BCC Minutes 06/22/2004 R
June 22, 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, June 22, 2004
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Donna Fiala
Frank Halas
Torn Henning
Fred W. Coyle
Jim Coletta (via speakerphone)
ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Michael Pettit, Assistant County Attorney
Jim Mitchell, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
~-
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
tì'~~"'"
''"''''..
,.
·.l~~;
AGENDA
June 22, 2004
9:00 AM
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
THA T 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 BOÁRD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
1
June 22, 2004
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.
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 IMP AIRED 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. Pastor Albert Wingate, Unity of Naples Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Request that the BCC declare extraordinary circumstances regarding
Commissioner Coletta's Out of State absence due to an illness in the family
and allowing him to phone in to participate in portions of to day's BCC
meeting.
B. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as
amended. (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for
summary agenda.)
C. May 17, 2004 - BCC/CCPC EAR Workshop
D. May 25, 2004 - BCC/Regular Meeting
E. June 9, 2004 - BCC/Caribbean Garden Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS
2
June 22, 2004
___n'·.·
A. 20 Year Attendees
1) Dale Stodgel, Transportation Division
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation to designate the week of July 18-24, 2004 as Probation,
Parole and Community Supervision Week. To be accepted by Chuck
Rice, Director of Probation.
B. Proclamation to recognize the Economic Development Council for their
continued efforts to promote the Florida Tradeport as an international center
for trade, manufacturing, and commerce. To be accepted by Tammy
Nemech, Executive Director of the Economic Development Council; Adria
Starkey, Chair of the Economic Development Council; Nicolas Healy,
President of Ave Maria; Dr. Richard Pegnetter, Dean of Business at Florida
Gulf Coast University; Dr. Fred Tuttle, Director of the Workforce Program
at Lorenzo Walker Institute; Dr. Jeff Albritten, President of Edison College,
Collier County Branch; Terry McMahon, President of International College;
Joe Paterno, Executive Director of SWF Workforce Development Board,
and Fred Glickman, Managing Director of International Officers, Enterprise
Florida, Inc.
C. Proclamation to celebrate July 2004 as Recreation and Parks Month.
To be accepted by Annie Alvarez, Recreation Supervisor and
Counselor's In Training.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation by Mr. Ron Hamel, Executive Vice President of the Gulf
Citrus Growers Association, in appreciation for County Resolution No.
2003-167, passed by the Board of County Commissioners on April 22,
2003.
B. Recommendation to recognize Alex Blanco, Senior Equipment Operator,
Transportation Division, as "Employee of the Month" for June 2004.
C. Florida Association of Counties Presentation. (Jim Mudd, County Manager)
D. Presentation to Collier County for its program "Park Rangers To Go" in
3
June 22, 2004
^----" ----
recognition of an innovative program which contributes to and enhances
county government in the United States.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Mr. Paul Feuer to discuss planting of live oaks in
Village Walk.
B. Public Petition Request by Herman Haeger to discuss operational costs
imposed by Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
C. Public Petition Request by Jeff Bluestein to discuss Böard of County
Commissioners v. Brian K. Greenling, Case No. CEB 2000-026.
D. Public Petition Request by Randy Fredrickson to discuss SDP
Amendment for Center Point Community Church.
E. Public Petition Request by Samuel J. Durso to discuss sidewalk variance
within Carson Lakes, Phase II, Immokalee.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN
IN AND EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY
COMMISSION MEMBERS. Petition: V A-2001-AR-1706, Mark and
Shirley Dowdy represented by Timothy Hancock, of Talon Management,
Inc., requesting a 14-foot after-the-fact variance from the required 20foot
rear yard setback to 6 feet for accessory structures and a 4- foot after-the- fact
variance from the required 25- foot rear yard setback for principal structures
to 21 feet, for property located at 316 Flamingo A venue, further described as
Lot 12, Block U, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 3, Section 29,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Consideration of an ordinance adopting a
recodification and revision of the County's Land Development Code, to
become effective on September 27,2004.
4
June 22, 2004
-.---
B. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Collier County
Ordinance No. 72-1, as amended, also cited as Section 122-81 of the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances, which created the Collier County
Lighting District, to add a reference to the area described, and to correct a
scrivener's error to the legal description for Trade Center of Naples, Trade
Center of Naples Replat of Lots 44 & 45, Industrial Village, Industrial
Village No.2, Kathleen Court, Lot 155 J & C Industrial Park, and J & C
Industrial Park; providing for inclusion in Code of Laws and Ordinances;
providing for conflict and severability; and providing an effective date.
c. Public Hearing to consider adoption of an Ordinance establishing
The Quarry Community Development District (CDD) pursuant to
section 190.005, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
D. PUDZ-2002-AR-3411 Carl M. Nagel, managing partner of CDN
Properties LLC, and Thomas Craig, Craig Construction and Restoration,
Inc., represented by Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, ofRW A, Inc, and R. Bruce
Anderson of Roetzel and Andress requesting a rezone from "A"
Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for a project to be
known as the Nagel-Craig Business Park PUD to allow a maximum of
417,000 square feet of business park land uses in buildings not to exceed
35 feet in height on 37.5 M.O.L. acres of property located on the west side
of Collier Boulevard approximately 1/4 mile north of Vanderbilt Beach
Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida.
E. Adoption of an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 2003-61, codified as
Chapter 49 of the County's Code of Laws and Ordinances, incorporating
changes to the implementation of the Fee Payment Assistance Program.
F. Adopt an Ordinance establishing a Special Master Process for Collier
County; setting forth the powers and duties of the Special Master;
establishing procedures; and establishing penalties. Approve the related
budget amendment. (Companion Item to 12B)
G. This item to be heard at 2:00 p.m. Request that the Board approve the
proposed Ordinance, which Ordinance implements new Section 939.185,
Florida Statutes, and provides for imposition of additional court costs in
criminal cases; allocates funds received from additional court costs;
5
June 22, 2004
-~ ."-----
provides for amendments to Section 939.185, Florida Statutes; provides for
conflict and severability; provides for inclusion in the Collier County Code
of Laws and Ordinances; and provides for an effective date.
H. This item to be heard immediately following Item 8G. Request that the
Board approve the proposed Ordinance, which Ordinance implements
amended Section 3l8.l8( 13), Florida Statutes, and provides for a surcharge
on certain enumerated traffic violation and offenses; allocates funds
received from the surcharge; provides for amendments to Section
318 .18( 13), Florida Statutes; provides for conflict and severability; provides
for inclusion in the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances; and
provides for an effective date.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. This item continued from the June 8,2004 BCC Meeting. Highlight and
honor volunteers that serve on the 50+ advisory boards. (Commissioner
Henning)
B. Discussion regarding dual membership on committees dealing with
TDC projects and funding. (Commissioner Fiala)
C. Recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Collier County Code
Enforcement Board.
D. Request BCC discussion for Chairman Fiala to write a letter on behalf of
the Board to State Department [Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation
Commission, Division of Law Enforcement, Office of Boating &
Waterways, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600] to
oppose the City of Naples proposal for more stringent vessel speed zones
in Naples Bay, Dollar Bay, and Gordon Pass, citing insufficient reason and
evidence to warrant such change. Item to be heard only if City approves
Ordinance (Second Reading)same subject on June 16, 2004.
(Commissioner Henning)
E. Recommendation to rename the county's Lake Trafford Park in Immokalee
the "Ann Olesky Park" in recognition of the contributions of long-time
Immokalee resident and spirited community activist Ann Olesky who was a
driving force in the Lake Trafford restoration initiative. (Commissioner
Coletta)
6
June 22, 2004
~._- ~--
F. Appointment of member to the Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
G. Discussion I direction to County Attorney and county staff with regard to
support of a request for an opinion of the Florida Attorney General on
selected issues pertaining to the effect of municipal annexation on an
existing CRA area or to pursue an Interlocal Agreement with the City of
Naples. (Commissioner Coyle)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Presentation of Quarterly Report On Newly Adopted Transportation
Concurrency Management System. (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services)
B. Recommendation to approve a contract for RFP #04-3611 "Consultant
Services for the Metropolitan Planning Organization Long-Range
Transportation Plan 2030 Update" in the total amount of$360,7l7.86
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
C. Recommendation to approve a contract for RFP-04-3629 "Consultant
Services for the Public Involvement Element of the Metropolitan Planning
Organization Long-Range Transportation Plan 2030 Update" in the total
amount of$362,4l6.57. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation
Services)
D. Recommendation to hear Richard Y ovanovich requesting permission to
submit for building permit applications in advance of approval of a Site
Development Plan and to commence construction of the building
foundations for the expansion of two existing Agricultural packing structures
prior to the approval Site Development Plans SDP-04-AR-594l and SDP-
04-AR-5995 both of which have been submitted to the Department of
Zoning and Land Development Review and are presently under review but
have yet to be approved. (Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development)
E. Recommendation to provide the Board of County Commissioners with the
findings and recommendation that resulted from the May 21, 2004
7
June 22, 2004
~~-
workshop held by the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council in
regard to further amending Collier County Ordinance 2004-12. (Marla
Ramsey, Interim Administrator, Public Services)
F. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. This item continued from the May
11, 2004 BCC Meeting. Response to Public Petition filed by Mr. Matt
Johnson of the East Naples Fire Department to solicit for contributions
along the County Right of Way. (Dan Summers, Director, Emergency
Management)
G. Recommendation to adopt a Stormwater Funding policy for the Capital
Improvement Program to ensure adequate flood protection and water
quality, estimated fiscal impact of $140 million from Collier County
with a total of$346 million over the next 20 years. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
H. This item continued from the June 8, 2004 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to approve the attached Agreement For Sale And
Purchase for acquisition of the former Arthrex, Inc. building and expenses
associated with its purchase, necessary renovations, and relocation of
Transportation Division offices from leased facilities at a total cost not to
exceed $6,309,000. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation
Services Division)
I. Recommendation to approve a Development Agreement with A. Grover
Matheney, as Successor Trustee under that certain Land Trust Agreement
dated June 29, 1988; and as Successor Trustee under that certain Land Trust
Agreement dated July 10, 1998; Blend-All Hotel Development, Inc.; Walden
Avenue Blend-All Hotel Development, Inc.; Dick Road Blend-All Hotel
Development, Inc.; and WR-I Associates Ltd. (collectively, "The
Developers"), pursuant to which (1) The Developers will dedicate, at no cost
to the County, certain land along Immokalee Road needed for the road
project, in exchange for the County vacating a portion of an access road
presently owned by FDOT, and (2) the County will modify the Immokalee
Road Project provided that The Developers pay all costs associated with the
redesign. Also, approve Supplemental Agreement NO.1 0 with Hole Montes,
Inc., which Supplemental Agreement is for the redesign of the Immokalee
Road Project referred to and attached as Exhibit "F" in the Development
Agreement. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
8
June 22, 2004
~--
J. Recommendation to approve the selection and funding of a consultant to
perform a Fiscal Stability Study to review all the potential sources for
generating revenue for Collier County and determine the proper balance to
promote future economic sustainability. (Joe Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development)
K. That the Board approve a Resolution ordering and calling a Referendum
Election to be held November 2, 2004, within Collier County, to
determine if the electors of Collier County approve the levy of an
additional ad valorem tax not exceeding .15 mill for 10 years and the
issuance of not exceeding $40,000,000 limited tax general obligation
bonds, to be issued in one or more series, payable therefrom, in order to
finance acquisition of the land presently known as Caribbean Gardens,
together with the purchase of adjoining land held by the same or related
ownership as is necessary to complete the transaction, to assure the
continued operation of the Caribbean Gardens; providing for an effective
date. (Mike Smykowski, Director, Office of Management and Budget)
L. The Board of County Commissioners sittin1! as the Collier County
Community Redevelopment A1!encv. Recommendation that the
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve the use of tax
increment funds (TIF) to assist with the establishment of a Florida State
University School of Medicine rural health training center in Immokalee,
based on a determination of the expenditure being consistent with the
Immokalee CRA Area's Redevelopment Plan. (Joe Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development)
M. Request for the Board of County Commissioners to Approve the
Acceptance of Donated Funds for the Ochopee Area Fire Control and
Emergency Medical Care Special Taxing District from the Volunteer's
Account. (Dan Summers, Director, Emergency Management)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Direct desired action by the Office of County Attorney in two code
enforcement lien foreclosure actions entitled Collier County v.
Anthony J. Varano, Jr., Case Nos. 99-4226-CA and 00-3430-CA.
9
June 22, 2004
-,-,.., M__,_
B. Board Direction Relating to Amendment of False Alarm Ordinance,
Ordinance No. 97-8, as amended (Companion to Item 8F).
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. This item to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. To present the Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the Board of
County Commissioners.
B. This item to be heard immediately following Item 13A. To present to
the Board of County Commissioners the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report for the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 2003.
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AREA
A. Discussion - direction to CRA staff and County Attorney with regard to
support of a request for an opinion of the Florida Attorney General on
selected issues pertaining to the effect of municipal annexation on an
existing CRA area or to pursue an Interlocal Agreement with the City of
Naples.
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each
item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a Change Order to Hartman and
Associates, Inc. Contract #03-3456, in an amount not to exceed
$9,000.00, to complete its engineering analysis and rate review of
Orangetree Utility Rate Adjustment Application, as recommended by
the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority.
2) Have the Board of County Commissioners confirm their direction
10
June 22,2004
--"..' ~~-
regarding purchase authorization for Conservation Collier properties
within North Golden Gate Estates Unit 53.
3) Recommendation to approve an Amendment to Agreement for Sale
and Purchase for 3.64 acres under the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program at no additional cost to the County.
4) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase of
3.02 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program,
at a cost not to exceed $771,850.
5) Recommendation to approve four Agreements for Sale and Purchase
for 77.31 acres known as the American Business Park under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program at a cost not to
exceed $21,311,050.
6) Assignment Agreement - Fiddler's Creek Phase 2A GC (Runaway
Lane)
7) Assignment Agreement - Fiddler's Creek Phase 2A, Unit 1
8) Assignment Agreement - Fiddler's Creek Phase 3, Unit 1 (Club Center
Drive)
9) Assignment Agreement - Fiddler's Creek Temporary Irrigation
Meters.
10) Recommendation to approve an application by Sky truck LLC for
participation in the Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment
Program.
11) Recommendation to approve an application for participation in the
Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program by
Radiology Regional Center
12) Recommendation to approve the Settlement Agreement for Code
Enforcement Board Case No. 1999-052. Board of County
Commissioners vs. Shadow Court Fuels, Inc.
13) Recommendation to approve an original Grant of Replacement
11
June 22,2004
'0_
Drainage Easement between Imperial Golf Club, Inc., Imperial
Castlewood, LLC and Collier County, Florida.
14) Recommendation to approve a $2.5 million commercial paper loan to
pay for the expenses incurred in replacing Collier County's
Community Development and Environmental Services Division's
computer software system, and approve its associated budget
amendment which fully funds the new computer software system
proj ect.
