
For additional revenues coming in in the general fund, you
normally get, you know, 22 to $25 million increase, and I guess it
would be looking at the demands and then up to you making the -- a
decision on priorities. But we didn't feel like those demands at the
time were huge.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They are, unfortunately.
Page 126
March 23, 2004
MS. VASEY: No, I don't mean -- I don't mean the demand -- the
outside demands. I mean the demands from these programs.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to impact fees for
beach and boat access program, I would say that one thing I'm
concerned about is that there doesn't seem to be any interest in dealing
with user fees to fund some of these projects, and that bothers me a
little bit, because I like user fees. I think people who use things ought
to contribute a little bit more than the people who don't use them.
But with respect to the impact fees, I think I agree with you with
respect to the impact of an increase there. If it's relatively small, it
shouldn't hurt anybody very badly. But I think one of the things we
have to do as a board is to look at the cumulative impacts of all of the
impact fees we're -- we are assessing. And I'm not sure that I would
be ready to go that direction right now, because I don't know that we
have the slightest idea what's going to happen with that.
For example, if your impact fees cumulatively get so high that
they do have an impact on building, we're not going to get any
increase in revenue. We might actually have a decrease in revenue,
and that would be counter-productive to what we're trying to do.
But I'm just hoping that you're not suggesting to us that what
we've got to do is increase ad valorem property taxes to fund these
programs through the county-wide general fund.
MS. VASEY: Oh, we had not made that recommendation. I
think it's more looking at the priorities of what all you have to do.
And some of these seemed like, especially the stormwater
management, seemed like a real high priority on your plate.
I would like to make one comment on the impact fees. I agree
that there needs to be a hard look at -- at their impact, if you will, and
compare them to Lee County.
And I've been working with Amy Patterson to start looking at
that. What are ours compared to theirs. And then property taxes. Our
Page 127
March 23, 2004
property taxes are lower than theirs. So what are the trade-offs? And
maybe through the Productivity Committee, I could do -- and some
others on the committee -- do a -- look at that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's ongoing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It keeps going.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: God bless you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think that's a good thing to
do. But our property taxes are higher than Lee County?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, lower.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: She said lower.
MS. VASEY: Our property rate -- our property rate --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Millage rate?
MS. VASEY: Millage rate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But please understand there
are two components here. There's valuation, and there's tax rate.
MS. VASEY: Oh, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Our prop -- our taxes per capita
here in Collier County are some of the highest in the entire state. And
it is the absolute amount of tax that our people pay that impacts our
taxpayers. It's not the millage rate. And so I'd just like to make sure
that there's a recognition of that.
The millage rate in Collier County has nothing to do with
whether you are paying an equal amount of taxes with somebody in a
neighboring county. The millage rate is not the right comparison
process.
MS. VASEY: Well, the comparison we were going to try to
make is between a 200,000 (sic) square foot home in Collier County
and a 200,000 square -- 2,000 square foot home in Lee County and
look at what the property tax and the impact fees are on both, you
know, in dollar values, and make some comparisons to see, you know
-- I mean, I don't know what it's going to turn out to be, but it should
Page 128
March 23, 2004
be interesting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think if you limit it to a
2,000 square foot house, I think you're biasing the outcome of the
analysis. But I think maybe you ought to take a look at the total
population and the size of the houses we've got here, or better yet, just
base it on the -- on the per capita property tax rate. That's probably
better than determining it by size of the house. Just take the
population, divide it into total collections of ad valorem property taxes
and see what you come out with.
MS. VASEY: That sounds like a very good thing to look at.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS' Also on the same line that
Commissioner Coyle was going on, did you also take into effect that --
the amount of money that may be state mandated by us as far as
kicking into the coffers here, of what we have to pick up by
state-mandated funds?
MS. VASEY: Yes. We had a presentation by our Clerk of
Courts, Dwight Brock. And he came -- if that's what you're referring
to.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I am. And there's also, I
think, some other mandates that may be coming down through the
state. So that's also going to kick into our -- in regards to what we
have left in the bottom line as far as trying to finance all the other
programs that we have within the county here. MS. VASEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, not to get too far off
the subject, but since you brought it up of studying how we compare,
Commissioner Coyle's suggestion was per capita rate, I think it's close,
but I think you also need to look at what services that we offer within
that, because you're going to -- yeah, if you're going to look at the
Page 129
March 23, 2004
impact fees -- and clearly, we have more impact fees -- but on the
service side of it, we offer more services, I feel, than Lee County. So
it is very complicated, and I commend you if you want to take on this
challenge.
MS. VASEY: This is looking like it could be a pretty interesting
one, and I think I'll bring that to the Productivity Committee at our
next meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I've got Commissioner Halas, but
did you want to catch right on this?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, if you don't mind. Just a
quick statement. And let -- to give you an appreciation of why this is
so important for us. Because we are -- Collier County's being
discriminated on a state-wide basis with respect to allocations of funds
from the state because people are looking at our ad valorem property
tax rate, our millage rate, and they're saying it's low.
What they're not doing is looking at the property valuations, nor
are they looking at the fact that we have the highest impact fees in the
state. Impact fees are, in fact, a tax. And so we've maximized our
ability to gather funds from impact fees, or at least we're getting to
that point.
And to have someone start suggesting to us that we should also
maximize our millage rate is really not a fair suggestion for us. And
that's why this is so important to us because it has state-wide
ramifications.
We need to get people to understand that there are multiple
components to the burden that our citizens carry that-- the high
impact fees, the high property values, the high per capita tax rates,
and, yes, we also demand a lot of services in Collier County.
MS. VASEY: And as you said, the first thing they need to do is
get off the millage rate comparison and compare per capita.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely. You bet.
Page 130
March 23, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas. I'm sorry. I
thought he was going to jump out of his chair, so I just --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, actually, it looks like he's
still got his light on there.
So -- well, anyway, the way I look at this whole scenario -- and I
know I'm probably putting my head out here on a chopping block.
Yes, some of the arguments that came forth have probably got a lot of
validity to them, but also the fact that, if you look at -- you're saying
property values here within Collier County.
If you look at what we have here as far as the type of homes that
are built here, we have a lot of homes that are in the category of 1 to 4
to $5 million homes. And, yes, they're paying a lot of tax. But in
proportion to other -- other counties and looking at -- when you start
looking at square footage of what you're paying as far as the millage
rate, we're -- we're far -- far below what the average is.
And I realize that we have high impact fees, but those impact
fees are basically on people that are presently moving into the county
or going to move into the county in the future. Has nothing to do with
the people that are presently living here, and of-- yes, and they're
enjoying all these fine services that we provide. But I think we also
have to look to the fact that you don't get something for nothing. In
reality, it's going to cost you a little bit more to live here because of
the fine services you get.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's a great report. As you can see, we're
all intrigued by it. But something I had to ask Commissioner Coyle.
You had mentioned user fees for beach and boat access. I love
that idea. And we haven't discussed that before.
How would you -- how would you go about --
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: We have, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: On this particular one?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, beach -- beach access,
Page 131
March 23, 2004
parks and rec. has always come to us and say, you know, we're going
to charge whatever--
MR. MUDD' Eight dollars per tag, and that would have brought
in $400,000 a year.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Right.
MR. MUDD' And--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that the only -- did you have any other
suggestions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know, I -- I think -- well,
several of us boats. You know, I wouldn't mind paying a little more to
register my boat each year. I wouldn't mind paying a higher boat
ramp fee to go out and launch my boat as long as it's not punitive, you
know.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: I would just like to have time to
use my boat.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, me too. Mine turned into a
bird sanctuary, but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you going to charge a fee to
come see those birds?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah. That will cost you,
Frank.
But the -- parks and rec. department has brought to us a proposal
to charge for -- and beach access is the wrong terminology. It's not
charging for beach.
MS. VASEY: Parking.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a discounted parking coupon, is
really what it is. It lets you park there without feeding the meter. And
it's really a good deal. I would pay more money to get my beach
access sticker.
COMMISSIONER HALAS' So will I.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not punitive. And boy, we
Page 132
March 23, 2004
could do a lot with that kind of money. And I believe that most users
understand that in order to get that service and to get to park at a
parking meter free of charge, they should be willing to pay a little bit.
But, you know, let's not punish them, but --
MS. VASEY: Well, I would like to tell you, we did consider
that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know, and you rejected it.
MS. VASEY: We considered the parking and we considered
increasing the boat -- the boat ramp fees. And I -- personally, I didn't
have a strong opinion one way or the other on that one, but there was a
very strong feeling on the committee that we should not charge for
that. That was -- that was an entitlement of living in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's an entitlement?
MS. VASEY: Yeah, it's an entitlement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you want something for
nothing?
MS. VASEY: Well, I'm just telling you --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But those days are going to have to
come to an end.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta is pounding on the
button here. I'm going to have to mm the mike over to him before he
destroys --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My compliments to the good
sense of your committee to come around for the right answers. I
mean, they're speaking for the public. These people represent the
public out there, cross-section of the public.
They don't live next to the water. They probably live inland, and
the people that live next to water would like you to pay more to be
able to access the water.
Let's get real on this, you know. That's one of the reasons why,
time after time, we come up with, charge for the beach access permit,
Page 133
March 23, 2004
we try to raise the fees on the boat ramps, and it always goes down in
flames. Why? Because the vast majority of people feel that it's a right
for them to enjoy it. They move down here for that water experience.
Occasionally, twice a year I get--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They can't get to it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're right. Twice a year I get
to the beach. That's usually when company comes. And usually
about one out of four times, I can't find a parking place. But next
time, I'm going to go to Mr. Coyle's house there and park in his
driveway, which he won't mind one bit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Twenty dollars a day.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I didn't mean that
sarcastically or mean, you know that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're always welcome.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. VASEY: I will tell you the committee was very strong on --
on supporting the boat ramp. They were not as strong on, you know,
purchasing or, you know, running marinas. But they were very strong
on the boat ramp issue and willing to pay something. They just didn't
feel like it should be, you know, doubled or something like that,
because they felt it was more an entitlement and, perhaps, just a little
bit to make up the operating costs of operating the beach and boat -- or
the boat ramps, is what they were looking at. So it wasn't that we
didn't support anything. It was just, you know, that level of support.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think it would be a good
exercise to direct our staff to take a look at how we compare with
private industry as far as boat ramps, period. Maybe we don't have
anything to compare about beach access because it's all -- it's all free, I
think. But there are some comparisons.
And possibly, if we do get closer as far as boat launches and boat
Page 134
March 23, 2004
ramps, maybe some of these marinas would think twice before
redevelopment, too. Just consider it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Just one last observation. I
find it -- I find it interesting that people who use a service are not
inclined to pay for using it, but they don't mind taxing the rest of us to
provide it for them. And I think that logic is a little upside down.
So if I use the boat ramps, I'm happy to pay for boat ramps. If I
go out and park at a free parking meter, I'm happy to buy a discount
coupon for that. And, in fact, I don't even need it, but yet I'll buy one
just so I can contribute to the fund.
But the idea that somebody's trying to punish somebody and keep
them from using a facility is really, really far out. But it's just a matter
of trying to find an effective way to fund something based upon who
uses it, and I think that's all we want to do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, this has been a lively discussion,
but as you can see, we all really appreciate the report that you've
offered. And I think that we're going to be using that as we come into
the budget cycle here, and that's great.
You know, you've actually swayed me a little bit, too, as far as
impact fees go. I was kind of getting tired of impact fees, and your
report has helped me understand more clearly that it is the way to go.
I like the annual funding increases. I think that that's important.
I think we need to keep that on track. And -- anyway, I'm speaking
for all the commissioners, we really appreciate the report you and all
of the people that have served on your committee have given to us as
we go into this budget cycle.
MS. VASEY: I thank you for that. I know that that means a lot
to everybody. You know, it was all volunteers, and we were more
than happy to spend our time, and we just really wanted to give you a
useful product, and it does reflect how we felt as a group. So I know
Page 135
March 23, 2004
they'll all be very appreciative to know that you liked it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas has the last word here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have to agree with
Commissioner Coyle down there, that user fees need to be enacted to
pay for a lot of the things that we need here in the county. And again,
if we use electricity, that would be a franchise fee that might help us
get out of some of this dilemma, too, because that's a user's fee.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It looks like we have one speaker on this
subject.
MS. FILSON: Yes, we have one speaker, Fred Thomas.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I just saw him racing up here.
MR. THOMAS: She was getting ready to say no speakers, and I
had to come up.
Fred Thomas from the community of Immokalee.
We have a very interesting situation. You-all have a very tough
task, very tough task.
We did a study some time ago, and there's six taxing zones in
Immokalee. I want to preface what I'm going to say with this
information. All six taxing zones have an average millage rate of
16.2. My house has a millage rate of 16.3. Everglades City is maxed
out. The average across the county is about 15.2.
But you're right, Mr. Coyle, Commissioner Coyle, it's not about
the millage rate. But you got to put it in perspective, because you are
dealing with an electorate where you gonna (sic) have to act like
parents, because they want the lowest fire insurance rates in the
country but don't want a firehouse within 40 miles of their door so
they're not disturbed with sirens.
We have the highest per capita tax rate in the state, the lowest
millage rate in the state, and the highest impact fees in the state.
Page 136
March 23, 2004
There's something wrong with that whole problem.
And you're getting ready to be faced with another major bite,
stormwater management. And you can't use the impact fee logic to
deal with it because all the new developments have what? Been
mandated to solve the water management problems. And it goes back
to the older communities.
I think you folks have the unin --
MR. MUDD: Unenviable task.
MR. WEIGEL: Unenviable.
MR. THOMAS: -- unenviable task -- you know, translating to
your language is hard for me sometimes. Unenviable task --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Long ways from New York
City, right?
MR. THOMAS: -- of trying to make sense out of this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I know. I know, Fred.
MR. THOMAS: My recommendation -- and I've argued with
county managers in the past every year about this when I was still in
public service -- is that, with the stormwater management, you've got
to raise some more money. You can't do it through impact fees.
My recommendations is, say, half mill, because they've got to
weigh that against the impact of FEMA if we don't do anything. So a
half mill more, which means mine will go up to 16.7, even though I'm
on a high, sandy, dry plain where you-all come when it does flood,
okay?
But at that same time, say, we're not going to change the rate, not
going to change it. And because of what Mr. Coyle understands, we
can then build up a war chest to set up a reserve for beach
renourishment and beach access, set up a reserve for roads, like any
sensible business does, to make this county what it should be, what it
should be, with all the wealth that we have in this particular county.
We shouldn't be going around begging, bickering, and bartering,
Page 137
March 23, 2004
you know. We should advertise we've got the best millage rate. And
when the taxpayer comes back next year and says, look at my bill.
Excuse me? You kept your house up nice. You decreased the use of
land around you so the land values had to go up because of the low
amount of land supply. You did this to yourself. Because if you
bought a house for half a million dollars and sold it for a million, are
you going to give us a rebate? Excuse me? It's not going to happen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a good idea though.
MR. THOMAS: It's not going to happen. So we need to keep
the -- you know, we need to keep our perspective and make sure -- if
we're going to be the wealthiest community in this country, then we
need to act like it, provide for the future of it, because at some point --
and we're getting closer and closer to it, folks -- growth is going to
stop, and we're going to go crashing down, okay?
We need to bite the bullet at some point and stay tough. I would
even recommend putting up the referendum because of the stormwater
management problem, and let the community just deal with it how
you're going to deal with this. It's got to be dealt with. You've got to
find the money somewhere, but make a commitment not to change the
millage. And appreciation will take care of us on into the future.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Fred.
No further comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Janet, again, thank you from all of us.
We are now going to take a 1 O-minute -- exactly 1 O-minute break and
be back here at 2:46. Thank you.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #9C
Page 138
March 23, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA TO SIGN MEMORANDUM OF
AGREEMENT CREAT1NG A HEALTH INFORMATION
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE LOW 1NCOME AND
11N1NSI JRF, D IN COI,I,IF, R COIINTY- APPROVF, D
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're back in session. I think that brings
us to 9(C), requesting board approval and authorization for
Commissioner Coletta to sign Memorandum of Agreement, creating a
health information infrastructure for the low income and uninsured in
Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if I may?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, that might be a little bit of
a stretch. It's not quite the way it appears there.
What it is, this Consortium is an outgrowth from all the different
committees that took place leading up to the clinic that was
established, which basically is meeting tremendous amounts of needs
in Collier County.
And this isn't a spin to try to create more clinics. It's an effort on
the part of this Consortium to be able to come up with a network
within the existing frameworks of the medical community.
And we have very strong participation in the Cleveland Clinic
and Naples Community Hospital. We also have Dr. Lashide
(phonetic), and we have Agan -- Mr. Agan (phonetic) and his
particular venture involved, and it's to bring it together so that we can
get the very possible and best service that's available to the private
sector, to be able to make it work.
But I'll tell you what, rather than me going into tremendous
detail, the person that just about created this and has been working
very closely with it is Barry here, and -- Barry Williams here, who
will give us a brief overview of exactly what this coalition's all about
Page 139
March 23, 2004
and what it isn't before it scares the daylights out of some people.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. Barry?
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, good afternoon. Barry
Williams, for the record, human services department director.
Just as Commissioner Coletta had mentioned, this Memorandum
of Agreement is simply one that would identify Mr. Coletta, Chairman
-- Mr. Coletta's time to work with this Consortium, this group.
This group is looking at applying for federal grant funds that
would help in developing the infrastructure for the providers of the
poor.
There's no obligation at this point on the county, but part of the
grant application process involves identifying those people in the
community that are providing the care for the poor, identifying their
commitment. And for the most part, that commitment is just time.
Policymakers' time involved in discussions, the planning grant.
If the planning grant is received, more than likely it would be
received and would establish in September of '04, and the group that
Mr. Coletta identified, NCH, HMA, Collier Health Services,
Neighborhood Health Clinic, the health department, all those people
that deal with issues related to health care issues for the poor are,
again, seeking to be involved in this planning and develop this
infrastructure.
The infrastructure itself, we've looked at some communities
across the country, and the health and human services department on
the federal level is providing grant funds to help communities like
ours to bring these networks together. And they're simply meant to
help bring providers of the poor together so that they are the most
effective and efficient.
Another aspect of this is they look to -- a lot of times in services
for the poor, they're fragmented. People do this here, they do that
there, and so this infrastructure, this technology, kind of, it will bring
Page 140
March 23, 2004
all the providers together. It will help in reporting outcome data,
whether the services that are being provided are effective, whether
they are the most efficient.
And also, this data -- and again, looking at communities, we've
benchmarked some communities that have developed these systems or
have been involved in these discussions for many years. They been
successful in identifying further -- or more grant funding to help with,
again, underinsured people that live in communities. So that's
basically the purpose.
Again, to summarize, it's just simply to ask for Mr. Coletta's time
to participate in this group. There's no commitment at all other than
that. And the Memorandum Agreement that -- the person that
requested is the -- Susan Mitchell, who's a planner with the Southwest
Florida Health Planning Council, is working with a local group just in
developing some of these plans in terms of this infrastructure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Collier County is a bit player in
this rather than something that's happening under our directive.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you for that explanation.
Conunissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think this is a great idea,
and I think we should participate. But my understanding of this is
substantially different than what you just described. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay? And let me tell you why,
and perhaps you can solve some of my concerns.
We have a very strong county manager's ordinance here which
prohibits any commissioner from tasking any employee, or
committing any employee to do anything.
This Memorandum of Agreement, as it is written, completely
bypasses the county manager and permits a county commissioner to
allocate time of senior leadership personnel, allocate time of IT and
Page 141
March 23, 2004
HMIS personnel to attend certain meetings, allocate's a time of
appropriate operations personnel for consultation, the time and
expenses to participate in site visits and access to appropriate internal
information systems, and space for meetings.
Now, I wouldn't object to participation, and I certainly wouldn't
object to Commissioner Coletta having an active role in this, because
he's been very active in this particular health care issue, and I'd be
happy to have him do that.
This particular agreement, however, if signed, would violate our
county manager's ordinance. And if there's a way of dealing with it so
that we don't have that kind of a problem, then I would
wholeheartedly endorse it. But as it's currently written, this is a very,
very powerful agreement.
MR. WILLIAMS' Yes, sir, just to respond. Two issues that you
mentioned. One, I do agree with you that I think the way that this
memorandum was submitted to the Board of County Commissioners,
directly to Mr. Coletta, was more of a mistake, if you will, with Susan
Mitchell and her understanding of how -- what channels one should go
through. So I think that that's something that we could address.
I think one other thing is looking at the agreement and ensuring
that the County Attorney's Office looks at it and ensures that it's the
best -- Collier County's best interests are represented is in order.
The other thing to mention is, the agreement is set up for a check
box. It allows one to choose what leveling of participation that you
would. So it's not meant for one to sign with all boxes checked, and
the recommendation would be to limit the boxes that are checked to
Mr. Coletta's involvement as well as, perhaps, allowing for meeting
space for the group to be. No more than that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would suggest a different
strategy, and that is, for the board to agree to designate Commissioner
Coletta as the primary point of contact to coordinate this stuff through
Page 142
March 23, 2004
the -- and coordinate any commitment of county resources through the
county manager, and I'd be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine. I've got no problem
with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But this agreement is a very
powerful agreement that I'm concerned because it's -- it could cause us
some potential legal problems.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think I'd have a problem
with that. How about the Consortium; do you think they would have a
problem? I think it would meet our needs. I don't think we're going to
be asking for anything other than meeting space. MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if we ever did, it would
have to come before this commission. I wouldn't want it any other
way.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. If the Consortium is
successful in the application and it involved Collier County
government further, that would be brought back before the
commission.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. This particular form was
not written for me to carry to the commission. It was written for the
other medical providers that are out there, and it's one that was handed
to me at the time, and I brought it forward. And I read it myself, and I
can assure you that it is a little bit overcompassing.
And I agree with you, Commissioner Coyle, the best way would
be to recognize me, if you so desire, as the front person for the
commission on this particular consortium and to limit it to meeting
space and, of course, Barry's time, if county attorney's agreeable to it.
And anything that comes up over that, like the meeting spaces or
Barry's time has to go through the county manager.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd be happy to do that.
Page 143
March 23, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It meets your approval then --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- Commissioner? Okay.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve
based upon Commissioner Coletta's comments. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. And I'll second
that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve based
on Commissioner Coletta's comments, and a second by Commissioner
Coletta.
Do we all know what this motion involves?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I could state it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, please do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My understanding from
Commissioner Coletta, is that he would be the point person, as he so
said, or liaison, more appropriately, and allow meeting space, if
required, and Barry's assistance with the approval of the county
manager.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Is that clear for all?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any discussion on this?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 144
March 23, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2004-86 APPOINTING E. GLENN TUCKER TO
THE TOI JRIST DEVEIJOPMFNT COl INCIIJ- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to -- we already --
9(D) was withdrawn, 9(E) has already been accomplished.
That brings us to 9(F), appointment of member to the Tourist
Development Council.
MS. FILSON: This is actually to confirm the Marco Island city's
representation, appointment of E. Glenn Tucker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to approve
Glenn Tucker--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- to be reappointed to the Tourism
Development Council, and I have a second from 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: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Page 145
March 23, 2004
Item #9G
RECONSIDERATION OF ITEM 1 OF FROM THE 2/24/2004
AGENDA "AWARD OF BID #04-3616 ADVERTISING OF
DELINQUENT REAL ESTATE AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
TAXES FOR 2003" - RECONSIDERATION FAILED DUE TO
I,ACK OF A MOTION
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 9(G).
MR. MUDD: The next item is 9(G). It's reconsideration of item
10(F) from the February 24th, 2004, Board of County Commissioner's
agenda. Excuse me. Award of bid number 04-3616, advertising the
delinquent real estate and personal property taxes for 2003, and that's
at Commissioner Coletta's request.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may. A couple of
questions I'd just like to ask to make sure I understand.
If for some reason we were to reconsider this, because of the time
element, we would be running into serious problems in producing the
necessary papers in the correct time for the first of May, I believe it is,
or end of April.
MR. MUDD: For the tax collector, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And I understand where
we're coming from. But let me tell you a little bit about some of the
history of what's taking place here.
At one point in time, before there was competition from the
Golden Gate Gazette and the Echo, the Naples Daily News was
charging over $200,000 to put out this particular publication.
Through competition, which is always a wonderful thing, the
price of the Naples Daily News this time around was 56,000, and that
in itself is an accomplishment, in the fact that, you know, the
competition -- I'm sorry. Okay -- the competition has brought this
Page 146
March 23, 2004
price into close proximity to where it should be.
I do realize that we're going to have a serious problem if we do
bring this up for reconsideration as far as meeting that deadline, which
is absolutely critical as far as the time element goes for getting these
tax certificates offered up for sale.
But there's a couple of other elements that enter into this, and
then I'll make a suggestion in the end, if it's at all possible. One, the
way the bidding process took place, it wasn't clear in how it should
fall together, and it left some doubts on the part of Tuff Publications,
the fact that they thought they came up with the short end of the stick
the way it was rationalized out.
In the past it used to be, and it still is in many counties, it's based
upon a newspaper quoting their subscriptions against the number of
households. Of course, when you get to think about it, the number of
households would probably be the fairest way to go.
But we got another problem that's even more complicated than
that, is the fact that the Naples Daily News is a tremendous paper, and
it does reach 15 percent of our county and covers it very well. The
remainder part of the county, east of 951, their subscription rate drops
off tremendously. And when you get out to the more rural area, you
have a problem with the fact that not everyone has access to the
Naples Daily News.
And let's face it, the way the economy's going now and the stock
market's stable, the proper values are flying, there's a tremendous
amount of interest, I would assume, on the part of the public out there
for the tax sale this year.
And the Naples Daily News, being the one distributor, there's a
serious problem in the fact that now it's limited to the coastal area, and
the rest of the county is pretty much at a loss.
My suggestion would be, if there's any way at this time, without
jeopardizing the time element, if we could open this up to offer Tuff
Page 147
March 23, 2004
Publications -- and I haven't even talked to them. I don't know if
they're agreeable -- and even the Immokalee Bulletin, to be able to put
this publication out in their primary papers, in other words, the
Gazette, the Echo, and the Immokalee Bulletin -- and it's not that
many of them -- based upon the rate that the Naples Daily News is
charging.
Is that possible, or is that something that would require us to go
back for a reconsideration and the whole business?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you'll have to go back out for bid
on that one. You had two bids that were out there. You're basically
going sole source on a particular issue, and I can't tell you what the
budgeted amount was by the tax collector for this particular
advertisement. You're basically asking him to double the advertising
fund that he's got allocated for this item.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, not necessarily. We're
talking about a couple thousand more papers that are going to be able
to reach the rural areas. I'm not talking about -- Tuff Publications
came across with another offer where they were going to include it in
all their different publications.
I don't think that really hit the target market. But the actual
papers, the Golden Gate Gazette and the Echo, the Echo services -- I
think they put out about 200, 300, 400 copies at the most. In fact, they
waste more on the cutting room floor producing it than they actually
get out.
The Golden Gate Gazette, I don't know what their circulation is
now, but it's nothing out of this world, but it does reach to where it's
going. And as far as the Immokalee Bulletin, I'm not too sure if I
know the numbers of that. Mr. Thomas may know. But I don't think
it would be anything that unrealistic, for maybe about another 4- or
5,000 publications with this being inserted, and it would be expanding
on the contract.
Page 148
March 23, 2004
Now, I don't know. You'd have to -- we'd have to have
somebody from purchasing telling us about the legalities, or possibly
the county attorney.
Can you grow a contract to encompass it over a larger area if you
go with the lowest price?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, if your question is, can we provide a
contract with the other entity or group of entities that -- Tuff
Publications, that was not selected under the criteria, to participate as
well, I think that that can be done.
County manager notes that we had a process out there with
specific criteria, and under those criteria, and my contract attorney's
reviewed it and reported to me, was that on a cost per unit --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Household.
MR. WEIGEL: -- cost per volume, that, in fact, Naples Daily
News does come in cheaper, and it just does. And so it was a dollars
and cents directive that came with the selection -- a recommendation
for them of selection.