15) Recommendation to ratify a Compliance Agreement between Collier
County and Transeastern Properties, Inc., the successor developer of
the Glen Eagle PUD, to resolve Code Enforcement Case
#2002060715, pertaining to a violation for removing native vegetation
from Upland Recreation and Open Space (UROS) easements.
16) The Board of County Commissioners sittin1! as the Collier County
Community Redevelopment A1!encv. Recommendation that the
Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve
the 2003 Annual Report of the CRA, direct staff to file the annual
report with the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and direct
staff to publish notice of filing the report.
17) To clarify the operational relationship between the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida and Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Area (Area).
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to establish a "NO PARKING" zone along the
southern right-of-way ofCalusa Avenue for the section from Airport
Road to 238 feet west of Airport Road and along the northern right-of-
way section from the property line located 104 feet west of Airport
Road to 238 feet west of the Airport Road, at a cost of$600.
2) Recommendation to approve a Purchase Agreement to acquire a 1.14
acre residential property, a portion of which is required for the
widening of Vanderbilt Beach Road. (Project 63051). Fiscal Impact:
12
June 22, 2004
~ -..-,. "'--
Not to exceed $275,000.
3) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution by the Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, authorizing a speed limit
change from thirty-five miles per hour (35 MPH) to forty miles per
hour (40 MPH) on Woods Edge Parkway, from US 41 to Vanderbilt
Beach Drive, for a distance of approximately 1.0 mile.
4) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing prior
year revenue, additional current year revenue, and insurance company
refunds for funds recovered from vehicle accidents where County
traffic signals and streetlights sustained damages.
5) Approve a resolution providing for the acceptance of conveyances
made by developers and/or owners in compliance with development
commitment requirements, ordinances and agreements or as an
integral part of a capital improvement project, including but not
limited to, stipulations required as a pre-condition for the approval of
conditional uses, and site development plans.
6) Recommendation to approve a Resolution approving and authorizing
the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute a
Local Agency Program Agreement with the Florida Department of
Transportation, which Agreement implements up to $116,000 for
Traffic Count Stations with reimbursement by the Florida Department
of Transportation.
7) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for a Local Agency
Program (LAP) Agreement with the State Department of
Transportation in the amount of $262,500.00 for the purchase and
installation of a prefabricated pedestrian bridge within the C.R. 951
right-of-way over the Golden Gate outfall canal.
8) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment transferring funds
from Street Lighting Project No. 60007 to Multi-Project
Transportation Design/Traffic Signals Project No. 60172 for
expenditures that will be incurred under Local Agency Program
Agreements with the Florida Department of Transportation.
13
June 22, 2004
___..._______ _w,,'_',_ _._..~--
9) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for a Local Agency
Program (LAP) Agreement with the State Department of
Transportation in the amount of$195,706.00 for the construction of
sidewalk segments connecting the sidewalks at S.R. 29 and with
various streets between First Street and Ninth Street in Immokalee.
10) Recommendation to approve a Drainage and Limited Access
Easement Agreement with Terracina, LLC for the purpose of allowing
County S tormwater staff to have access to the canal from the
Terracina property in order to perform periodic maintenance within
the canal.
11) Recommendation to A ward Bid #04-3615 "Purchase and Delivery of
Organic and Inorganic Mulch" at an estimated yearly cost of
$550,000.00.
12) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman
to sign a Highway Landscaping Installation and Maintenance
Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for
landscape development improvements within the unpaved areas
within the right-of-way of SR 29 in Downtown Immokalee.
13) Recommendation to approve a Resolution to establish a "No Parking,
No Stopping, No Standing" zone along the north side of Bluebill
Avenue, from Vanderbilt Drive to Gulf Shore Drive at a cost of
approximately $800.
14) Recommendation to Approve an Interagency agreement between
Collier County and the State of Florida Department of Corrections,
Hendry Correctional Institution, for continued use of inmate labor in
Road Maintenance Activities.
15) Recommendation to approve Amendment No.6 to contract No. 91-
1763 for Engineering and Environmental Services with WilsonMiller,
Inc. for modification of the Gordon River Extension Basin Study
(Project No. 51005) to incorporate improvements associated with the
Goodlette- Frank Road Expansion. Fiscal impact includes
$ 152,649.59.
14
June 22,2004
.,-----.'.-' . .',..'"'----~_. . .'._ . __...m~'___
16) Recommendation that the Board waive the formal bid process and
approve a contract between Gray-Calhoun and Associates and Collier
County for Post-Design Engineering Services related to design and
plans changes for the Advanced Traffic Management System (A TMS)
Phase II project, with costs to the County reimbursed by the Florida
Department of Transportation.
17) Recommendation to approve a Donation Agreement to accept an
easement conveyance and to approve a Landscape Maintenance
Agreement for maintenance of the existing sidewalk along Vanderbilt
Drive and Bluebill Avenue. Project Number: 60171. Estimated fiscal
impact: $69.50.
18) Reconveyance of real property via quitclaim deed to Parklands
Development, L.P., pursuant to Section 255.22, F.S., to wit: The West
60 feet of Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida, dedicated to Collier County for right-of-way,
drainage and utility purposes in 1972, but never used for any such
purposes, nor currently contemplated for any such uses in the future.
19) Recommendation to approve 2 Donation Agreements and to accept
the conveyance of 2 temporary construction easements which are
required for the replacement of a disintegrating drain pipe under
Block 89, Golden Gate Unit No.3, which is causing localized
flooding during heavy rains in the vicinity of 47th Street SW.
20) Recommendation to amend Resolution No. 2001-56, which
established an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee to provide input and
guidance in the aesthetic appearance of the 1-7 5/Golden Gate Parkway
Interchange by extending the life of the Committee until the
completion of the Interchange.
21) Recommendation to approve Contract Amendment No. 97-2715-A07
with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, Inc. for the Lely Area Stormwater
Improvement Project (Project No. 51101) in the amount of$47,500.00
22) Recommendation to approve Supplemental Work Order #3 for the
Forest Lakes MSTU to Wilson Miller Inc., in the amount of
$17,500.00.
15
June 22, 2004
- >. --~<--->-_.._.."_.- -----
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase of a
5. 7l-acre parcel in advance of anticipated real estate requirements to
accommodate future needs for water supply and water
transmission/storage facilities at a total cost not to exceed $166,600;
Project 710061.
2) Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acquisition by Gift or Purchase for
non-exclusive, perpetual utility and access interests by easement for
the maintenance and improvement of the existing North Hawthorn
Well field Water Supply Transmission Mains along the Cypress Canal
in proximity to Wells RO l2N through RO l5N, Project Number
700751, at an estimated cost not to exceed $130,000.
3) Recommendation for 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.
4) Recommendation for authorization to execute and record a
Satisfaction for a certain Water and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment
Agreement. Fiscal impact is $6.00 to record the Satisfaction.
5) Recommendation to approve Satisfactions 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.
6) Recommendation to approve Work Order UC-O 19 in the amount of
$677,700.00 with Douglas N. Higgins, Inc., for The Golden Gate
Boulevard Water Main Replacement project, Contract 04-3535,
Project 70067.
7) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to transfer funds
from Reserves to the North County Water Reclamation Facility,
Reuse, Collections and the Wastewater Laboratory in the amount of
$175,000.
8) Recommendation to approve the Selection Committee's decision and
award a Professional Services Agreement to Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
16
June 22, 2004
-"..._-~. -~~'''-'-
for the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant 12 Million
Gallon per Day Reverse Osmosis Expansion, RFP 04-3589, Project
700971, in the amount of$2,990,500.
9) Recommendation to award to Mitchell & Stark Construction Co., Inc.,
Bid No. 04-3671, North County Regional Water Treatment Plant Acid
Tank Replacement, in the amount of$199,000, Project 700941.
10) Recommendation to reject the bid from Gulf Coast Construction of
Naples, Inc. for Bid # 04-3666 and to provide authorization to re-
advertise for bids to perform renovations at the Public Utilities
Operations Center, Project Numbers 70059 and 73072.
11) Recommendation to amend work order CDM-FT-04-07 for
engineering services related to adding one new public water supply
well (Well 34) to the Tamiami Well field at a cost amount not to
exceed $214,162; Project 70158
12) Recommendation to approve funding, and approve Work Order HS-
FT-04-03 up to an amount not to exceed $741,220, Project 710111,
NCRWTP New Mid Hawthorn Wellfield, for engineering services for
eight (8) additional water supply wells serving the North County
Regional Water Treatment Plant on sites that are on, or adjacent to,
existing well sites.
13) Recommendation to approve a Work Order, under Contract #00-3119,
Fixed Term Professional Utility Engineering Services, with Camp,
Dresser & McKee to design, permit, and observe construction of a
new Reclaimed Water Booster Pump Station on Livingston Road,
Project 74076, in an amount not to exceed $166,088.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$204,523 to ensure continuous funding of the Community Care for the
Elderly grant.
2) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$559 to ensure continuous funding of the Alzheimer's Disease
17
June 22, 2004
~_"'_·_·._",m_·_ --,-
Initiative grant.
3) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$6,074 to ensure continuous funding of the Home Care for the Elderly
grant.
4) Recommendation to recognize and budget an additional $133,135
authorized by the State Aid to Library Program for Collier County
Public Library.
5) Recommendation to approve the amendment to the Older Americans
Act grant contract and the required budget amendment in the amount
of $6,877 and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract between
Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the Area Agency
on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc., d/b/a Senior Solutions of
Southwest Florida.
6) Recommendation to approve the Assisted Living for the Frail Elderly
Medicaid Waiver Case Management Referral Agreement and
authorize the Chairman to sign the contract between Collier County
Board of County Commissioners and the Area Agency on Aging, Inc.
D/B/A Senior Solutions of Southwest Florida.
7) Recommendation to approve the Home and Community Based
Waiver Case Management Referral Agreement and authorize the
Chairman to sign the contract between Collier County Board of
County Commissioners and the Area Agency on Aging, Inc. D/B/A
Senior Solutions of Southwest Florida.
8) Recommendation to approve the budget amendment for $7,500 to
initiate the grant awarded to the Collier County Public Library for a
Summer Library Reading Partnership Project, from the Florida
Department of State, Division of Library and Information Services.
9) Recommendation to approve a request for a Volunteer Coordinator
position at Domestic Animal Services (DAS).
10) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$10,080 and enter into a cooperative agreement with the Hunger and
Homeless Coalition to participate in the Information Network for the
18
June 22, 2004
~.n'"_·~.~,"·~·,···· .,_,____". ..u__,__._<._,· , ~·._",_,u_._·m.O·..· ~,.,~~..,_
Community of Collier County (INCCC). This agreement provides for
the reimbursement of hardware and software costs.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Board approval for County participation in a program to enhance the
public safety radio system coverage in public school facilities and to
assist with funding, not to exceed $150,000.
2) Recommendation to declare certain county-owned property as surplus
and authorize a sale of the surplus property on July 10, 2004.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Approve a First Amendment to 2003 Tourism Agreement With The
City Of Naples For The Permit-Compliance, Marine Turtle
Monitoring for the Gordon Pass Dredging Project 90548.
2) Approval of Budget Amendment Report.
3) Recommendation to approve budget amendments to move various
capital projects to the new General Governmental Facilities Impact
Fee Fund.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Halas request for Board approval for payment to attend
function serving a valid public purpose. Attend Copeland Civic
Association's First Year Anniversary Dinner on June 28, 2004; $16.00
to be paid from Commisssioner Halas' travel budget.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests reimbursement for a valid public
purpose to attend the EDC Trustee Post-Legislative Delegation
Luncheon on Tuesday, June 15,2004. The valid public purpose was to
receive final summary of the 2004 legislative session and to interact
with the panel and ask questions about legislation related to economic
19
June 22,2004
____., "._'.,H",,_. . '"~---
development, constitutional amendments, transportation, healthcare,
workers' compensation and growth management. The amount of
$25.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To present the State Revenue Sharing Application for Fiscal Year
2004-2005 and obtain approval for the Chairperson to sign the same.
2) That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of
whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the,
Detailed Report of Open Purchase Orders serve a valid public purpose
and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said
purchases. A copy of the Detailed Report is on display in the County
Manager's Office, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, 3301 East
Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Approve the Agreed Order Awarding Attorney's Fees as to Parcel 102
in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Tree Plateau Co., Inc., et aI.,
Case No. 03-05l9-CA, Immokalee Road Project 60018 (total cost of
$3,013.00)
2) Request by the Collier County Industrial Development Authority for
approval of a Resolution authorizing the authority to issue Revenue
Bonds to be used to finance Health Care Facilities for NCH
Healthcare System for construction, renovation, and equipment for the
expansion of the North Collier Hospital Campus.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROV AL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
20
June 22, 2004
-"._.._,~..... "^....."._-~-_._-_.".,..-
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 REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN
IN AND EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY
COMMISSION MEMBERS. A VROW2003-AR4854 to disclaim,
renounce and vacate the County's and the Public's interest in the 25 foot
wide alley as shown on the plat of "Rock Creek Pines No.2," as recorded in
Plat Book 2, Page 86, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Located in
Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East.
B. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN
IN AND EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY
COMMISSION MEMBERS. A VPLA T2004-AR5927 to disclaim,
renounce and vacate the County's and the Public's interest in a portion of the
20 foot wide Lake Maintenance and Drainage Easement located on Lots 1
through 158, Tract F and Tract X, according to the plat of "Stratford Place"
as recorded in Plat Book 40, Pages 15 through 21, Public Records of Collier
County, Florida. Located in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East.
C. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN
IN AND EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY
COMMISSION MEMBERS. PUDEX -2004-AR-5752: Naples Reserve
Golf Club, Inc., represented by Robert Duane, A.I.C.P., of Hole Montes,
Inc., requesting 2 two-year extensions of the Naples Reserve Golf Club PUD
pursuant to LDC Section 2.7.3.4.6. The property is located 1.3± miles east of
County Road 951 and approximately one mile north of US Highway 41, in
Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 688± acres.
D. SE-04-AR-5334, an Ordinance amending Ordinance 03-29, the Naples
Botanical Garden Planned Unit Development (PUD) to correct a scrivener's
21
June 22, 2004
.,~.-".. . _._.,.<~-~-_..._._~---"...,~._..~->...,..,..._-
error resulting from the unintentional omission of the official zoning map
number 0523S in the title of the transmittal copy of the adopted Ordinance to
the Department of State for the property located at the intersection of
Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive in Section 23, Township 50 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
E. Recommendation to approve Cable Television Franchise Agreement with
Strategic Technologies, Inc.
F. PUDZ-2002-AR-2887, Ann & Edward Olesky represented by Joe McHarris,
of McHarris Planning & Design, requesting a rezone from Public Use "P" to
Planned Unit Development "PUD" for a mixture of commercial, residential,
and marine uses including recreational vehicle lodging for property located
at 6100 Lake Trafford Road, in Section 35, Township 46 South, Range 28
East, Immokalee, Florida, consisting of 5.3± acres.
G. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN
IN AND EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY
COMMISSION MEMBERS. CU-2003-AR-4997, R. J. Ward, P.E., of
Spectrum Engineering, Inc., representing Bishop John J. Nevins and the
Catholic Archdiocese of Venice requests Conditional Uses 2 and 3 of the
Residential Single Family (RSF) Zoning District for a church, school,
gymnasium, and accessory uses per LDC 2.2.4.3. The property is located at
2760 52nd Terrace S. W. Golden Gate Unit 6, Blocks 204 and 205. Property
is in Section 28, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida. This property consists of 6.2± acres
H. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE
SWORN IN AND EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY
COMMISSION MEMBERS. PUDZ-A-2003-AR-4788, Robert A.
Soudan, Sr. represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor
&Associates, P.A., requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development
(PUD) and Residential Single-Family (RSF-4) to Planned Unit
Development (PUD) known as Goodlette Corner PUD for the addition
of a 0.32 acre parcel lying immediately west of the current PUD for
commercial land uses consisting of office, service and low to moderate
intensity retail. Property is located at 1191 Pine Ridge Court, in Section
15, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 8.8± acres.
22
June 22,2004
.
-",.- ~.- ~.- _..,..,~.""~,...,._._.__..,,.~..,._.., ---'----"-
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
23
June 22, 2004
--,,-^,.,..- ~... ---.--
June 22, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The Collier County Board of
Commissioners' meeting is called to order on this fine day of June
22nd, 2004.
Please rise and -- for the invocation. Pastor Albert Wingate of
Unity of Naples Church will deliver our invocation.
PASTOR WINGATE: Thank you. I invite you to close your
eyes and open your hearts and join with me in giving thanks to the
loving God that has created each of us.
We give thanks that we can corne together in an assembly where
we can share different views, different ideas, and respect for one
another.
Dear loving God, we pray that you would touch hearts
throughout the world so that this experience that we are able to enjoy
becomes the reality for all your children. And for those of us who are
gathered here today in decision-making roles, we pray that you will
temper our decisions and judgments with your love, that you will
guide us with your wisdom so that we are able to do your will. And it
is in your holy name we pray, amen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And could we have Ski Oleski lead us in
the Pledge of Allegiance, please.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
DECLARING EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES
REGARDING COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S OUT OF STATE
ABSENCE DUE TO AN ILLNESS IN THE F AMIL Y AND
ALLOWING HIM TO PHONE IN TO PARTICIPATE IN
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And our first order of
business this morning on our agenda is to request that the BCC declare
Page 2
__,____._.M___._ ~.. . ~---
June 22, 2004
extraordinary circumstances regarding Commissioner Coletta's
out-of-state absence due to an illness in the family and allowing him
to phone in and participate in portions of today's BCC meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With a half a vote.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We only give him a half a vote.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And half his normal time for
speaking.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- to approve by Commissioner Henning
and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
And with that, do we connect Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'm here, and I am very
appreciative of that vote.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. Thank you for joining us, Jim. I
hope all is going well there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let's put it this way, it's
going better than -- up here than if we were not.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, yeah. I'm sure it is, and that's good
that you're there. You've got your priority's straight, sir.
Page 3
_._-~-"_._-_.-
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. Family always
first.
Item #2B
REGULAR, CONSENT, AND SUMMARY AGENDA- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So moving on today, County Attorney, do
you have any additions or corrections or changes in this agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chair, I have reviewed the change list. I
would request that County Manager go through the change list as he
will, and then if you would turn to me. If I have any further additions
at that point or comment for the record, I would make it only at that
point.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Clerk of Courts, would you have anything to state on this
agenda?
MR. MITCHELL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good.
And our County Manager Jim Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Good morning, Madam Chair --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sir.
MR. MUDD: -- Commissioners. Change -- agenda changes,
Board of County Commissioners' Meeting, June 22nd, 2004.
In the first item there's a change to the change. This is to
continue item 8C, instead of indefinitely, to 27 July on your change
sheet. If you could just make that to 27 July, and that was at the
petitioner's request this morning, and it has to do with advertisements
and whatnot.
And 8C is a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance
establishing the Quarry Community Development District, CDD,
Page 4
--....,--.....- _..··.'_m_'·....__··._··,_.··__
June 22, 2004
pursuant to section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and that's at staffs
request and at petitioner's request now that it's 27 July.
Again, 8C is continued, and we'll vote on that particular item
when we get to it, ma'am, just to make sure.
The next item is to continue 8D indefinitely. This item requires
that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members. And this is PUDZ-2002-AR-3411, Carl M.
N agel, managing partner of CDN Properties, LLC, and Thomas Craig,
Craig Construction and Restoration, Inc., represented by Robert J.
Mulhere, AICP, ofRW A, Inc., and Mr. R. Bruce Anderson of Roetzel
and Andress, requesting a rezone from "A" agricultural to PUD,
planned unit development, for a project to be known as the
N agel-Craig Business Park PUD.
And, again, this item, we're asking that it be continued
indefinitely. Again, that's 8D.
Next item is to continue item 9D indefinitely, and that was a
request that the BCC discuss a discussion with Chairman Fiala to
write a letter on behalf of the board to the State Department of Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, division of law
enforcement, to oppose the City of Naples proposal for more stringent
vessel speed zones in Naples Bay, Dollar Bay, and Gordon Pass,
citing insufficient reasons and evidence to warrant such a change.
This item was -- there was a request in that the board made to the
chairman to write a letter. The City of Naples has accepted that
workshop. That will be on the 4th of October starting at 1 :30 over in
the city -- city council chambers, and so Commissioner Henning asked
that this item be continued. This was basically a response in case they
denied the workshop.
The next item is to move item 10L to 14B with a time certain of
four p.m. And in this particular effort, we're trying to get the CRA
information at least in the right section. It wasn't -- it was scattered
throughout the agendas in previous meetings. It kind of made for an
Page 5
--._---~.- ~--
June 22, 2004
unwieldy area when you're trying to track the CRAs.
So now under paragraph 14, we have CRAs, and on the consent
agenda, we have them under 16G along with the airport so that we'll
be able to find them in one place now without having to go all the way
through the agenda trying to find them.
Again, this is move 10L to 14B with a time certain of four p.m.,
and that has to do with the University School of Medicine, rural health
training center in Immokalee, and some folks will be here today to talk
about that.
The next item is to continue item 16A9 indefinitely, and that's the
assignment agreement with Fiddler's Creek temporary irrigation
meters, and that's at the petitioner's request.
Next item is in concert with moving those CRA items into the
right place, and this is to move item 16A 16 to item 16G 1. And the
next item was another CRA item, and it's to move 16A17 to 16G2, and
that's just a little bit of housekeeping.
Next item is to withdraw item 16B20, and that was a
recommendation to amend the resolution number 2001-56, which
established an ad hoc advisory committee to provide input and
guidance in the aesthetic appearances of I - 7 5/Golden Gate Parkway
interchange by extending the life of the committee until the
completion of the interchange.
And this is a little bit of a -- it was three-year committee. In
February it sunset. It's hard, when the ordinance has already expired,
to extend it.
Mr. Weigel has done a very nice job in an opinion to staff so that
this committee could either be re-established going through the proper
procedures, or it could meet in a -- kind of an unofficial capacity to
provide guidance, written guidance, to the board as it gets done as far
as opinions are concerned. So staff will go back and try to gather
those members and see what they would like to do.
But, again, if you have to go out and re-establish the ordinance,
Page 6
_._.-_..,-.' ^ .~,_.-_._,.,-,."..~
June 22, 2004
then you'll have to go out and select the committee again after
advertisements and whatnot, so -- but, again, it's withdrawn because
the ordinance is pretty much expired, and you can't continue
something without -- you either have to re-establish a new one or this
committee get -- really what they wanted to do was oversee the
changes that are going to transpire over the next year or so and then
provide some input to the board. I think they can still do that in an
unofficial capacity. They'll do a pretty good job.
You have some time certains today, Commissioners, and let's try
to -- first item is item 8A, and that's to be heard at one p.m., and that's
basically the land development code reorganization. You've heard it
once before, at least were briefed on it, and the Planning
Commission's seen it a couple of times. Again, item 8A will be heard
at one p.m.
Next item, item 8G, to be heard at two p.m., and that -- those are
basically the two ordinances that put into effect a $65 and a $15
surcharge on particular fines, that it basically gives -- it's Article V,
Revision 7 -- legislative language that helps us collect fees to pay for
the court system. Again, 8G and 8H will be -- will be heard at two
p.m.
Next item is item 10F, and that's to be heard at 10 a.m., and this
is a response to a public petition filed by Mr. Matt Johnson of the East
Naples Fire Department to solicit for contributions along the county
right-of-way. The reason it's at 10 a.m. is because staff made a
mistake and didn't have it on the last board. I wrote a letter of apology
to them and told them we made a mistake, and I offered them a time
certain; 10 a.m. is the time.
Next item is 14B, and this was formerly item 10L. It's to be
heard at four p.m. Again, this has to do with the University School of
Medicine rural health training center in Immokalee.
Next item is item 13A and 13B. They have to do with the Clerk
of Courts, and one in particular has to do with the comprehensive
Page 7
._-----""_.
June 22, 2004
annual financial report. Both those items will be heard one after the
other at 11 a.m. this morning. So 13A first, then going straight to
13B.
Then we have some notes. Item 5A to be heard after item 5D.
The petitioner was giving blood this morning and asked -- and I've
since seen him, so we'll still follow it. It will follow 5D, and that's a
presentation by Mr. Ron Hamel, executive vice-president of Gulf
Citrus Growers Association, in appreciation of County Resolution
Number 2003-167, passed by the Board of County Commissioners on
April 22nd, 2003, and that's at petitioner's request. So 5A will follow
5D.
Next item is item 12A, direct desired action by the Office of the
County Attorney in two code enforcement lien foreclosure actions
entitled Collier County versus Anthony 1. Varano, Jr., case number
99-4226-CA and 00-3430-CA. The first two pages of the agenda
backup material for this item were inadvertently omitted from the
published agenda package. Those pages were subsequently
distributed to the commissioners prior to today's meeting. A full set of
backup documents for this item is available on the table outside the
Commission Boardroom.
Next item is item 16A5. That's a recommendation to approve
four agreements for sale and purchase for 77.31 acres known as the
American Business Park under the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program at a cost not to exceed $21,311,050.
Public access to this parcel via a completed east/west Livingston
Road originally expected in 2007 is now expected in 2012 due to the
school board changing locations for a school to be built along the
corridor.
Additionally, there is a small triangular piece of property across
Old 41 from the American's Business Park site shown as belonging to
the Allen parcel on the map attached to the proj ect design report. The
map is in error, and this parcel is not being purchased. The legal
Page 8
."-,~-_. ~<', ". --'~.'"~--""""'__."'.._~."_''-''-~--'"
June 22, 2004
description on the contract documents provided as the backup is
correct.
Next item is a correction to consent agenda item 16C1, and that's
a recommendation to approve an agreement for sale and purchase of a
5. 71-acre parcel in advance of anticipated real estate requirements to
accommodate future needs for water supply and water
transmission/storage facilities at a total cost not to exceed $166,600,
and it's project 710061.
In the consideration section of the executive summary, the last
sentence of the second paragraph reads, in bold, because the purchase
price is higher than the appraisal (sic) value, approval of this
agreement -- of this agreement will require an affirmative vote of not
less than four members of the board, a supermajority vote.
This sentence should be completely deleted. The statement is not
accurate. A simple majority is adequate to gain approval for this
particular item.
And hopefully the last item, and this last item entails 50 different
items on your agenda, or thereabouts, okay, and I decided a blank
statement would be a lot better than having to read 50 items, and we'd
be done by noon when I got done.
But here's the blank statement. Recent amendments to the
Florida Statute 28, which is Article V, increased recording fees by $4
per page. Effective June 1, 2004, fees are $10 for the first page and
$8.50 for each additional page per document. These new fees are
applicable to all documents received in the Clerk of Court's Office on
or after June 1,2004. The previous amount was $6.
Many items on the current agenda include fiscal impact
statements involving recording fees for various documents. These
items have the old fee listed in the title and/or fiscal impact statement.
These include items 16A13, 16B2, 16B9, 16B10, 16B12, 16B17,
16B19, 16C3, 16C4 and 16C5.
There are likely many other items which staff has not identified
Page 9
----- .
June 22, 2004
as of yet that also need to have the recording fees corrected. We
would ask that the board approve all items listing the incorrect
recording fees with the corrected amount in accordance with the laws
on Article V.
That's all I have, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Commissioners, we're going to start with Commissioner Coletta
right now. And Commissioner Coletta, do you have any additions or
corrections to the agenda, and do you have any ex parte disclosure for
the summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I don't, Commissioner
Fiala. The only thing I have as a disclosure is on 17F, and on that
particular one I had conversations with Ski and Annie Olesky and
other representatives of Immokalee. I also communicated with staff,
requested and received a copy of the Planning Commission Meeting
video of 5/10, and I viewed that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner -- what is your name again?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Halas.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas. Excuse me. Early
in the morning I try and have a little bit of humor, but it falls short.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only ex parte I have is on 7 A,
and I have nothing to disclose on the summary agenda at this time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no changes, Madam
Chair, and I have no ex parte communication on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to item 17H on the
summary agenda, that involves a PUD which was approved in year
2002, over two years ago. I have had communications concerning that
Page 10
.__..._._--".~_..,.,_..,.
June 22, 2004
PUD at that point in time. But I have had no communications
concerning this particular revision.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good.
And I have no additions, corrections to the agenda, and I do have
one disclosure, and that is on 17H, which is the Goodlette corner
PUD. I've received some emails, which I have in this folder, and I
will file for public viewing. And that's it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve today's
regular, consent, and summary agenda as amended, and also with the
comments of the county manager.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion to approve the agenda by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Page 11
_·~'_"__o·_"_·_ "-.-.
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
June 22. 2004
Continue Item 8C Indefinitelv: Public Hearing to consider adoption of an
Ordinance establishing The Quarry Community Development District (CDD)
pursuant to section 190.005, Florida Statutes (F.S.). (Staff's request)
Continue Item 8D Indefinitelv: This item reauires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members. PUDZ-
2002-AR-3411 Carl M. Nagel, managing partner of CDN Properties, LLC, and
Thomas Craig, Craig Construction and Restoration, Inc., represented by Robert J.