If you're talking about adding -- perhaps I misunderstood the
question. I think you had stated -- were indicating Naples Daily News
gets the job that you want -- the idea would be of considering if Tuff
Publications could do additional --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The Immokalee Bulletin.
MR. WEIGEL: The Immokalee Bulletin.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, so we cover the
county completely, the other 85 percent.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think that we don't run into a problem
with Naples Daily News because they're getting the job that they bid
for.
In regard to making a declaration of this board in a timely way so
that the -- that the information could be published and distributed to
assist the tax collector, I don't know the answer, if it can be done
Page 149
March 23, 2004
quickly enough. It is, as Jim indicated, cOunty manager indicated,
something akin to declaration of sole source or taking into account
that, of the potential newspapers or general circulation, we know who
they are, and I think it'd need to come back at another board meeting,
however, so that we'd have public participation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm kind of concerned about
dragging this out to another board meeting and finding out that we
jeopardized some sort of deadline that's there. I don't know if we
could -- the next board meeting wouldn't be a problem. I think it
would still make it. If we had to bring it back at the next meeting to
direct -- to go out with a bid, we're going to lose the --
MR. WEIGEL: I think you've steered us away from the
reconsideration aspect, which--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did.
MR. WEIGEL: -- always requires two board meetings, you
know, a motion to be made and then another one to come back--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. The reason for that is
that after looking at the timetable and reviewing it late last night, I
come to realize that it wouldn't be doing justice to the tax collector if
this came back for a true reconsideration, so that's why the question
I'm posing to you today.
I see Mr. Mitchell fidgeting in his chair over there. He may have
some comments.
MR. MITCHELL: No.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's a -- and I've just talked with
Steve. That's a $28,000 increase on the contract in order to do those
three particular papers you talked about.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: NoW, are we talking-- if I may.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That was part of the bid, and it was
$28,000 for--
MR. CARNELL: That's if we use their bid price, which is not
Page 150
March 23, 2004
necessarily what you suggested.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just-- not Tuff Publications for
every single one of them, the publications they put out, just their
Gazette and the Echo. Do you know what that would be?
MR. CARNELL: I know the Gazette, the Echo, and the Naples
Times. That was the three they offered in their alternative proposal.
That's the $28,000 the county manager--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If we moved to Naples Times,
now we're going to be overlapping into another area -- MR. CARNELL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I don't think that would be
cost-efficient-- where would we be?
MR. CARNELL: Actually, let me -- let me -- I'm sorry. Let me
restate that. For the Everglades Echo only, it's an additional $28,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I beg your pardon?
MR. WEIGEL: That would seem inappropriate, I think, to tack
onto circulation.
MR. CARNELL: The -- yeah, that's what I've got on the
numbers here. What I'd -- let's just clarify a couple things though --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
MR. CARNELL: -- because I think you've broached an
interesting point here.
For the record, Steve Camell, your purchasing director. The --
let's keep in mind that the cost of this advertising is ultimately borne
by the delinquent property taxpayer, not by the taxpayer at large.
The questions we'd need to answer would be, first off, do we
have the lead time to place the orders, and I think we do. The tax
collector has not ordered the printings, as I understand it, as of today.
I'm not -- at least that was true last week, Commissioner. I'm not sure
about this moment. But to my knowledge, the order has not been
placed yet.
Page 151
March 23, 2004
And what you'd be doing, if you'd go back to your point, if we
advertised in the additional papers, you would broaden the circulation
into the eastern county, that is true. And the cost would be recovered
by the people who ultimately either buy the deeds or pay their taxes
late in the deed sale.
And the question would be, is the tax collector -- is this
acceptable to him, are there any issues budgetarily for him fronting the
additional money that he has to pay out on the front end? He pays the
publications, then he recovers it through the sale. And we would just
have to be sure -- we don't want to speak for him prematurely. But I
think between now and the next board meeting, we could find out if
we could work those logistics out and give you a firm dollar figure,
and then see if the board would like to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we continue this --
MR. CARNELL: -- supplement this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- to the next board meeting?
And it wouldn't affect the contract with Naples Daily News. MR. CARNELL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That could go forward
regardless.
MR. CARNELL: Yeah. It's my opinion that it would not have
any effect, as David said, on the award to the Daily News. And if it
ends up being an amount that's over 25,000 to do additional
advertising, then we would ask the board for approval -- probably
we'd just ask you to waive the bidding process at that point, given that
the bid's already been awarded. But then you have that discretion in
your policy to do so if you're -- again, the goal being to supplement
the advertising.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a motion that we --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, Commissioner Henning --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Forgive me.
Page 152
March 23, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't mean to jump the gun.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't want to lead us down the
road that I think we're going is this -- where this discussion is going.
Even though it isn't general fund money, it's still taxpayers. And
the only piece that I'm interested in is, if we reconsider this, can we
bring it back for a final decision before May 1 st?
And that's my understanding when the tax collector needs to send
his notices out, or he needs to know from the Board of
Commissioners.
The second thing is, if we reconsider it, the only thing, I want
more information than was provided in our packet, because it's -- you
know, wasn't clear, since it is a question, of the recommendations by
the purchasing, and it being a question, the information that we had in
our packet wasn't clear, so I need more information if we reconsider it.
But I'm not going to try to broaden coverage. I just want to meet
the state statutes as far as delinquent notices. And in turn, what we
would be doing is saving taxpayers' money.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas, and then we
have a speaker.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'm kind of concerned also
where we're leading.
This was put out for bid, and it's my understanding the winning
bid here was the Naples Daily News, and I think it was based also on
their circulation.
I'm concerned that the Naples Daily News does not get out into
other areas of the county. My understanding is, I thought it was a
publication for all the county. I think it has a circulation of over
46,000. So it's not just the urban area. I think it's also the rural area.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
Page 153
March 23, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so I feel that the direction we
should go is to honor the agreement that we set forth, and next year, if
this Tuff wants to get involved in the bidding process, then I think
they have to be more competitive as far as where they need to address
their issues at.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have one speaker.
MS. FILSON: Steve Decker.
MR. DECKER: It's not on this item.
MR. MUDD: He waived.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not on this item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not on this item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion --
can we bring it back and make a final decision before May 1 ?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, here's what you have. Under the
reconsideration ordinance, you have -- this came before the board
February 24th, and today's March 23rd.
A vote to reconsider is properly -- the item is properly before you
today -- must be made within 30 days of the initial vote. So that-- if
you were to move to reconsider you're okay there, but then upon the
successful vote on the motion to reconsider, the ordinance requires
that come two regular meetings later. April 13th is the next meeting,
so probably the following meeting is about April 27th -- MR. MUDD: Yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: -- or so, which puts you late in April for the
motion to reconsider. But I believe that part of the discussion here has
been not so much to reconsider the award to Naples Daily News, but
merely to add on to the distribution through additional sources, the
Tuff's Publications.
So it may be that there's no need to reconsider the previous
award, perhaps, if you're just merely looking to add on to the
Page 154
March 23, 2004
distribution through other sources, unless I misunderstood you.
It appeared that Naples Daily News was going to get the job, I
thought, from your discussion, regardless.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, that's exactly where I was
coming from. I wouldn't -- I wouldn't want to rock the boat on that.
And in all fairness, they do reach a good number of people in the
county. It's just that we do have a shortfall for the rest of the county.
What I suggest to this commission is the decision not be finalized
today. We don't have -- like Commissioner Henning says, we don't
have all the numbers in front of us -- that we get a chance to look at it
at the next meeting to be able to make a decision whether it's
warranted for expanding this.
Once again, the cost will be borne by the people that are going to
be buying these certificates. And, I mean, still, it's money that we're
responsible for, but also it will give a lot of people to get (sic)
involved in this. The larger the number of people to be there to bid,
probably the higher the prices they'll get for what they're going to be
bidding for.
If you'd give me the ability to be able to have this come back to
us for a quick take, look at it, and if the numbers don't look right and
you don't feel comfortable, at that point in time we can kill it.
Meanwhile, the Naples Daily News contract remains in effect.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll put that in the form of a
motion, if I can get a second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
consider additional published --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, expanding the contract that
we presently have and to bring it back with the information at the next
meeting for a final decision.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do I hear a second on that?
Page 155
March 23, 2004
dies.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Silence is deadening.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry, Commissioner. The motion
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's quite all right. We took a
look at it. Believe me, next year, I hope that we'll come up with a
process that will be fair and give everybody a good break on the price,
especially the taxpayers, and we'll do a better job of it next year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
We move on now --
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, I'll note for clarity of the
record then, that this coming up as a request for reconsideration, that
no motion was made to reconsider. The motion placed on the floor
died for lack of a second. The award of bid for contract of February
24th to Naples Daily News continues, unchanged.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Weigel, we're not done with
this discussion.
MR. WEIGEL: Today?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm sorry. Pardon me. I thought we were going
to another--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Again, you know, after talking
to Russell Tuff, what my understanding was, based -- why this is back
on, or even this discussion, was our purchasing staff plugged in the
options, and that's why Tuff Publications came up above the -- was
higher than the Naples Daily News.
And the only thing that I would like to do is either confirm that or
not confirm it through a reconsideration, even though it was
Commissioner Coletta's item on the agenda. You know, that's all.
And I just wanted to meet the letter of the law of the statutes as far as
publications and their qualifications, or any other qualifications.
I know that the Naples Daily News does through its circulations,
Page 156
March 23, 2004
and I know that the Tuff Publication (sic) does under its circulations.
So I just would like to have all the information, and I'll make a
motion that we reconsider it and have the information that our
purchasing staff was provided.
MR. WEIGEL: Well -- Steve, I don't know if you have
additional data to provide the commissioners in regard to that question
right now --
MR. CARNELL: Uh-huh.
MR. WEIGEL: -- but Commissioners, the motion to reconsider
would be appropriately made by the commissioner who had made the
request of the county manager prior to the meeting today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: So if my recent recollection is correct, I don't
believe that Mr. Coletta brought to the floor the motion to reconsider.
It was another motion that died for lack of a second, but -- so that's
still available, but I do have to instruct you the way the ordinance sets
out.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
MR. CARNELL: Madam Chairman, I'd be happy to explain
very briefly the process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I need to remove my
motion because I can't -- it can't be considered. Only Commissioner
Coletta's -- can make that motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may. The reason I'm
not going to do it is because we were told it was going to take two
weeks to be able to get it on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Two meetings?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Two meetings rather-- excuse
me -- two meetings away, and that jeopardizes the whole program for
getting this out to the public, and that's not going to work.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Well, talking to the tax
Page 157
March 23, 2004
collector, it won't jeopardize it. As long as he knows by May 1 st who
gets the award, he's fine with it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I don't know. I had a
conversation with him earlier today, and possibly I didn't ask the
question right. But at that point in time, he told me that if we couldn't
make up our minds as far as what we're going to do, that he would
take it upon himself to appoint a vendor. He said he could do that
under the law.
I don't know. I'm very nervous about the fact that we're going to
be pushing it right to the very end. I talked to Mr. Tuff about it, and I
told him what my concerns were about that, and he even agreed with
me, that it could place everything in jeopardy.
You can't leave the Naples Daily News in doubt what they're
going to be doing as far as publishing a couple of days before it's
supposed to go out.
There's quite a bit of work in the layout of a document of this
type. I don't think it can be done, although I wish to gosh we had
somebody here that could actually say this one way or the other before
we tie up staff's time and--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I called the tax collector, and he
had-- he's out of the office, so I --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, my conversation with him
earlier today -- or Monday, excuse me -- is -- led me to this particular
direction as far as the reconsideration. That's why I didn't ask for it.
Now, if I misunderstood something, I don't know if there's
anyone here that's an authority that knows about the newspaper
layouts and how it could be done. But if I was the Naples Daily
News, I wouldn't start anything till that contract was confirmed, and
they're not going to be able to do it in two or three days.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess we're at an impasse, so
there is no reconsideration.
Page 158
March 23, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's a shame. I wish that
we could have done this a little bit sooner. With the contract coming
up to us maybe a month sooner, then we would have been able to react
to it in a more appropriate fashion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this the appropriate time for
David Weigel to say his paid political advertisement?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I always welcome his advice.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean about the award being --
MR. WEIGEL: Oh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- awarded to the Naples Daily
News.
MR. WEIGEL: As I mentioned before, there having been no
motion for reconsideration placed on the floor today and no vote taken
to reconsider adopted, the matter will not come back two meetings in
the future as the ordinance would require and, therefore, the award by
the Board of County Commissioners, based upon the information
before it at the time, of February 24th board meeting, stands and will
be final in regard to the award of contract, Naples Daily News.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any further conversation,
Commissioners?
(No response.)
Item #1 OB
RESOLUTION 2004-87 AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION
OF FEE SIMPLE INTERESTS IN THE PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-
WAY AND/OR STORMWATER RETENTION AND TREATMENT
POND SITES, AS WELL AS PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
Page 159
March 23, 2004
EASEMENTS, TEMPORARY DRIVEWAY RESTORATION
EASEMENTS, AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENTS, AS MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS TO RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD
FROM POLLY AVENUE TO COLLIER BOULEVARD -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have about 11 minutes left
before our time certain, so I'm going to move to 10(B) because that
looks like one that --
MR. MUDD: 10(B), it's adoption of a resolution authorizing a
condemnation of fee simple interests in the proposed right-of-way
and/or stormwater retention and treatment of pond sites, as well as
perpetual nonexclusive road right-of-way, drainage, utility easements,
and temporary driveway restoration easements, and contemporary
construction easements as may be required for the construction of
roadway drainage and the utility improvements to Rattlesnake
Hammock Road, County Road 864, from Polly Avenue to Collier
Boulevard, County Road 951. Capital improvement element number
77, project number 60169. Estimated fiscal impact, $2,495,000.
And Mr. Gregg Strakaluse, the director of engineering for
transportation will present.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: First question, do you need to put
anything on the record? This is one of those easy ones.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Yeah. I just need to provide a few
statements on the record for the attorneys upstairs. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Essentially, this is currently a two-lane
road segment between Polly Avenue and Collier Boulevard, County
Road 951, Collier Boulevard, Rattlesnake Hammock Road.
Page 160
March 23, 2004
In planning for this project, your board previously, through MPO
long-range transportation plans, adopted various master plans,
including water, wastewater in 2002, as well as the transportation
division's five-year work program, and the county's 2004 budget that
allocates $13 million for the construction of this project and $2 and a
half million for right-of-way acquisition.
Each of these board actions considered extensive planning data,
engineering data, and public input that I'd like to incorporate and make
part of this record.
Today, upwards of about 20,000 vehicles per day use this
segment of Rattlesnake Hammock Road. These numbers are rising,
and they'll continue to rise as a result of a growing community.
The improved section requires a minimum width of 120 feet
right-of-way to a maximum width of 180 feet at the intersections.
The county currently has 100-foot right-of-way commitment in
this segment. But as you recall, in December of 2003, your board
approved an agreement with Stock Development which allocates more
right-of-way towards this corridor which has, in effect, allowed county
staff to minimize the right-of-way takes to the private property
owners.
In regard to alignment, designers have maximized the use of the
right-of-way -- previous right-of-way commitments.
The proposed expansion involves acquiring additional
right-of-way from 16 property owners along the corridor. Staff will
continue to negotiate settlements without resorting to the county's
power of imminent domain, however, this resolution is necessary to
ensure the timely commencement of construction work.
Besides alternative routes, staff considered traffic volume, public
safety, environmental conditions, aesthetics and neighborhood
character, constructibility, stormwater management, and cost.
Discussions with the district indicate this project is likely to be
Page 161
March 23, 2004
permitted as it is designed currently.
In May of 2003 and March of 2004, county staff held public
meetings to share the design with the community and incorporate
community concerns and comments into the design. The valuation of
alternatives along with the legal descriptions for the necessary
property, which is made part of your package, is a critical part of this
presentation.
Based on these materials in my presentation, I'd ask that your
board approve the recommendations as outlined in the executive
summary. I do have Ted Tryka and Dan Brundage from Agnoli,
Barber and Brundage here, the design consultant for the project, to
help answer any technical questions you may have. And with that, I'll turn it over.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
from Donna Fiala, a second from Commissioner Halas to approve as
presented, the Rattlesnake Hammock acquisition of property.
Any-- any conversation on that matter?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER H
Page 162
March 23, 2004
Well, we have seven minutes left until our advertised public
hearing. I wonder if we can get to C and D. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, they should-
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2004-88 ACQUIRING .49 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA KNOWN AS THE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STORMWATER
RF, TFNTION- ADOPTF, D
MR. MUDD: 10(C) is adopt a condemnation resolution to
acquire .49 acres of land located within the area known as the
Gateway Triangle for the purpose of stormwater retention. And Mr.
Peter Hayden will present from stormwater and the transportation
department.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve as
long as we ask the CRA board what the fair share from the CRA is
going to be for this project.
MR. HAYDEN: For the record, Peter Hayden, Collier County
Stormwater Management.
Can you restate your question for --
MR. MUDD: He didn't make a statement. Be quiet for a second.
MR. HAYDEN: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I made a motion to approve --
MR. HAYDEN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- consider -- based on the CRA
board make recommendations on the fair share of the CRA monies for
this project.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And if they don't -- if they don't have
Page 163
March 23, 2004
enough money, then what?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Because I know they just bought a bridge,
and so I don't know if they have enough money left to participate in
this. I can't speak for them, but -- Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Was Commissioner Coletta ahead
of me?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't know. I looked over--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was, Commissioner Coyle, but
you go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Well, the problem is that we could ask them, but there's no way
to resolve this matter today if it's going to be contingent upon some
request that they will respond to sometime in the furore.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me restate the motion.
Motion to -- not restate it, but--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Clarify.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- clarify it -- is let's go ahead
and purchase it, the motion is to approve, but the Board of
Commissioners ask the CRA board to participate in the financial
aspects of this parcel.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But it sounds like it's still contingent on--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Just ask.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're just going to ask, then if-- okay,
okay. Then I'll second that motion.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, county attorney. Are we
talking about item 8(D) or 8(C)? Item 8(D) is --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 8(C) -- I mean 10(C).
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 10(C).
MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 10(C).
Page 164
March 23, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 10(C).
MR. WEIGEL: I mean 10(C). 10(C) is a condemnation
resolution. 10(D) has to do with purchase. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're absolutely right. I just
wanted to jump ahead.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. So I think if we could--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we're doing 10(D) then right now,
right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's do 10(C) first, to condemn it.
COMMISSIONERHALAS: Yeah. 10(C).
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make a motion to condemn it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second.
MR. WEIGEL: Well--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
MR. WEIGEL: But before you get to that, there is a desire and a
need, a legal need, to get on the record the elements as part of your
consideration, although I know you've read the materials in the
executive summary anyway. But if Mr. Hayden could give a brief
description, it would be very helpful.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know what, we really actually have
two motions sitting on this floor, which makes me a little bit nervous.
So can we withdraw the first motion --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The first one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- until we do this one?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's out of there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. The first motion is withdrawn and
the second is withdrawn. So now we have a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Coyle for number 10(C), which is the condemnation of
the property, and a second by Commissioner Halas.
And now we need your words of wiSdom, sir.
Page 165
March 23, 2004
MR. HAYDEN: Yeah. Peter Hayden, Collier County
Stormwater. Before you today is a half an acre parcel. Just to get on
the record, as we talked about it about a week ago at the stormwater
workshop, we're out there in the Gateway Triangle acquiring land.
This piece is a vacant parcel that we've worked with, with Mr.
Mendez. It's contiguous, as you can see, to two other parcels we
already own, so that's why it's so important today that we purchase
this. That's it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
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. That--10(C), the
condemnation of the property -
Item # 1 OD
AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE AND PURCHASE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $205,000 AND ACCEPTANCE OF A WARRANTY
DEED FOR .49 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE
AREA KNOWN AS THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE FOR THE
pl JRPOSF, OF STORMWATF, R RETENTION- APPROVED
Page 166
March 23, 2004
MR. MUDD: 10(D) is approve an agreement for sale and
purchase in the amount of $205,000 and accept a warranty deed for
.49 acres of property located within the area known as the Gateway
Triangle for the purpose of stormwater retention. And, again, Mr.
Peter Hayden will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you want me to restate the
motion, my motion? Is it proper? I know that's Commissioner
Coyle's district -- that we approve, and then ask -- part of the motion,
is then go to the CRA board and ask them --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And actually, it's my district.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay -- ask them to participate
in the cost.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: If they --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If they have funds -- if they have
any funds left over after they do other things.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do I have a second to that motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
approve, and suggest to the CRA board that we would love to have
them participate in the cost of this if possible and-- by Commissioner
Henning, and a second by Commissioner Halas. Is that correct --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- the motion? Okay.
Did you have to put something on the record?
MR. HAYDEN: I have nothing on the record for this one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
Any further conversation on this matter?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 167
March 23, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That passes, 5-0.
Item #8F & 8A
RESOLUTION 2004-89 RE PETITION SRA-2003-AR-4578, AVE
MARIA UNIVERSITY, DESIGNATING 960 ACRES WITH1N THE
RURAL LAND STEWARDSHIP AREA ZONING OVERLAY
DISTRICT AS A STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA,
APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING
AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT FOR AVE MARIA, AND
ESTABLISHING THE NUMBER OF STEWARDSHIP CREDITS
BEING UTILIZED BY THE DESIGNATION OF THE AVE
MARIA STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA- ADOPTED WITH
CHANGES AND RESOLUTIONS 2004-90, 2004-91, 2004-92, AND
2004-93 DESIGNATING STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREAS 1, 2,
3 AND 4 (SSA) WITH1N THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP
OVERLAY DISTRICT (RLSA) INCLUDING SSA CREDIT
AGREEMENTS AND PERPETUAL STEWARDSHIP
EASEMENTS FOR EACH SSA IN RESPONSE TO A JOINT
APPLICATION BY BARRON COLLIER INVESTMENTS, LTD.,
AND BARRON COLLIER PARTNERSHIP REGARDING AVE
MARIA l INIVF, RSITY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD:
time certain of--
Commissioner, that brings us pretty much to a
Page 168
March 23, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You might have to wait one minute.
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. By the time I'm done reading, it will
be time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay? The time certain is at 3:30 p.m., and there's
basically two items, 8(A) and 8(F), and I'll read 8(A).
This item to be heard at 3:30 p.m., companion item to 8(F). It's a
recommendation that the board adopt four resolutions designating
Stewardship Sending Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4, which are called SSAs,
within the Rural Land Stewardship overlay district, the RLSA,
including Stewardship Sending Area credit agreements and perpetual
stewardship easements for each Stewardship Sending Area in response
to a joint application by Barron Collier Investments, Limited, and
Barron Collier Partnerships.
And then 8(F), that's a companion to 8(A). It's petition,
SRA-2003-AR-4578, Ave Maria University, a resolution of the
Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 960 acres
within the Rural Land Stewardship Area zoning overlay district as a
Stewardship Receiving Area, approving a preliminary Stewardship
Receiving Area credit agreement for Ave Maria and establishing the
number of stewardship credits being utilized by the designation of the
Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area.
Commissioners, both will be presented, because they're going to
be talked about during both, and then the board needs to motion on
each one, 8(A) and 8(F) separately.
Mr. White from the County Attorney's Office will present
MR. WHITE: Madam Chair, members of the commission,
Patrick White, assistant county attorney. I have reviewed the
Affidavit of Publication for today's SRA proceeding, and find that it's
legally sufficient, and at this time I'm going to mm it over to our court
reporter for record keeping purposes. And that's all that I have at this
Page 169
March 23, 2004
time.
And I believe Mr. Vamadoe may be the most logical person to
proceed next in a combined presentation, unless staff wants to do an
overview first. No?
Mr. Varnadoe?
MR. VARNADOE: Good afternoon. For the record, George
Varnadoe. And with your indulgence, I thought I'd economize time,
we'd like to give you a presentation on the SSA, Stewardship Sending
Area, applications and the Stewardship Receiving Area application,
because they're so interrelated.
Obviously, as the county attorney said, we're going to need to
vote on these separately, but we'd like to combine the presentations, if
that's acceptable to Madam Chairman.
I'm here today representing the landowners, Barron Collier
Partnership and Barron Collier Investment, Limited, in seeking the
designation of four Stewardship Sending Areas, also here representing
New Town Development, L.L.L.P., who is the applicant for the
Stewardship Receiving Area application for the preliminary parcel of
the steward-- Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area.
The SSAs, Stewardship Sending Areas, will generate stewardship
credits, some of which will be used -- utilized to designate the Ave
Maria Stewardship Receiving Areas.
And first I need to express our appreciation of hard work of
county staff. It's been ongoing for some period of time, and they've
worked very diligently with us to address the issues that were raised.
It's a new process for everybody, and we're the first ones going
through it, so it's been some novel issues.
And second, I guess I ought to tell you that the Planning
Commission unanimously approved both-- excuse me -- unanimously
approved the Stewardship Receiving Area. They do not review the
Stewardship Sending Areas' application.
Page 170
March 23, 2004
This is the first application of the Rural Land Stewardship Area,
and so it's the first implementation, the first landowner to voluntarily
enter the program.
Today's hearing is the culmination of almost five years of hard
work by all of those who were instrumental in coming up with the
RLSA concepts and having those adopted in your Comprehensive
Plan and also in your Land Development Code.
And this goes back to a meeting in this chambers in March of
1999, as I recall, where this county commission said, yes, let's go look
at this stuff and do a real comprehensive look at the rural lands area
and see what we should do to protect species, protect the environment,
protect agriculture, and allow some development in a compact
development forum.
In my opinion, what you're seeing today validates the RLSAs
program's concept. These applications will protect the natural
resources on some 5,286 acres at no cost to Collier County, even for
maintenance.
Of the 7,883.6 stewardship credits to be generated by these
SSAs, 5,064 will be utilized to designate and title the first phase of
Ave Maria.
This slide shows the location of the four SSAs. SSA 1 here, 2, 3,
and 4.
And Alan Reynolds will discuss those applications and the public
benefit to be derived therefrom. But with your permission, we're
going to discuss the Stewardship Receiving Area first.
I'll do a brief overview, and then Anita Jenkins will give you the
town design criteria, and Don Schrotenboer will give you the Ave
Maria University town area.
What's before you today is the first phase of this project. And the
reason for the phased approach is simply to get the university opened
by the fall of 2006.
Page 171
March 23, 2004
I want to assure you, this is not the last time you will see this
project nor is it the last time you will be able to put your imprint on
this and deal with issues regarding -- with regard to this project.
We'll be coming back to you with a DRI, an application for
development approval. We'll also be coming back to you with more
Stewardship Sending Area applications to generate the credits for the
town, and we'll be coming back to you with a Stewardship Receiving
Area application for the entire town.
So you'll get another chance, actually two more chances for the
SRA and the DR1, to deal with issues that might be coming because of
this project.
As you know we have requested and entered into a preliminary
development agreement with the Department of Community Affairs,
and I will put a copy of that in the record today just to have it on the
record.
This Stewardship Receiving Area designation application will
start the process of permitting the first major Catholic university in the
United States in over 40 years. The Ave Maria University is
obviously the cornerstone of Ave Maria.
And the first phase is basically dedicated to providing the
services for the faculty and students and staff and the housing for the
faculty and staff of Ave Maria University.
The basis for approval of a Stewardship Receiving Area is
contained in policy 4.3 of our Growth Management Plan. As part of
the Rural Land Stewardship Area overlay, the comp. plan has
established the types of uses in development forums that are
appropriate in the Rural Land Stewardship Area.
And what we are here for today, to apply these criterium, which
are basically two; one, is the location appropriate; and number two,
are the specific criteria of the Growth Management Plan and the Land
Development Code met.
Page 172
March 23, 2004
The location is shown in this slide in the red rectangle. It is in
the open area. It contains no lands that are environmentally sensitive,
that is a score greater than 1.2 on the environmental -- natural
resources index assessment.
The access for the first phase will be from Oil Well Road. And
as you can see from the slide, it's the current planning of the university
and town, 960 acres; 327 for the university, and 633 for the town.
There are four required elements of the application submittal that
we are required to go through, all of which have been accomplished
and all of which have been found consistent by your staff. The natural
resource's index assessment simply measures whether any lands with
significant natural resources are in the SRA, and as I've told you, there
are not.
The impact assessment -- excuse me -- looks at the -- see where
the necessary infrastructure is going to be provided by the developer,
or in this case a special district, or whether the county's infrastructure,
where it's going to be used.
In this case the transportation system and solid waste is sufficient
to serve the project, and your staff has determined that it is.
Next is an economic assessment. The SRA is required to be
fiscally neutral at the end of five years, or each phase, whichever
occurs first and at 90 percent of build-out. That criteria has been met.
The Planning Commission requested, and we have agreed, to
provide the economic -- excuse me -- the fiscal impact analysis both
for the combined town and the university. And this slide shows you
the summary of that cumulative operating and capital fiscal impact for
years 2006 through 2008, which is the first phase of this project.
This merely measures the cost of governmental services against
the revenues generated, and it combines the capital costs and revenues
as well as the operating costs and revenues.
There's also a safeguard to a fiscal impact, and that is there's a
Page 173
March 23, 2004
monitoring system set up so -- and in fact, if the project happens not to
be fiscally neutral, assessments can be made to make up the
difference, and that continues on every five years, or phase by phase
also.
And finally, the preliminary SRA agreement, credit agreement.
It's called a preliminary agreement because it doesn't deal with the
DRI portion, only the PDA portion. It will be subsumed by the credit
agreement for the DRI.
And much -- the same with the economic impact assessment, the
fiscal analysis, that will be subsumed by the analysis done for the
DRI, which will be done on a much larger basis and look at the whole
town.
The town requires some 5,064 credits. You get there by
multiplying 633 acres in the town by eight credits. It takes eight
credits to entitle to each acre. If you multiply that out, you come up
with the 5,064.
You can see that the open space that's a required element of 35
percent is actually going to be 41 percent in -- during this SRA.
The applicant is acquiring 5,064 stewardship credits BCI/BCP
SSA 1 through 4 -- 1, 2 and 3, excuse me, which Mr. Reynolds will be
discussing later.
And unless you have questions from me, I'm going to turn it over
to Anita Jenkins to turn (sic) about the turn -- talk about the town
design criteria. Thank you.
MS. JENKINS' Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Anita
Jenkins, the project planner with WilsonMiller. And what you have
before you is the Ave Maria master plan. This is referring and
included in the town plan, which is tab six in the Stewardship
Receiving Area document that was provided to you. The town plan includes five chapters.
MR. MUDD: Can I interrupt for just a second, Commissioners?
Page 174
March 23, 2004
Just call to your attention and the people out in the public. North in
this particular slide is to the left, okay? It is not pointing straight up.
It is to the left, okay?
So if you look at the road that's going out -- going out to Oil Well
Road, Oil Well Road is on the far right-hand side, okay, as it's going.
So it's a little bit different than what you'd normally see. Thank you. I'm sorry.
MS. JENKINS: That's okay. Thank you.
The town plan includes five chapters, and the chapters are
referred to as the University District, and that district on this master
plan is lavender.
We also have the Town Core, which is red on this master plan;
the Town Center that I'm pointing to that is orange; Neighborhood
General, which is the yellow areas. And then the last chapter is called
Community General, and that applies to the common space areas,
stormwater management open space, the transportation network, and it
also includes the services district, which is located down here in this
area. You may also hear me refer to the entry road, which is this road
here that is the access from Oil Well Road and leads into the town and
then it traverses into what we refer to as the ark road.
We have gone through extensive review with the county staff to
ensure that each of these areas are consistent with the Land
Development Code. The areas that we have set forth in the town plan
are the same, and we've referred to them as the same, as in the Land
Development Code, the context zones that were adopted in February.
The Town Core, the Town Center, Neighborhood General.
We also have two special districts that is consistent with the Land
Development Code. One of the special districts is the University
District. The other special district is this services district.
We are requesting deviations from what was adopted in the Land
Page 175
March 23, 2004
Development Code and refers to the landscape code, 2.4 in the Land
Development Code. What we have found with designing this project
-- and it's new to this area. It's a very exact urban form design. The
landscape code that is applicable to the urban area is -- usually buffers
uses.
So in this plan, the uses are mixed in-- both vertical and
horizontally. So the appropriateness for buffering in the urban area
that we see doesn't really apply to this area because we have a mix of
uses, and the buffers would actually impede some of the pedestrian
flow that's designed into this project.
Beginning with the center of town, the key features in this center
of town -- and I'll talk through both the Town Core and the Town
Center as the center of town.
This area is a very mixed-use area, pedestrian-oriented. There's
shared parking behind the buildings in these locations. The uses in
these areas include a mixture of uses, including retail, office, civic,
institutional, and residential.
And these are the areas that -- primarily those uses are shared use
in buildings. They also have some single-use buildings in this area.
The Town Core, this red area here, is the location right where I'm
pointing to now, in this center here, of the land marked building, the
oratory and the oratory plaza.
The Town Center, the orange area here, is the area that will
provide the main street and the daily uses and needs for the residents
of Ave Maria.
This is a design perspective of the Town Core, and this is the ark
road here that is traversing this Town Core area. This shows the
relationship of the ark road. The university would be over here to the
left, and this is the Town Core area here.
These are mixed-use buildings with retail primarily being on the
bottom floor or office, office being on the upper floors, and then
Page 176
March 23, 2004
residential above that.
The oratory here that is shown, again, is the landmark of the
town, and it relates both to the university to the left and to the overall
Town Center and Town Core areas.
This is a design perspective that is leading into the Town Center,
and it continues with the same pedestrian orientation as in the Town
Core with buildings being set up to the sidewalk, parking in the back,
and the street trees and other elements that support that pedestrian
environment.
This yellow area is what we refer to as Neighborhood General.
This is the primary residential areas. It will also include provisions for
a school in this location, K through 12, also includes parks.
And the town plan also provides for neighborhood goods and
services in these areas. That would be neighborhood sale, retail or
office uses that are appropriate for this area. And there is specific
locational and design criteria set forth in the town plan for any of these
uses.
The final chapter in the town plan is the Community General.
This chapter of the plan, again, sets forth the common area design
standards. And the common areas being the open spaces, the
stormwater management, the net -- the transportation network, and it
also includes this services district, which is right here. And the
services district is intended to provide for the uses for utilities and
emergency services.
And that would conclude my portion of the review of the town
plan, and I'd like to turn it now over to Don Schrotenboer, who is the
project coordinator. Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Could I just ask? Is there like Publix or a
grocery store in there?
MS. JENKINS: Yes, those are all allowed in the Town Center,
not in the Neighborhood General. You wouldn't see anything that --
Page 177
March 23, 2004
the square footage for those uses in the Neighborhood General areas
are limited to 3,000 square feet per use, I think, so small retail or
office. But the markets and things like that that you would expect to
see would be located in the Town Center in this particular plan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. SCHROTENBOER: Good afternoon, Commissioners,
Lady Councilman. For the record, Donald Schrotenboer.
You heard Mr. Varnadoe earlier speak about the first Catholic
university in 40 years. But let me say that Ave Maria's not new to
higher education. We've been in the business of providing education
for approximately six years now.
We do have campuses in Ann Arbor, Nicaragua, Austria, and we
also have the Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor as well. Those
four components comprise of a little over 700 students in higher
education at this time, comprised from 45 different states and 19
different countries.
As you are probably also aware, we also have the interim campus
here just off Vanderbilt Beach Road where we currently have 123
students involved in higher education, composing from 32 different
states.
Our founder's vision for this university is not necessarily to be
the biggest, but it is to be the best. And we fully intend to do this
through the quality of our students, our faculty, and more importantly,
our curriculum that we're going to offer.
Anita spoke about the 960 acres in the PDA and how 327 acres
of that is for the university, and that's what this colored diagram
represents.
I'd like to point out within this 327 acres that 212 acres is
dedicated to open space within that. This space will accommodate up
to 1,200 students and will also support 350 faculty and staff members.
The three largest components of the university is typical to any,
Page 178
March 23, 2004
our economics, student housing, as well as sports and recreation.
It's important to point out that the design of the university has
been guided by this planning grid system. And the typical grid sector
that you see here is 350 feet by 700 feet. And there's a couple
overlaying -- overlying elements to this design principle, and that's
because of discipline. And if nothing speaks more of discipline, it's
our founder, Mr. Monaghan.
In addition to that, the architectural vernacular that's been chosen
for the campus, Frank Lloyd Wright, also has a strong sense of
discipline within it, so it only made sense to come up with something
in the designing process that showed that discipline. And I think
we've accomplished that. But more importantly what this does is it
promotes a compact, walkable campus. I think that's integral to our
success.
The buildings themselves are situated very specifically within
each of the grid patterns, and the setback of those buildings are also
based off from those grid lines.
At this time I'd like to try to get you a little bit closer to the
campus and a little bit more familiar with what we are presenting.
First I'll start over to the far east of the university, and that is,
inside the Town Center is the oratory. The oratory is -- was designed
as an integral part of the Town Center. We went back into the
European concepts where the church is the focal point in the landmark
of the development and where the Town Center surrounds that, and I
think our land planners and our architects have done a wonderful job
of resembling that in this design.
It also acts as a terminating point. Try to find my arrow here.
I'm sorry. There we are. It also acts as a terminating vista point to
what is an important element of the campus, and that being the
campus green. The campus green is approximately a thousand feet
long, 3 50 feet wide, and will really be the focal point and really set up,
Page 179
March 23, 2004
again, to be compact and walkable.
I'll take you through some of the layout of the buildings through
here. To the south of the campus green we have the library, moving to
the west we have the science, math, and technology building, to the
west of that and to the end of the campus green we have the theater
and performing arts.
As I move north on the campus green, we have the student
activity center. Back to the east of that we have an economics
building. And to the east of that and close to the Town Center, we
have the administration building.
To the north of the student activity center, we have the student
recreation center, as well as several of its amenities of a softball field,
soccer field, football field, and some tennis courts that support the
sports and recreation program.
As I go to the south here, we -- just south of the theater and
performing arts, we have the central plant, and to the south of that, we
have the first node or pod, if you will, of undergraduate housing.
And I think it's important to stop for a moment to emphasize that
we truly anticipate that 95 percent of the students will live on campus
here at Ave Maria. That is a goal of ours. It would be very unlike
what you see at Florida Gulf Coast as a very transient campus.
One of our goals, or one of the policies that we have established
that we fully intend that would be carried out is that unless the student
lives at home with the parent, they must reside on campus, and that is
a policy that we currently have at the interim campus and we plan on
carrying out to the permanent campus. To the -- lost my arrow again.
And to the east of the undergraduate, we have the administration
housing for the chancellor, the president, the founder, and to the south,
two key buildings will be the graduate academic building and a
residential hall for the graduate students themselves.
Page 180
March 23, 2004
To put this in a little bit clearer perspective, I'd like to show you
this rendering of the campus green, and you are looking directly east
at this point down the campus green. As you can see, the oratory
becomes the terminating vista for that in the Town Center. And again,
I have already identified the buildings that flank this campus green.
One thing I failed to note on that last slide, and I'll go back to it,
is that you can start picking up the architectural vernacular of Frank
Lloyd Wright. And as we show you more renderings, you'll see it
more closely.
A very significant architectural element to the campus. One of
the interesting facts of it will be all copper roofing is being currently
designed for all of the buildings on the university campus. So strong
architectural elements designed in the campus.
And speaking of strong architectural elements, is -- and this is the
oratory, which again, as I spoke about, is the landmark or the
trademark, if you will, for this entire development. And I've already
spoken about how it was designed into the integral part of the Town
Center.
It's designed to hold up to 3,500 individuals in this permanent
seating within the church. It's approximately 150 feet high. And in
the center here you can see -- and very carefully designed in
relationship to the building -- is the crucifix. This is approximately 60
feet tall, is the crucifix, and it's inset into the architecture, and we
really consider it an architectural feature or embellishment to the
building.
I'll take you through a couple of the individual buildings and
speak about their uses, and at the same time, you can see for yourself
the Frank Lloyd Wright discipline that's been integrated into the
design.
This is the student activity building, and we're looking at this
point northeast across the waterway that will be developed as we get
Page 181
March 23, 2004
into production or construction. This is -- the main purpose behind
this is dining, that's student union, and typically found in most
universities, administration housing, as well as a post office.
The next building is the academic building that I spoke about.
And, again, it's typical of classrooms, laboratory space, faculty office,
and a large lecture hall.
The next building is the library. This will house administration
offices as well as hold up to 420,000 volumes of books. And as you
can see -- in the comer, you can see its relationship to the Town
Center being that this -- where the arrow is pointing is the comer of
the Town Center building, and the ark road, if you will, will be
coming in between these two buildings. So you can see the
relationship to that.
I think that concludes my program. And just in ending, I'd just
like to compliment the county and thank the county for its strong
support thus far in this long and diligent process. The staff has been
wonderful to work with. We appreciate your cooperation, and look
forward to a long and rewarding relationship in this county. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, that was most impressive.
Oh, I'm sorry. We've still got Mr. Reynolds. I'll wait till after his
presentation.
MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you. Good afternoon,
Commissioners. I'm very pleased to be here today. Alan Reynolds
with WilsonMiller.
As has already been stated, we have been spending the better part
of a year working with the county in putting this whole concept
together and working through all the details. And as you can tell from
looking at the staff report and the books and the applications, there are
a lot of details to this.
Page 182
March 23, 2004
But I thought as a closer, it would be good to just step back for a
second and get back to the big picture. Because Collier County did
something that was rather extraordinary in coming up with a new
concept for rural planning. And I just want to go back for a second to
that bigger picture, which is that you were asked as a county
essentially to create a plan that would do several things together that,
frankly, hadn't been done well before in Florida, and that's to deal with
rural land use planning issues, environmental protection, agriculture, a
new norm of development.
And you were challenged to come up with a plan, frankly, that
there was no good solution for, and you did that, and you did that
through a very collaborative process with the public. It was adopted.
It's been hailed across the state as a -- as a model, I think, for other
communities to look at. And the essence of that whole plan is really
why we're here today, because without that plan, we would not be
here to be able to present this first application to you.
And I think it's important to just go back to, what was the intent
of the big picture. And if you recall -- and I know you do because it
wasn't that long ago where we presented with your staff the final
comprehensive plan -- there were really four things that were trying to
be accomplished; protect natural resources, protect agriculture, using
creative planning to accommodate the forecasted growth. Those were
the three things in that final order. And then your citizens committee
really added a fourth, which is to look at diversifying the economic
base in rural Collier County.
And I just want to show you -- because it's one thing to come up
with a great plan. It's another to see a great plan implemented. And
there are a lot of great plans that sit on the shelf and don't work or are
not implemented, and here we're talking about really the first
implementation of that Rural Land Stewardship overlay that you
created.
Page 183
March 23, 2004
So let's talk about them one by one, again, very briefly. First,
natural resources are protected. We've been talking about the
receiving area, but as George mentioned, there is a sending area
application that is part of this overall process.
Five thousand, two hundred eighty-six acres will be protected
permanently by that application, and that is -- that is private land that
will be privately main, so there's no cost to the public, either for
acquisition or for long-term maintenance.
By putting that in place, you have dramatically reduced potential
impacts because all of the nonconservation and agricultural uses have
been eliminated from that property, and it did it without destroying
property rights, because the property owner got an economic incentive
in terms of credits to go ahead and put that land in protection, and it
forever eliminated the potential for any incompatible development
within those sending areas.
Five thousand, two hundred eighty-six acres is a lot of land. I
would venture to say that probably that's the largest amount of private
land that has been put in protection in any one action that the county
has ever undertaken.
More specifically though with the application, we took great
pains and sought counsel of the environmentalists in particular in
choosing these first sending areas, because there are some areas that
are very critical in the large scale for protecting important natural
resources.
And the acreage and the lands that were chosen for these SSAs
were very carefully selected because they had very high natural
resource values, but also they represented significant pieces of both of
those two major flow-ways, the Camp Keais Strand and the
Okaloacoochee.
So now we have sending areas in both key flow-ways, and it's a
very important -- particularly the one -- the eastern one is very
Page 184
March 23, 2004
important for the panther because it has high panther utilization. So it
was not just that we're protecting these areas, but the specific locations
were very important.
And I just want to show you -- and this is just -- zeros in on that
easternmost sending area, which is the -- or the two actually that are
the larger ones. And as George mentioned, it generates actually more
credits than we need to use for this first phase of Ave Maria. So there
will be -- I guess the conservation side of the equation has been
front-ended, if you will, in these applications.
The question gets asked too, well, how do the resources -- how
are they protected long-term. There's a specific stewardship agreement
that's part of the approval process that details not only how it's
protected, but long-term management requirements that the property
owner assumes the obligation for in perpetuity. Again, that happens
without public funding.
Then the question is, well, how does agriculture benefit a -- from
this application? Well, the first is, is that there has now been an
economic incentive to retain agriculture on those 5,000 acres of
sending area. And all of the nonagricultural uses have been
eliminated forever.
So agriculture can now continue, even while future growth is
being accommodated as opposed to being out-competed, if you will,
over the long-term.
And let me just show you how that works, again, on the two
larger sending areas. What you'll see is that the land is taken down to
its existing agricultural use, so some of the land that's shown in the
brighter green retains an active agricultural designation.
The brownish color is taken all the way down to pasture. And
you can see that we get a different level of credit for doing that. We
get more credit for keeping it in a more natural condition, and that's
how the credit system works. It gives that flexibility to the property
Page 185
March 23, 2004
owner, but it's -- it essentially keeps a viable use on the property
long-term.
The third piece is creating viable communities. As Anita told
you, and George as well, there's very detailed requirements that you've
adopted over the past year in your comprehensive plan and your Land
Development Code design guidelines. And I will tell you, we meet
every single one.
But what it really does is it creates this new form of compact
development where people don't have to be as dependent on their cars
as they were because of the mix of the uses and the integration of the
uses and the careful planning.
It's also -- maybe it should go without saying that the
infrastructure's planned and built in advance of the demand. That's
one of the requirements in this application, is we have to show, not
only is any county infrastructure in place to support it, but the
self-provided infrastructure, which I will tell you is very extensive in
this case, all has to be provided up front.
And I think importantly, there are some natural systems in the
rural land that are used for water management, so we now have a dual
use, if you will, for natural systems integrated into a water
management system.
And then finally, economic diversification. I can't imagine a use
that could have a greater positive impact on rural Collier County than
a new university. I mean, when we talk about diversifying the
economic base, what could be better than an institution that not only
brings high-wage jobs to the county, but provides educational
opportunities for people?
We've talked about fiscal impact, and that's a -- to me, that's the
narrow picture, which is, what is the impact to the county's tax base,
and the answer is, it is a positive impact based on the analysis that's
been done.
Page 186
March 23, 2004
But I think as importantly, or maybe more importantly, what
we're doing is creating opportunities. And if you just think about the
fact that the existing businesses and workers in Immokalee in
particular will now have the opportunity to benefit from new jobs
within about a seven-mile drive from downtown Immokalee, to me,
that represents a great -- a great thing, frankly, not just for Collier
County, but specifically for Immokalee.
And when you look at economic impact -- and I know from
discussions with the EDC, you understand that multiplier effect in the
local economy. We have analyzed that, even though it's not required.
Just this first phase alone creates a $100 million impact, good impact,
in the economy of Collier County. So I know that's not necessarily
part of the test, but certainly is not something to be overlooked in your
consideration.
So that's -- again, I just wanted to make sure you saw how the
application got back to those principles that we were trying to achieve
and what the whole intent of the stewardship program was.
So I thank you for your time. I think that's the end of the
presentation, and perhaps you want to hear from staff report now9.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Good afternoon, Madam Chair,
Commissioners. Donald Schneider from comprehensive planning, for
the record.
I would like to summarize for you, for the Stewardship Sending
Areas, the recommendation that staff has to bring forward.
We would recommend that the board adopt four resolutions
designating Stewardship Sending Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4 within the Rural
Land Stewardship Overlay District, including SSA credit agreements
and perpetual stewardship easements for each SSA in response to a
joint application by Barron Collier Investments, Limited, and Barron
Collier Partnership.
Also, that the board adopt a resolution BCI/BCP SSA 3 and 4,
Page 187
March 23, 2004
description agreement pertaining to polygon boundaries; and that staff
prepare an SSA memorandum to be recorded in the public records
together with the necessary portions or exhibits of the SSA credit
agreement and easements; that staff provides said documents to the
Collier County Property Appraiser and the applicant, that within 30
days of adoption, the applicant shall record same into the public
records.
And that concludes staffs recommendation at this time, Madam
Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
We have one speaker.
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And then we're going to break for 10
minutes to give our stenographer a little break there, and we'll be back
then for questions from the commissioners. MS. FILSON: Nancy Payton.
MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton representing the
Florida Wildlife Federation. And I'm here to support this request for
resolutions for sending areas 1, 2 and -- 1, 2, 3, and 4. We think
they're extremely important, and we appreciate the fact that
particularly 3 and 4 were selected first.
And 3 and 4 are in the OK slough, and they help advance,
significantly, efforts to protect panther habitat and travel corridors.
The panthers move north and south using this area, and 846 runs
between areas 3 and 4. And that's been the site of at least seven
panther deaths.
With this designation as a sending area, it moves forward our
efforts to get a -- at least one wildlife crossing, maybe more, there to
reduce or hopefully eliminate panther deaths and other wildlife deaths
on this road.
So we're truly thankful for Barron Collier for selecting these very
Page 188
March 23, 2004
important areas. It not only protects that panther habitat, but the OK
slough. It comes through there. It's in the area of critical state certain,
which there has been a 30, 40-year effort to protect those lands. And
this is probably one of the most effective ways to do it because the
landowner is going to take care of them indefinitely.
And I'd also like to comment on Mr. Feder and his staff who have
been very cooperative in working diligently to find ways to secure
funding and to make these wildlife crossings happen.
So please move forward with this sending area designation, and
we thank you very much, and we thank all those who have made this
possible.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. We'll take a 1 O-minute break.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning had a
question; is that it? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. The -- I think it's the
economic analysis assessment report stating the development
assessment handbook -- and I guess it was developed in Washington,
D.C. How does that compare to the reality, actual services that we
provide here in Collier County?
MR. VARNADOE: Commissioner Henning, George Vamadoe.
We've got Hank Fishkind here, if you want to get into the long story.
The short story is that we are -- we analyzed the impacts on the county
infrastructure -- I shouldn't say -- county services.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Services, yes.
MR. VARNADOE: And that included transportation, potable
water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater management, parks, law
enforcement, and that's where we showed you the fiscal neutral. Now,
we also included in that schools, which isn't under your dollar, but is
obviously something that we would have an impact in, and that fiscal
analysis showed that we -- in the first phase, it would be a $3.4 million
Page 189
March 23, 2004
positive through 2008.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the model that was done
was based on Bushell's Development Assessment Handbook. And I'm
sure it -- it's a comprehensive study on government services, and all
I'm saying is, have we kind of looked at Collier County versus the
handbook, and -- because we might have a different standard. It might
be lower, it might be higher.
MR. VARNADOE' Yes, and actually you use a model that Hank
Fishkind developed, and specific to Collier County. I'll let him take it over from there.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Mr. Hank (sic), just the short --
MR. FISHKIND: Yes, sir, very short.
Just briefly, the model that was used was calibrated using the
Collier County budget of Collier County budget trends for the last 10
years and your latest published detailed budget, and all of that was
done in conformance with the fiscal impact analysis models that we've
developed under contract with Development of Community Affairs
and that are now being used in 33 jurisdictions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Then based on our level
of service on whatever department it is, it was per capita. It's based on
that then?
MR. FISHKIND: In part-- mostly per capita, except for the
capital costs in particular, which are done specifically in accordance
with your impact fee methodologies.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. All right. But this is tax
dollars generated from -- whether it be single-family or commercial or
whatever?
MR. FISHKIND: Yes, sir. And all of the other --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's quite comprehensive
then.
MR. FISHKIND: And all the expenditures for every single line
Page 190
March 23, 2004
item in your budget.
sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm impressed.
MR. FISHK1ND: Your staff was very cooperative. Thank you,
Hank Fishkind, F-I-S-H-K-I-N-D.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then just one other
question, and it's probably for our staff, and it's the -- for solid waste
impacts, it's saying that the Immokalee landfill, once it's closed, that
we would transfer -- create a transfer station there, and that's where the
solid waste would go, and then transfer it into the Naples landfill.
And that would be -- it would be contracting with Collier County's
contract hauler, and they would be paying the same price as
everybody else would as far as pickup? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the pickup, okay.
And then I guess there's one other one. There was a request for
deviation of our LDC 2.4, and I understand what it says here in the
report. Most of it has to do with spacing, Mrs. Jenkins; is that correct?
MS. JENKINS: Yes. There's specific landscape design
standards that are set forth in the town plan that support the compact
development that we have, which is just a little bit different than what
you have in the buffering requirements in the LDC 2.4.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Okay. Would that have to be a
separate motion? I guess I have to ask our legal staff, Mr. White or--
MR. WHITE: Assistant county attorney, Patrick White. I
apologize, Commissioner Henning. I didn't get but the last phrase of
the question.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: The -- we're asked to deviate
from our code a little bit, and-- the 2.4 code, the landscaping code.
MR. WHITE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would that take a separate
Page 191
March 23, 2004
motion? Because it's all a part of the SRA packet here. So if we
accept it, we're accepting a deviation, or do we need a separate motion
for it?
MR. WHITE: I believe that Ms. Murray -- that was what I was
just discussing with her -- has a form of the motion that would include
those types of--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WHITE: -- exceptions or deviations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta? Did you want me to get Commissioner
Halas first?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you'd like.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got some questions. I know
that we look at the overlay of what this whole Ave Maria's going to
look like.
I'm wondering -- and maybe George can answer some of these
questions. Do you anticipate that we're going to be expanding the
roads out there more than just Oil Well Road, that we're going to have
to use Immokalee Road also eventually as a --
MR. VARNADOE: Eventually, I can't -- I can't answer that.
You may well, well into the future. But what we have been working
with your county staff on is the expansion of Oil Well and Camp
Keais Road, and there's a letter that you looked at and approved when
you did the special district resolution which showed our commitment
to provide about 115 acres of right-of-way for the expansion of Oil
Well and Camp Keais Road, provide the county with 200 feet of
right-of-way with no impact fee credits. So we are -- we are taking
care of ours on that, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other thing that
Page 192
March 23, 2004
concerns me is that, where my district is, it's in a high coastal hazard
area, a majority of it, and we'd like also to see if we can work with
staff in regards to acquiring buildings over there in Ave Maria
whereby they'll -- would house a lot of the residents in the coastal high
hazard area, not only in my district, but in Commissioner Coyle's
district and also Commissioner Fiala's district in regards to helping us
to find adequate shelter in case we do have an emergency.
MR. VARNADOE: You-- in the Planning Commission staff
report, you got a memo from your new emergency management
director, Dan Summers, where he recommends approval of the SRA
and talks about the ongoing conversations that we've had regarding the
potential use of some of the university buildings as hurricane shelters.
He's -- one of the things he's working on is some funding, since
that obviously would not be for the university students, but would be
for those in the coastal area, as to who's going to pay for that and how.
That will be firmed up by the time we get back with the DRI,
Commissioner Halas. I think you will -- we are working on that.
Your staffs right there on the ball with that one, and we've been
having ongoing discussions with Mr. Summers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And the last question I have
-- and I just want to get this on the record -- is there some way or
another that we can work with the university in regards to affordable
housing for people that may be working out there in the university.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I had a question along that same line.
MR. VARNADOE: I'm going to let Mr. Reynolds deal with that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. Again, for the record, Alan Reynolds
with WilsonMiller.
I think the answer to your question is yes, there not only is a way
that we can work together. I think there's a mechanism by which we
will be working together because what is before you right now is
Page 193
March 23, 2004
phase one of the town, and obviously a portion of the project.