Mulhere, AICP, of RWA, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson of Roetzel and Andress
requesting a rezone from "A" Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for
a project to be known as the Nagel-Craig Business Park PUD to allow a maximum
of 417,000 square feet of business park land uses in buildings not to exceed 35
feet in height on 37.5 M.O.L. acres of property located on the west side of Collier
Boulevard approximately 1/4 mile north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Section 34,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner's request)
Continue Item 9D Indefinite Iv: Request BCC discussion for Chairman Fiala to
write a letter on behalf of the Board to State Department [Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Division of Law Enforcement, Office of Boating &
Waterways, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600] to oppose the
City of Naples proposal for more stringent vessel speed zones in Naples Bay,
Dollar Bay, and Gordon Pass, citing insufficient reason and evidence to warrant
such change. Item to be heard only if City approves Ordinance (Second Reading)
same subject on June 16, 2004. (Commissioner Henning's request)
Move Item 10L to 14B with a time certain of 4:00 p.m.: The Board of County
Commissioners sitting as the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency.
Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve the
use of tax increment funds (TIF) to assist with the establishment of a Florida State
University School of Medicine rural health training center in Immokalee, based on
a determination of the expenditure being consistent with the Immokalee CRA
Area's Redevelopment Plan. (Staff's request)
Continue Item 16A9 Indefinitelv: Assignment Agreement-Fiddler's Creek
Temporary Irrigation Meters. (Petitioner's request)
Move Item 16A16 to 16G1: The Board of County Commissioners sittina as the
Collier County Community Redevelopment Agencv. Recommendation that the
Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve the 2003
Annual Report of the CRA, direct staff to file the annual report with the Board of
County Commissioners (BCC) and direct staff to publish notice of filing the report.
(Staff's request)
Move Item 16A17 to 16G2: To clarify the operational relationship between the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida and Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment
Area (Area). (Staff's request)
1
--~ _.'--~.^-,~.
Withdraw Item 16B20: Recommendation to amend Resolution No. 2001-56,
which established an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee to provide input and guidance
in the aesthetic appearance of the 1-75/Golden Gate Parkway Interchange by
extending the life of the Committee until the completion of the Interchange.
(Staff's request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 8A to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Request that the Board approve the proposed
Ordinance, which Ordinance implements amended Section 318.18(13), Florida
Statutes, and provides for surcharge on certain enumerated traffic violation and
offenses; allocates funds received from the surcharge; provides for amendments
to Section 318.18(13), Florida Statutes; provides for conflict and severability;
provides for inclusion in the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances; and
provides for an effective date.
Item 8G to be heard at 2:00 p.m. Request that the Board approve the proposed
Ordinance, which Ordinance implements new Section 939.185, Florida Statutes,
and provides for imposition of additional court costs in criminal cases; allocates
funds received from additional court costs; provides for amendments to Section
939.185, Florida Statutes; provides for conflict and severability; provides for
inclusion in the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances; and provides for an
effective date.
Item 8H to be heard immediatelv followina Item 8G: Request that the Board
approve the proposed Ordinance, which Ordinance implements amended Section
318.18(13), Florida Statutes, and provides for a surcharge on certain enumerated
traffic violation and offenses; allocates funds received from the surcharge;
provides for amendments to Section 318.18(13), Florida Statutes; provides for
conflict and severability; provides for inclusion in the Collier County Code of
Laws and Ordinances; and provides for an effective date.
Item 10F to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Response to Public Petition filed by Mr. Matt
Johnson of the East Naples Fire Department to solicit for contributions along the
County right-of-way.
Item 14B (formallv Item 10L) to be heard at 4:00 p.m. The Board of County
Commissioners sittina as the Collier County Community Redevelopment Aaencv.
Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve the
use of tax increment funds (TIF) to assist with the establishment of a Florida State
University School of Medicine rural health training center in Immokalee, based on
a determination of the expenditure being consistent with the Immokalee CRA
Area's Redevelopment Plan.
Item 13A to be heard at 11:00 a.m. To present the Certificate of Achievement for
Excellence in Financial Reporting to the Board of County Commissioners.
Item 13B to be heard immediatelv followina Item 13A: To present to the Board of
County Commissioners the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal
Year ended September 30, 2003.
2
.,~. ,~>...
Note:
Item 5A to be heard after Item 5D: Presentation by Mr. Ron Hamel, Executive Vice
President of the Gulf Citrus Growers Association, in appreciation for County
Resolution No. 2003-167, passed by the Board of County Commissioners on April
22,2003. (Presenter's request)
Item 12A: Direct desired action by the Office of the County Attorney in two code
enforcement lien foreclosure actions entitled Collier County v. Anthony J. Varano.
Jr.. Case Nos. 99-4226-CA and 00-3430-CA: The first two pages of the agenda
back-up material for this item were inadvertently omitted from the published
agenda package. Those pages were subsequently distributed to the
Commissioners prior to today's meeting. A full set of back-up documents for this
item is available on the table outside the Commission Boardroom.
Item 16A5: Recommendation to approve four Aareements for Sale and Purchase
for 77.31 acres known as the American Business Park under the Conservation
Collier land Acauisition Proaram at a cost not to exceed $21.311.050. Public
access for this parcel via a completed East-West Livingston Road, originally
expected in 2007, is now expected in 2012, due to the School Board changing
locations for a school to be built along the corridor. Additionally, there is a small
triangular piece of property across Old 41 from the America's Business Park site
shown as belonging to the Allen parcel on the map attached to the Project Design
Report. The map is in error and this parcel is not being purchased; the legal
description on the contract documents provided, as the back up is correct.
Correction to Consent Aaenda Item 16C1: "Recommendation to approve an
Agreement for Sales and Purchase of a 5.71 acre parcel in advance of anticipated
real estate requirements to accommodate future needs for water supply and water
transmission/storage facilities at a total cost not to exceed $166,600; Project
710061." In the Considerations section of the Executive Summary, the last
sentence of the second paragraph reads (in bold) "", Because the purchase price
is higher than the appraised value, approval of this Agreement will require an
affirmative vote of not less than four members of the Board (supermajority
vote)..." This sentence should be completely deleted; the statement is not
accurate, a simple majority is adequate to gain approval.
3
_...__._-----,~_....-
June 22, 2004
Item #2C & #2D
MINUTES OF THE MAY 17, 2004 BCC/CCPC EAR WORKSHOP
THE MA Y 25, 2004 BCC REGULAR MEETING AND THE JUNE
9, 2004 BCC/CARIBBEAN GARDEN WORKSHOP-APPROVED
.AS.ERE.S.ENIED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the May 17th,
'04, BCC/CCPC EAR Workshop; and May 25th '04, BCC and regular
meeting; June 9th, '04, BCC/Caribbean Garden Workshop.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
Item #3A
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now we have service awards, and I'm
just so pleased to be the one to be able to present this to Dale Stodgel,
transportation division.
Dale, would you corne up here, please.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, that is a 20-year Attendee Award.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Whoa. What a pleasure.
Page 12
----.. ~-- ~ "-'""~'~'-' .....-. "'.""-',.--
June 22, 2004
Dale, this is a little gift for you from us, and a certificate for 20
years of service. We really appreciate all you do for Collier County.
Thank you very, very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Thanks, Dale.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you, again, Dale.
MR. STODGEL: Thank you.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGN A TING THE WEEK OF JULY 18-24,
2004 AS PROBATION, PAROLE AND COMMUNITY
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now proclamation, to be read by
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is a proclamation to recognize
those government workers involved in probation, parole, and
community supervision, and it will be accepted by Chuck Rice,
Director of Publication (sic).
Chuck, would you corne forward, with the staff. Are these the
people who are on probation or are they --
Whereas, community corrections is an essential part of the
criminal justice system; and,
Whereas, community corrections professionals uphold the law
with dignity while recognizing the right of the public to be
safeguarded from criminal activity; and,
Whereas, community corrections professionals are trained
professionals who provide services and referrals for offenders; and,
Whereas, community corrections professionals work in
partnership with community agencies and groups; and,
Page 13
--~-" ~." . __~_,_U~_,."
June 22, 2004
Whereas, community corrections professionals promote
prevention, intervention, and advocacy; and,
Whereas, community corrections professionals provide services,
support, and protection for the victims; and,
Whereas, community corrections professionals advocate
community and restorative justice.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that July 18 through 24,
2004, be designated as Probation, Parole, and Community Supervision
Week and encourages all citizens to honor these community
corrections professionals and to recognize all their achievements.
Done and ordered this 22nd day of June, 2004, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Donna Fiala, Chairman.
Madam Chair, I make a motion that we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve and a
second.
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: Thank you for being here. I've got some
buddies here.
(Applause.)
THE PHOTOGRAPHER: Could I have you form two lines,
front row and a back row, and squeeze in as tight as you can.
MR. MUDD: We've got to get a picture though. You've got to
turn around.
Page 14
----- ----~. -'^"-~' - '-"-^.'"~".'~- -.-"._- - -,.-.-....
June 22, 2004
MR. RICE: Real quick, I'd just like to thank the commissioners.
MR. MUDD: Give your name for the record.
MR. RICE: Charles Rice, director of probation, for the record.
I'd like to thank the commissioners, the county manager for
allowing us to serve this community. The group you had in front of
you I feel is one of the finest and most professional groups of
probation officers and staff in the State of Florida.
So again, thank you. We appreciate having the opportunity.
Thank you.
Item #4 B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONTINUED EFFORTS
TO PROMOTE THE FLORIDA TRADEPORT AS AN
INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR TRADE, MANUFACTURING,
AND COMMERCF- A D.OEIED
MR. MUDD: The next proclamation is 4B. It's a proclamation to
recognize the Economic Development Council for their continued
efforts to promote the Florida Tradeport as an international center for
trade, manufacturing, and commerce.
It is be accepted by Tammy Nemecek, executive director of the
Economic Development Council; Andrea (sic) Starkey, the chair of
the Economic Development Council; Nicolas Healy, President of Ave
Maria; Dr. Richard Pegnetter, the dean of business at the Florida Gulf
Coast University; Dr. Fred Tuttle, director of the Workforce Programs
at Lorenzo Walker Institute; Dr. Jeff Albritten, the president of Edison
College, Collier County Branch; Terry McMahon, president of
International College; Joe Paterno, executive director of the South
Florida -- SWF Workforce Development Board; Fred Glickman, the
managing director of International Officers, Enterprise Florida, Inc.
Page 15
.__0"_'_'__ _.......<-- -~".~-~,-~.....,,'_. . . --
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It gives me great pleasure to have
everybody that's involved in this standing before us. This is a great
achievement whereby the Economic Development Council work
diligently, along with the schools of education here in Collier County
and Lee County, and I'll start offby saying:
Whereas, it is the mission of the Economic Development Council
of Collier County to create a diversified economy through the
expansion of existing industry and recruitment of new industry to
Collier County which will result in new high-wage job creations and
long-term economic sustainability for our economy or for our
community and its residents; and,
Whereas, the Economic Development Council of Collier County
and the Collier County Board of Commissioners formed a
public/private partnership in 1997 to further economic diversification
efforts for Collier County; and,
Whereas, it is the goal of the Economic Development Council of
Collier County to promote the Florida Tradeport as an international
center for trade, manufacturing, and commerce; and,
Whereas, the Economic Development Council of Collier County,
Enterprise Florida, Industrial Development Agency of Poland and
Gdansk Business Club signed a Memorandum of Cooperation to
promote the International trade, investment and economic
development ties between the private sectors of the Pomeranian
Region, Poland, Collier County, and Florida; and,
Whereas, the Memorandum of Cooperation includes educational
institutions that will promote research and development and student
and educational exchanges between Poland, Collier County, and
Florida; and,
Whereas, the educational partners include the A ve Maria
University, Edison College, Florida Gulf Coast University, the
International College, Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology,
Southwest Florida Workforce Development Board, and the Gdansk
Page 16
_.__.~ "--..,-.---....,.-.-.-
June 22, 2004
University, Gdansk University of Technology Aviation Institute, and
Rzeszow University of Tecbnology.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to recognize the leadership
demonstrated by the Economic Development Council of Collier
County to create new opportunities for job creations for the Florida
Tradeport.
These initiatives are an essential element to the diversification of
Collier County's economy and continued cooperation between the
public and private sector and as demonstrated through the
Memorandum of Cooperation which will generate the future
successes.
Done in order (sic) this day -- 22nd day of June, 2004, Board of
County Commissioners, Donna Fiala, Chairperson.
I move for this proclamation to be approved.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's a humbling experience to stand before
you guys.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good to have you today.
Page 1 7
- -,~-_.__.,,-
June 22, 2004
MR. MUDD: If I could get everybody to stand there and get a
picture.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is a wonderful day. Thank
you very much. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning will read
the next proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. If I may call up -- let's
see. Where are we?
MS. FILSON: Madam Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Annie Alvarez.
MS. FILSON: She wanted to say a few words.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Go ahead.
MS. NEMECEK: Madam Chairman and Commissioners, thank
you very much. I'll take a brief opportunity just to say thank you,
again, for the leadership shown by the Board of County
Commissioners in helping us create the tools to diversify Collier
County's economy.
And the Florida Tradeport is going to prove to be, for us, one of
those jewels within Collier County, and I think within the State of
Florida, and this Memorandum of Cooperation is a -- signifies the
success and the start of that success in order to create opportunities in
eastern Collier County and specifically in Immokalee, and I think that
it's an even poignant opportunity with the passing of Ms. Olesky in
Immokalee that we give opportunities as much as we can and strive
for the betterment of Immokalee, and I think her memory and her
leadership is something that we can all strive to achieve.
So thank you again very much for the opportunity to push
forward our efforts for diversification in economy and, again, giving
us the tools and the partners that are part of this Memorandum of
Cooperation to work together in order to achieve additional successes.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 18
-------".~--"_.__..._. -----,--,.-
June 22, 2004
Item #4C
PROCLAMA TION DECLARING JULY, 2004 AS RECREA TON
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 4C, which is
a proclamation to celebrate July, 2004, as Recreation and Parks
Month, to be accepted by Annie Alvarez, the recreation supervisor and
counselor in training.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Ms. Alvarez has many a
young counselors, teachers, providers today, so it's an honor to have
our young leaders of tomorrow here with us today.
Whereas, the use of our parks and participation in recreation
programs add more balance to life, provide care of latchkey children,
increase communication skills, and build self-esteem, teach vital life
skills and provide safe place (sic) to play; and,
Whereas, to benefit (sic) provided by parks and recs program to
serve -- boost the economy, enhance property values, attract new
businesses, increase tourism, reduce crimes, diminishes gang violence,
and curb employment absenteeism; and,
Whereas, product -- productive use of leisure building (sic)
family units strengthens neighborhood involvement, offers
opportunities for social interaction, increases (sic) more educated
communities, develops creative (sic) and promotes sensitivity to
cultural diversity; and,
Whereas, parks and trails ensure ecological beauty, provides
space to enjoy nature, helps maintain clean air, water, and preserve
plants and animal life; and,
Whereas, recreation (sic) activities build strong bodies, reduces
health care cost, increases -- decreases insurance premiums, makes
people happier, and helps residents live longer; and,
Whereas, recreation, therapeutic recreation, and leisure education
Page 19
---,_.._,.....~ -'",,-.-.