We -- by virtue of the fact that this is a PDA, we will have to
come back to you with a DRI application. The DRI is the mechanism
within the state right now that's got the most comprehensive and the
most detailed methodology for assessing the whole issue of affordable
housing, workforce housing.
So we will certainly pledge that we will work with the county
and come up with a solution. We know that we need to. And, frankly,
you really have to deal with the entire town in order to address that
issue comprehensively. It's very difficult to look at is on an
incremental basis. But there's a very involved analysis that we'll have
to go through at the DRI stage for that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got one other question, Mr.
Reynolds, and maybe you can answer this for me and then I'll turn it
over to my other commissioners.
But in the DRI process, is that -- my understanding, there is
possibly some litigation that's presently in the legislature that may
circumvent that you won't have to use acer -- DRI in this.9
MR. REYNOLDS: Well, number one, there is pending
legislation, but it would not exempt this project from the DRI process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. And I had a question also with
regards to the same thing. I understand that they would be addressing
affordable housing, or let's call it workforce housing, because
affordable housing sounds like a different product than what I'm
concerned with.
I'm concerned with workforce housing, moderately priced
housing for the service industry that will be serving the church and the
hotel with -- 11 O-room hotel, and it's going to need service employees
there, and also to service the dormitories and to take care of the
maintenance of the landscaping and so forth.
Page 194
March 23, 2004
I think that there are going to be many service personnel needed
to make a town this beautiful function and look as beautiful as you
show us it will, yet it only has, initially, one road going in and one
road going out. And so I'm afraid that we're going to have the same
type of a thing that is happening on our roadways now as the
workforce leaves that area and goes back to where they live, and they
have -- because they cannot be accommodated on the property, yet
your captivated traffic, is that what it's called? MR. REYNOLDS' Captured, yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Captured traffic shows 80 to 90 percent,
but it doesn't show those service personnel leaving. So I wonder what
you're going to do in the initial phase before you get to the DRI to
handle this type of employee who can't afford a 170,000 or more
home.
MR. REYNOLDS: Well, it's a great question, and certainly it's
something that has been -- that we've been thinking about a lot as
we've been working on the planning.
I'll first go back to the point that at least at this stage of the
project, there really wasn't a requirement for us to specifically analyze
the issue of affordable housing. There is at the time of the DRI. So
one of the reasons I probably don't have a complete answer for you
today is because we haven't done that analysis because it wasn't
required.
But the fact remains is, that as we build this town, yes, we're
going to not only be creating high-wage jobs, but we'll be creating
moderate-wage jobs, and we'll be creating a demand for service as
well.
Let me talk about the couple points you've raised. First of all, as
it relates to the one road, for the PDA phase, we have the primary
entrance road that comes off Oil Well Road. We do have a secondary
road that we envision will be used predominantly for construction
Page 195
March 23, 2004
related traffic, and that connects to Camp Keais Road, so there
actually is a second way in and out of the town during these -- this
two-year PDA phase.
We haven't completed the town plan yet, but we know enough
about the town plan that we will have multiple access points when we
get to the town. We don't have enough land or development yet to
really warrant that because the entrance road is really being designed
for a capacity that's greater than this first phase, because we want to
build it and have the infrastructure up front.
So the long answer, I guess, to the road question is, that one
entrance road has excess capacity for the entire town, and the travel of
the workforce housing that will have to come to the town that's not
living in the town has been factored into that analysis.
I think the second question is, well, what -- what are we doing to
address sort of that fuller range of housing opportunities. One of the
things that the Rural Land Stewardship Program emphasizes is having
a mix of units, and you'll find, if you look at the SRA, that we have
everything from detached single-family to attached single-family, to
townhouses, to condominiums, to apartments, and we even have a
provision that allows for guest houses for single-family residents.
So, for example, there's an opportunity for us to have guest
homes as part of the single-family that might be oriented towards, you
know, students or, perhaps, lower income levels.
We think that the pricing -- and we've said that the entry level for
single-family owner occupied is approximately $170,000. Well,
workforce housing, I think, as the county defines it, is just a subset of
affordable housing, and affordable housing really covers that whole
range from very low, low, and moderate income.
But the way I believe you define workforce housing, it is
specifically for owner-occupied only, and it's specifically targeted to
the moderate income levels.
Page 196
March 23, 2004
Well, $170,000 single-family owner-occupied home actually fits
within your definition of-- the county's definition of workforce
housing. Now it doesn't, I think you're saying, address the very low
income segment, and that's probably, you know, a very true statement.
But think about this. And I think I've got some statistics that I can
show you.
Let me talk about this one, then let me come back to my second
point. The first point is that there's -- you know, affordable housing is
an enormous issue, you know, across the state and certainly in Collier
County, and there actually have been some things, some positive
things that have been done to address it on a community-wide basis,
which is really the only way to do it.
You're familiar, of course, with the Sadowski Act. And this
project, just this first phase of the project alone is going to generate
revenues under the Sadowski Act that's used for the S.H.I.P. Program.
Well, we did some quick calculations. Just the first phase
generates about $240,000, and that translates into down payment and
closing cost assistance to, potentially, 48 families using the full $5,000
of the closing cost assistance. So that's one thing that happens in the
town.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: At $170,000 they would be eligible for
this?
MR. REYNOLDS' No. That doesn't necessarily mean that they
-- that they would necessarily qualify --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They'd have to live there, right?
MR. REYNOLDS: -- them for a $170,000 home, but it allows
them essentially to make a down payment for an owner-occupied
home.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Someplace else?
MR. REYNOLDS: Well, someplace else, or-- if they can't
afford a home at 170,000 within the town.
Page 197
March 23, 2004
Let me talk a little bit about the service worker point, too,
because it is our belief from our analysis, that at least in the early
years, the service worker base is already here in Collier County.
Immokalee has about 7,000 people in the workforce today. And
based on the last census, there was about a 12 percent unemployment
rate in Immokalee. I don't know if that still holds true today. But
suffice it to say that there's a fairly significant workforce in
Immokalee today.
That workforce right now predominantly has to travel to coastal,
urban Naples, they go into Fort Myers to provide -- to get their jobs.
We'll now have a town that's within seven miles of downtown
Immokalee. Well, what that does is two things. It certainly reduces a
commuting time for those existing businesses that are already there,
but it also expands the opportunity for them to expand their
businesses. So they don't necessarily have to pick up and move their
home from Immokalee into our town in order to provide those
services. In fact, they can do it right from where they live.
And that workforce -- I mean, a lot of people think that it's
predominantly agriculture, but the statistics, actually, that over half of
that workforce is actually in business occupations for services, you
know, for construction, for those kinds of things, I think, that you're
talking about.
You know, the analysis that we did took into account all of these
factors, and I think, you know, certainly we felt that it addressed the
issue at this very interim phase with the understanding that, you know,
we'll be back before the county with the full analysis that's required,
and that gets pretty extensive, because we actually have to go and
survey the existing housing base that's within a radius of the town, we
have to quantify what's there today, we have to quantify how many
jobs we're going to create at all of the income levels, and we have to
come up with a solution that really, you know, applies to the entire
Page 198
March 23, 2004
town.
So, I mean, I would just sort of beg your indulgence to let us go
through that analysis, let us bring it back at the time of the DRI. I
think you'll find that we are committed to addressing it properly, we
will address it in a way that I think is satisfying to you. And frankly,
we need to work a little bit more with the community to identify what
some of those options are. Because I don't think there's one -- there's
not one answer to this. It's really going to be a multitude of ways in
which we address the issue.
So I think we're doing everything we can in this -- in this early
phase, but rest assured, we'll -- we will be back again.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Again, I'll just reiterate that even with the
little K through 8 -- not little. It's going to be a nice private parochial
school -- they're going to have to have teachers, and they're not --
teachers aren't going to be paid like professors. And I'm sure they
would like to live closer to their place of employment or in their town.
Maybe people in Immokalee would like to move up the ladder
rung as they work there, whether it be at the school level or in the
hotels or -- you know, it doesn't have to be the low, low income
employee. I'm just talking about the firemen that are going to be
needed in the area and the policemen who maybe right now live in
Inunokalee and want to take another step up and live there.
But we're not providing -- at $170,000 -- and these guys make a
big $30,000 a year, they're not moving there and so what I'm -- what
I'm concerned with is, I realize that you say in the DPd, you're going
to get to it, but by the time the DRI is in place, we've already got
phase one with 950 dwelling units, plus we have a 11 O-room hotel, we
have a beautiful oratory, we have a dormitory, we have the first phase
of the university, and we don't have one single dwelling unit for a
service worker, and that's what I'm concerned about.
MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah. And, you know, we understand the
Page 199
March 23, 2004
concern. We share the concern. It's something that we do want to
address, and I think all I'm saying is that, give us an opportunity to
look at it and come up with a -- you know, a comprehensive solution
that will work long-term, rather than trying to do something sort of on
an ad hoc basis.
The one thing I want to stress, too, that I think is important,
because we've talk about this PDA phase in front of the DRI. The
PDA is specifically to allow us to begin construction of the university
prior to the DRI. But we also have to compare and file and process
the DRI within a very short time frame.
Based on our estimates, you will be seeing the DRI, and
hopefully look upon it favorably before this town is actually open for
business, because it's going to take a couple years to build the
university and the town. And in that time frame, hopefully we'll be
able to get the DRI through the process so that when we're actually
opening up this town, you'll know what the solution is, you know,
bigger term that's addressed workforce housing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. If I may also
address that issue -- and you're the most compassionate person when it
comes to affordable housing on that, and I thank you for that.
This will be coming back-- what is it, 90 days or something, Al?
I can't recall that.
MR. REYNOLDS: We're required to get the appli -- have a
preapplication meeting and file the DRI within 40 months, basically
120 days.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it's going to come back to
the Southwest Regional Planning Council first, and they already --
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- established a precedent with
Page 200
March 23, 2004
their suggestions on Heritage Bay, which this commission picked up
on and ran with. And I've talked to Tom Monaghan, because this is a
very special subject about the affordable housing issue. And believe
me, he's very concerned about it. And when the time comes, we're
going to -- we're going to have the right thing happen.
A couple points that we need to make though is that, one of the
greatest things about this, even if we come up with a workforce and
not 100 percent of them are able to be contained within the boundaries
of Ave Maria, we've got to remember, we're only talking about a drive
of less than six miles versus 40 miles that they're driving today. So
that has to be factored in.
Also, too -- and I know this may be out of line, but Mr. Thomas,
who's standing here in the background, is an expert on affordable
housing in the Immokalee area, and he was the director of Farm
Workers' Village for -- I don't know -- about a be century and a half, I
believe. Now he's retired, but he's still quite an expert on the subject.
And if we may call him up, he might give us some insight that we're
all missing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. THOMAS' I'm going to support everything that A1 has
said. Because of the wonderful work you-all did this past October --
past November, we got Arrowhead Development breaking ground.
We're talking 1,200 units from--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, but you're talking Immokalee, Fred.
MR. THOMAS: No. We're talking nine miles from the oratory.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, exactly right, and--
MR. THOMAS: Especially when they --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- we're talking about traffic leaving the
town again--
MR. THOMAS' No, we're talking about -- if you four lane --
Page 201
March 23, 2004
they four lane Camp Keais and straightened it out, we're talking nine
miles for folks that are now traveling anywhere from 40 to 60 miles to
get to jobs on the coast.
Now, we're talking a wide range of housing, from apartments,
six, seven hundred dollar a month apartments, to condos, and to
houses. And with the incentives you provided, a lot of the folks will
be doing a lot of that.
We are hoping, you know, by more of those workers working in
Immokalee, there'll be greater accesses made down Camp Keais Road
to get from our town to their town. It will be like going from Golden
Gate to Naples. No problems at all.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that brings up a subject,
again, in regards to, if we have people traveling down Immokalee
Road, then, of course, we'll have to probably end up having to be
concemed about widening Immokalee Road to service the people back
and forth from-- and that's why I asked earlier --
MR. THOMAS: No, it wouldn't be from Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, from --
MR. THOMAS' If they widen -- if they widen 858 from Orange
Tree out to Camp Keais, straighten out and widen Camp Keais into
Immokalee, you can keep 846 from before Sanctuary Curve out to
Immokalee, a two-lane road serving the sanctuary. Because all of us --
right now I always travel 858 and come up Camp Keais.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. THOMAS' But you widen that road and two lane it, then
you're talking about the people leaving the university going due east to
Camp Keais, go straight up into Immokalee, straight into Immokalee,
and never have to get on 848, the old 848. It would be the greatest
solution in the world for us out there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
Page 202
March 23, 2004
Al, maybe you can answer a couple of questions for me. What is
your vision of a build-out of this whole community when we get
done? Do you have some idea of the population that's going to be out
in this whole particular area of Ave Maria?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You mean not just first phase, but all
phases?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All phase -- yeah, the whole --
what do you foresee as the total population?
MR. REYNOLDS' Well, I'll be perfectly honest with you, we
don't know yet, because we're still in the planning stages. But the
thought we have is that under your Rural Land Stewardship program,
a town can be anywhere from 1,000 to 4,000 acres, so there's a
maximum size of a town.
So let's just -- let's just say for the sake of argument that we get
up close to the 4,000 acres, which probably makes sense by the time
you put in all the services and support facilities. I would guess that
you're -- you would be looking in terms of about somewhere between
two and three units per acre. So you're probably looking at a housing
base of somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 units, but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ten thousand units?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah. Probably somewhere in the 10 to
12,000 --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So then we can say that would be
around 20,000 people if you had two people per unit?
MR. REYNOLDS' That's very possible, yeah, if you have two
per-- two per unit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other question is -- and I'm not
sure if you could answer this, or maybe Mr. Vamadoe. In regards to
the university and the town and everything, how it's all encompassed,
what areas of the town will be taxable as far as ad valorem taxes?
And what areas of the town would be exempt under the -- under the
Page 203
March 23, 2004
provisions by the state constitution?
MR. REYNOLDS: Let me try to answer it, and George will
correct me if I'm wrong. I believe that the exempt entities, at least in
this phase, is the university and the school.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're talking the school, you're
talking --
MR. REYNOLDS: The university and the K through 12 school.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah, and the chu-- and the oratory would
be, and everything else is taxable.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ball fields and all that stuff would
-- that would be exempt, or would that be under ad valorem taxation?
MR. REYNOLDS' Well, if it's a ball field inside the university, I
think it's part of the university, and I think it's tax exempt. If it's a ball
field as part of one of our parks --
COMMISSIONER HALAS' Oh.
MR. REYNOLDS: -- then I believe that that's part of the overall
tax base.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if you-- sometime in the future,
if we had a huge football stadium, that would be tax exempt if it was
on the grounds of the university?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, another question I
asked along that same line was the hotel, because it was under the
university phase, but they -- I was -- it was explained to me that the
hotel does not fall under the tax exempt--
MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct. The hotel does not.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- category. And also I asked about
impact fees, because I was wondering, if they're tax exempt, are they
tax exempt from impact fees, but I understood that they're -- nothing is
Page 204
March 23, 2004
exempt as far as impact fees goes. So no matter whether it be the
oratory or the dormitory, everything pays an impact fee. I am correct
there, right?
MR. REYNOLDS: You are correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And thank you --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not because I knew it. I had to ask staff.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. I appreciate
that-- being enlightened there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And before I close the public hearing, I
just have one more question.
I know that I've -- I've felt very strongly about this workforce
housing and about the roads to accommodate that workforce as it
departs every day, and I realize we're going to address it on the DRI
phase, and yet I am concerned that the initial town has no
accommodations whatsoever in all that we -- that we've been
presented.
The lowest income -- or the lowest price home there is $170,000,
and I just want to ask you other commissioners, how do you feel about
that? Are you willing to give up any -- you don't have to push your
button -- go ahead -- willing to give up and impact the roads that way?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think we're giving up
anything. We're talking about a population that's going to be coming
after they get the university built. I mean, we can't be providing
housing at this early stage and say we're going to build the housing
first when we haven't even planned on the town.
I -- remember, I went through the same thing, we were dealing
with Heritage Bay, and I think I got my fellow commissioners a little
irritated. I kept forcing the affordable housing issue through the whole
process and everybody --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I loved it.
Page 205
March 23, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did you?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. And everybody
kept saying, wait for the Development of Regional Impact --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- wait for that, wait for that.
Well, I got involved with the Southwest Regional Planning Council, I
got there early with them, and that's when we got the -- I wouldn't say
big bite -- when we came to a reasonable agreement on what
affordable housing would be at that point in time.
And we had to cancel them about two times at the meetings
before we got their attention. We're not going to have that problem
with Ave Maria when the time does come. But we're going to be --
we're going to be adamant about the fact that they come across.
They're going to have to come across to provide. Are they going to be
able to do a hundred percent? I seriously doubt it. I don't think there's
going to be a hundred percent of the people that work there that want
to live there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, and that-- you know, people
already own their homes. They're not going to want to move.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And-- but the opportunities.
Opportunities should be available for that part of the population that
could benefit from it. You're right, the school teachers that are going
to be teaching at the parochial school there, they should be given some
sort of preference for residence. But I'm sure when they come back,
there's going to be a balance to this whole thing and a logic. If there
isn't, we'll take them to task. But I'm sure when that time does come --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I remember when --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- that they're going to be there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- you shoved a lot of affordable housing
down my throat.
Page 206
March 23, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And believe me, we're not going
to have to shove it down anybody's throat down here, because they're
going to do it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- this is the size of the
PUD. It's not the size yet of a DRI. And we're going to take a look at
all those impacts of affordable housing. But if we're going to do this
at the PUD stage, how come we didn't do it for BK Development, now
is going to be PGA?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, probably because they're
surrounded by affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because it's in East Naples.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean., the People can ride their bike
there, you know.
No, that's not because it's East Naples. It's because --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can tell you--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me tell you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- we got more affordable
housing --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: As long as you made the statement, let me
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, sir.
-- in District 3 --
Okay, children.
-- than we do in East Naples.
Let me tell you. It's right -- right
behind Trail Acres, right behind Treetops. It's all workforce housing.
It's right behind the Venetian Village or -- yeah, the habitat village,
right across the street from Whistler's Cove, and right across the street
from Naples Manor. If you don't think that's plenty of affordable
housing, tell me about it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's not within their
Page 207
March 23, 2004
development.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. It's adjoining their development, so
-- so don't tell me about how much affordable housing they have.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead and get Commissioner
Coyle, then let me make a motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead. No, then I have to close the
public hearing after Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I get to speak now?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but only for a moment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, but I need to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You'll notice that I have sat here
quietly for the past hour while you have beat this horse to death.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We were hoping you were
asleep.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to merely make one
observation. I think it is unrealistic to expect that everyone who needs
affordable housing should be able to have it beside their place of
work.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Obviously that's true.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not possible.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Certainly. Nobody ever said that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's never going to happen. And
this is a perfect opportunity to let the free market system work.
A teacher is not going to move out and teach in that parochial
school unless someone gives them a salary that is attractive to them,
unless there's a place for them to live.
There is no incentive for them to do that. And if there are no
teachers, guess what will happen? Higher salaries will be offered to
get the teachers there, and that's the way the free market system
works.
So the other point is that you have no idea what the affordable
Page 208
March 23, 2004
housing level costs, the cost of the house really is, without
understanding what salaries are going to be paid out there, and you
don't have that developed yet.
So you don't want to reach a conclusion that you build $140,000
houses, $130,000 houses, and then find out that you've got a wage
base that can afford $170,000 houses, because then those people are
going to go somewhere else to buy a house.
So it's amazing what the free market system will do if you'll let it
work. And I think this is an excellent opportunity to let it work, and I
think we ought to wait and see how this process works out.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, just be alerted that when it comes
forward to us again, I'm adamant that we provide. Free market hasn't
worked in higher wages. You've been complaining about that since
you've been on this commission, so free market hasn't worked before,
it's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Government subsidies haven't
worked either.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. We don't want government subsidies
here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what you're going to have to
do if you want to do what you're talking about there. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I don't think so.
But anyway, let me close the public hearing, and then --
MR. WHITE: Madam Chair, if I may?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. WHITE: Before you close the public hearing--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. Don't close the public hearing.
MR. WHITE: -- I think we're considering items 8(F) and 8(A)
together.
And at this point I'd like to just go on the record and add in that I
reviewed the Affidavit of Publication for the SSA resolutions as well,
Page 209
March 23, 2004
and I'll mm that over to the stenographer. And I believe that Ms.
Murray needs to give you the presentation with respect to the SRA
portion of the companion items. Thank you.
MS. MURRAY: Thank you, Mr. White.
Susan Murray, for the record. I will keep this 30 seconds or less.
We have reviewed both the town plan and the application and
find that the town is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the
applicable Land Development Code regulations.
I did want to enter into the record, we had as a final
recommendation on page 16 of your executive summary,
recommendation relative to an exemption that the applicant was
asking for from the landscape provisions, specifically provision 2.4 of
the Land Development Code.
And we had asked that they revise that to ask for an exemption
from specific provisions. And I wish to revise that, once again, after
discussions with them.
They had some concern over some of the provisions they were
asking, or we were asking them to exempt themselves from that may
be problematic to them during their development phase, recognizing
that this is a unique type of development and plan and that some of the
requirements within the provisions we were asking them to abide by
may not work in terms of street tree varieties and that sort of thing.
The important thing here is we want to ensure that the provisions
of the landscape code relative to, for example, soil types, pruning,
maintenance, root barriers, that sort of thing, kind of the nuts and bolts
of planting. It's irrelevant of design when you plant a tree or a shrub.
You need certain things in place to ensure the viability of that plant.
And those are contained within our Land Development Code, so
it's important, regardless of development, that they're still required to
abide by them, hence we ask that our recommendation be amended as
follows: And that is that staff recommends that the applicant revise
Page 210
March 23, 2004
page five of the town plan to request an exemption to sections 2.4.5.1
through 2.4.7.5 of the Land Development Code, and that the
remaining LDC development standards shall be applicable except
where the standards are specifically different in the town plan, then
the standards of the town plan shall govern. That's really not anything
different than you had in your summary.
What we'd like to say is, if during the course of the site
development plan or plat review, unique features of the land or unique
project design or special circumstances associated with the land arise
and preclude the applicant from meeting any of the remaining
applicable requirements of the LDC, that the applicant may submit an
alternative design which shall be reviewed and approved, provided the
zoning director makes a determination that the intent of the code is
being met.
Language exists to that degree already in the Land Development
Code where it talks about the encouragement of creativity and the
ability to vary provided the intent of the code is met. That is also a
very similar provision that you have in your architectural and design
guideline standards where under certain circumstances you're allowed
to submit an alternative plan, which is to be evaluated in terms of the
intent of the code.
So that is the minor modification that we'd like to make, and we
did discuss that with the applicant. I do believe they are in agreement
with that. So I'd like to state that for the record.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's on 8(F), right?
MS. MURRAY: That is -- yes, 8(F), the SRA application, and
that's on page 16 of your executive summary. And that's all I had.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have a question, if I may.
I was going through the recommendations here from staff and the
Collier County Planning Commission. And is the -- staff
recommendations, do they incorporate the county Planning
Page 211
March 23, 2004
Commission's recommendations, or was there some sort of-- was it so
far off the market it wasn't going to meet the needs or --
MS. MURRAY: Well, some of the recommendations were, I
would say, for future. For example --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand that.
MS. MURRAY: -- with the DRI and all that. But, yes, after the
Planning Commission, the applicant revised the notebook
appropriately per their recommendations. So anything that was
pertinent to the contents of the notebook has been updated. The future
recommendations with respect to DRI and affordable housing and all
of that would obviously come at a later point.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm concerned about item
three within the --
MS. MURRAY: Which page, Commissioner? Could you direct
me?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What page -- I'm sorry, page 15,
item three. Within the Community General area of the town plaza,
accessory structures to be limited to a height of 75 feet and
communication towers should be limited to a height of 100 feet. Now,
does this have anything to do at all with the church itself?. I know we
need a steeple on that. That's the signature -- MS. MURRAY: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- part of the community.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
MS. MURRAY: This is actually in the Community General
area, which specifically you're talking about the facilities for, for
example, water and sewage treatment --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MS. MURRAY: -- that they're going to provide for the town.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So that doesn't raise a problem
with the --
Page 212
March 23, 2004
MS. MURRAY: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- present plans and what they're
asking to do?
MS. MURRAY: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The -- and I just wanted to get
that out front.
At this point in time, if you close the public meeting, I would like
to make a--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- a motion, if I may.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I will close the public hearing on item
8(A) and close the public hearing on item 8(F).
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, if I understand
correctly --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. It's 8(F) that you would
like to have--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You can ask questions yet after we close
the public hearing?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- first?
MR. WHITE: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. At this point in time, I
would --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: One more question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's all right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't mean to jump the gun.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's all right.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to building heights,
what guidelines are there for building heights in the entire area?
Page 213
March 23, 2004
MS. MURRAY: What guidelines are there for building heights
within the entire area?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. MURRAY: That area's governed by the section of the Land
Development Code that talks specifically to the various elements, if
you will, of the plan, the Town Core, the Town Center, Neighborhood
General, that sort of thing. So each of those various subdistricts have
height --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what are the maximum heights
in each of those?
MS. MURRAY: Those are -- I knew you were going to quiz me
on that, so -- those are actually in stories. Now, when you get to the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two stories.
MS. MURRAY: What's that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right.
MS. MURRAY: Okay. When you get to some of the special
districts. So, for example, the special district I was just discussing
with Commissioner Coletta about the services district, there is no
maximum for some of the special districts. And I would assume that
was intentional, given the fact that they are, quote, special districts.
They're districts that you would funnel in various uses that may be --
special use, special type of land uses. In this case it's their service
district.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I raise that question because I
recognize that it exists, and I just wanted to make sure -- I'm not going
to try to make any judgments about Commissioner Coletta's district.
It's sort of his call on that. But I just wanted to make sure that
everyone was aware that there really are no height limits there.
Specifying height limits in terms of stories is not a very effective way
to do it.
To give you an example, how many stories is the church?
Page 214
March 23, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. But I tell you, I don't
feel threatened by it in the slightest.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've seen the plans that they
have, and the last thing I want to do at this point in time is come up
with a height limitation where people are going to be looking for
certain things to be part of their planned community. I'd say leave
well enough alone.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. MURRAY: But that is the standard that's in the LDC. I
mean, town plan aside, that is, any development that comes in within
that area would have to abide by those standards, and the standard is
measured in stories.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I just want -- I just want to say to the
commissioners, I've had a friend who works in this project very
closely, and he's promised me -- and I believe him. He's promised me
that he's going to address the workforce housing for service personnel
really to my satisfaction during the DRI process, and so I'm taking him
at his word and banking on that. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS' What is the -- what's the maximum
stories that you can have out there? There must have been something
MS. MURRAY: Five.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
think.
MS. MURRAY: Five.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Five stories.
of 10 -- 50 to 60 feet then, roughly, right?
MS. MURRAY: Roughly.
-- that's put in the criteria, I would
So that's a possibility
Page 215
March 23, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, when you--
COMMISSIONER HALAS' Other than the church?
MR. MUDD: -- when you say five stories, it could be a library,
and a library doesn't have a 1 O-foot ceiling. And you might have --
you might have something that's a little bit bigger than that.
So trying to take a story that you're used to on the rural area -- or
on the coastal area and say it's 10 foot or 12 foot, and then you add
numbers to it, I don't think you can do that here. And I think you get
yourself in some difficulty. You'll find out that it's going to be
probably a little bit bigger than 60 to 70 feet when you're talking five.
Because in an academic environment, you'll get a ceiling that's a little
bit higher.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why was -- why did they use
stories and not feet? Is there any real reasons?
MS. MURRAY: I can't say. It was --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It would seem to me that we'd want
to -- you want to keep everything kind of congruent as far as -- if one
area you use stories and the other areas you use feet, it just kind of
muddles everything.
MS. MURRAY: My assumption, it would be to allow for some
design flexibility. But I don't know if-- Stan, you know, Litsinger, he
was involved with Bob Mulhere when he drafted that. I don't know if
there was a specific reason or not, but --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I assure you that's not going to
block the ocean view. That's not going to be a problem here. It might
block some trees where you won't be able to see them, but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm just saying, what we're
trying to do here is -- if we're trying to put together Land
Development Codes, you should have them so that they're consistent
Page 216
March 23, 2004
throughout the whole county.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no. I disagree, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS' Well, if you want to go either story
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is not the whole county.
COMMISSIONER HALAS' Wait a minute. If you go stories or
if you go feet, that's all we're saying.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You know, I'm not here to -- all I
want to know is -- get some idea what we're dealing with, and so I'm
trying to get kind of in my mind where we're going with this.
MS. MURRAY: Right now as it stands, the Land Development
Code measures in stories. So any application that came in would be
evaluated against that standard, which is stories.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
If this is the appropriate time, and I think it is, I'd like to make a
motion for approval of 8(F), which also incorporates staff
recommendations as so listed on page 15, and the Collier County
Planning Commission's recommendation, which is also on page 15.
And it's been my privilege to be able to make that motion.
MS. MURRAY: Mr. -- sorry. Madam Chair, could I just clarify
that that was staffs recommendations as read into the record just now?
Because we did modify those on page 15.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
MS. MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you've amended your motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have. I've amended my
motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a second -- a motion --
Page 217
March 23, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could I also -- could we also make
sure that we address -- it's already in here, but make sure that we
address the need for coastal area shelters for people that live along the
coast --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's in here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I want to make sure it's
there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, we could repeat it
again, but it's even specified--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- shelters and storm refuges for
residents shall be addressed at development of regional impact--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The residents, we want to make
sure that's for coastal residents, not for the residents inside there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, no, for residents. We
can't just specifically say coastal.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, coastal could be anything
up to that point in the county. I'll buy that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. David, would you read back the
motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly, too.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Or shall I just interpret what I thought I
heard him say?
MR. WEIGEL: No, I think I can restate it. And we have a staff
recommendation as stated, slightly different from the executive
summary. And I believe Commissioner Coletta's motion also included
the recommendation of the Planning Commission, which is not
creating a problem or conflict, and I think--
Page 218
March 23, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Approve 8(F).
MR. WEIGEL: -- that pretty much -- and this is 8(F), and I think
that pretty much covers it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that correct, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could I just -- I want to make one
correction on what I stated in the coastal, and that's in the V zone, for
residents that are in a V zone, coastal residents, and that's -- includes
your district, Commissioner Coletta's district -- or not Colet --
Commissioner Coyle's district, and my district.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm sorry. I wished I could
say yes, but I've been through two weeks of-- and you've been
through two weeks almost, one weekend, another week to go. We
don't know where the zones are going to be where people are going to
be flooded out. And if we restrict certain areas of the county at this
point in time from using the shelters in there because they don't fit into
a certain criteria--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If it fits in a V zone, that -- if it --
whenever -- whatever the criteria is that comes down from FEMA,
that will cover those areas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. White?
MR. WHITE: Madam Chair and Commissioner Halas, I don't
know that there's any way that you can preclude residents from one
portion of the county --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, no --
MR. WHITE: -- or offer preference to residents of one portion of
the county when it comes to emergency shelters. Certainly we could
look at what the numbers are that are in those areas and make some
kind of a corresponding commitment for improved shelters --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
MR. WHITE: -- in that area, but I think that's the most that we
can do under the circumstances.
Page 219
March 23, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That meets the needs of
everyone.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That solved my problem.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
So the motion stands from Commissioner Coletta, seconded by
Commissioner Henning.
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: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That passes 5-0 for number 8(F).
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And if I may?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like the motion -- make
a motion for approval of 8(A) to include the staff recommendations
that have already been read into the record, and -- I'm trying to see if
there was something that had to be added to that, but I believe that
covered it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Coletta to accept 8(A) as written, and that would
Page 220
March 23, 2004
include the -- adopting a resolution pertaining to polygon boundaries;
is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, just as was
already read from the -- page nine of our item -- agenda item 8(A) --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- under recommendations.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I have a motion from
Commissioner Coletta to adopt all four resolutions regarding
Stewardship Sending Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4, and also adopt a resolution
pertaining to polygon boundaries, and a second from Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any 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: Okay.
Item #10A
ADOPTION OF FY05 BUDGET POLICY- APPROVED WITH
CHANGES
We move on to 10(A).
MR. MUDD: Yes, Commissioner. That's adoption of the FY-'05
Page 221
March 23, 2004
budget policy, and Mr. Mike Smykowski, the director of office and
management and budget, will present.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners. For the
record, Michael Smykowski.
Our purpose today is for the board to reach consensus on budget
polices governing the development of the FY-'05 Collier County
budget.
The county manager did route the proposed policies through the
Productivity Committee prior to the preparation of this executive
summary, and it was reviewed, and received unanimous support.
A written letter of support from the Productivity Committee is
included in the agenda package on page two.
The executive summary itself is broken into three distinct parts.
The first component is FY-'05 budget policies requiring board policy
direction. Those are on pages three to five.
The second component is standard budget policies used for a
number of years on pages six to nine. And in the interest of time, I'll
treat those like a consent agenda and will discuss those by exception
only.
And then the third component is a three-year analysis of the
general fund and the unincorporated area general fund budgets, which
are the principal ad valorem tax supported funds of the county.
In terms of the FY-'05 budget policies requiring board policy
direction, in general terms, the policies are consistent with those that
were implemented in FY-'04. This provides some measure of
consistency from year to year, and I think it was also in recognition of
the fact, by the county manager, that there was a slowdown in the
growth in taxable value while also recognizing that you have state
budget issues, you're opening new facilities, a regional park, a jail
facility, and the like, again, state mandates that may potentially impact
liS.
Page 222
March 23, 2004
So given those things kind of colliding at some point, there was
recognition obviously that we had to do what we could within the
county manager's agency to control costs.
In terms of policy direction, the county manager's first proposed
policy is, again, to limit expanded positions in the county manager's
agency to 25 or less. This, again, would continue to force economies
by requiring the divisions to reallocate existing resources to a higher
priority program, rather than simply adding on the margin and adding
new staff members.
There's a proposed limitation on current service, discretionary
operating expenses, limited to the CPI, which is 2.1 percent in this
area. We would propose to continue fund consolidations wherever
possible.
I'm on page three. I'm working from a summary, but the major
policies that we're looking for guidance for are on three and four and
five. Obviously fund consolidation, simplify the budget by eliminating
interfund transfers and also eliminating obsolete Municipal Service
Taxing Units that have not levied taxes for a number of years. Those
are on page three at the bottom.
In terms of health care program cost sharing, there's been an
ongoing effort over the last few years to shift an additional two
percent of costs to employees annually. That is, again, recommended
in FY-'05, and in FY-'06 we would achieve our desired goal that we've
been striving towards over a number of years of an 80/20 split.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A question, if I may.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That 80/20 split, where does
that put us in relation to our competitors out there? We're competing
with the labor force. Talking about such things as the other
government entities and maybe the hospitals or school system?
Where does that put us? Are we still competitive or are we going to
Page 223
March 23, 2004
be losing the edge?
MR. OCHS: Still competitive.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, we're still competitive. Jim
Mudd, for the record, county manager. We're still competitive.
This is -- this is a hard -- this is a hard nut for the employees to
swallow, okay? You know, you're shifting two percent of your
medical costs, and your COLA is just about -- last year it was 2.8.
This year it's 2.1 based on the December numbers that we pull up
every year out of southern Florida. This is difficult, and it's been hard
on our employees to get down there.
But I will tell you at the 90/10 split, the medical costs almost get
to be too big -- too much for the taxpayers of Collier County the way
things are growing.
Now, I will also tell you that Jeff Walker, who's our risk director
in the county, has got a consortium where he's got the school, the
sheriff, and two others to get together and meet with NCH and
Cleveland Clinic to try to hold down our cost.
One of the things we did this year to try to really help us with the
cost outside the two percent -- and Commissioner Fiala mentioned this
as we were sitting there -- we had a discussion about prescription
drugs.
And before it was a straight seven dollars down and you got your
prescription filled, and it didn't make a difference if the prescription
was a thousand dollars worth of pills, you know, for the 50 or so, and
there are some -- there are some medications out there that are -- that
are brand labels that carry those kind of price tags.
And we had to come down with a percentage instead of the solid
seven dollar fee that we had for generics, and I think it was 14 for
brand names. And we went with a percentage, 20 percent percentage
on the prescription fill, but we capped it at out-of-pocket at $500 for
the employees so that they didn't get themselves above. But that's all
Page 224
March 23, 2004
in an effort to hold down the cost so that we don't have to -- we have
more of a deduction on our medical coverage.
So we're watching it. We watch it all the time. We watch it
hard. I mean, there isn't -- there isn't a time that goes on, at least about
three times a year, that I get with our folks to talk about medical
coverage, how to hold down the cost and what things to limit. But we're still competitive, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the question. I -- before
you came aboard, we had a serious problem with attrition. I mean, we
had a turnover that was unbelievable, and I don't think we're going to
return to that, but I always want to look at what we're offering our
employees in relation to everything else that's out there, because our
best employees can pick and choose where they're going to work.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Right now we have one of the lowest
turnover rates we've ever had in Collier County. I think a lot of it has
to do with the economy, okay? And I want to make sure I don't paint
a rosy picture here that says, it's all because of the benefit package
you've got in Collier County and the great wages that you're paying or
the great wages that the clerk's paying. That's not the case.
I think we've got an economy that's on a -- still on a downturn a
little bit. As you listen in the news every night, you hear that the jobs
haven't come back as fast as everybody wanted them to come.
And I believe that we have great employees, okay? And one of
the reasons we have a low turnover rate is because we're offering a
salary that's competitive out there, we offer a benefits package that's
competitive out there. Nobody's going to get rich working for the
county. That's the first thing I'm going to tell everybody.
And then the other thing I stress with the employees, you get a
sense of gratitude and satisfaction because you're helping to leave a
legacy in your county from the good work that you do for your
neighbors. And I think with the combination of those things, I think
Page 225
March 23, 2004
we provide an extraordinary service to the taxpayers out there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So if the mark we're aiming for
is 80/20, where will we be at this budget year?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we'll get to 80/20 in 2006. We
started this journey in 2001, moving two percent a year, and I think --
I think -- I believe -- I'm still convinced that that was a -- that was a
good way to go. Taking it in one fell swoop would have been pretty
catastrophic for our folks.
So with the COLA that we give our employees, I think we can
make up for some of the differences in the higher cost on the med --
from the medical side of the house.
So I think -- I think this -- we finish it. The 20/10 -- or 20 --
excuse me at 80/20. When we get to 80/20, and I've looked at the --
every one of the employees that I talk to -- because they're really
worried that it's going to continue to keep going, 78/22 -- and I pretty
much told them that 80/20 is what we told the board. It's what we
promised the employees. And when we get there in 2006, we're going
to hold the line at 80/20. And so we're -- we're doing fine. This year
in this budget it will be 82/18.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Excellent answer.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: In terms of compensation administration,
the recommendation of-- this is at the bottom of page four of your
executive summary.
Again, Mr. Mudd laid out last year a kind of three-legged stool
with cost of living, an awards program, and pay plan maintenance
with the annual variable being cost of living. This shows the chart in
-- on page four shows the FY-'04, which was 4.55 percent with a cost
of living of 2.8 percent. The FY-'05 recommendation is 3.85 percent,
which is a reduction of seven-tenths a percent based on the COLA,
reducing from 2.8 to 2.1.
Page 226
March 23, 2004
The next issue, we have some scheduling issues. We need to
establish budget submission dates for the sheriff, the clerk, and the
supervisor of elections. The recommended date is June 1, 2004, in
compliance with statutes.
The budget workshops have already been set for Tuesday, June
29th, and Wednesday June 30th, along with the FAC (phonetic)
conference.
The recommended date for the adoption of the proposed millage
rates is June 27th, 2004, which is the fourth Tuesday in July. That
would be in keeping with your regular schedule.
And we also have to establish public hearing dates in September,
and I realize that, at this point, is a long -- is a long way off, but in --
there is a priority pecking order, so to speak.
The school board has first priority in setting their dates. They've
scheduled their final hearing for September 16th. Our recommended
dates in the executive summary are September 9th, which is a
Thursday, and then two weeks thereafter for the final hearing,
September 23rd.
The purpose of the early notification is to allow all the other
taxing jurisdictions, both the cities, mosquito control, and the
independent fire districts to follow suit and begin to schedule --
schedule their appointments. Again, they can't have their public
hearing on the same day that the county does, and if we set our date
later, obviously it just puts them in a little bit of a bind in terms of
scheduling their business as well.
So those dates are recommended. The board -- the board meeting
room here has been set aside and reserved for those dates.
The last item in terms of new business, so to speak, in terms of
FY-'05 budget policies, is we are looking for comparative budget data
by agency to be submitted with the budget submittals for similarly
sized Florida counties. And our recommended counties that we've
Page 227
March 23, 2004
selected at the staff level were Sarasota, Lee, Charlotte, Palm Beach,
and Martin counties.
We began that process last year. Now, there were some
questions from the public how we compared relative to Polk County.
We also did some comparisons at a macro level to Lee County and
Sarasota County as well, and obviously we're interested as we develop
further metrics to see how we compare to other similarly-sized or
similar -- or counties with similar demographics.
Over time, obviously, we just want to see how we stack up, as we
want to be the best. You have to know what else is out there.
The Productivity Committee was -- they heartily endorse that
component as well, the metrics component was something they were
very much interested in.
MR. MUDD' Commissioner, if-- you know, you come forward
with the budget and you do the best you can when you lay it down,
but you really don't know how you're doing compared to everybody
else.
And I'm not saying you're trying to compete with them, but
you've got to kind of know if you're in the ballpark or not or if you've
got something out of whack. And this gives you another-- another
way to take a look at what's out there, what's going on, and gives you
some way to compare, to see how we're doing as far as Collier County
is concerned.
Now remember we talked about last year, about trying to give
you some visibility into the budget process to take the funds out and
try to get it in a functional way. One of the things I talked about was,
we're not there completely. I mean, we've got some things that we
still need to do. The thing we still need to do is be able to see how our
budget looks out as far as the benchmark is concerned.
And if it -- if we decide as a board, and as far as the budget is
concerned, that you want to pay for extraordinary services that are
Page 228
March 23, 2004
higher than everybody else's, then you go ahead and do that, but you
need to know that they're extraordinary services and they're higher
than everybody else's out there. And that's not -- that's not a bad thing
to know.
I will tell you, in this particular comparative budget data issue,
you're going to have to do it -- the comparisons based on the current
year, okay? It isn't something that you're going to be able to do, well,
how's my '05 budget going to look at the next county's '05 budget,
because guess what? They're doing their budget the same time we are,
and things are changing.
So it's kind of very -- it's difficult to try to do a comparison on the
change. But you can do it in the current year that you're in, because
those budgets were approved and people are executing them. They've
been published, and that data's readily available, so you can make a
good comparison and give you an idea. And then -- as you push
forward in that next year.
So you're always doing a litmus paper test, and you're always
doing a benchmark -- a benchmarking against that process.
Again, it's new into the -- in the particular budget thing, but I
think it's a good thing to know, because there's a lot of people out
there -- and we heard some of it last year where, well, you're too high,
compare this to such and such. You remember those comments during
the -- during the budget process.
And when you put the real numbers down, that's not -- that's not
the case at all. At least what I saw from the county manager's
operating budget last year, we were very, very competitive with those
counties outside. And we didn't do it against Palm Beach or Martin,
but we did it against Charlotte, Lee, Sarasota, I think we had Manatee
in there, and we also took a look at Polk. Polk's pretty much an
internal county. It's a tough one to do, but we can.
And then you have to take a look at your capital projects kind of
Page 229
March 23, 2004
differently based on what you're trying to get done with your capital
program. And you can kind of see that by the eaches (sic), and it's
pretty well laid out for you in the budget process.
The other thing I wanted to -- that Mike's got there, and it's --
that's new, and there's one that I want to come back to because I want
you to -- I want you to take a look at page eight. And it has to do with
revenue policies.
And I've heard -- and I've heard -- I've heard some
commissioners -- at least there was a vote last meeting where we
wanted to take a graduated scale into a new impact fee. And we still
have, right at the top of the page, maximization of impact fees. And I
just want to make sure that we're still on target with what the board
wants to do.
That was -- that was put in there approximately three years ago
when Tom Olliff was here, based on board direction, and we've
carried it forward every year. But I'm starting to hear the discussion --
and understand that it's in this budget -- it's in this budget policy, and I
just wanted to bring it to your attention.
The other thing that Michael does, or Mr. Smykowski does every
year is he tries to give you a three-year budget production look based
on all the things that he can ascertain the best he can in order to
project how it's going to impact our millage history in our particular
areas.
And I think Michael's done a pretty good job, and it's -- and this
is the part that is most instructional for me and -- is he basically has a
pretty good model where he takes all those pieces in. And one of the
disturbing things that I see, at least on page 10, is based on the things
that we know right now when you put it into the -- when you put it
into his projection on the model, it looks like the model's telling us
when we get done getting all the budgets this year, we're going to need
a millage rate increase.
Page 230
March 23, 2004
And I know that the board has told us in the past, at least last year
and I think as this year -- as this year's progressed so far, the board has
been pretty consistent telling everybody that we're going to stay
millage neutral and we're not going to raise taxes.
So those things -- and you can talk to Mike a little bit about this
process and peel the onion back after page 10, but that's what that
chart tells me a little bit, and I thought it was a little bit surprising.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The other key thing to note, on page 11,
obviously one of the -- one of the core assumptions in the model is the
-- what we're -- what our assumptions are relative to the increase in
taxable value.
This provides some history going back to 1994 through '07.
Actually it's interesting because from the period from '94 through '99,
you were in single digit increases in taxable value. Obviously the last
few years you've seen large increases; '02 topping out at 20.5 percent.
But you can see the trend in that graph is headed downward from
20.5, 18.3, 16.4.
Right now we're using 12 percent for FY-'05 as our -- as one of
our core assumptions in this model. Obviously -- the property
appraiser provides us a preliminary taxable value estimate on June 1 st.
There's some state econometric models that are -- that state
economists have put together. They were estimating the increase in
taxable value in Collier County at roughly 13 and a half percent at this
point. They have to do some preliminary work to gear up for the
school budgets.
But there were a couple of factors that led us to use a more
conservative estimate. The Save Our Homes cap this year, which
limits property increases to three percent or CPI, whichever is less on
homestead property, is 1.9 percent compared to 2.7 a year ago.
Roughly one-third of our tax base is homesteaded property, so you're
not going to see as large an increase on the bulk of your homesteaded
Page 231
March 23, 2004
properties.
In addition, there was a large dollar volume of new construction
in the City of Naples last year. Therefore, at this point, we're using a
more conservative 12 percent estimate.
The analytical model itself projects based on the inflationary cost
of existing services and mandated cost increases. Those are typically
associated with new facilities.
It's important to note, obviously at this point in time, the numbers
are not based on actual budget submittals. This is a model we use to
look at the inflationary cost, but it also assumes that everything that is
currently in the budget continues to be funded.
I've itemized year by year some of the core expense assumptions
that drive some of the increase and are reflective in the associated -- or
the resulting millage projections.
You have a couple of things. Obviously the county jail will
impact the general fund. In '06 you'll see the annualized cost of the
jail as well as the North Regional Park, which is a water park facility.
Traditionally we've funded those from the general fund, regional
parks.
Although I will tell you we will explore the option of looking --
the water park being of countywide benefit, funding that from the
general fund -- we are going to explore an option of funding the core
park facility without the water park in the unincorporated area, which
is where the bulk of the park system is.
Right now your core park functions are in the unincorporated
area general fund, given that the City of Naples and Marco run some
of their own park facilities.
But beach and water parks are largely in the general fund,
because obviously beach and -- the beach facilities are of countywide
benefit and are available to all.
In terms of the unincorporated area, we use that model, same --
Page 232
March 23, 2004
similar type assumptions. It assumes funding of the landscaping
master plan. There's nominal millage increases projected, $3.35;
obviously, within the context of the budget, we think that will be
manageable; however, this assumes funding in the landscaping master
plan and the associated maintenance. Obviously that will be a key
component of your unincorporated area budget.
And as we saw from the speakers at the public hearing last year,
landscaping is a priority for a lot of-- a lot of communities as well, but
it's also expensive, especially on the maintenance side.
Obviously we'll be looking at the budget maintenance cost based
on the estimated completion dates of the construction. You know,
we're in the design phase for those landscaping segments that were in
the budget this year, but we had construction money available.
Obviously we may not need to budget a full year's worth of
maintenance. We've made the assumption at this point of a full year's
(sic) of maintenance.
So we're expecting that through the budget process, obviously
we'll refine the dates based on timetables for completion of the
construction element and when the maintenance would come on line.
So I think that will give us some built-in flexibility in the
unincorporated area and keep us closer to the millage neutral, even
though the model is projecting an increase at this point.
And the purpose of the model is really just to give you a longer
range focus other than the immediate year that faces you so that you
understand future year impacts of decisions you're making this year,
and just kind of recognizing that down the line, which facilities are
coming on line and what relative impact they will have on your
operating budget in the out years.
The only other comments I had at this point, relative to the
comprehensive budget data by agency, jumping back to that, we are
looking for the constitutional officers to participate in that as well as
Page 233
March 23, 2004
the -- and requesting the court agencies as well to participate. So I
want to make that specific and clear on the record, that we are looking
for that and we feel that that is appropriate, given the magnitude of
those budgets as well. And obviously, not only the county manager's
agency, but we want to see how we stack up in the other areas as well.
One other point. Mr. Mudd quickly focussed on some of the
revenue and expense policies, those existing policies. I wanted to
focus specifically on one.
Obviously -- give me a second to find the right page -- ad
valorem capital funding, top of page nine in your executive summary.
We have a fixed general fund millage equivalent dedicated to
capital projects. We use one-third of a mill for nonimpact fee eligible
projects. We've gone to -- at one point that was at one mill. So as to
not lose purchasing power of the dollar over time due to inflation,
we're trying to keep that consistent the one mill. But we need to be
clear. Obviously there's a law enforcement impact fee that is currently
under study and will be coming to the board -- MR. MUDD: In April.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- in April, so it's not that far down the
road. Estimated to generate roughly $2.9 million in annualized
revenue.
The millage equivalent, if that were not adopted, would be
roughly six dollars per hundred thousand of taxable value, and we
may adjust the budget accordingly pending the determination as to
whether or not that fee will be implemented.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, when you look at your budget
policy and you look at what you have and you talk about the millage
rate history thing that I thought was a little bit disturbing, I want you
to -- I want you to make sure that you've got -- you've got a big picture
issue on what -- how it breaks out a little bit, okay?
This comes out of A38, out of your budget book that Mike
Page 234
March 23, 2004
passed out. But I want to make -- I want to make sure that you
understand how that general fund property tax thing gets laid out a
little bit.
What we've pretty well done in this budget policy, and I've gone
in front of the Productivity Committee and talked to them about, is
you pretty much have squeezed county manager's 26, and we've got
transfers ! 1.2. So I don't want you to be fooled that it's -- the county
manager's only 26 percent. We're really about 37 percent of the
general fund budget.
And you squeezed the Airport Authority. I mean, you got -- you
pretty much -- that .3 percent, and you pretty much gave them some
direction about becoming as self-sufficient as you possibly could get.
The court-related agencies, that's going through a transition on
Article V. And it's still -- it's still pretty dicey out there as far as
exactly what's going to transpire. So we're chopping around the
margins.
I will tell you, you have to take a look-- you've got to take a look
at this entire sphere as you develop your budget and you look at your
policies, because you can squeeze on one end, but somebody else
always seems to -- either a project or somebody else comes up and
says, I need those dollars in order to do it. So it's going to be a tough
budget year based on the information we know, and it will be an
interesting time, no doubt.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to the reserve at 7.7
percent, our policy is to maintain reserves of at least 5 percent. Is
there a need to maintain 7.7 percent reserves there?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Actually, yes, there is. You'll recall last
year we set aside a large component of the increase in the taxable
value and that associated tax revenue to buy down the road increment
that will be fast approaching in the next few years once we get above
Page 235
March 23, 2004
$26 million.
MR. MUDD: That smoothing piece, remember it was going to
punch up to 32? And I think you have -- you have part of that
diagram -- now you got me turning pages, Mike.
If you take a look at page 14 of-- and this is one that should look
familiar. If you look at -- if you look at page 14 on your -- in your
book, that can pretty much gives you the increments that you have to
pay by year, and they -- and they adjust based on the debt that you
incur.
But we were trying to smooth on this chart. We pulled in last
year $6 million additional to the 4.2 that you had in reserves that the
Productivity Committee helped us get. I think that was when you
threw the book down and you said, find $4.2 million and put it in
reserve, goodbye. And that was a bad year for us. Okay. It wasn't last
year, I'll tell you that.
And last year we put another six. That gets you 9.2, but you've
got another half million in there, so it's $10.2 million that you have in
reserves, and that attributes to the 7.7 percent in reserves that you're
seeing, and you're going to start taking it out in '06, '07, '08, '09, and
then '10.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: To avoid millage spikes due to that large
dollar increase, especially in FY-'07, we felt it was a prudent move
last year, recognizing that those spikes are in the near-term horizon, if
you set that money in reserves and have it available, so that in those
budget years you've already, in essence, bought off that -- that
segment of the debt, so it will be brought down to a more management
$26.5 million level and kept consummate at that level by bleeding
down that reserve over a five-year period.
MR. MUDD: Plus, those were the years, Commissioners, that
we believe that we would go into single digit appreciation, okay, and
get out of the double digit, the 20 percent, the 18 percent. And when
Page 236
March 23, 2004
that's happening, you're getting less new general fund dollars, so
you're less able to come up with those dollars to get above that 26.5.
So putting that money in reserve while you were still in double
digit appreciation was a smart thing to do last year. We might do a
little bit of that this year depending on how it comes out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let's go back to the
previous slide, that pie chart. Now, how -- can you give me a
breakout on the constitutional officers?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We can -- we can tell you how the 49.7
percent broke out for last year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE' Why don't you let me take a look at
that a minute.
MR. MUDD: I asked Mike to lay this out for me to give me an
idea of how it was -- how it was going to play out and what it looked
like as far as the percentages that were sitting there, and basically laid
it out on '04 to talk about the pie chart that was displayed. Hang on. I
got to come out into wide.
And then I asked them while we were talking about it, I said,
what's going to happen with Article V and -- because I wanted to play
around with that.
And Mr. Mitchell and Mike and myself have been trying to
figure out what the impact of Article V is going to be and how that's
all going to kind of fall out.
And we've tried to put it -- what's out in Article V against the '04
budget, because we don't -- we know what's written right now, but I
can't tell you the way they're doing the legislation.
And you'll see two numbers on this chart for Article V. And
what is it, two days ago, Jim, Mike, that I sent you an email from
DCA, somebody in DCA, there was an auditor up there to send it
through the fact folks that basically broke out every county, and the
difference between those two -- excuse me -- those two issues right
Page 237
March 23, 2004
there is about $1.3 million.
And the fact breakout basically said that $1.3 million of the $3.4
million in the management information system that the clerk controls
would be court related, and, therefore, it would be a state
responsibility.
That is a highly controversial issue right now. Lots of people
discussing it, okay? But I asked Mike to give me an idea of what it
looked like coming out and leaving it back in, and -- as far as
percentages and budgets were concerned as far as the general fund
was made up --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the two figures on the
right-hand side, 2.24 percent, then 2.73, is that minimum and
maximum after the adjustments for Article V? What does that really
mean?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the difference between those two
is $1.3 million that's an IT expense that's still being negotiated, is it a
county responsibility or is it a state responsibility?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I see. Okay. Who are we
negotiating with?