June 22, 2004
are essential to the rehabilitation of individuals who have become ill
and disabled or have demonstrated antisocial behaviors; and,
Whereas, July, 2004, has been designated as Recreation and
Parks Month.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed -- proclaimed by the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that July, 2004, be
observed as parks and recs (sic) month which recognizes the benefits
derivative (sic) from the quality public and private recreation and park
resources within Collier County.
Done in this order, 22nd day of June, 2004, signed by the
chairman -- Chairperson, Donna Fiala.
I move to approve, Madam Chair.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: These are latchkey counselors.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, for goodness sake. This is a
wonderful group.
MR. MUDD: You have to all smile now, okay? Wonderful.
(Applause)
MS. AL V AREZ: Thank you, Commissioners. I want to thank
you for celebrating National Parks and Recreation Month.
Page 20
---... _"nO' ._,.~-". .
June 22, 2004
Collier County Parks and Recreation is very proud this year
because, as you well know, not too long ago we were awarded the
Excellence A ward in the State of Florida as being the best agency in
the State of Florida.
So we're very proud this year to celebrate Parks and Recreation
Month. As always, as part of -- many years ago, the school summer
break, we will be having our ice cream social on July 31 st at one
o'clock at Sugden Regional Park. So please corne and join us for a
nice family afternoon of lots of fun, activities, music, and great ice
cream sundaes.
And I just want to say, personally, I started as a CIT when I was
14 years old 28 years ago for the City of Hialeah, so this program is
really essential. Just as the commission has Leadership Collier, this is
our version, counselors in training, of our future leaders that are going
to be sitting here and our future professionals in parks and recreation.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #9E
RECOMMENDATION TO RENAME THE COUNTY'S LAKE
TRAFFORD PARK IN IMMOKALEE THE "ANN OLESKY
£ARJ("-AE£ROVED
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, with the indulgence of the board,
I'd like to go off the agenda just a little bit, instead of going right into
5. I notice the Olesky family is here in the front row, and I think it
would be very inappropriate if we let them wait for three hours before
we got to this particular item.
So I'd like to basically ask the board's indulgence to hear item 9E,
which is a recommendation to rename the county's Lake Trafford Park
Page 21
_ _ ~~._u_ -..__...~---_._'~
June 22, 2004
in Immokalee the "Ann Olesky Park" in recognition of the
contributions of long-time Immokalee resident and spirited
community activist Ann Olesky, who was a driving force in the Lake
Trafford restoration initiative.
And this item was brought -- was asked to be on the agenda by
Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Coletta, would you like to lead this discussion,
sir?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, what was that?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Coletta, we are on the Ann Olesky
renaming of the Lake Trafford Park item, and we were wondering if
you wanted to lead this discussion, sir?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd -- it'd be an honor. As you
may know, Ann Olesky has been a very big part, not only of the
Immokalee community, but the Collier community for many years.
She's been one of the driving forces behind the Lake Trafford
restoration.
A dear friend, a person that I greatly respected, and is going to be
missed. And I believe that what we're going to do here today will be a
loving -- a lasting testimonial to her -- to her person, what she's done
for us, by -- over Lake Trafford and letting it be a view over the lake
for eternity, and to remind the people of Immokalee and Collier
County what a great lady she was.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would the family like to corne up front,
or would you -- would you like to?
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, I need a vote. I need a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there a motion, Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second it.
MS. FILSON: And I also have a speaker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you.
Page 22
"""",--,..,,. ---."----------
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me if I sound a little
choppy on this, but this is a very emotional time for me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: As it is --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We understand.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- for the family and friends of Annie
Olesky. Thank you.
I think we have to have the speaker before we can vote on that; is
that correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it would be appropriate.
MS. FILSON: The speaker is Fred Thomas.
MR. THOMAS: Fred Thomas, representing the Immokalee
Rotary Club. At our last meeting we agreed to finance the
personalization of any monument you put our sign (sic) -- you put out
at the park.
And with your permission, we'll work with parks and recreation.
And one of Ann's -- Annie's son-in-Iaws is a graphic artist -- to corne
up with the appropriate remembrance, if you will, visual remembrance
of that. So if you'd include that in your motion, I'd appreciate it very
much. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Will that be included in the
motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It will.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That will be included in my
second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. All those--
MR. MUDD: We will, ma'am, take the motion, and then we'll
get the family to corne up and you can present this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. We're kind of
winging this, so forgive us, please.
All those in favor, say aye.
Page 23
-".._~^' - _0"'--- ..,-.--
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Now we have a plaque for
you. And Jim, just -- Commissioner Coletta, just so you know, the
family is here in the audience, she -- her daughters Dawn Smallwood,
Donna O'Green, Yvonne Purse, and James Ashbacker, are all here,
along with our beloved Ski Olesky, and we would like to present this
to you.
Thank you. Our deepest -- our deepest, deepest, deepest
sympathies. Thank you again.
MS. SMALL WOOD: Thank you, Madam Chair and
Commissioners. I'm Dawn Smallwood. I'm Ann's oldest child, and
I've been asked to speak on behalf of our family. Sorry.
We've known we've been blessed to have her as our wife and
mother, and it's great to find out that the community feels the same
way about her. Our parents worked tirelessly to bring Lake Trafford
struggles for survival to anyone who could help.
Our mother dove in head first always, and she would speak to
anyone who would listen or anyone who could help in her main goal,
which was the restoration of Lake Trafford.
Morn devoted her life to us, to her husband, to her community of
Immokalee, and to her lake. She was stubborn to a fault and would not
take no for an answer. She was a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a
community leader, an environmentalist, and our hero.
We thank you-all very much for honoring our morn in this way.
It's befitting the loving, caring person she is. Thank you.
(Applause and standing ovation.)
Page 24
._·",,_,_~.H__>.·"__··_ .0" __~" --- -......-..--..--
June 22, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now we move on to -
Item #5B
ALEX BLANCO, SENIOR EQUIPMENT OPERATOR,
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION, RECOGNIZED AS "EMPLOYEE
"
MR. MUDD: Item 5B --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- item 5B.
MR. MUDD: -- and that is a recommendation to recognize Alex
Blanco, senior equipment operator, Transportation Division, as the
employee of the month for June of 2004.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Blanco?
I'd like to just say a few words about you, if I may. I read this
and I was very impressed.
Alex Blanco is an exemplary employee. He is revered by his
co-workers for his unending support and kindness. Alex voluntarily
takes on the responsibility of providing CDL training to various
employees within the department. As a result, these employees have
opportunities to advance their careers and increase their value to
Collier County.
Alex sets an example of providing outstanding customer service
that is second to none. He wears a constant smile and is always
cheerful and helpful in his relationships with his fellow employees.
Alex Blanco is a tremendous asset to Collier County and the
Transportation Division. We would -- we are so proud to present this
to you. You know what? People like you make us look good. Thank
you so much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: This is a little check and a letter and a
plaque for your wall. Thank you so much. Thank you.
Page 25
- --'---- -. .
June 22, 2004
Could we have a picture of you? Thank you.
Item #5C
Now we go on to item 5C, Florida Association of Counties
presentation.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it's indeed an honor today to
represent the Florida Association of Counties and the Florida Counties
Foundation for the Florida Association of Counties.
And today I'd like to present two commissioners, and it basically
reads, the county commissioners certification acknowledges that
Commissioner Frank Halas, Collier County, and Commissioner Donna
Fiala, Collier County, have achieved the designation of Certified
County Commissioner.
This is to be presented at the F AC's 25th Annual Conference in
Broward County the 25th day of June, 2004, and I just snuck some
certificates here in order to do it in Collier County --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, that's good.
MR. MUDD: -- because it doesn't do much good in Broward to
do it. Again, you'll be amongst your commissioners, but I think you
need to be amongst your constituents as you receive these. And it's
signed by Calvin Harris, Chair of the Florida Counties Foundation,
and C. Guy Maxi, President of the Florida Association of Counties,
and I'd like to present these certificates to you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, thank you. That's so nice. Thank
you so much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you so much.
MR. MUDD: If we could get you to hold those up a little bit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure can.
Page 26
-~. ------..---...-
June 22, 2004
MR. MUDD: And we'll take this picture.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would just like to say a few
words, that it was -- it was a task, an undertaking, and I believe that
who really gave me the encouragement to go on with this course and
to complete it to its fullest, and that was Commissioner Jim Coletta.
When I first became elected as a county commissioner, he
advised me to get actively involved with the Florida Association of
Counties, to learn as much as I could, to get as much guidance so that
I could become a better commissioner and understand, not only the
problems here in Collier County, but also the problems statewide.
And to Commissioner Coletta, thank you very much for your
encouragement. I appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for the kind words.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'd like to echo the same. I think Jim
was the first commissioner who received his certification and set a
fine example for the rest of us. Jim, thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner
Fiala.
Item #5D
PRESENTATION TO COLLIER COUNTY FOR ITS PROGRAM
"
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that will bring us -- unless you
have further words -- that will bring us to -- and don't forget
Commissioner Coyle is timing -- the 5, presentations. That brings us
to 5D, which is a presentation to Collier County for its program "Park
Rangers To Go," and this is in recognition on an innovative program
which contributes to and enhances county government in the United
States.
Page 27
-.,.
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, it's my honor to
present to the Board of Commissioners and County Manager and
parks and rec, the achievements that our parks and rec rangers has
done in Collier County by this national award presented by the
National Association of Counties, 2004 Achievement Award,
recognizing our parks and rec, and in -- let's see, I believe it is July
17th at -- in Phoenix, Arizona, that the award will be recognized
through all of the associations of counties in the nation.
So Madam Chair, I'd like to -- is it appropriate to give it to its
chairperson, the award?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Gee, you know what, I don't know who it
goes to. Would it be --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can give it to anybody
you'd like.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's to Collier County? Well, let me just
hold this and say, I'm honored to have you all -- you know what, you
parks and recreation people just make us so proud. And look it, a
meeting is so beautiful when you have these beautiful, innocent
shining faces, isn't it? And I'm so glad you-all are here to represent us.
Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We'll put this in the hall so that
everybody can see it, okay?
Would anybody like to say a few words? Okay. Very good. Did
we get our pictures?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good.
Commissioner Henning, you were so appropriate to read this
with your love of children. I'm just so glad they selected you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. OLSEN: Good morning, everyone. I'll make this very
Page 28
_..··_·w·.
June 22, 2004
short. My name is Nancy Olsen. I'm the senior park naturalist, and I
just want to thank Marla Ramsey, Murdo Smith, Nan Gerhart. They
foster a creative atmosphere in which to work, as does all of Collier
County government. And I want to thank my kids, junior park rangers.
These children will be wearing my uniform in about 10 years. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Look at this. She should be up here.
Corne on up here, Nan. Corne on, corne on. I mean --
MS. OLSEN: Sticky socks, on the count of three.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. How you doing? Good to see
you. This is kind of like a copy of that, so my guess is, this is one for
your office. Hi, Mike. So maybe you want to take this back to your
office. Good to see you, too.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for the great work.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, that was a fun one, wasn't it?
Item #5A
PRESENTATION BY MR. RON HAMEL, EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT OF THE GULF CITRUS GROWERS
A SSOCIAIION::Blli.SE
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. Next presentation is 5A, and this is a
presentation by Mr. Ron Hamel, the executive vice-president of the
Gulf Citrus Growers Association, in appreciation for County
Resolution Number 2003-167, passed by the Board of County
Commissioners on April 22, 2003.
Mr. Hamel?
MR. HAMEL: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Madam Chair, members
of the commission, for the record, I'm Ron Hamel, executive
vice-president of the Gulf Citrus Growers Association, and I'm here
today to represent all of the Florida citrus industry.
Page 29
__". H
June 22, 2004
As you well know, we've been battling the citrus tariff issue for a
number of years. And over the past couple, there's been an effort to
pretty much remove the tariff from imported citrus into the United
States, which basically would create a monopoly with the Brazilian
industry over the Florida industry and put a lot of family farmers and
citrus growers out of business.
This commission, along with commissions throughout the State
of Florida, stepped forward, passed resolutions in support of protecting
that tariff, and I'm here today to thank you for your efforts.
Weare making progress in this battle. It is not over. In fact, we
are still waiting for our president and the trade negotiators to take
citrus off the negotiating table. We feel we're getting close to that, and
we're, as an industry, putting a lot of funds -- and they're hard-earned
funds -- into this battle.
I don't know if any of you-all had the opportunity to see the
Naples paper this past Monday about the -- some of the conditions our
industry is in. Certainly it is not the healthy industry it was when it
began back here, I would say, 15 or 16 years ago.
Weare basically struggling for survival with large crops,
pressures. We face citrus canker and a lot of these issues. But I just
wanted to thank you on behalf of the industry.
This plaque was given to Commissioner Coletta for the
commission at a recent grower gathering, and I am honored to be here
to present it to you in person from the industry.
So with that, I'll just present the plaque. And again, thank you for
your interest in support of our industry, and we look forward to
working with you and keeping you informed on these and other issues.
I also want to say while I'm here, I personally appreciate the
interest and support I get from all the commissioners for our industry.
We certainly want to survive here and be sustainable and enhance the
economic values of our counties in Collier and throughout Southwest
Florida. So thank you.
Page 30
__Ow. -."-~~ --,,--
June 22, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: May I ask you a question? I just heard
this yesterday, and I was -- I've never heard this before, and I'm sorry
to interrupt the meeting like this. But somebody just told me the
Atkins diet has really hurt the citrus industry. Is that true?
MR. HAMEL: That is exactly true. The low care. diet, of
course, they're saying drink less orange juice or take orange juice out
of your diet up until a certain point. And all of these low care. diets
basically are trying to get sugars out of system, and they are putting
us, along with Coke and other things, to get off the dinner table, or the
breakfast table.
And it's had six to eight percent impact on consumption in our--
for our industry. So as our production is increasing, our consumption
is decreasing. So we're trapped right now because consumption was
going up tremendously, and that's the reason why a lot of the groves
were planted in Collier County and other counties in our region.
So growers are putting hard-earned tax dollars -- their own
money -- tax dollars is a citrus tax -- into addressing these issues. So
between the tariff and the consumption, we definitely have some big
wars to wage.
But we appreciate you-all's support continuing, and if I could be
of service, please let me know.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks, Mr. Hamel.
And we move on now to --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, he's going to present you with --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm so sorry. Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I haven't stopped my orange
juice drinking in the morning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I still eat my grapefruit.