MR. MUDD: No. We're not negotiating with anybody, okay? I
mean, every judge in the land and every legislator in Tallahassee is
debating this issue trying to figure out a way to either pay for it or give
it back to the counties and tell them to fund it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, here's where I'm
going with this. I can. remember in past years when we've sat down
with each of the constitutional officers and we've asked them to justify
their budget, and we're not qualified to do that. We don't know what it
takes to do their job.
I don't know how we can ever, ever come to a reasonable
conclusion on that sort of thing. But it does seem to me that we
should be able to decide how the new revenues are broken up among
Page 238
March 23, 2004
all the agencies that depend upon it.
For example, we -- if property values hold up, we might get,
what, 20, 22, $23 million of additional ad valorem tax money, not
because we increased millage rate, but because the property values
increased.
Now, if we continue a trend where 50 percent or more of that
entire amount is gobbled up by agencies that we have little control
over and we know nothing about as far as -- as determining how their
departments should be operated, what I would like to do is see if we
can't come up with some method of-- of allocating that increased
amount of revenue based upon historical percentages and uses, and
what that does is it not only informs those people what they can
anticipate, and it should aid them in their budgeting processes, but it
also makes things more certain for us.
And so what I'm really getting at here is, you know, this
proposed ad -- or possible ad valorem property tax increase disturbs
me. It got my attention too. And I'm not sure we really have to do
that.
And what I would like to see us do is take the -- the historical
percentages, and if these are the historical percentages, then we say to
the -- to your departments and to the other agencies, this is going --
this increased revenue into the general fund is going to get broken out
on a percentage basis, and that provides everybody advanced notice
about what's going to be available, it provides some planning
parameters, and it gives us a better indication of what we're going to
have for our own operations.
Now, is there -- is there some problem with that concept that I'm
missing here, or is that something that would seem to work?
MR. MUDD: Sure, it can work. In some cases, it means that the
people -- some -- the folks are going to have to take an appetite
suppressant a little bit.
Page 239
March 23, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think we all should.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I mean--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I think everybody --
MR. MUDD: -- you're talking about a two-tenths of a mill
increase that would bring in new money in order to meet what Mr.
Smykowski has put in here as far as his crystal ball is concerned. That
would bring in about $8 million additional money in order to satisfy
the shortfall. So based on what I've seen that Mr. Smykowski has laid
out, we have got an $8 million -- we've got to find $8 million to cut.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it would seem to me that if
we all worked within the parameters of these percentages that we
have, we should be able, working together, to find ways to cut that $8
million, considering also that we're getting additional one money,
revenue in, from ad valorem property taxes.
It is -- it is difficult for me to understand how we can eat up all
that $22 million and then ask for another $8 million. You know, that
doesn't make sense to me.
And I would like to see us into -- get into a position so that we
are -- we do this on a fair basis. I don't want to discriminate against
anybody.
I think what we should do is, all of our departments should be
looking at the same sort of division, that it should be allocated on the
same basis that it has -- that it was allocated in -- historically, and that
will bring us into the next three years, and we can do the same thing
for those three years -- three years, that is for the next fiscal year and
the two years thereafter.
It would appear to me to make the budgeting process a lot
simpler and would require us all to start taking a look at how we can
control cost.
And having said that, I'd just like to draw attention to one other
potential problem that I think that we cannot overestimate. We're
Page 240
March 23, 2004
depending upon constant increases in property values to generate more
funds, and we're depending upon ever growing impact fees to generate
more funds.
What happens if we do something as a government that causes a
downturn in our economy here and that there is not as much building
as there was in the past and there's not as much inflation in values as
there was in the past? What would happen if one year we only got $5
million more in property taxes rather than 22 or 23? That's a serious
situation, very serious situation.
So I think we must keep that in our mind. And I'm not suggesting
we are at that point yet, but it's something I think we should consider.
Because our policies do have the potential to have an adverse impact
upon our economic health in Collier County. We just need to know
where the line is.
But back to my primary point of the percentages. I don't know
how the other commissioners feel about that, but it seems to me,
where will it take us as far as the -- the desire to get down to the point
where we will not have a tax increase?
MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, if you kept the percentages
the same as on this pie chart, if you kept it in those percentages in that
pie chart, you basically say, you live within your means, and whatever
the general fund comes up, that's the percentage you get, and that's all
you get.
And when you lay that out, you don't have a millage increase
because you said, that's it. And so, you know, there might be a special
issue one way or the other. As I mentioned to you, I have $1.3 million
worth of IT stuff we still don't know about on the clerk's side of the
house. And that might be something that's hanging out there, that it's
going to get resolved and we might have to eat it and --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you might have to make an
adjustment.
Page 241
March 23, 2004
MR. MUDD: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE' I don't have a problem with that.
The important thing, as I see it, is that we all share equally in this
burden, okay? And that's what I have in mind here.
And we just can't keep eating up $22 million every year of
increased ad valorem property tax revenue and then asking for more.
We can't do that. I can't explain that to taxpayers.
And I would like to see us adopt that policy so that we can
remain revenue -- or millage neutral for the next year, next three
years, as a matter of fact.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm going to stop right now because it
looks like we have a long way to go. She's just about out of paper.
We're going to take a 20-minute break right now, and then we'll come
back, Commissioner Halas, and then Commissioner Henning is
onboard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why 20 minutes?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Because somebody asked if they could
eat a sandwich while we're out there, couple people asked. (A brief recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: You have a hot mic., Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. We're back in session.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, we were discussing the budget
policy for '05, and it was Item 10(A) before we took the break.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Halas was next to ask
a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe I know where
Commissioner Coyle's going, and I think it's in probably the right
direction that we need to go.
Recently I had a telephone conversation with one of the
constitutional officers, and of course they've got an indication that
they're going to be taking on the responsibilities of some additional
Page 242
March 23, 2004
housing, which is the jail, and that individual, being the Sheriff, stated
that he was going to need about $22 million to fulfill his obligations.
Well, that's interesting. If he's got-- his obligations are a $22 million
increase, that's going to eat up all our ad valorem funds.
So I commend Commissioner Coyle in the direction he's going,
and I feel that that's probably the way we need to address this is that
each constitutional officer will be given a percentage of the pie, and
it's up to them to figure out the best way to run it. Because, as
Commissioner Coyle said, we don't know how they run their shop.
But what we'll do is make them accountable for efficiency increase in
the productivity in their shop.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- yeah, I think that we do
need to hold, you know, the budget and capture the constitutional
officers in that process, too. You know, before in previous budgets
we've always taken a hit, but the constitutional officers -- I shouldn't
say all, but have -- we've had huge increases in the past few years, so I
think that's great budget guidance for the 04-05 budget.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well, the key is too is that you're providing
the direction up front, as opposed to walking into a workshop in June,
you know, on a collision course, because you're staring at a major
millage increase. So we're trying to address this up front, recognizing
that we will have some millage pressures based on new facilities
coming on line and the like.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, if I could ask the board one
other thing, and then I'd be prepared to make a motion to provide
some guidance to the staff on this issue of percentages.
But first, if I can direct your attention to Page 7 of the executive
summary, the BCC fee waiver policy. It seems to me that every time
someone comes before us for a waiver of some kind of fee, we say no.
Page 243
March 23, 2004
So I'm wondering why we have it in our policy to grant it anyway.
Why don't we just take it out of this policy and then we won't be
troubled with this, because we never say yes, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree. We shouldn't, unless
we come up with a policy that recognizes everybody with equal status.
And we can't be. Everybody comes to us with expectations that we're
going to grant it, and generally in some cases because of the fact that
we know them so well, we end up digging in our own pocket to pay
them for it. And that's one too many times, to be honest with you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if I could, could I make a
motion with respect to providing staff budget guidance to number one,
eliminate the fee waiver policy, and number two, to allocate -- notify
all the constitutional officers, and in fact all of our own departments,
that each will get that percentage of the general fund which was
appropriate for FY '04.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Say that again?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That everyone will get the
percentage of the general fund that they got in FY '04. Now, that
provides everybody with an increase, a fairly -- you know, a
reasonable increase to compensate for inflation and everything else.
But there apparently are some questions concerning that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I think there's one area that
there was about a 19 percent increase, and I think maybe we have to
look at what the -- I think what we have to do is make a history of
what the average percentages are for all the constitutional officers, and
-- because if you have one year where somebody has a large increase,
then they're going to be looking at that as something as steadfast. But
I think what we need to do is look at the picture over maybe 10 years
or five years and say well, your average increase was four percent or
five percent, and we'll live within that guidelines. Five percent of the
budget, I mean.
Page 244
March 23, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could respond to that and tell
you why I chose FY '04. And I don't know if the staff has any input
on that, but--
MR. SMYKOWSKI' I do, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, do you? Okay, well, go ahead.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: In looking at prior year percent increases,
obviously not to pick on the Sheriff, but obviously his budget increase
was -- over the last couple of years was impacted, not last year but the
couple of years previous, the major pay plan adjustment that was
phased in over two years. So that really was an anomaly -- those
years were anomalies. I think last year probably would have been a
more representative year. And, you know, going back 10 years, it was
a completely different community and I think the more current is
probably more representative of the state of the state as it exists today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's one of the reasons I
chose the most recent period, because -- another reason is that the
September 11 impacts had some -- the Sheriff had some legitimate
requirements as a result of that. And if we were to ignore that, we
would be ignoring his increased responsibilities for providing security
for Collier County. So that's a reason I proposed FY '04. It will get us
where we want to go and set the stage for moving into '06 and '07.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was just looking at -- I think there
was another constitutional officer that had a large increase last year, so
that's why I say, I think we ought to look at an average in regards to --
MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, you got-- in that chart I
provided that Mike put up, you've got post Article 5. And I think that
would particularly hold those percentages down. COMMISSIONER HALAS' Okay.
MR. MUDD' Because I think Article 5 is going to take a big
chunk out of that increase from last year. You're not looking at the '04
chop on that one, you're looking at something after Article 5, okay,
Page 245
March 23, 2004
that's a significant percent down.
Now, I will tell you on the tax collector and the property
appraiser, two organizations that do things on -- they do things on
percentages, percentages of taxes levied or property that's appraised or
the monies are -- the larger properties bring in a bigger percentage, a
lot of different MSTUs -- or, excuse me, a lot of different agreements
are done at a different percentage for the appraiser. Very, very
difficult to get at on those two particular agencies as far as their
percentages are concerned.
I would tell you, their historical percentages are going down,
okay. They're dipping down every year, because the pot's getting
bigger, okay, in the general fund and their percentages are coming
down, and they're turning back a good percentage of dollars every
year, as they did this year. So I would tell you that I would be a little
bit leery of trying to set a percentage for the tax collector and the
property appraiser, just because as they get more properties -- as the
tax collector in particular gets more properties on, he gets more dollars
coming in, and a lot of that is dependent upon the turnback that he
gives us, because he doesn't increase it by, you know, he just gets
them all and buys them pizza and figures out that by the end of
November he's got 85 percent of the taxes in, and he's having a great
time.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The general fund transfer that is budgeted
for the tax collector is based on the ad valorem taxes levied by Collier
County and the general fund, the City of Naples, the other two
municipalities and the school board. Collier County by statute is
required to pay the tax collector fees for all the municipalities and the
school board, as well as the county general funds. So the $9.8 million
transfer to the tax collector is not representative of his expense budget,
that is solely the tax collector fees on the taxes levied by each of those
governmental jurisdictions that unfortunately by statute the county is
Page 246
March 23, 2004
required to pay. So you can't put an arbitrary cap on that, obviously.
For instance, if the taxable value grows 12 percent and everyone holds
their millage constant, that transfer will grow 12 percent, so -- and
how that will work out percentage-wise is -- so they are -- those two
are a little bit separate and distinct, and to save Mr. Carlton a trip over
in the morning to remind me of how his budget is structured, we
thought we'd better make sure that that is clear. And obviously the
clerk again would be post Article 5, that was a question Mr. Mitchell
had asked of me on the break, and I mentioned it would be post
Article 5.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Halas does make
a point is, now the clerk did not last year have historical expenses, he
had some one-time expenses. And I think that we need to recognize
that, pull that out, and that's the guidance. Are we clear on that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that was part of the
motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think we did that, didn't
we, with the Article 5 adjustment? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That we pulled that out?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that true?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, we did. Those were those numbers
you see off the side here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, the 2.24, 2.73 as opposed to
3.4 percent.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's absolutely correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And if we find out that the $1.3 million is being
Page 247
March 23, 2004
funded by the state, then the percentage that will be used in that
particular case will be 2.24 percent.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Okay, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't hear a second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I made the motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What was your motion, please?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: To do that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's right. Your first was to eliminate
the fee waiver and the second was to notify everyone they will receive
percent of general fund they received in FY '04; is that correct? So I
have a motion by Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner
Henning.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: With the clerk adjusted for Article 5,
again, just for purposes of the clarity of the record --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then I've got to, just one --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Add that to the motion with the clerk
adjusted for Article 5.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just got one question to ask. When
are we going to establish the guideline as far as percentage? We going
to do that right now?
MR. MUDD: That's what you have on that chart right there in
front of you. And once I'm done with this motion, we'll draft a letter
with the budget guidance with the board's direction to each
constitutional, to county manager's departments, and let them know
what that is and what they should be able to bring in in June.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's that pie chart that you
showed earlier; is that correct? That's what we're basing all this on?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. All those percentages right there on that
chart that's going down basically correlate to that pie chart dead on,
Page 248
March 23, 2004
okay? What I broke out is I broke out the yellow portion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Very good.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we have a motion on the floor and
a second. Any further discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item # 1 OF
RESOLUTION 2004-94 OPPOSING PROPOSED HOUSE BILL
1495 AND SENATE BILL 2774 RELATED TO UNWARRANTED
AND UNJUSTIFIED ELIMINATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
REGULATION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
- ADOPTFJD
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we move on to 10(F), adopt a
resolution. Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: This is adopt a resolution for -- let me get my
notes for just a second, ma'am. 10(F) is adopt a resolution opposing
proposed House Bill 1495 and Senate Bill 2774 related to the
unwarranted and unjustified elimination of local government
regulation of wireless communications facilities.
What's basically happened in these particular bills, as you know
Page 249
March 23, 2004
that the telecommunication industry has got a pretty heavy lobby in
Tallahassee. And what's happening right now is they're basically
trying to get the law changed so that they can put towers where they
need to have them for the wireless industry. And they want to take
away a lot of the power that local counties have and the local
municipalities have as far as their zoning requirements are concerned
in their Land Development Code.
And the one thing that comes up, remember we had the Pinnacle
Tower issue that was just a little while ago, and it was in
Commissioner Fiala's area? And we talked about building heights and
basically the board decided not to have it. Based on this legislation, if
the wireless industry needed it and they wanted it to be 700 feet and
they could get the FAA to agree to it, they'd get it and you'd have
nothing to say about it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I move for adoption of this
resolution.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second that.
Okay, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, a
second by Commissioner Fiala, a third by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
And opposed, like sign.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Moving on to-
MR. MUDD:
That's a 5-0 for us.
Commissioner, the next item is 10(G), which is the
Page 250
March 23, 2004
old 16(C)(8). This was moved forward at Commissioner Fiala's
request. And that's to amend the professional services agreement
98-2891, with Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. for professional engineering
services associated with the design and construction services for the
south county regional water treatment plant reverse osmosis expansion
project in the amount of $536,200, and it's project 70054. And Mr.
Roy Anderson, the director of engineering for public utilities, will
present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, we have a
number of residents here to speak on that particular item.
MS. FILSON: I have one speaker on this item and three on the
next one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: You want to do the next one? I guess that's the
FP&L alignment. We can go to that one and we can wait on this one,
if that would be okay?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure, that would be fine.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Okay.
Item #1 OH
RESOLUTION 2004-95 SUPPORTING FLORIDA POWER AND
LIGHT'S PREFERRED CORRIDOR SITING CERTIFICATION
FOR A NEW TRANSMISSION LINE FROM THE ORANGE
RIVER SUBSTATION IN LEE COUNTY TO THE NEW
gl IFISTATION 1N F, ASTERN COIJ,IF, R COl JNTY - ADOPTF, D
MR. MUDD: The next item is 10(H), and that's 16(A)(11) that
was on the consent agenda, and that's to adopt a resolution supporting
Florida Power & Light's preferred corridor siting certification for a
new transmission line for the Orange River substation in Lee County
Page 251
March 23, 2004
to the new substation in eastern Collier County. And that was at
Commissioner Coletta's request.
And Madam Chair, just so you know, when it gets time for public
speakers, Mr. Fred Thomas had been sitting here all day. He had a
special engagement with his wife that he had to attend to, I think it
was some kind of birthday or anniversary, and he was sweating
nickels. And I couldn't promise him we'd be done in 10 minutes. But
he wrote a statement, and when it gets time for comment, I'd ask the
board's indulgence and I'll read that into the record if that's --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you like to go right to
the comments first?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you want to present what the issue is?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the issue is very simple. I
couldn't let this pass on the consent agenda without raising objections.
I have many residents in my area that are not at all pleased with this.
The present transmission line that's there now could have been built
off the road a little ways to not offer the visual impairment that it does.
That and also, too, the other transmission line where it's going to
come through is going to go through two pieces of CREW land, and
it's going to impact Immokalee and it's of great concern to them. The
only people that are supporting this are people that are in areas that
might be affected if the transmission line went other places, which I
can understand.
But I think that a little more sensitivity on the part of FP&L
would have gone a long ways as far as the placement of this line, and I
have to register my objection.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, do we have a-- Grover, did you
want to say something, or do we just go right to the speakers? Okay,
to the speakers.
MS. FILSON: Okay, the first speaker is Mr. Mudd, representing
Page 252
March 23, 2004
Fred Thomas.
Shall I time you?
MR. MUDD: Yeah, go ahead. I think this might be the shortest
one of all time.
Dear Commissioners, I had no idea that with our petition being
the first item on the agenda, that I would have to be here all day for
the second item relating to Immokalee.
As it relates to the FP&L power lines to serve Orangetree, for the
record, your recommended route will go adjacent to our little league
fields and adjacent to a new Habitat for Humanity development, and
within one-eighth of a mile of the Lake Trafford Elementary School,
and on the western edge of Arrowhead. Thank you for listening. Mr.
Fred Thomas.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker will be Meggan Davis. She will
be followed by your final speaker, Janet Vasey.
MS. DAVIS: I was prepared to say good afternoon, but good
evening, I guess, right? For the record, my name is Meggan Davis, I'm
president of the Longshore Lake Foundation, which represents 566
homes. In the audience today, we have some residents who have
come out to support us, so I appreciate them coming out, and they're
from Longshore.
I'm here to speak in favor of the FP&L proposed route for the
new transmission lines, that's come to be known as the FPL preferred
route. The route proposed by FPL is the result of many meetings and
hearings. The public's been given ample input to weigh in on the
subject. And there have been many articles in the newspaper also.
The new transmission lines are required by FPL to meet the
growing demands in Collier County for energy. It will connect the
Orange River substation in Lee County with the Orangetree substation
and another substation located in East Naples.
The circuitous route designed-- has been designed to avoid
Page 253
March 23, 2004
environmentally sensitive areas. FPL prefers this route because it
gives them a loop connecting all three substations. The failure of one
link would not jeopardize the ability to provide power. A
geographically separate right-of-way is extremely important for
ensuring reliable electric service in Southwest Florida.
Reliability and redundancies are issues which demand serious
consideration. One has to question why an alternative route was
proposed. Is this an example of certain powerful business interests and
land developers trying to maximize their potential profits in the future
at the expense of established Collier County residences and
communities?
Two weeks ago, at the meeting, we heard from your Emergency
Services Department. They favored the route. Collier County schools
also spoke in favor of the route. At a hearing that was held by an
administrative judge at Three Oaks Center in Bonita Springs, Don
Scott of transportation was on the record stating the problematic
logistics of running the lines down Immokalee Road between 951,
past the 75 Interstate to Livingston. This section of Immokalee Road
is also slated to go to six lanes in the year 2006.
We ask that you send this resolution on to Governor Bush and
Cabinet and take an official stand for Collier County. Lee County is
already on the record in support of the FPL preferred route, and we
hope that you join the chorus. The ultimate decision will be made in
Tallahassee in the spring or early summer, and we that hope that the
Governor also will support the FPL preferred route. Thank you for
your time.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Janet Vasey.
MS. VASEY: Good evening, Commissioners. Janet Vasey, for
the record. I live in Longshore Lake also, which is on the north side
of Immokalee Road, about a mile east of 1-75.
Now, Collier Enterprises wants you to agree to place this new
Page 254
March 23, 2004
power line right next to the southern border of our community, and I'll
tell you that this is actually the third route that they proposed. The
other two have been cast aside and this is the new one, and it appears
to be anywhere but past their property.
I'd like to show you some pictures of what these power lines look
like and what they do to our community, if Collier Enterprises gets
their way.
Here's what the poles look like. I hired a photographer and I paid
him a lot. It was Dennis Vasey.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd have done it for free.
MR. MUDD: You paid him too much.
MS. VASEY: Yeah, right. But it's quality work.
This is a 90-foot pole, and it's about three feet wide. And the
little specks you see along the road are cars. So these are really tall
suckers.
The next one I have, this shows you our property. It's the
southern side of Longshore Lake, right across the canal from
Immokalee Road. On the right-hand side is Immokalee. And as you
can see, there's not a lot of road between the canal and the road to put
in these power lines. And in fact, your county transportation people
have serious concerns about trying to put the power lines in there at all
because of underground utilities and widening Immokalee Road to six
lanes and other safety issues. Also I think stormwater retention gets in
there.
And if you notice on here, there's a big drop-off from the
Longshore Lake fence side onto the canal. So I want to show you in
this picture, because it makes a difference in the next picture. So we
don't really get all of that property.
This one shows you from the Longshore Lake fence to the canal.
And there's that sign on the fence and everything. That is 16 feet
wide, and after that, it drops off quickly into the canal.
Page 255
March 23, 2004
So what Collier Enterprises would like is for you to agree to put
in these 90-foot poles down this side of our property, which would
probably be -- that fence is about eight foot tall, and so the poles
would be, I'd say, 12 to 15 feet from our houses, along this side of the
community.
And also, FPL wasn't even sure if they could access this area
with their cranes.
And as I mentioned, I was really surprised when I started
researching this. I assumed from Collier Enterprises' major concems
about this and how much they're trying to change the FPL route, that it
must be going down the inside of their property, you know, cutting a
huge swath through the inside of their property.
The lines affect their properties only along Immokalee Road.
Just that stretch of Immokalee Road that is totally undeveloped. So
instead of allowing the route to go along that totally undeveloped area
of their property on Immokalee Road, they want to send it down to
cover from 951 down to Livingston Road, which is an area that's
totally developed -- not totally, but mostly developed, with mature
communities. And so we didn't think this really made a lot of sense.
I'd also like to bring to your attention that the Conservancy and
South Florida Water Management District have also supported the
FPL line, and we hope that you will, too. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, Halas and
Coletta. I think that's the way it went, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The public process that FP&L
provided to the residents of Collier County, I know there was three
meetings besides mass mail-outs of meetings, and-- which we --
which I appreciate. And we've always tried to involve the public.
And there was a lot of public input in the process and things did
change.
Page 256
March 23, 2004
The concern that I have with the Collier's route, there was really
no public process in there besides the reliability issues, as our
emergency management director stated at our previous meeting. And
again, this proposed line is going to be approximately three blocks
from where I live. So I, you know, live closer to it than a lot of people
in District 5.
So with all that, I will make a motion to approve this item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second the motion.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand where everybody's
coming from. Nobody wants the power line in their backyard. And I
can -- I feel for Commissioner Coletta and the constituents that are in
his area. But we also have to look at the big picture here, and that is in
case we have some type of an emergency, we have another route for
the power line that's not parallel with the existing power line. And I
think that's very important for the health, safety and welfare of our
community. I know that, as I said earlier, nobody wants it in their
backyard, and hopefully maybe some day when technology is up to
speed or we got the technology that we can take unsightly huge lines
of this nature and put them underground without too much added
expense, I think at this point in time when you start dealing with this
type of power, you have to end up with putting -- my understanding,
you have to put tubes underground and use an inert gas so that you
don't have arcing. So that's why we still have them overhead. But
hopefully that we be able to address the technology in the coming
years so that maybe we can get this unsightly 90-foot towers away
from all the populace.
But until then, I think FPL has done a remarkable job in looking
at how they are going to have another loop of power to come down
into Naples area and also Bonita Beach area, so I have to go along
with the plan they presently have.
Page 257
March 23, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thank you very much for that
comment about the fact that nobody wants them in their backyard.
That's absolutely true. And we're not talking about an undeveloped
area. Where this goes by is such places as Vanderbilt Country Club,
which is a community that's just about at buildout. It goes by Twin
Eagles, which was -- in that picture we seen I believe that's what it
was in the background.
Appropriate place for it? Like hell it's an appropriate place for it.
It's totally inappropriate. It could have been built off the main
highway. I'm not saying this should have came down through the
back of Quail Creek, but I'm telling you right now, a little more
thought, a little more sympathy for the people that live out there.
They could have taken it down 39, there's a power line that runs down
from Fort Myers all the way to Marco, for the -- not FP&L, but the
Alico, and it could have gone down that line.
As far as the terrorism threat, if anyone's bound and determined
to be a terrorist and do in the power lines, they're not going to have a
problem reaching out between them and getting a couple of them at
the same time.
But the sensitivity wasn't there, and such communities as
Orangetree, Waterways, tremendously affected by it. You've seen
what those poles look like. They're absolutely ugly. And they'll
remain ugly for years. And they'll never move them. They're there
forever. And now they're going to come in with more poles from the
other direction.
And we put it out in District 5 because that's the appropriate
place for it. And believe me, it's not appropriate. We've got a
tremendous growth factor going out there. A little more compassion
on the part of FP&L in the divining (sic) of this could have solved an
awful lot of problems for an awful lot of people. I haven't seen one
Page 258
March 23, 2004
person that's going to be directly affected by it that lives within a
block, and you know, I realize some people live two or three blocks
away and they have to drive by it every day, but those that live within
a block, I've never seen one of them come in here and endorse the line.
I don't think I ever will. The only people that are endorsing this
particular route are those people that would have been affected if it
went some other way. And for no other reason but for that reason.
So I just want to make sure I get all this on the record. And when
this thing passes, and it will, I mean, it's obvious as anything it's going
to pass 4-1, I want to make sure that my name on there objecting is in
very bold print and underlined. I want to leave no doubts on the part
of Governor Bush and his Cabinet, there is one commissioner down
here that doesn't want that to happen the way it's coming down.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think the thing we have to
keep in mind here is that there is no route that doesn't impact
somebody. And as a matter of fact, this route is going right down the
back yards of Grey Oaks and Kensington. Some very nice
developments. And I'll tell you, they would pray for poles as nice as
the ones that Janet Vasey showed us there. The ones they have behind
their houses are huge with multiple lines. Not just three lines, maybe
12 or 15 lines. They're really a mess. Those people are not in here
complaining. They understand it's got to go somewhere, and that it's
probably the best possible solution.
And I think FPL has worked hard to try to find a route that will
cause the least consternation on the part of residents, because there is
no route that will not affect somebody. And so I think we've got the
best we can get. And none of us like it, but I'm willing to live with it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Henning to approve the resolution, a second by
Page 259
March 23, 2004
Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we have four in favor, one
opposed, that's Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With bold print and underlined.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: With bold print and underlined.
Item # 10G
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT 98-2891 WITH
METCALF AND EDDY, INC., FOR PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR SCRWTP REVERSE
OSMOSIS EXPANSION PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT OF
$5367200.00_ APPROVF, D
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10(G), which is
the old Item 16(C)(8), and that's to amend the professional services
agreement 98-2891 with Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. for professional
engineering services associated with design and construction services
for the south county regional water treatment plant reverse osmosis
expansion project in the amount of $536,200, project 70054. It was
pulled from the consent agenda by Commissioner Fiala at her request.
Page 260
March 23, 2004
And Mr. Roy Anderson, the director of public utilities, will
present.
MR. ANDERSON: Roy Anderson, for the record.
I'd first like to describe the project very briefly and then we'll get
into the specific request.
The south county regional water treatment plant is basically
adding 8 million gallons per day of reverse osmosis capacity to the
existing 12 mgd facility. It's going to service planned future growth.
The project is consistent with our master planning. It's consistent with
our budget, our FY '04 budget.
I've got an aerial shot of the complex, the facility. The large
building in the middle is the new facility that's now under
construction, and the existing plant is in the background. 951 is way
over on the left. But this kind of gives a feel for the location.
The project acquisition was done by conventional low bid. The
selected contractor's qualifications and experience were checked out
and the construction time was considered achievable at the time.
The county has land adjacent to the existing plant. Metcalf and
Eddy was our designer and the construction resident for the north
water treatment plant, and has established reverse osmosis credentials.
The original construction completion date for this project was
December 31st, 2002. Currently the completion date is planned for
June 14th, 2004, or an increase of about 14 -- 17 months. The current
project is 94 percent complete.
The slippage of the dates was due to a number of factors which
are currently being investigated and evaluated. The county is
receiving legal advice to ensure that its rights are preserved. The
county is being positive and supportive with the contractor to enhance
the chances of success, including things like meeting on a frequent
basis, providing a high level of management support, and then
providing for expeditious progress payments.
Page 261
March 23, 2004
Presently virtually all of the construction proper is complete, and
really now what it comes down to is technical services to achieve full
and reliable treatment operations.
In terms of project management, we -- the project is operated by
a project delivery team consisting of the engineering department, the
water department, our purchasing department, the county attorney,
and Carlton Fields law firm. Director of engineering, myself, is
on-site on practically a full-time basis. We are doing everything with
close coordination with the clerk's office.
Now, to get down to the specifics of amendment number three.
Essentially as the project was extended, it's necessary to continue the
services of our engineering consultant, Metcalf and Eddy. The last
pricing extension for their services was for amendment number two,
which carried us through October 4th of 2003. This service extension
is through June of 2004, and it consists of services which are identical
to those that were provided previously and at the same fees. The fees
are recommended for approval by our department.
Specifically, they involve two main components: A first
component, which is project administration, which is basically the
office engineering and review of all the submittals by the contractor.
The second piece is the actual full-time field inspection by the Metcalf
and Eddy inspectors. And the total being requested is therefore
$536,200.
So our overall bottom line recommendation is that we -- you
approve and authorize the chairman to execute this amendment
number three for the continuation of our engineering services on the
water treatment plant.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have one speaker on this?
MS. FILSON: One speaker, uh-huh. Are you ready?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MS. FILSON: Stephen Decker.
Page 262
March 23, 2004
MR. DECKER: Yes, ma'am, for the record, my name is Stephen
Decker. I work for United Engineering currently on the project of the
water treatment plant.
We only have one objection as to the wording as to what's
happening here. IfMetcalf and Eddy is due $536,000, then by all
means, let them have it. However, they state, unfortunately the
project contractor continued to have difficulties in completing this
project, and the most recent accepted schedule shows a final
completion of May 24th. What they don't tell you is that there are 127
changes by Metcalf and Eddy throughout the duration of this project.
Change order two, as of June last year, 2003, addressed 68 of
those issues. We submitted costs of $1.6 million; Metcalf and Eddy
reviewed it and came back with just a little over a million.
Subsequently we received a cost change for 753,000.
Right now we have spent $25.8 million on this project. We
expect a completion to be somewhere around $27 million.
Again, the changes by the engineer has prolonged this activity.
We do have faults of our own, we're not denying those. But the
majority of the items at stake are the changes by Metcalf and Eddy or
the owner or other means, unforeseen conditions or other routes.
The cost that has prohibited us, we do have good
communications with the department; however, there's still items that
we call change orders. Once a change order has been negotiated and
agreed, we wait for that in writing to proceed with the work. We
currently have many of those that are 60 days out, maybe even longer.
Money fuels the fire. I mean, that's what makes these things go. Like
I say, we're already $2 million upside down on this job, or actually
almost 3 million, and we only see the cost increasing.
So we ask that there be some consideration towards giving
Metcalf and Eddy more funds and more resources to come up with
more change and prolong this, because it's costing us a lot of money.
Page 263
March 23, 2004
And ultimately I'll be back here again requesting from you guys
another change order for us to make us whole again, as well. Of
course it will go through review and consideration, but that's what it
will ultimately come down to. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's hard for me to comprehend that
we put together something of this magnitude and you get a promise of
a certain date and here we are almost three years before we're going to
get even a completion. In fact, it may be even longer than four -- or
three years.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner--
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, I'd like to have Mr. Pettit put a
statement on the record, please.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioners, good evening, Mike Pettit, chief
Assistant County Attorney.
I'm extremely disappointed that the contractor appears here
today, because I believe these comments are being used as a platform
for threatened litigation. I wanted to explain that briefly.
We met with this contractor on February 20, 2004. We met all
day long. And that was not just county attorney, that was also some of
your staff and that was also an outside counsel that you're paying a
hefty fee. And we attempted to work with this contractor in good faith
over a variety of disputes that exist on this project. And make no
mistake, there has been threatened litigation by this contractor, and I
think you can infer that from the comments of Mr. Decker.
At the end of that meeting, we were promised by the contractor
that it would go away and come back and justify why they have failed
to meet these contract milestones repeatedly for 15 months. I think
two of the 17 months, and I stand corrected if I'm wrong, I think two
of the 17 months have been granted by the county that they're late.
They would justify why they failed to meet these deadlines, and
Page 264
March 23, 2004
also explain to us why under the contract documents they were
entitled to some relief on claims that they have asserted.
As I stand here today at 7:02 on March 23, I don't have that
response. I can -- that's why I submit to you that what we're hearing
here is a platform for threatened litigation. They're using this as a
platform to posture for threatened litigation. We've received letters
that can only be interpreted that way in the interim.
What I'm going to ask you is, as your attorney, or one of your
attorneys in this matter, is not to comment tonight. I don't believe this
is a forum to resolve those disputes. Let your staff and our office and
your outside counsel attempt to work with the contractor in good faith.
And I'm going to trust that they will continue to try, or begin to try to
work with us in good faith in this matter and let this matter go through
an appropriate resolution, if possible.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
I don't have any comments.
Do I hear a motion to approve?
I make a motion for approval.
Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor to approve
this item recommended by staff by Commissioner Halas, and a second
by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Page 265
March 23, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 5-0.
Item # 15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GF, NERAI, COMMI JNICATIONS .
Okay. This brings us down to public comments. Do we have
any public here?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And that brings us down to
commission communications, and staff.
First, David, do you have anything to add to this meeting?
MR. WEIGEL: Only that I'll be in Tallahassee tomorrow
thinking of you while I'm there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll be up there with you.
MR. WEIGEL: That's right. Well, I will be thinking of you
while I'm there.
And I'll report back to the board anything that I glean and pick up
on the fringes there. Thank you.
Item #15A
COl JNTY MANAGER MIJDD RE DRI I,EGISIJATION
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Fiala, I'm going to try to get Mr.
Litsinger in to see you tomorrow before you head out for Tallahassee
to talk to you about the DRI legislation that's on the hill. That has a
significant impact upon what this board can do during a DRI and he'll
get you up to speed on that, so as you talk to the legislatures -- or
legislators in Tallahassee, you can ask some very pointed questions
Page 266
March 23, 2004
and hopefully get some very good answers for us.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Maybe I'll make some other
appointments while I'm there as well.
Item #15 B & C
STAFF MEETING SCHEDULES AND BCC SUMMER
BI IDGET/MEETING SCHEDI II JE
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
You received a letter from Commissioner Halas that said that he
wouldn't be there for the District 1 Town Hall meeting. And he said
no fooling on it, and it is April 1 st --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, that was Commissioner Henning,
wasn't it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'll be there.
MR. MUDD: No, Commissioner Halas sent you a letter that he
would not be able to be there because he's going to be attending the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's hurricane recovery and
mitigation week-long course in Emmitsburg, Maryland. And so I just
want to make sure that I remind you that that's there.
During the week, you should have all received the annual report
based on an ordinance that I'm required to put to give to you and to
homeowners association. We also advertised last Friday. It was in the
Naples Daily News.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: By the way, I was giving a speech last
night to the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association, and they
commented on what a great piece that was, and suggested to the
members there to call the county for it or find it on line. I also gave it
out at the East Naples Civic Association luncheon already, so we're
moving them out.
Page 267
March 23, 2004
MR. MUDD: Okay. I'm going to beam this up so you can see it
a little bit better. I just want to make sure I pass this out. All your
aides, your executive assistants have this. But I want to make sure
that we talk about it just a little bit. The summer schedule. And I
need to get your approval on it. I passed it out as a snapshot.
Now the budget hearings you approved today. So September 9th
and September 23rd, based on the budget guidance, you approved that
already.
June 22nd is the last regular BCC meeting. There will only be
two meetings in June as far as BCC. There won't be three like we had
last year. I don't see any major issues that would require three like
there were last year.
The budget hearings are scheduled for two days, the 29th and the
30th, to do the manager's organization and the airport authority on the
29th and the constitutionals on the morning of the 30th, and then we
can use the afternoon of the 30th to get any unanswered questions
answered before we're done with budget hearings. The BCC meeting
is set for millage on the 27th of July. I will tell you right now, my
crystal ball says it will be a one-day meeting. I could be wrong, but
I've put down the 28th of July as a reserve, just in case something
comes up, we will have to spill over. But right now, everything I see
on the 27th will be a one-day meeting. And then you'll return in
September for regular scheduled BCC meetings.
That's all I have. If you have any questions on the schedule or
would like to make any changes, we can do it now. But I'd like to get
that out so that everybody is set so you can make your plans for the
summer and things like that. It would also mean -- the 15th of July is
a big day for three of you, I know.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, there is one. July 16th, I guess you're
talking about.
MR. MUDD: Well, July 16th is the day you either have a sigh of
Page 268
March 23, 2004
relief or you start running hard. It's the last day somebody can sign up
to contest their seat.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go back to sleep.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, you woke me up.
MR. MUDD: No problem, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, do you have
anything that you'd like to state?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, if we can, July 27th just
keep one item on the agenda, appreciate it.
The second meeting of next month I'm going to Tallahassee to
tell the Governor how much opposed Commissioner Coletta was to the
FP&L alignment. And also, I'll work on some transportation items
with the new SIS. And I plan on staying overnight. So if there's
anything else that I need to deliver? But I have a speaking
engagement at 7:00 and I'm going to head out of here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Should I stick around
and wait to hear what you have to say?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, you should hear what I have
to say, because it's very important.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle.
MR. MUDD: Are the dates -- are the dates okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
Item #15D
MR. MUDD'S MENTION OF THE CAP D' ANTIBES DEADLINE
FOR RECONSIDERATION
MR. MUDD: And the last thing I have to say is any
Page 269
March 23, 2004
commissioner -- every commissioner has been contacted about
reconsideration of Cap d'Antibes has been contacted. And today was
the last day for any reconsideration, according to 2-41 and 2-42. And
I'll make that as part of the record. That's all I have.
Item #15E
I.ETTER FROM GARY DAVIS WITH THE CONSERVANCY
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My mm? Okay. I have received a
copy of a letter from Gary Davis on behalf of the Conservancy, and I
think the other Commissioners were copied, asking for our support for
funding for the Naples Bay restoration initiative, that is state funding
for the Naples Bay restoration initiative, for the Big Cypress Basin
restoration initiative and for the Lake Trafford restoration. It is
addressed to our -- to Governor Jeb Bush, Senate President James
King, and Speaker Johnnie Byrd, and carbon copied to our legislative
delegation.
I think we all agree with these projects and would like to see
them funded. And I would like to see if there is sufficient support on
the board to have the Chairman sign this letter and send it up to
Tallahassee to try to get these funds allocated for these very important
projects.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As long as it doesn't cost us
anything.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It shouldn't cost us anything.
These are all existing Senate and House bills. They are actually being
considered for appropriation. And we're really writing in support of
existing Senate and House bills.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's fine with me. Commissioners, are
Page 270
March 23, 2004
you all in agreement?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So I'll leave this letter with
the County Manager and then he can prepare it for the Chairman's
signature.
MR. MUDD: Do you have it electronically already?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was sent to me e-mail, and it is
on my file.
MR. MUDD: Sue will help me out on this one.
MS. FILSON: Yeah, you can give it to me and I'll retype it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, great. And the critical point
is that we need to get it in within next week, within the week, okay?
MS. FILSON: Tomorrow morning it will be in at 8:00.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, then I'll have to run in and sign it. I
can do that.
MS. FILSON: I thought you were going to be here tomorrow
morning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, up until 10:00.
MS. FILSON: I'll have it ready at 8:00.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I go now?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, you can go now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure, go ahead, go ahead.
Item #15F
COMMISSIONER HALAS'S CONCERN REGARDING
EMER GF, NCY F A CII JlTIES
Page 271
March 23, 2004
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say it was an eventful
day and I guessed wrong, I figured we wouldn't get out of here till
about 9:30. But I want to say that I think we've accomplished a lot
today.
One of the things that concerns me, and I think all of us should be
aware of this, is that it's my understanding that we only have about
enough shelters here for about 10 percent of our populace here in
Collier County. And I think that any time that any DRIs or PUDs
come before us, I think that we need to address, find out where they
are as far as the slosh zone is located, anything that maybe borders
along the area of 951 and east, that we seriously address these issues
of making sure that we have protection for our citizens. I think that
we are in harm's way. When you look at the level of service of I-75,
we know that that's in F mode at the present time. We know that a lot
of the other roads that travel in the easterly direction are basically
two-lane roads that we're trying to address multi lanes, but I feel with
the populace that we presently have here of over 300,000 people and
we're growing at a rate of about 10,000 people a year, that we need to
give this serious consideration. I just would hate to put any of our
citizens in a situation where if they tried to leave because they feel
that they may be in harm's way, that they end up on 1-75 and they're
trapped in their vehicles. And I think that we as county
commissioners should make an effort to make sure that we have areas
set aside within Collier County. I think we need to impress this with
the school board that we need to have hardened auditoriums, along
with air conditioning. And also making sure that we have emergency
generators that can plug in there and not only provide lights, but also
provide air conditioning. Because normally after a major storm of this
nature, you're going to end up with high temperatures and high
Page 272
March 23, 2004
humidity. And I think that we really need to look at this seriously. I
feel that we don't know when we're going to get 1-75 extended, as far
-- or widened. It could be a number of years down the road, we're
hoping not. But I really think that is something we ought to just
concentrate on as we see future developments come forward and come
across this board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to first start off by
telling Commissioner Halas I appreciate the fact he's taking this so
seriously and attending those courses in, what is it Fredricksburg?
Not Fredricksburg.
MR. MUDD: Emmitsburg.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Erranitsburg, Maryland.
Obviously when you go to those courses, you get a little different
perspective on how everything is put together. Sometime in the
future, maybe next year, we may have another commissioner or two
up to hopefully take a look at it. It's really quite an interesting week.
It's not a negative experience at all.
I want to thank you all today for all the positive things that
happened. We may disagree occasionally on some things, but I want
you to know, I'm always right. No, seriously, though, I thank you for
all the positive things, for the endorsement you gave me to attend the
meetings of the health consortium. And I thank you for the support
for Ave Maria, which will be a big plus for everybody in Collier
County. And I guess you even provided for the power to the university
today. So some things work out one way or another. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. I just had a little correction to
make. When we were -- when I made a motion for the Goodland
project, I mentioned in my motion a letter that I had received. I stated
that it was from the Goodland Preservation Coalition -- I'm sorry, that
Page 273
March 23, 2004
it was from the Goodland Civic Association, and actually the letter I
received that I mentioned in my motion was from the Goodland
Preservation Coalition. So I just wanted to make sure the record was
straight on that.
Secondly, I want to offer my deepest heartfelt sympathies to
Mary Ellen Savedic (phonetic) who just lost her son, and I just want to
tell you, honey, that we all love you.
And the third thing is I'm heading to Tallahassee tomorrow. I'm
finally going to become a certified county commissioner, like my hero
here, Commissioner certified Coletta. Thank you.
And with that, meeting is adjourned.
*****Commissioner Henning 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
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR UTILITY AND ROAD PROJECTS
IN THE IMMOKALEE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT- AS
DF, TAIIjEI-) 1N THE F, XF, CI JTIVE SI JMMARY
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2004-71' URGING THE FLORIDA
LEGISLATURE TO REAUTHORIZE AND FULLY FUND THE
STATE AND LOCAL HOUSING TRUST FUNDS FOR FISCAL
YF, AR 2004-2005
Item #16A3
Page 274
March 23, 2004
RESOLUTION 2004-72: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "GLEN EDEN",
PHASE ONE" THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, THE
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY-W/RELEASE OF THE
MAINTF, NANCFJ SFJCI IRITY
Item # 16A4
RESOLUTION 2004-73: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "GLEN EDEN,
PHASE TWO" THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, THE
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY-W/RELEASE OF THE
MA1NTF, NANCF, SF, CI IRITY
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2004-74: PETITION AVESMT2003-AR54200 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE UTILITY
EASEMENT CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY BY
SEPARATE INSTRUMENT AND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL
RECORD BOOK 2429, PAGES 3363 THROUGH 3368, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LOCATED IN
SF, CTION 11~ TOWNSHIP 49 SOl JTH~ RANGF, 25 FJAST
Page 275
March 23, 2004
Item #16A6
1NCREASE OF $40,000 FROM THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
EMERGENCY CONTRACT WITH TOMASELLO CONSULTING
ENGINEERS, INC., FOR WORK TO PERFORM STUDIES 1N
SUPPORT OF COLLIER COUNTY'S RESTUDY OF THE FLOOD
INSURANCE RATE MAPS RECENTLY RESCINDED BY THE
FFiDERAIJ FJMFiRGF, NCY MANAGF, MF, NT AGF, NCY (FFJMA)
Item # 16A7
STATE FUNDED SUBGRANT AGREEMENT TO RECEIVE A
GRANT THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION
PROGRAM
Item #16A8
FORGIVENESS OF ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND INTEREST
TOTALING $215.38, AND FINAL RELEASE OF LIEN IMPOSED
AGAINST MARK T. & MIDORI M. CARROI,I,
Item #16A9
AN AMENDED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO
PROVIDE AN INCREASED LEVEL OF CUSTOMER SERVICE
RF, I,ATING TO F,NVIRONMF, NTAI J PFJRMITTING
Item #16Al0
Page 276
March 23, 2004
THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT
CASF. S NO. 2001-042, 2001-020, 2001-007, AND 2001-077
Item #16Al 1- Moved to Item #10H
Item #16A12
EXECUTING A MORTGAGE SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT
FOR A LOAN GRANTED TO CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES XIV,
LTD. THROUGH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING RENTAL
DF, VF.I,OPMFNT ASSISTANCFJ PROGRAM
Item #16A13
APPLICATION FOR JOB CREATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM
PARTICIPATION BY MARCH PERFORMANCE,
INCORPORATED, AS A HIGH IMPACT TARGETED
1NDUSTRY AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER
TO ENTER INTO A JOB CREATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF COLLIER COUNTY WHICH
WILL BE RECORDED IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF
COl ,I JIF. R COl JNTY
Item #16A14- Moved from Item #17G
RESOLUTION 2004-75: SUPPORTING THE SAFIRE AIRCRAFT
COMPANY AS A QUALIFIED APPLICANT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 288.106, FLORIDA STATUTES; AND PROVIDING AN
APPROPRIATION OF $1,330,000.00 AS LOCAL PARTICIPATION
IN THE QUALIFIED TARGET INDUSTRY (QTI) TAX REFUND
PROGRAM AND BROWNFIELD AREA PROGRAM, AND
Page 277
March 23, 2004
pROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Item # 16B 1
ACCEPT GRANT FUNDS AWARDED UNDER SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/BIG CYPRESS
BASIN FOR THE STORMSEWER INLET MARKING
PROGRAM- IN THE AMOIJNT OF $18,000.00
Item #16B2
AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $515,931.50 TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC. TO ENCLOSE
THE IMMOKALEE FLORIDA SPECIALTIES DITCH, PROJECT
NI IMFIER 51015, FIID NO. 04-3612
Item #16B3
APPROVAL OF A SELECTION OF QUALIFIED FIRMS AND TO
AWARD THE SECOND PROJECT UNDER ITQ 04-3583 "CEI
SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY ROAD PROJECTS" FOR
THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PROJECT, NO. 60351-
FIRMS TO INCLUDE AIM ENGINEERING & SURVEYING,
INC., CONSUL-TECH CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC.,
WII,SON MII~IJER~ INC., AND HDR, INC
Item #16B4
APPROVAL OF A SELECTION OF QUALIFIED FIRMS AND
AWARD THE FIRST PROJECT UNDER ITQ 04-3583 "CEI
SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY ROAD PROJECTS" FOR
Page 278
March 23, 2004
THE 13TM STREET SW PROJECT, NO. 69068 TO HDR, INC. - AS
DF, TAIIJF, D IN THF, F, XF, CI JTIVF, SI IMMARY
Item #16B5
RESOLUTION 2004-76: AUTHORIZING CERTAIN
DESIGNATED COUNTY TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS TO
CERTIFY DISBURSEMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION; REPEALING AND SUPERCEDING
RFiSOIJl ITION NO. 2002-477
Item #16B6
APPROVE ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENTS AT
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ON
MARCH 23, 2004- AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SI IMMARY
Item #16B7
A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE TO REMEDY
DRIVEWAY ACCESS ISSUES TO ALLIGATOR ALLEY MOBIL
GAS STATION RESULTING FROM THE DAVIS BOULEVARD
(S.R. 84) INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT COLLIER
BOULEVARD (C.R. 951), COUNTY PROJECT NO. 60170, BID
NO. 03-3501 FISCAL IMPACT: NOT TO EXCEED $63,972.42
($31;835.90 TO BF, RFiIMBI ~RSFiD BY PROPF, RTY OWNFR)
Item #16B8
RESOLUTION 2004-77: SUPPORTING THE PRESERVATION
Page 279
March 23, 2004
OF THE STATE TRANSPORTATION TRUST FUND- AS
DETAII,ED IN THE EXECI JTIVE SI JMMARY
Item g 16B9
RESOLUTION 2004-78: OPPOSING PROPOSED FLORIDA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LEGISLATION WHICH
COULD REORGANIZE THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING
PROGRAM IN FLOR/DA AND UNDERMINE THE
INDEPENDENCE OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING
ORGANIZATIONS
Item g 16C 1
RESOLUTION 2004-79: APPROVING SATISFACTIONS OF
LIEN FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL
THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS-AS DETAILED IN THE
F, XF, CI ITIVE SI ~[MMARY
Item gl 6C2
RESOLUTION 2004-80: APPROVING SATISFACTIONS OF
LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL
THE 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR ACCOUNTS: g7304,
gl 16627 gl 3822~ gl 6997, AND g26929
Item gl 6C3
Page 280
March 23, 2004
SATISFACTION OF A NOTICE OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR A
SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE - FOR FOI,IO #62251480006
Item #16C4
EXECUTION AND RECORDING OF SATISFACTIONS FOR
CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER IMPACT FEE PAYMENT
AGREEMENTS- AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
gl IMMARY
Item # 16C5
APPROVE THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN DOCUMENTS
FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY FOR ABATEMENT OF
NI IISANCE- AS DETAIl.ED 1N THE EXECIITIVE SI JMMARY
Item #16C6
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO WORK ORDER NO. UC-059 WITH
QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC., FOR THE CITY COUNTY
WASTEWATER INTER-CONNECT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$30,098, PROJECT 73162
Item # 16C7
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WATER RESOURCE
SOLUTIONS, INC. FOR THE NORTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY DEEP INJECTION WELL SYSTEM,
CONTRACT 00-3122, IN THE AMOUNT OF $284,628, PROJECT
NO. 73948
Page 281
March 23, 2004
Item #16C8- Moved to item #10G
Item #16C9
AMEND A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, PROJECT NO. 73164, AN
INFI ,OW 1NFIIJTR ATION STI IDY
Item # 16C 10
APPROVAL BY PUBLIC UTILITIES ADMINISTRATOR OF TWO
ENGINEERING SERVICES WORK ORDERS UNDER
CONTRACT # 01-3271, FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT PROJECTS, WITH COASTAL PLANNING &
ENGINEERING, INC., TO CONDUCT BOTTOM
INVESTIGATION FOR PIPELINE AREA, AND TO PREPARE
FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, FOR COLLIER
COUNTY/CITY OF NAPLES MAJOR BEACH
RENOURISHMENT, PROJECT NO. 90527, IN AN AMOUNT NOT
TO F, XCF, ED ~271,000
Item # 16C 11
TO SUBMIT A LETTER OF REQUEST TO CONGRESSMAN
GOSS' OFFICE REQUESTING A CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
ADDITION OF $100,000 TO FUND THE INITIAL STUDY IN
SUPPORT OF INITIATING A COLLIER COUNTY SHORE
pROTECTION PROJECT
Page 282
March 23, 2004
Item #16C12
AWARD BID NO. 04-3608-"PURCHASE & DELIVERY OF
SULFURIC ACID" TO SULFURIC ACID TRAD1NG COMPANY,
INC., FOR AN APPROXIMATE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF
$200,000- TO CONT1NI IE THE TREATMF, NT OF RAW WATER
Item # 16D 1
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY
UNIVERSITY EXTENSION DEPARTMENT AND WACHOVIA
MORTGAGE CORPORATION TO PROVIDE HOMEBUYER'S
EDI ICATION AND COl INSEI,ING FOR THEIR CI,IENTS
Item #16D2
COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY TO APPLY FOR A
STATE CONSTRUCTION GRANT TO ENLARGE THE GOLDEN
GATE BRANCH IJIBRARY
Item # 16D3
BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM
GENERAL FUND RESERVES FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR REPAIR OF THE CI,AM PASS DRAWBRIDGE
Item #16D4
GRANT AGREEMENT AWARDED TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR A SUMMER LIBRARY READING
PARTNERSHIP PIIJOT PROJECT
Page 283
March 23, 2004
Item # 16D5
APPROVAL TO SUBMIT THE ANNUAL APPLICATION FOR
FUNDING FROM THE UNITED WAY, THROUGH THE 4H
FOUNDATION AND, IF AWARDED, APPROVE THE
ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT TO SUPPORT A PART-TIME 4H
CI JSTOMFJR SERVICE POSITION
Item # 16E 1
AWARD CONTRACT NO. 03-3549, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$262,400.00 TO JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., FOR
CONSULTANT SERVICES TO DEVELOP A PUBLIC LAND
SURVEY SECTION (PLSS) BASE LAYER FOR USE WITHIN
THF, COl JNTY'S F, NTFJRPRISF, GIS DATAI~ASE
Item #16E2
AMENDMENT NO. 3, CONTRACT #00-3173, TO SPILLIS
CANDELA DMJM, FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR
DESIGN OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE ANNEX FACILITY IN
THFJ AMOI JNT OF ~129,51 8.00
Item #16E3
RESOLUTION 2004-81: AUTHORIZING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO DELEGATE LIMITED
ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY TO THE APPOINTED
PRIVACY OFFICER AND SECURITY OFFICER FOR THE
PURPOSES OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE HEALTH
Page 284
March 23, 2004
INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF
1996
Item #16E4
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND 517, GROUP HEALTH AND
LIFE INSURANCE, TO PROPERLY BUDGET FOR PREMIUMS
PAID TO CIGNA DENTAL PLAN AND TO REFLECT A
CORRESPONDING DECREASE IN THE GROUP HEALTH
CIJAIMS BI IDGFJT
Item #16E5
EXTEND CONTRACT # 01-3253 WITH E.B. SIMMONDS & MID
CONTINENT ELECTRIC FOR THE INSTALLATION AND
MAINTF, NANCE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAl, I INTIIJ MAY 2004
Item #16E6
A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK FOR
THE PROPOSED EMERGENCY SERVICES CENTER, RFP #04-
3609, TO KRAFT CONSTRUCTION INC., AS DETAILED IN THE
F, XF, CI JTIVF, SI IMM ARY
Item #16E7
AWARD RFP #04-3582 FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES IN
THE AMOUNT OF $420,010 TO WALKER PARKING
CONSULTANTS FOR THE DESIGN OF THE VANDERBILT
BFiACH PARKING GARAGE
Page 285
March 23, 2004
Item # 16F 1
MODIFY THE FY-04 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND
ASSISTANCE GRANT AND APPROVING A BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE
ADDITIONAL REVENUE- AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SI IMMARY
Item #16F2
SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO FEMA FOR
ASSISTANCE TO THE FIREFIGHTERS GRANT PROGRAM FOR
THF, ISI,F.S OF CAPRI FIRF, RF, SCI IF, DISTRICT
Item #16F3
TOURISM AGREEMENT WITH THE MARCOS ISLAND
HISTORICAL SOCIETY, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,500 TO
COMPLETE THE ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF
PI,ANS TO lall III,D A MI JSF. I JM ON MARCO ISI,AND
Item # 16H 1
COMMISSIONER COLETTA REQUEST TO ATTEND THE
"RSVP SPRING VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION LUNCHEON" ON
MARCH 24, 2004 AT THE NAPLES HILTON-FOR A COST OF
$25.00
Item # 1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE-FILED
AND/OR
Page 286
March 23, 2004
RF~FFJRRF, D-
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 287
FOR BOARD ACTION:
A. Districts:
1.
o
o
o
10.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
March 23, 2004
Port of the Islands - Schedule of Regular Meeting Minutes -minutes of
August 15, 2003 and September 19, 2003; minutes of October 3, 2003 and
October 17, 2003, minutes of November 21, 2003, December 5, 2003
December 15, 2003 and January 5, 2004.