MR. HAMEL: I want to present that to you. And Commissioner
Coletta, if you're listening, we certainly appreciate your personal and
individual support for us out in the rural areas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thank you for those kind
Page 31
-- ---..- -._---
June 22, 2004
words.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And now we're going to --
MR. MUDD: I'd make a recommendation that we do the 10
o'clock -- Commissioner, I'm sorry -- that we do the 10 o'clock time
certain.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Item # 1 OF
PUBLIC PETITION FILED BY MR. MATT JOHNSON OF EAST
NAPLES FIRE DEPARTMENT TO SOLICIT FOR
CONTRIBUTIONS ALONG THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY-
STAFF DIRECTED TO BRING BACK AMENDED ORDINANCE
MR. MUDD: Okay? And that's -- this is item 10F. This item to
be heard at 10 a.m. This item was continued from the May 11 th,
2004, BCC meeting. It's a response to a public petition filed by Mr.
Matt Johnson of the East Naples Fire Department to solicit for
contributions along the county right-of-way, and Mr. Dan Summers,
director of Emergency Management, will present.
MR. SUMMERS: Good morning. For the record, Dan
Summers, director of Emergency Management. Madam Chairman and
Commissioners, good morning.
Matt Johnson -- Matt has been kind enough to bring this request
to us in order for the firefighters -- which is really a national effort --
to participate in the Muscular Dystrophy Association Annual Boot
Drive. That petition did corne to us. I had researched that.
Our county land development code, under section 2.1 and further
contents within that, does have a prohibition for this type of
solicitation within the right-of-way.
We did try to research some alternatives on behalf of Mr.
Page 32
~--- .__",..,"_.._.~__.,,_._w ...
June 22, 2004
Johnson. Unfortunately we can't do it on the county parks as well.
We even called other venues on behalf of Mr. Johnson, such as Sam's
and K-Mart, Wal-Mart, those types of things. Most of those facilities
are already booked in advance for those type of weekly activities for
national charitable organizations.
So we bring you the position of code, we bring you the position
of interest on behalf of the firefighters, and we have to share this issue
with you.
Matt is here. He does have a few speakers to accompany him,
including some representatives from the MDA, so I'll turn it back to
you to ask, if you'd like Mr. -- to address Mr. Johnson with any
questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, the boot drive is not
-- didn't start in Collier County, I don't believe. I mean, when I travel
through the nation it's all over. And it's a common cause of the
firefighters who -- it's kind of disheartening that the recommendations
is not to approve the firefighters to solicit.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I agree. That seems like one of these
neighborhood- friendly things, doesn't it, where a community is
working together for the betterment of us and others. And I totally
agree.
Oh, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let me solve this problem. I
make a motion that we approve it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I second that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, we have a second and a third. We
have a motion on the floor to approve. I'm sorry that we haven't -- we
have speakers lined up, right?
MS. FILSON: We have three speakers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's to approve the firefighters'
Page 33
....-..-
June 22, 2004
request, not to approve the staffs recommendation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Approve the part --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So put that in a whole motion, would you,
just for the record.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I would like to make a
motion that the firefighters be allowed to solicit their contributions
along the county right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I second that motion.
And although we have speakers, would any of the speakers like
to waive?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You want to talk us out of it?
MR. JOHNSON: Not at this time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We see a bunch of smiles and a
bunch of waives --
MS. FILSON: I heard someone who says they would like to
speak, so I'll call all their names.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh.
MS. FILSON: Richard Gibbons? Do you waive?
MR. GIBBONS: I waive.
MS. FILSON: Matt Hudson?
MR. HUDSON: I waive.
MS. FILSON: Thank you. Matt Zaleznik?
MR. ZALEZNIK: I'll waive.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: Ifwe may, Madam Chair? Cheryl
Ammon-Kunkle ofMDA would like to speak.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Does she need to register
afterwards?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. You're not a registered speaker, so
you're going to have to sign up afterwards and give us the slip for our
Page 34
._._~ --.--....... -.-...~---,..-
June 22, 2004
recorder.
MS. AMMON-KUNKLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right. Thank you. Then our county
attorney wants to speak.
MS. AMMON-KUNKLE: I would just quickly like to say, on
behalf of the Muscular Dystrophy Association and the 42 families that
we serve right here in Collier County, we really appreciate this. This
means the world to us.
As you know, we don't get any -- receive any funding from the
government or the United Way and the International Association of
Firefighters does so much nationwide for the MDA, and we just
appreciate this opportunity. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
County Attorney David Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have researched
the boot drive issue and the -- clearly the code provision which is
ordinance, which is the law, and the history of this is that there used to
be boot drives and other activities in the rights-of-way, and the Board
of County Commissioners, a prior board back in the mid '90s, brought
this forward and directed staff, county attorney and development
services staff, county manager's staff, to bring back an ordinance so
that this could be codified.
And we brought back two versions of the ordinance, and one had
some provision for the operation of groups in the right-of-way for
solicitation purposes. And the board adopted the version that has an
absolute prohibition.
So I'm constrained to tell you that the ordinance does not allow
for a waiver for this fine group or any others. It may raise question of
other groups that have significant, equal, comparable philanthropic
purposes corning to you, and the ordinance does not -- does not
provide for that.
And it can be problematic in regard to the board making an
Page 35
-_._-,._~-- .- ~-- ---
June 22, 2004
approval, which is -- of which an ordinance is specifically adopted to
have an absolute prohibition of that.
Now, if you were to direct the county staff, county attorney, to
bring this ordinance back again, we can take that as direction to
attempt to work something that can be brought forward and discussed
and adopted by the board.
There are questions, of course, in regard to liability of operations
within the right-of-way. If someone, a motorist or someone else, has
something untoward or makes a claim, they can state that the
ordinance says that people shouldn't be out there but the board has let
people be out there anyway.
And I'd be remiss if I didn't explain to you some of the aspects of
the ordinance that's been in place for several years. And so this
request that's corne up for the boot drive and MDA this year, I would
expect, is not made without the knowledge of that law being in place
before, because it was the firefighters and others that carne to the
board previously that caused that prior board to wrestle with the
question.
So I know you have a motion and a second and a potential to vote
there, but I believe that I need to advise you, as attorney, that the
ordinance doesn't provide for this, and if there should corne some
problems in the implementation later on, we'll be working outside of
what the local law provides.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to pursue a solution to that.
If we were to provide guidance to the staff to bring us back an
ordinance -- a change to this ordinance which would permit
exceptions by the Board of County Commissioners, can we, during the
interim, suspend enforcement of the current ordinance?
MR. WEIGEL: Very good question. I think that an answer is
not clear. It can be done in the sense that, if you make that request
and directive as part of an approved motion, then it will not occur. To
Page 36
___',·'____r . ._-~^--,.~,----,..-
June 22, 2004
say that there is absolutely no likelihood of issues or problems that we
may have to contend with later, I cannot give you that broad -- that
broad statement right now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe I could -- let me add -- go
to the second point. There are issues; one is dealing with the
ordinance, the other is a liability.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we can require that there be
a waiver of liability from the standpoint of those people who
participate. Is that not true?
MR. WEIGEL: I'm not sure I understand. It's -- the Board of
County Commissioners cannot indemnify the acts of other parties.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. WEIGEL: They can -- and so in your -- I'm not sure what
your question is in regard to a waiver.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I thought one of the problems was
one of safety, if someone is injured --
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- in that process, if we can ask
them to sign a waiver of any claim against the Collier County
Commission, or Collier County government. I suspect they're willing
to do that. And if we then provided the staff guidance to bring us back
a modification to the ordinance, then we could, in the interim, suspend
enforcement of the ordinance until such time as we can -- we can
evaluate the change. Will that work?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I certainly recognize the desire of the
board here. I think it -- I think it's a bit problematic. I'm not talking
merely about the liability of a solicitor being injured in the roadway,
but of the liability of injury or aggravation that may corne from the
motorists --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: -- that are solicited as well. We cannot control --
Page 37
___.M___ -_..-
June 22, 2004
specifically control the individual actions of solicitors in the
right-of-way, and so what may happen, to some degree, I expect, will
corne back, and the county, as the deep pocket, would be included as a
codefendant on any complaints that were made.
These are kind of the -- these are some of the issues that we
worked over in the past several years ago. Lee County went for an
ordinance that allowed for, for lack of a better term, selected ability
for solicitation in the right-of-way, and they found -- they found that it
was problematic, and so they went to an absolute prohibition after a
few years of trial.
But in any event, what you have suggested is that if the board
were to suspend enforcement for this particular group this particular
day with the direction to the staff to craft and advertise and bring back
an ordinance for your -- for your consideration, is that doable?
Again, to clarify, I think it can be done. It does not remove this
board and the county from some issues of liability. And we also
would have to tackle in the ordinance that we would draft questions as
to time, place, and manner, first amendment right situations. But we
can -- we can do that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think we have a response by the fire
team.
MR. JOHNSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you state your name for the
record.
MR. JOHNSON: Matt Johnson, East Naples Fire Department. If
I might read a brief statement in defense.
At this time we wish to thank the board for their time and effort
in regards for (sic) our petition for the solicitation of funds for
Muscular Dystrophy on public roadways.
We understand your concerns if you were to grant this petition,
that other groups would like to follow; however, we, the firefighters,
feel that as a group, we raised standards by which this petition and/or
Page 38
--_._---
June 22, 2004
this variance of code can be issued.
The firefighters are highly trained and skilled workers who work
in these streets every day, and most assuredly, not under the best of
circumstances.
While collecting funds, we do so in concert with traffic devices,
working with red and green lights accordingly, all the while we're
wearing safety vests.
A voice concerned is one of liability. As we live in a very
litigatious (sic) society, this is a very valid concern. While we work in
conjunction with the Muscular Dystrophy Association, they provide
us with the liability of insurance of that greater than one million
dollars, thus relieving another one of your concerns.
We did not corne here wishing to fight city hall, as the saying
goes, but to hopefully forage an alliance so that a new ordinance can
be written containing some of the aforementioned ideas, thus allowing
groups that meet these higher standards to solicit funds on public
roadways.
In closing, I would like to remind you that the boot drive is the
signature event of the International Association of Firefighters, a
proud group of over 250,000 members in both the United States and
Canada. Since 1954, we have raised over $180 million.
MDA does not receive funding from state, federal, or local
governments, nor does it seek or receive fees for its service. So you
see, it is up to us and our boot drive to help fund this most deserving
organization and those that benefit from it.
Once again, we thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have some concerns, as
Commissioner Coy Ie has, and that is, I think we have to corne up with
an ordinance whereby we highly scrutinize the groups that are going
to get involved in this, and I think also we need to make sure that we
Page 39
-- -,-. -..-~._--
June 22, 2004
corne up with some type of legislation whereby they're required to pull
a permit so that we realize who we're dealing with and what we're
dealing with.
And I -- I also agree with the fire commissioner there in regards
that -- or the fire chief, that -- in regards to -- that we need to look at
people who are doing the soliciting. And if it's law enforcement or
firefighters, I would think that in their dealing in regards to a
particular drive or a particular fund -- money raising, fundraising
event, that we look at that more openly than we would just the average
citizen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've got to ask, your boot drive
is close to Labor Day; is that correct?
MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's--
MR. JOHNSON: It's tied in with the annual Jerry Lewis
Telethon held on Labor Day weekend.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the date on that?
MS. AMMON-KUNKLE: September 6th is Labor Day this year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. JOHNSON: September the 6th.
MS. AMMON-KUNKLE: September 6th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we could possibly revisit this
issue July 27th?
MR. MUDD: My recom -- what I was going to say, counselor--
you're right along the same thing. My question to David is, can you
have the ordinance ready for the board and advertised correctly for the
27th of July, and this way it would give them the month of August and
the first part of September in order to do this without having to go
through all the waiver issues you're talking about.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. I was just waiting for my turn to say, with
board direction, we can, in fact, craft, advertise, and, of course, work
Page 40
_.'--_..,.,- -~. '"'-'._'._-~_.~,-- ....-~-,.._._,.~
June 22, 2004
with the firefighters and other interested parties as well at your
direction and bring the ordinance back for the July 27th meeting so
that, with the date in mind of Labor Day, which is in September, we
would not have at that point an ordinance that conflicts and a policy
that conflicts with their intended activities on that Labor Day
weekend.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle, you want to wind that up?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll revise my motion to provide
guidance to the staff to bring back to us a revised ordinance, and I
would further provide that the ordinance must contain some insurance
requirements, liability insurance requirements, fairly high liability
insurance requirements, okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the second is in line with that?
Okay. So we have a revised motion -- and by Commissioner
Coy Ie, and a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion? Nothing?
All those --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, Jim. I'm so sor -- I mean,
Commissioner Coletta, I'm so sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's quite all right.
I just want to suggest that we may want to think about putting
this on the consent agenda for the meeting, and we'll get a chance to
review it. If we have any questions, at that time we can pull it. Maybe
we might be able to save the firefighters from having to corne all the
way back in again.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can do that if there are no
objections to it. And that's the problem, we don't know if there are
public objections to it.
MR. WEIGEL: The summary agenda we're talking about.
Page 41
- '- ,,- "-" ._--'..,-~.,_.-
June 22, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we'll consider that Commissioner
Coletta, if there are no objections.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you so much.
Okay. 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.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Madam Chair.
One moment, please. At this time we'd like to present the county
manager with some packets that also contain some revised ordinances
from other counties that have passed them in favor, for your perusal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't you give one to the
county attorney.
MR. MUDD: He could give them all to the county attorney.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: See if there's any word changes in
there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: Madam Chair and the rest of the
commissioners, we thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: Commissioners, thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to public petitions,
paragraph 6.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Now let me interrupt you there,
County Manager.
And Commissioners, so we can move this thing along, what I'm
Page 42
--,,-
June 22, 2004
going to ask is, as the petitioner reads, I would ask that we don't
discuss this on the -- on the agenda here. Either make a motion to put
it onto a regular agenda or deny, whatever your pleasure, but I don't
think we should be discussing these petitions at this meeting --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- as is our practice. And we'll just
approve to either put it on another -- a future agenda or not. Thank
you.
Item #6A
REQUEST BY MR. PAUL FEUER REGARDING THE PLANTING
MR. MUDD: First public petition is 6A. It's public petition
request by Mr. Paul Feuer to discuss the planting of live oaks in
Village Walk.
MR. FEUER: Good morning. I'm Paul Feuer, president of the
Homeowners' Association at Village Walk. I would like to thank the
Board of Commissioners for giving Village Walk an opportunity to be
heard today. Today we're here to help the county and to help others.
Before I begin, allow me to give you a brief idea of what Village
Walk is all about. We're located on Vanderbilt Beach Road in North
Naples. We maintain over 300 acres of land as well as 80 acres of
lakes. We have 850 homes, and about 2,000 homeowners -- 2,000
residents.
We're about nine years old, but we're getting younger every day,
and that's because we're a very active and involved community.
We have over 16 standing committees served by over 150
volunteers, and we're a people community with plenty of spirit. We
love being a part of Naples.
As a matter of fact, one of the -- we are one of the cover stories, I
Page 43
--- ·_·····'__.w< ,........-.
June 22, 2004
believe, in this month's June issue of Florida Community Association
Magazine.
While all this sounds terrific, all is not perfect in paradise. We
have literally corne under attack by live oak trees. That's why we're
here today. Hopefully by learning from our experience, the county
can prevent other communities from experiencing the same problems.
At the same time, the county should be able to reduce its
in-house maintenance cost while ensuring for the safety of its
constituents.
The existing county code requires one canopy per 3,000 square
feet of parcel area with a minimum of two canopy trees per lot and
that at least 75 percent of the trees shall be native southern Florida
.
speCIes.
The county is not concerned whatsoever with the type of trees
that are planted so long as these codes are met. That's the root cause
of our problem as well as the county's problem.
These codes, when written, may have been appropriate for
neighborhoods as well as for estates with large lots. They were never
intended to accommodate cluster-home developments with zero lots
that are now commonplace to Collier County as well as other counties
in Florida.
The current code gives the developer a green light to use the most
common, least costly, and easily available native trees. They need not
account for how these trees will grow, what they will cost to maintain,
or the future impact that they would have on the safety, health, the
welfare of the community.
Would a prospective homeowner have any idea that in less than
eight years these trees would begin lifting sidewalks, driveways,
walls, and damaging underground utility lines? Would the same
homeowner know that these trees would be the prime cause of injuries
in our developments, such as broken teeth, arms, ankles, wrists, and
hips? Would the same person know that these trees would place a
Page 44
-,~.,-" ~-----
June 22, 2004
heavy, unwarranted and unfair financial burden on the homeowner
and the community?
This is what Village Walk has unfortunately and unfairly
experienced. The developer has blatantly planted about 3,000 live oak
trees throughout Village Walk with complete disregard to the future
safety, health, and welfare of the community.
The site plans that the developer submitted and that the county
approved identified two or more oak -- live oak trees to be planted on
most of our lots. The site plans also included live oak trees along all
our neighborhood streets and permits -- and perimeter roads, most of
which are less than three feet from the sidewalks.
Any landscape architect or licensed arborist surely would know
that the size of our lots would prohibit the planting of even one live
oak.
To further compound the problem, the developer planted many
more live oaks than were shown on the plans. Developers are
business people whose sole interest is selling homes. The more young
trees they plant, the more attractive and salable their product becomes.
There have been several articles in the Naples Daily News where
local experts have stated that over planting of live oaks is a common
problem in Naples.
A recent article written by a noted entomologist for the Florida
Extension Institute was appropriately titled, "Live Oak Overkill." In
that article he suggested live oaks is an estate tree that looks
magnificent in a pasture or on a wide boulevard. He states that the
live oak is fast-growing, and after 1 0 to 15 years, they'll obscure the
front view of a home and will be difficult to maintain and keep within
bounds.
Another licensed arborist who inspected our property a couple of
years back wrote, the overuse of the live oaks when planted in small
areas will leave us with no other choice except for removal or costly
constant maintenance to keep them from outgrowing the area they
Page 45
-.._--_..~~~.__._.,..~.,--._- . '..--
June 22, 2004
were planted in.
He advised that the root systems of these trees will ultimately lift
slabs and walls, pinch or snap water lines, and crack sidewalks, curbs,
and roadways. His predictions a few years back have, regretfully,
become a reality.
In order to deal with this unfortunate problem, our board has
taken a proactive role. We notified Commissioner Henning and the
appropriate county landscape officials that we were taking action in
three phases.
In phase one, we began the removal of all oaks that posed an
immediate safety threat to our residents or our underground utilities.
We also replaced the damaged sidewalks.
In phase two, we are developing a revised landscaping plan with
the assistance of highly respected local landscape architects. This plan
will be based upon the removal of most or all of these live oaks that
line our neighborhood streets. We do not intend to replace tree for
tree since our community was significantly overplanted to begin with.
Our last phase of this project was to petition the Board of
Commissioners. Having outlined our problems, allow me to outline
our appeal. It's important to recognize that we are not alone with the
live oak problem. This problem is systemic and will continue to
escalate unless the county takes a proactive role as well.
First and foremost, the county should consider revising its
present land development codes for canopy trees. The county is
considering amending the codes to require developers to install root
barriers for large canopy trees such as live oaks. We've been told by
several licensed arborists that a root barrier serves only as a temporary
measure and will ultimately be overcome by a live oak within five to
10 years.
The county recently published a brochure which outlines
landscape requirements for homeowners. It recommends that large
canopy trees be planted a minimum of 15 to 30 feet away from any
Page 46
-.--- ---
June 22, 2004
structures. If our developer complied with this recommendation, I
won't be here -- I wouldn't be here today. There would be no live oaks
on any of our private property or lining the streets in Village Walk.
Amending the code and publishing landscape requirements
demonstrates that the county has recognized the problem with live
oaks and is attempting to fix it; however, the proposed amendment in
the publications falls short of the mark. The county needs to put some
teeth into the code. Rather than recommending, the county needs to
direct.
The code needs to clearly prohibit the planting of live oaks in
cluster home, zero lot communities. The revised code should also
prohibit the planting of selected trees such as ficus and live oaks under
power lines. This is another major problem that our community and
other communities are experiencing, including FPL.
The publication of "Right Tree, Right Place" is a start. The
county must also prohibit developers from planting the wrong trees in
the wrong place. The county needs to establish an inspection and
enforcement procedure to assure compliance with the revised codes.
These inspections must protect the community from developer
overplanting as well.
Implementing any or all of the proposed changes should result in
cost savings to the county as well as all its constituents. It's also a
positive step towards improving the quality of life in our county;
however, it will not help Village Walk. The damage has already been
done.
So what do we ask from the county? We simply ask for your
understanding in consideration of our plight. Please recognize that the
major financial burden that we, as an association and our homeowners
as individuals, have taken on. We are not asking the county for
financial relief, although, if it was offered, we'd certainly accept it.
What we're requesting is the application of fairness,
reasonableness, and tolerance in the review and approval of our
Page 47
June 22, 2004
revised landscape plans. There may be a few locations here and there
where the canopy tree count may not exactly comply with the code on
a tree for tree basis.
More than one licensed arborist and landscape architect have
advised us already that the code requirement for a minimum of two
canopy trees for a zero lot is inappropriate. There may be certain
locations where one canopy tree per lot would be sufficient, especially
when considering the total number of native canopy trees planted
throughout Village Walk.
All we are requesting is the county's understanding where there
might be a slight variation to code compliance. Once our revised
landscape plans are approved and implemented, Village Walk will be
an even more attractive community to reside in.
Weare confident that the problems that we have experienced and
shared with you today will provide the county with an opportunity to
improve and strengthen its land development codes to the future. This
will result in a win-win for the county and its constituents.
I thank the board for listening, and we appreciate any
consideration that you will give towards our request and
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess I have to ask Joe Schmitt
if he has any concerns of the request to submit a site development plan
that doesn't comply with the code.
MR. SCHMITT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Joe Schmitt, administrator of Community Development and
Environmental Services Division.
Commissioners, certainly we can take this on for consideration as
an upcoming land development code amendment. The only caution is,
of course, it's creating more oversight and more government in regards
to the plan approval process, and much of what I consider took place
out at -- in Village Walk is really -- they're in the responsibility of
Page 48
.' .. ""-'_._'.~~'-"--"-- ~-",._"_"'<
June 22, 2004
what the developer chose to do in regards to what was defined in the
land development code and what they chose to do in regards to
complying with it.
So it's certainly your choice and your guidance if you want us to
look at this and corne back and amend the code, be more restrictive in
regards to landscape and landscape architecture.
But in regards to Village Walk, we certainly can take into
consideration -- we've been working -- as you-all know, we've been
working with the residents and trying to accommodate and meet their
needs in regards to the modifications of the land -- or of the site
development plan out there in regards to the replanting of trees.
I don't know if that answered your question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It does. I know the Board of
Commissioners doesn't approve site development plans.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But in this particular case, if
there's a dispute between the residents and community development
on the site plan, could we bring it to the board?
MR. SCHMITT: If the -- there was a deviation in regards to not
meeting the criteria, absolutely, we would bring it to the board, and we
could bring it to the board for your approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you have --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's sufficient --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Direction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- direction as far as my concern
is. And what I'm hearing is, Mr. Schmitt and his staff is (sic)
continuing wanting to work with the Village Walk people. And, you
know, if it doesn't work out where it meets our code, you bring the
deviation to the board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have Commissioner Halas and
Commissioner Coyle. Remember we're going to try and cut this short,
Page 49
---,- "."-......-. ".~.~._--
June 22, 2004
okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've just got a couple of
questions. What is FPL's concern with the live oaks? Is that -- can
somebody fill me in on that information? And also, how devastating
is it to the underground utilities?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I don't -- I have no answers to
that. And I don't think anybody -- I don't see Bleu here. I don't see
Bleu here, Bleu Wallace. But I -- I've never received any indications
from FP &L as to their concerns in regards to this issue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They just cut them.
MR. MUDD: When a tree -- when a tree canopy gets in the way
of the lines, FP&L trims it.
MR. SCHMITT: They'll trim it. And they have every right to
trim it because it's in the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What about with underground
utilities; is it --
MR. SCHMITT: Go ahead.
MS. LULICH: I think I can answer that question. Pam Lulich,
transportation.
FP&L produces a pamphlet. It's called "Right Tree, Right
Place," and they do set criteria for the type of tree that needs to be
planted under their lines. So they have a list of small canopy trees,
and a ficus and an oak aren't on that list. So they need to be set back
further from the line.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that was the thrust of my --
excuse me -- my comment, that there are two parts to this request, one
is to try to do -- to do something with respect to this -- the revisions of
the landscaping plan in Village Walk, and I think Commissioner
Henning has addressed that.
The other one is to do something with our land development code
Page 50
-"--,,.,- -~~..__. ~'-
June 22, 2004
that would hopefully prevent similar occurrences in the future.
So I would like to suggest, rather than bringing this item back for
discussion -- I think we understand the problem -- just direct the staff
to take a look at the land development code to see if we cannot
incorporate into the landscaping requirements the specific guidance
that FP&L seems to have in their publication, and -- because I've
never heard of a problem with the live oak tree. I've heard a lot of
problems with ficus trees, but not live oaks. So if these things are
causing problems, I think we need to address it in the land
development code.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree with that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, one of the things that I think Mr.
Feuer basically put out was the 15 to 30- foot from the structure
dimension, and that's a recommendation in a flier that our own
community development staff has put out to the developers.
Would you like that particular recommendation to be a directive
in the land development code? Because I really believe that gets at
the issue that you've got.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
MR. MUDD: And then they can figure out if there are two
canopy trees in front of a house, then it has to be something different
than a live oak, because they can't meet the distance requirements.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think that kind of got --
requirement would be quite appropriate.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do you feel you have sufficient
direction?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right. Now, before we move on we're
going to give our court reporter a 10-minute break, and then we'll be
back. Thank you.
Page 51
~_._."--~."-. ----.---
June 22, 2004
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Will you all take your seats, please.
MR.OCHS: You have a hot mike, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Item #6B
REQUEST BY HERMAN HAEGER TO DISCUSS OPERATIONAL
COSTS IMPOSED BY COLLIER COUNTY CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD- ANY DECISION WILL BE MADE
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, that brings us to public petitions,
and that's public petition 6B, public petition request by Herman
Haeger to discuss operational cost imposed by Collier County Code
Enforcement Board.
Commissioner, I did put a -- one piece of paper at your desk at
Mr. Haeger's request, so that you had some figures as he presents this
particular item.
Mr. Haeger, if you'd state your name, sir.
MR. HAEGER: Hi, my name is Herman Haeger. First, good
morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners.
My name -- I go by Skip Haeger. Everybody in town knows me
by that. I've been in Naples -- a short introduction. I've been a Naples
resident since 1989 and am currently building a new house out in
Golden Gate Estates off Everglades Boulevard, and that's the reason I
probably ended up here in the first place.
I'm owner/builder which means that I'm taking money as I go
along and building a house and going a little bit slower than your
normal building contractor. It's not taken six months. It's taken several
years now, and I'm about halfway through it.
What happened, approximately about a year and a half ago, there
Page 52
.,<---.
June 22, 2004
was a complaint filed on my property. I had a truck sitting in the front
of my property that I have used in business, and it had sort of done its
job, and I retired it. And if you understand where this property is, it's
way out in the Estates area. I have five acres there.
And for the longest time, nobody seemed to bother about it. But
I did get a complaint. Code enforcement carne out and told me about
it. And I -- after a little hedging and hawing, I finally moved it and
got -- disposed of it. It wasn't any good anymore. It's just that I had
nowhere else to put it.
Because of county ordinances, I can't live out there while I'm
building, so I had to buy a mobile home, which I have lived in for the
last four and a half -- almost four and a half to five years.
The initial problem being solved, we had a new builder corne into
the area, and he carne and actually started building a house right next
to mine. And his first order of business was to bulldoze down a
60- foot pine tree which was on my property. When I asked him what
he was doing, he said, well, this is just so I can have an easy way to
get my underground utilities to my house that I'm building here. And
he was on a little 75-foot wide Band-Aid lot, we call it out there.
Well, that started this whole really intense thing with code
enforcement. I called code enforcement on him, made a police report
on it because he carne onto my property and bulldozed down a 75- foot
pine tree with no, you know, apparent reason.
Well, he, in turn, called code enforcement on me. And at the
time I had been using the property. You know, it was sort of a tit for
tat thing, and it kept going on. And Mr. Letourn -- Jeff Letourneau,
the investigator for code enforcement, carne out, and he cited me on
several items.
I had -- I am a businessman in town. I've been running a
landscape construction and design company in town here since 1991,
and it's been fully licensed, not only with -- occupational licensed in
Collier County, but state licenses with the State of Florida.
Page 53
" --_._". ,.... <_ _.m.._._____._· . -.........-..-,.-..-.--..,.....--.,..-..."..-..-
June 22, 2004
And Mr. Letourneau said that I had to clean up some pots that I
had back at the nursery. I had to clean up debris that was around the
house pad. And because I'm owner/builder, it was going quite slow.
It wasn't a normal progression of what you would call, you know,
speedy building.
Well, it carne to a head. We finally had made several agreements
during the last part of 2003. And as -- and according -- as far as -- as
long as I maintained my rate of building, the complaints would sort of
be put on -- sort of in limbo and not anything be done on them.
Well, finally in late February of 2004, I finally got -- there was
some personnel changes at code enforcement. The supervisor that I
had been working with and had these agreements with was no longer
there.
And in 2004, end of February or beginning of February, I
believe, I got a notice from Mr. Letourneau that he's taking my case to
the county -- the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County.
And I couldn't understand why because we had been, you know,
at that time, building right along. We had gotten it going again.