Heritage Greens Community Development District - Minutes of the
Landowners Meeting November 4, 2003; Minutes of November 19, 2003
with the Minutes of August 18, 2003.
Collier Mosquito Control District - Public Facilities Report and District
Map.
Mediterra South Community Development District - Budget for FY 2004;
Schedule of Regular Meetings and Description of Outstanding Bonds.
Mediterra Certification of Resolution 2004-2; Minutes of November 4,
2003 and July 30, 2003.
Naples Heritage Community Development District - Budget FY 2004,
Registered Office and Agent and Schedule of Regular Meetings for
Minutes for January 13, 2003, Board of Sup. Nov. 10, 2003, August 18,
2003, November 18, 2003; December 5, 2003; September 19, 2003 and
February 27, 2004.
Key Marco Community Development District - Budget for FY 2004 and
Description of Outstanding Bonds, Minutes of June 25, 2003 and August
7, 2003.
Immokalee Water and Sewer District - Annual Financial Report; Audit;
Management Letter and Rebuttal to Management Letter.
Cow Slough Water Control District - Annual Financial Report; Audit;
Management Letter and Rebuttal to Management Letter.
Pelican Marsh Community Development District - Annual Financial
Report; Audit; Management Letter; Rebuttal to Management Letter and
Schedule of Regular Meetings.
Riviera Golf Estates - Proposed Budget and Agenda for December 16,
2003.
H:DataJFormat
11.
12.
13.
14.
Cedar Hammock Community Development District - Annual Financial
Report and Audit.
Collier County Housing Authority - Annual Financial Report; Audit;
Management Letter; Rebuttal to Management Letter; Registered Of.rice
and Agent; Public Facilities Report and Description of Outstanding Bonds.
Fiddler's Creek Community Development District//2 -Annual Financial
Report; Audit; Management Letter; Rebuttal to Management Letter and
Budget FY 2004. ~
Fiddler's Creek Community District - Annual Financial Report; Audit;
Management Letter; Rebuttal to Management Letter and Description of
Outstanding Bonds, Minutes of October 1, 2003; October 22, 2003.
Minutes:
Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for March 10, 2004; Minutes
of February 11, 2004.
Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for March 4, 2004,
Minutes of February 5, 2004.
Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda for March 3, 2004; Minutes of
February 4, 2004, Voting Conflict for County, Municipal, and Other Local
Public Officers.
Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority - Minutes for October
27, 2003.
Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. - Minutes of February 12,
2004.; Budget for the M.S.T.U.
Collier County Library Advisory Board - Agenda for February 25, 2004;
Minutes of January 28, 2004.
Pelican Bay Services - Clam Bay Sub-Committee - Agenda for March 3,
2004; Minutes of October 1, 2003; Regular Meeting Agenda for March 3,
2004, with approval of January 7, 2004 minutes and January 21 special
minutes for the special meeting. Minutes of February 4, 2004; The
Cannes Plans at Pelican Bay and back-up material
H:Data/Format
March 23, 2004
Item # 16K1
AMENDMENT TO STIPULATED FINAL JUDGEMENT
RELATIVE TO THE FEE SIMPLE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL
174 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. MICHAEL
S. COMBS, ET AL., (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NO. 60018)-
AS DETAIIJED lN THE EXECI JTIVE SI IMMARY
Item # 16K2
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 100, 101 AND 700 IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. FAITH BIBLE
CHURCH OF NAPLES, ETAL., (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT
NO. 69101) -$24,000 TO BE PAID TO FAITH BIBLE CHURCH
AND $2~805 FOR ATTORNEY FEES
Item #16K3
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS TO PARCELS 113,
713A & 713B IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY
V. NORTH NAPLES UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, INC., ET
AL., (GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD PROJECT NO. 60134)- AS
DETAIl.ED IN THE EXECI JTIVE SI JMMARY
Item #17A- This item has been deleted
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2004-82: MAKE FINDINGS AND DESIGNATE A
BROWNFIELD AREA THAT IS WITHIN A PORTION OF A
Page 288
March 23, 2004
COLLIER ENTERPRISE ZONE AND DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY
AREA OUTSIDE THE GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES OF THE
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT, ALL OF WHICH IS
OWNED BY AND WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION, IF NEEDED,
AND FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE DESIGNATED
BROWNFIFJ.D ARF, A; PROVIDING FOR AN F, FFF~CTIVF. DATF,
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2004-17: PETITION NO. SE-04-AR-5313, AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 03-46, THE ARTESA
POINT "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CORRECT
A SCRIVENER'S ERROR RESULTING FROM THE
UNINTENTIONAL OMISSION OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
NUMBER 1603N IN THE TRANSMITTAL COPY OF THE
ADOPTED ORDINANCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EASE SIDE OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R.951) AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF
U.S. 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL) IN SECTION 03, TOWNSHIP 51
SOl ~TH, RANGF~ 26 F~AST, COI~I.IF.R COl INTY, FI~ORIDA
Item # 17D
ORDINANCE 2004-18: RE: PETITION NO. PUDZ-2003-AR-3764,
MICHAEL R. FERNANDEZ, AICP, REPRESENTING ST. JOHN
THE EVANGELIST CATHOLIC CHURCH, REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO
COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(CFPUD), FOR 14.89+/- ACRE PROJECT KNOWN AS ST. JOHN
THE EVANGELIST PUD, LOCATED AT 625 111 TH AVENUE
Page 289
March 23, 2004
Item #17E
ORDINANCE 2004-19: RE: PETITION NO. RZ-2003-AR-3703,
WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP, REPRESENTING IMMOKALEE
CHURCH OF NAZARENE REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE
"P" PUBLIC USE ZONING DISTRICT TO THE "CF"
COMMUNITY FACILITY ZONING DISTRICT, LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF
COLORADO AVENUE AND 4TH STREET SOUTH IN
IMMOKALEE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (COMPANION
IO..EE.IIIION-N0 V A - 200~- A R.::410R)
Item #17F
RESOLUTION 2004-83: RE: V A-2003-AR-4708, WILLIAM L.
HOOVER, AICP, REPRESENTING IMMOKALEE CHURCH OF
THE NAZARENE, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM LDC
SECTION 2.2.19.4.3.1., IN THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES "CF"
ZONING DISTRICT, FROM THE 25-FOOT MINIMUM FRONT
YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW A 10.1-FOOT SETBACK FOR AN
EXISTING COVERED SIDEWALK, AND A 20.1-FOOT
SETBACK FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED A THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN
COLORADO AVENUE AND 4TH STREET SOUTH IN
IMMOKALEE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (COMPANION
IO.EEI.IIION--lR Z-200~- A R -~ 70~)
Item #17G- Moved to item #16A14
Page 290
March 23, 2004
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:16 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
~~~
A FIALA, Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
1-;~~~~4~~
~7J, " . ,~,'
f-. 0; . . .
. ..
... , - .'.-
::-Attést as " CIIIt....·. ~
- ¿$'9"t1re~t'Minutes approved by the Board on ~ ~
as presented t/ or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS AND CHERIE
NOTTINGHAM
Page 291
Aquaport Settlement
Page 1 of 1
Patricia L. Morgan
From: Patricia L. Morgan
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 200410:36 AM
To: Pettit, Michael
Cc: Weigel, David
Subject: RE: Aquaport Settlement
'fliankyou. I wi{{ get tlÏose posted riglÏt away. -'frislÏ
-----Original Message---u
From: Pettit, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 10:35 AM
To: Patricia L. Morgan
Cc: Weigel, David
Subject: RE: Aquaport Settlement
-[pettit_m] Yes - the case has been settled and the minutes are open to the public. Mike Pettit. ----Original
Messageu---
From: Patricia L. Morgan [mailto:Patricia.Morgan@clerk.collierJI.us]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 10:32 AM
To: weigeLd; PettitMichael
Cc: bradley_n
Subject: Aquaport Settlement
Çood :Morning,
cpfease advise me if tfiis case fias 6een settfed and I can refease tfie Crosed Session minutes for
pu6Eic viewing. I wi{{ need confirmation from your office to do tfiis.
crFianl¿you,
rrrisfi :Morgan
:Minutes ð., ~cords
10/1912004
March 23, 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE CLOSED SESSION MEETING
(ITEM 12C) OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
NAPLES, FL, MARCH 23, 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
districts as have been created according to law and having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 12:00 p.m. in CLOSED SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Donna Fiala
Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Tom Henning
Frank Halas
ALSO PRESENT:
Ted Tripp, Independent Counsel
Mike Pettit, Assistant County Attorney
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Page 1
March 23, 2004
March 23,2004
Item #12C CLOSED SESSION
This item to be heard immediately following Item 12A (to be heard at
12:00 noon). Closed Attorney-Client Session pursuant to Section
286.011(8), Fla. Stat., to discuss settlement negotiations related to
strategy/litigation expenses of the pending litigation case of Aquaport
v. Collier County, Case No. 03-1609-CA, now pending in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida and
Aquaport v. Collier County, et aI, Case No. 2:01-CV-341-FTM-
29DNF, now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Fort Myers Division and also pending in the U.S.
Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit, Case Nos. 03-11291-B, 03-
13298~ and 03-13133.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we're coming into the closed session in
regard to settlement negotiations related to strategy or litigation
expenses of current pending litigation. The case is Aquaport versus
Collier County, Case No. 03-1609-CA, now pending in the 20th
Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. And also, Aquaport
versus Collier County et ai, Case No. 2:01-CV-341-FTM-29DNF, now
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Fort Myers Division, and also pending in the U.S. District Court of
Appeal for the 11th Circuit, Case Numbers 03-11291-B, and 03-13298,
and 03-13133.
Notice was provided of this closed session at the prior board
meeting, and has been noticed through the agenda process. We are
meeting in closed session now on agenda Item 12(C), and subsequent
to the closed session, we will come out to the regular board meeting in
the Sunshine and pick up on the related item 12(D).
Page 2
March 23, 2004
MR. TRIPP: Commissioners, we are here today to report a
relatively unexpected development in the Burt Harris Act claim that
occurred in the context of a mediation session. The court -- the circuit
court, as you know, refers all cases to mediation as a matter of course.
We went into the mediation of the Burt Harris Act claim frankly
assuming that we would not even need to get our parking validated.
And to our -- somewhat to our surprise, the plaintiffs announced a
demand which was substantially beneath any demand that had ever
been previously announced.
If I could take a couple of minutes just to give you some
background on where we are procedurally, I think that would be
helpful.
There was a lawsuit filed against Collier County in federal court
seeking money damages under a statute called 42 U.S. Code Section
1983. Together with that claim was what's called a pendente state
claim by which Aquaport challenged the actions of the County
Commission on May 22nd, 2001, which revoked a building permit
which has been issued by staff, notwithstanding that the matter was
pending before the County Commission at that time on a rehearing
motion.
That building permit would have permitted the construction of an
eight-unit hotel on slightly less than one acre of property on Vanderbilt
Beach. We were successful in arguing as a matter of law in the federal
court that the claim against Collier County could not proceed under 42
U.S. Code Section 1983.
The judge in that case rendered a verdict or judgment in favor of
Collier County. That matter has been appealed to the 11 th Circuit,
which sits in Atlanta. The briefs were in. The only wrinkle in the
appellate proceeding is that during the pendency of the appeal there
were discussions between Margaret Cooper who represents the
plaintiffs and Donald Hemke of Carlton Fields who represents the
Page 3
March 23,2004
individual commissioners who were sued in that litigation. Depending
on who you listen to, there was or wasn't a settlement. A dispute arose
concerning the existence and enforceability of that. That matter has
now been remanded to the district court as to whether the claims of the
individual commissioners have been resolved.
That really is beyond the scope of where we are today, but I
wanted to bring you up to date procedurally on where we are.
The Burt Harris claim has two aspects. It proceeds on what is
called a bifurcated proceeding. The first proceeding, which will be
tried before a circuit judge without a jury, is the issue of whether a
plaintiff can establish a liability on the part of Collier County. That
portion of the proceeding is set to begin trial on April the 12th. It's set
for a five-day trial. It will be heard before the Honorable Jack
Schoonover. Judge Schoonover is a retired judge that served for many
years in Lee County, was then elevated -- or demoted, depending on
your point of view -- to district court, where he served for 12 years.
He retired two years ago and has served as senior judge on more
lengthy trials, and has been assigned to hear the liability aspects of the
Burt Harris claim.
Before we could proceed to that trial, the court ordered that we
proceed in mediation. You may recall that there was an earlier
discussion of settlement in the context of the 1983 action. Those
settlement discussions never bore fruit, but we went to mediation a
couple of times. The plaintiffs have always announced demands in
that context, north of $2.5 million dollars. Their perception was that
there was plenty of coverage and that their claim was just and their
cause was right, and there really weren't any realistic settlement
discussions in that context.
In the context of the Burt Harris claim, we assumed that they
would continue what we viewed to be an unrealistic settlement posture.
To our surprise, they announced a demand of $2 million. We got the
Page 4
March 23, 2004
strong impression -- and Michael, you can jump in as you see fit, but
the message that was being sent to us in our view was that the plaintiffs
were willing to realistically discuss settlement. There are two items, or
actually three, that are potentially available for settlement. That's the
1983 action against the county, the claims against the individual
commissioners, and the Burt Harris Act claim. The plaintiffs, we
believe, were indicating that they would resolve all pending issues for
a number which was substantially south of $2 million, and perhaps in
the neighborhood of $1 million.
We had received, prior to the mediation, an indication from
Northland, the insurance carrier who is paying for the defense in the
1983 action and who has now assumed under a reservation, the defense
of the Burt Harris Act claim. I should tell you, there is some dispute as
to whether that coverage exists, but for now, they've agreed to at least
operate on the assumption that there may be coverage for that. And if
we can resolve all matters, they are indicating to us that they would
fund that settlement at the level of approximately $500,000.
$500,000 in my view will not settle the case, nor in my view, will
it take an additional million-five in addition to that to settle the case.
I suspect that the plaintiffs are looking for a graceful exit. They
have spent a lot of time and a lot of money in this litigation. I think
they're looking for a way to declare a victory and withdraw from the
field of battle. And as your attorney, I always have an obligation to
advise you when in my view there is an opportunity.
I think there is a window of opportunity here. Your decision is do
you wish to take advantage of that window of opportunity.
Now, I will tell you that on the Burt Harris Act claim, in our view
we have two different types of defenses. One are legal defenses, and
one are factual defenses. Legally there is in our view a failure on the
part of plaintiffs to protect -- to perfect the Burt Harris Act claim. The
statute requires as a condition of a Burt Harris Act claim that a claim
Page 5
--
March 23, 2004
be presented to the governing body in writing. The claim is required to
set forth the diminution in value of the property that has resulted from
the government action. And you are required to present with that
claim a valid bona fide appraisal which establishes the diminution in
value.
In this case you may recall that the first action, May 22nd of
2001, was the revocation of the building permit. The second action,
which occurred in June of 200 1, was an amendment to the Land
Development Code which removed the floor area ratio calculating
density in the RT district and revert to the density that had been in
effect prior to June of 2000. It was a per unit density.
The first claim that was presented to the Collier County
Commission was a claim which did not assert that the property had
suffered a diminution in value. Basically that claim said we have
invested $2.7 million in this property in terms of our acquisition and
plans for development of the property. You have now rezoned the
property and we think you owe us money. It literally does not contain
the words diminution in value, nor does it attempt to quantify a
diminution in value.
Accompanying that claim was an appraisal by a company called
Joseph Blake and Associates, if memory serves. Mr. Blake valued the
parcel as vacant, and valued the property as if zoned for a 15-unit
condominium, and established a value of $2,784,000.
The second claim was submitted to the County Attorney's Office
sometime in August or September of 2002. There is some confusion,
because the plaintiffs' contention is that at least portions of the claim
were presented informally. The formal written claim, amended claim,
was not submitted until October of 2002. That claim did set forth a
claim for diminution in value and was accompanied by an appraisal
from a company called Armalavage and Associates that did establish a
value differential between the property as zoned for a 68-unit hotel and
Page 6
March 23,2004
the property as zoned for a 15-unit condominium. That differential in
value is approximately $2.8 million.
Our argument, as a matter of law to the trial judge, was that the
Burt Harris Act claim requires a written notice, and it also precludes
litigation against the county unless a claim is presented in writing
within 12 months of the date of the governmental action giving rise to
the claim. In this case the amended claim was served in October, the
governmental action occurred in June -- in Mayor June, more than 12
months before the amended claim. Our position was the first claim
was insufficient and the second claim is too late.
The judge has ruled -- the trial judge, Judge Hayes, has ruled
against us on that claim and has ruled that the amended claim relates
back in terms of timing to the original claim, which was served in July.
I think the judge is wrong on that as a matter of law. But I also think
that it's going to take a trip to Lakeland to straighten out that issue.
MR. WEIGEL: Meaning the appeals court.
MR. TRIPP: The second issue was that the individual, the
individual plaintiffs, Mr. Burke and Mr. Allen, do not have standing
under the Burt Harris Act, which the Burt Harris Act allows a point of
relief for the landowner. The landowner is a holder of legal title
owner. Legal title was held by Aquaport and not by Burke and Allen.
Judge Hayes held that because Burke and Allen were equity owners of
the title holder that they have an individual claim that is separate from
the claim of Aquaport, LLC.
Again, I tell you, I believe the judge is absolutely wrong on the
law, but that is the ruling of the trial court and it sometimes happens
that trial courts rule in ways that are unexpected.
So we are going to trial on three claims, I think, instead of one.
And we're going to trial at least on a claim that they are going to say
has been perfected by the late filing of the amended claim.
Page 7
March 23, 2004
So as far as the legal defenses, I believe they still exist. We have
a right of review following a liability finding, if one comes, but that's
an appeal, that's not a victory in the trial court.
Factually, our primary defense is that our statute is designed to
protect the reasonable and backed expectations of those who own
property. In this case, this particular developer bought a piece of
property. There were seven condominium units on the property and
one unit home. It was designed to construct the condominiums and not
hotels. The folks that sold the condos to him included an option for
them to acquire condominium units in the new condominium that he
planned to build. That was the status of the title at the time he made his
investment.
It is true that during the course of this process, the Land
Development Code got amended, the 68-unit use became available.
But our argument is going to be that any investment prior to that
amendment which occurred in June of 2000 is simply not an
investment based upon an expectation of hotels.
In addition to that, our appraiser, a gentleman named Woodward
Hanson, is going to testify that in his view the property is more
valuable as a condominium development than it is as a 68-room hotel.
I've always had concerns about whether the 68-room hotel was an
economically viable use or whether in fact it was used as a bargaining
chip to try to get additional density.
But be that as it may, we have a defense on the merits in terms of
an appraiser who's going to testify that the developer ultimately was
better off with a condo than he would have been with a 68-unit hotel.
Having said all that, I do have to tell you, as I tell all clients, that
as we have now learned from the interim rulings of Judge Hayes,
nothing can be guaranteed. There's always a risk in litigation that the
judge will believe testimony that we find incredible, or that the judge
will adopt a different view than what we believe the law to be. So I
Page 8
March 23, 2004
can't tell you that I can guarantee the success of players on any claim.
There are advantages to settlement. There are -- number one, it will
cost money to defend the case. It is likely that no matter what happens
in the trial court, whoever loses will pursue appellant remedies, and
that involves some expense.
It is also true that we have recently adopted an overlay zone in the
R T district, and there is some concern that perhaps there may be
landowners out there who are contemplating presenting Burt Harris
Act claims to Collier County. In the event that we have an
unsuccessful outcome in either the appellant or trial courts, there may
be some danger that that will embolden other non-litigious landowners
to bring in claims to the county.
The other risk is simple risk of avoidance, even if there's a 10 or
20 percent chance that you can lose. And you're looking at a claim in
which the plaintiff is going to write a number on the board that's north
of $3 million.
So for all of those reasons, I think that this Commission should --
this counsel should consider whether or not you want to seize the
opportunity to determine whether the case can be resolved.
Y .?
es, SIr.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Ifwe pursue the case, what
is it going -- what do you have as an estimate for expenditures versus if
we settle on this, where is our expenditures?
MR. TRIPP: If you settle on this, you will avoid the cost of
trying the Burt Harris Act lawsuit, which I would estimate to be
substantially south of $25,000, maybe 30. We're basically ready to go
to trial. The discovery has been completed, our witnesses are lined up.
There will be trial preparation, there will be preparation of trial
exhibits, there will be --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All I want to know is where we are
with the cost and where we are today, so I have some idea --
Page 9
March 23,2004
MR. TRIPP: In terms of the cost to date, I'm not sure,
Commissioner, that I can answer what the investment has been.
MR. WEIGEL: Ted, I think part of the response would be these
Aquaport cases, and now the state case with the Burt Harris case, we
have been funded significantly from insurance up to this point. And
we started with $5 million insurance. We're still above the 4 million
mark to some degree. 4.12 is still left in the insurance coffer there. As
Ted indicated, with some reservation, the insurer has now come to a
kind of an opinion of a potential liability that they may have on the
Burt Harris case, which is good news for us. And so ultimately, when
we've used that term in the past of ringing the bell, we're talking about
one, a win for the other side which involves the payment of money to
the other side, but also beyond the insurance coverage that remains at
that particular point in time.
Ted's telling you that the cost from here to go to the trial on Burt
Harris, which is -- again, the trial date is scheduled to start on April
12th, is 30,000 or less, probably a little less than that. And I think
that's a reasonable statement. So the significant lifting in preparation
for trial and depositions and appointments and working with experts
has been done heretofore.
And by the way, I'll mention to you, just to remind you all, that
when we had the recent discussions concerning the Vanderbilt R T
overlay, a Mr. Tom Pelham spoke on behalf of the Vanderbilt citizens,
and it was interesting to hear him speak. You know how he addressed
the Burt -- his thoughts on Burt Harris. He is our expert on this case as
well as in this case, so much of his discussion is in tune with the
defense that we would have if we get to that point here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I suggest we just proceed with it.
No settlement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, you're pretty dam
close to right. We went through them two times with settlement. I
Page 10
March 23, 2004
think they're just fishing to see where we are. If we do anything, make
it just minimal as anything. Make it just part of the insurance and say
we're prepared to go to court. They have $250,000 worth of insurance.
They probably know that already. Just offer that, and that will be over
with.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If you go for appeals on what Judge
Hayes says, is that strictly another judge's opinion or is that a peer
court, or is that a jury's opinion?
MR. TRIPP: No, that would be a decision by a panel of three
appellate judges who would rule not on the facts but on the law. And I
think our strongest case is a legal case.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then go with it.
MR. TRIPP: Let me just -- and that's fine, not my intention to
argue. But I want to --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The reason everybody is walking around
is we're supposed to be back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Time certain at 1 :00, didn't we?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, but it's with them.
MR. TRIPP: I want to make sure we understand, there is one
other potential item of cost that would be avoided and that is in the
event the 11th Circuit were to reverse, the 1983 action would come
back to the district court for a retrial, and at that point the expense
could be significant. Not to suggest we're going to lose the appeal, but
I have to tell you in good conscience, I can't guarantee you a --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If you were a betting man, what
would you bet on?
MR. TRIPP: Your probabilities of success are 90 percent or
greater, that your percent of appeal on the Burt Harris claim are at least
90 percent or greater in the trial or appellate court.
Page 11
March 23,2004
But having said that, there's 500,000 in insurance money in there.
The question is, do we want to see if there's a dialogue short of a
million dollars. I'm hearing one that says --
MR. PETTIT: I just caution everybody that we can't reach a
decision in here, that's why we'll go back out and get direction.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We can't discuss it out there.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, can I ask one question?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Tripp, can you tell us what we've offered to
these people before for a settlement?
MR. TRIPP: My memory is that we had offered them something
in the neighborhood of 100 to $130,000. I think that's all that's been
offered.
MR. PETTIT: We offered -- at one point in time we were
$650,000. 500,000 of that is the same 500,000 that the insurance
company has now come back with here in the past week.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what we had before?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was. Now the two that are not
in personal suit have spoken, can I speak?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Judge Hayes has voted against
the county, its interpretation of this lawsuit, correct?
MR. TRIPP: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, you know, I appreciate the
numbers, but still, like you said, it's a role of the dice. It's our opinion
that we would win, but here's the example, and we went across the
street and the judge didn't rule in our favor. And, you know, it's a
scary one that we can, you know, lose or continue this battle, and we're
using up taxpayers' money now.
At what point is the insurance company going to drop off? Is
there any point?
Page 12
March 23,2004
MR. TRIPP: My sense -- we spoke with the insurance company
this morning. My sense is that the $500,000 is available and that it is
unlikely that additional insurance company money will be put on the
table, unless they perceive that there's some realistic opportunity of
getting a settlement. I think they're saying 500 and not a penny more.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think what we ought to do is
offer some sort of settlement just to keep the insurance company
involved. You know, sometimes it's not winning the battle, sometimes
in this case it could be winning the war. Or at least settle on it. That's
where I would like to go personally.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you would be 500,000?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Or thereabouts.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, 500,000 as an insurance. We have a
commitment from the insurance company, so 500,000, and probably
your discussion will not be for any additional taxpayer money to be on
top of that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. I think that's probably a
safe political statement.
MR. TRIPP: David, if it's proper -- yes, it is, since we're going
back into public session, I would rather not have the limits of the offer
from the insurance company on the record. I think we can talk about
the available insurance, but let's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Say through the extent of the
available insurance.
MR. WEIGEL: I wouldn't say that.
MR. PETTIT: That's $4 million.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: $500,000 settlement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: .Don't even mention insurance.
MR. WEIGEL: I think that would be all right.
Page 13
March 23, 2004
COMMISSIONER H~AS: That way they don't know where
the money is coming from, whether it's out of the coffers or out of the
Insurance money.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL ISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT~\~J3ß$}CK, CLERK
.;;)'-' ...........!().
: !:f::' '~,~'.., " .... te" .
. . . ¡. 0 C'
',~ . .
-= ~:: i~~' ....: :
At -. ,/t 's
1:!! "I ¡I..~.'
s: V"'~~~ '1:J-,'
~... ......~ ....' ,
These min~t~~i.~~p·roved by the Board on l1:1LL::D.L, as presented
V" or as corrected
Page 14