So I carne into the office. And the -- I was given some informa --
a packet of information stating that my case would be heard on April
22nd. Well, that was fine because that gave me about a month and a
half to get all the things taken care of that I should have gotten taken
care of.
Unfortunately, there was a mix-up of -- something crossed in the
mail or was never mailed out to me. My certified copies of letters and
announcements were for the April 22nd meeting. Well, the board went
ahead and held their meeting in March, found me guilty on all counts,
and imposed, you know, my daily fines that were supposed to be in
effect like 10 days, 30 days, 60 days, whatever -- you know, they
found like six or seven things wrong.
Well, I was never aware of this because I never got notification.
My meeting was supposed to be on April 22nd. And when I -- I had
Page 54
m··_· MU______,,___ __ ,. .-.._,
June 22, 2004
timed it so that when I went to the April 22nd meeting, all the
violations would have been abated, they would have been taken care
of.
And I had to go to County Manager's Office, I had to go to -- I
spoke with a commissioner, and they all gave me the same advice, just
reapply, send them a letter, be very forthright about it, that you want
to request another hearing. I did, they agreed to it.
And on April 22nd we had the hearing here. The -- Jeff
Letourneau, the investigator, was over there, and he put pictures up
stating, hey, the guy has done a phenomenal job. Everything is all
cleaned up except for removal of one small travel trailer, which was
done that Sunday.
The meeting was on a Thursday. The trailer was removed on a
Sunday. We just couldn't get it moved the Sunday before because it
had rained. So that -- there were no fines imposed because everything
that the Code Enforcement Board had requested to be done was done
even prior to the April 22nd meeting.
But what happened is that at the next meeting, they -- in their
finding of fact, they stated that, you know, there was no fines -- and I
have a letter to prove that -- you know, to approve that.
But what they did, they had what's called the administrative and
operational costs, okay? I would have much rather paid the fines,
because the administrative costs on my case carne to a thousand --
$1,156.26. I was just -- I was knocked to the floor, because when I
started reading it, I said, wait a minute, you know. I mean, I realize
that I did all these (sic) stuff, I got my -- all the requirements that were
set forth in my complaint taken care of even prior to the board
meeting, but I was hit with $730 worth of investigator rechecks.
Well, the point being -- and if you see this breakdown that I had
handed out to you, this is the administrative costs of my case against
the Code Enforcement Board. The people are being -- I'm being
charged $20 an hour for what's called rechecks where -- and this was
Page 55
-~. ..~- ~___~....>o__ ".--._--~--.~. -, ---
June 22, 2004
prior to the actual bringing my case before the board.
The person was doing his job, okay? We're one of the highest
taxed counties in the State of Florida. And what this looks like to me
is that we're paying Mr. -- well, in this case Mr. Letourneau's salary,
but in another case, I'm paying it also. I'm double paying it. He's
doing his job.
It's like a police officer going out, doing an investigation, finally
corning to the -- to the point of maybe arresting a person, and then
bringing that person to trial, bringing -- whether it be a civil or a --
either a civil in Circuit Court -- or in county court, or a criminal
offense in Circuit Court. The fees are so way out of line that they're
unbelievable.
The -- for instance, I went to the state's attorney's office, and I
asked their attorneys and I also asked three or four attorneys that were
sitting in the office at that time, what were the normal costs if you had
gone -- and remember, I had only gone once to my hearing, and if a
person was accused of a misdemeanor in Collier County and he only
had to make one court appearance, even if he was judged guilty, his
court costs would be approximately 130 to $170, total court costs.
That would involve any kind of investigative cost, any kind of
procedural or operational cost incurred by the state or the county.
If you happen to go to the criminal court in Collier County, to
Circuit Court, they told me that the approximate cost of a one-time
appearance would be approximately $300. But I didn't shoot
anybody, I didn't kill anybody, but I'm charged $1,156, okay?
I realize -- I don't mind paying something because I did
something wrong. You know, I violated the county code. But things
like -- if you look at your thing, the copy costs; in other words, the
things to present -- you know, like what you do every time you have a
board meeting. All right, that's an acceptable thing because that gives
the information to each and every person that's involved in the case.
And in the case of the code development board, I believe there are
Page 56
.__.__u_" ....... _.__._~
June 22, 2004
seven people.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Your time --
MR. HAEGER: All I ask -- all I ask the board to do is to go over
the items that were noted and to either drastically reduce or amend the
total for this particular case concerning the Collier County Code
Enforcement Board. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Board members, would you like to bring
this back for a regular -- as a regular agenda item?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to know what our legal
flexibility is with respect to making decisions about the Code
Enforcement Board.
MS. ARNOLD: Could I say one thing, Commissioner?
Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director, for the record.
This matter has not been taken to -- the actual imposition, the
imposing of the fines that are in question have not been acted upon at
the Code Enforcement Board. It will be acted upon on Thursday, the
24th. So it's premature for the board to take any action with any kind
of reduction of the fine that's in question right now.
MR. HAEGER: Mr. Coyle, just a point of information. The
only reason it hasn't been acted on is because the last board meeting of
the Collier Code Enforcement Board was so prolonged that they didn't
-- they ended up at like 2:00 or 2:30 in the afternoon, and one of the
members had to leave so they didn't have a quorum.
But in asking -- I did have a chance to speak in front of the board
that morning. And in asking them, I asked them exactly the same
thing, if they could reduce or abate the operational costs, and they told
me there is nothing that they can do. They can maybe abate the fines
or abate fines -- actual fines, but I had no fines.
They told me in that meeting -- it reflects it in the minutes of that
meeting -- that the only entity that can actually do anything about the
operational costs -- and that's what's covered in this letter that -- this
breakdown that you-all have -- is the Board of County
Page 57
June 22, 2004
Commissioners. That's why I'm here this morning.
I went immediately from that meeting, went right around the
corner into that door and signed up for the next meeting, which got me
right here today. So that -- they told me that the only people -- even
though they didn't -- they haven't had the opportunity to put this on
public record yet because of a lack of time and a lack of a quorum,
they will do that in their Thursday meeting, which is two days from
today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, sir. Let us hear from the county
attorney, and then Commissioner Halas.
MR. HAEGER: Thank you.
MS. BELPEDIO: Good morning. I'm Jennifer Belpedio. I'm an
assistant county attorney. I'm assigned to represent code enforcement
in these proceedings before the Code Enforcement Board.
From a legal standpoint, Michelle is correct that we do have a
proceeding scheduled for Thursday, and the matter is properly before
the Code Enforcement Board, that is because Mr. Haeger has been
served, and he will be given his notice and opportunity to be heard at
that proceeding.
And the reason why it's not proper for this board at this time to
hear the matter is because there is, in fact, no -- no fine, no operational
costs imposed, and, therefore, there's no lien to reduce.
There's also an attorney general's opinion that's out there that
says that once the fines and the operational costs are imposed, then
because the lien runs in favor of a local governing board, then it's
properly before the board because it's their lien.
So I think at this point in time, it would be best that the matter
corne before the Code Enforcement Board, that -- they may have a
policy not to impose the operational costs, but perhaps Mr. Haeger
could convince them to reduce. They should be given the opportunity
to consider a reduction, and then corne back to this board for
reduction.
Page 58
._"._n_.__' ._--,~_.'--"- '" ~_. ..""~."
June 22, 2004
What I'd like to point out is that there is authority in chapter 162.
It's under section 162.07, and it allows -- allows a government body
to impose costs, prosecuting costs, against a property owner. And
additionally, there are provisions in 162 that allow for a reduction of
fines before the Code Enforcement Board. There is some paperwork
that could be filled out at the Code Enforcement Department.
Mr. Haeger could stop by there, pick it up today, fill it out, and
have it ready for Thursday to present to the Code Enforcement Board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just need to follow up on my first
question. When you say there is authority to make revisions to the
fines imposed by the Code Enforcement Board, is that an authority of
the Board of County Commissioners? Can we actually reverse a
decision of the Code Enforcement Board and reduce its funds?
MS. BELPEDIO: If the Code Enforcement Board does impose
fines or operational costs or both in any case, it's my opinion that you
can because the lien runs in your favor.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. How long have these
violations been going on?
MS. BELPEDIO: That's something that Michelle Arnold may be
able to answer better than 1.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. You don't have to go
through a whole itinerary, just tell me --
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I'm just trying to --
MR. HAEGER: September of203 (sic).
MS. ARNOLD: It actually started in August -- or July of'03.
MR. HAEGER: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So board members, your pleasure?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we ought to do -- is just
wait at this time till they go through the proper procedures of going
through the authority of the Code Enforcement Board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's our only option.
Page 59
---~._, ---....
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Henning, you're in agreement?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Great. Well, then right now we
will wait --
MR. MUDD: That brings us to items --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We will wait till -- we will remand this
back to the Code Enforcement Board.
Thank you, sir.
MR. HAEGER: Does that mean that I have to corne back here
again, or do I have --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We'll have to find out what the
Code Enforcement Board --
MR. HAEGER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- has to say.
MR. HAEGER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the board that you have to
go through first.
MR. HAEGER: Okay. Thank you, sir.
MR. MUDD: Now, Mr. Haeger, just so you didn't miss it, the
attorney -- County Manager talking to you.
MR. HAEGER: Okay.
MR. MUDD: The attorney basically said that there's some
paperwork that you could fill out over at code enforcement in order to
do it, in order to try to alleviate, lessen those fees so that they can be
known (sic) about it.
MR. HAEGER: That's why I'm going to talk to Michelle now.
MR. MUDD: There you go. There's where -- Michelle's there.
Thank you.
Page 60
--~ """A._"~.________
June 22, 2004
That brings us to item 6C, which is a public petition request --
excuse me, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: Time certain.
MR. MUDD: We have a time certain at 11 -- at 11 a.m.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh.
Item #13A
A CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN
FINANCIAL REPORTING TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
MR. MUDD: And that brings us to 13A and 13B. 13A, this item
to be heard 11 a.m. to present the Certificate of Achievement for
Excellence in Financial Reporting to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Mr. Mitchell will be our presenter, from the Clerk of Court's
Office.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioners, good morning. For the
record, Jim Mitchell, director of financing and accounting for the
Clerk of the Circuit Court.
Before we get started, I wanted to first thank you for giving us
the opportunity to do this time certain. We do have auditors in from
Tampa who will be participating in this presentation.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court, in his role as the ex officio clerk
to the board, is responsible for the coordination of the Annual
Independent Audit, along with the production of the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report, which we commonly refer to as the CAFR.
In that capacity, we participate in an award program sponsored
by the Government Finance Officers Association. The award is
known as the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Page 61
. -.-,...- ----
June 22, 2004
Reporting and is presented to government units whose CAFRs meet a
strict criteria and are considered to achieve the highest standards in
government accounting and financial reporting.
The GFOA, along with the finance and accounting department
and the County Manager's Office, believe that governments have a
special responsibility to provide the public with a fair presentation of
their financial affairs.
Collier County's CAFRs go beyond the requirements of generally
accepted accounting principles to providing the many users of these
documents with a wide variety of information used in evaluating the
financial condition of this county.
Collier County has received this award for 16 consecutive years,
and it is with great pride that we present to you today the 17th
consecutive award for the CAFR that was prepared for the fiscal cycle
ended September 30th of 2002.
Madam Chair, before we present this award to you, I'd like to
formally recognize that it's not us in finance and accounting that is
responsible for this award, but each and every employee that works
for Collier County. Without their dedication, awards of this nature
would not be possible.
I'd like to read the plaque, if I could. It starts off, Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting presented to
Collier County, Florida, for its comprehensive annual financial report
for the fiscal year ended September 30th of 2002.
A Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting is presented by the Government Finance Officers
Association of the United States and Canada to government units and
public employment retirement systems through its comprehensive
annual financial report to achieve the highest standards in government
accounting and financing reporting.
On behalf of the clerk and also the County Manager's Office, I'd
like to present this to you.
Page 62
~.-~-, ..- ._~--
June 22, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know. This is wonderful.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for all your hard work to make
this happen.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you. And we'd like to move on to the
next item.
Item #13B
THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR
MR. MUDD: Next item is 13B. This item to be heard
immediately following 13A to present to the Board of County
Commissioners the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the
fiscal year end, September 30, 2003.
Mr. Mitchell will present.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you. This report represents significant
efforts by the Clerk's Office, the County Manager's Office, and each
of the constitutional officers.
Throughout the years, our office has faced a number of
significant challenges, including the implementation of the SAP
financial package, the implementation of GASB 34, which totally
changed the presentation of our financial statements, and the ongoing
challenges with revision 7 to Article V of the state constitution.
This year has been extremely full of challenges in preparing these
statements. As you are aware, we have traditionally been to the board
in late March to present you the financial statements; however, we did
not anticipate the complexity of the year-end closing when you have a
mid-year conversion to a new financial package.
We were challenged with managing data in two different systems
and merging that data to provide you a set of financial statements that
Page 63
~--"_.,-~ _'_<'M'~.·_·
June 22, 2004
correctly depict the financial condition of this county.
There are several tasks that are only done on an annual basis, and
it is extremely difficult to test these types of transactions. This,
coupled with the learning curve of the new system and the resource
demand on a continuing operations, has delayed our presentation until
today.
It is our expectation that going forward, the target date of late
March is a realistic one and one that we will strive for.
Before we actually walk you through the financial statements, I
want to take a moment to recognize three individuals whose
dedication allows us to provide such a quality product and to
participate in the award programs like the one we just presented to
you.
I have with me today Derrick Johnson, who is my general
accounting manager; Kelly Jones, who is our chief accountant; and
Connie Murray, who is our general operations manager.
We've had the pleasure of having KPMG as our auditor for
several fiscal cycles and would like to thank them for another job well
done. And I'd like to turn the podium over to Chip Jones, the
managing partner, who will walk you through these financial
statements.
MR. JONES: Good morning. I can't get my mind off these four
live oaks that we planted about seven or eight years ago that this
weekend we were admiring. N ow I'm wondering --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Cut them down.
MR. JONES: Yeah, that's right.
Anyway, you received your comprehensive financial -- annual
financial report, which is about 150 pages. And if you're like most
people, you just kind of set it aside. It's kind of overwhelming.
So what you have in your hands is a short presentation that I'll
highlight some of the results in this year. And if you have any
questions as I go through this, please feel free to ask me.
Page 64
----.- - .<~,~ -.. ._-~.-
June 22, 2004
On page 2 we list all the different opinions that we issue, and you
can see that there's more than just one opinion on the financial
statements. We also do separate audits on each of the constitutional
officers. And my compliments to them. They are all very excellent to
work with. They have a very good, sound accounting staff, and their
audits went very smoothly.
We do a single audit of all your federal and state grants, and this
year you received around 30 -- almost $40 million in federal and state
grants.
In your CAFR was an insert which was our required
communications to the board regarding the audit, and this is
something we've done in the past, but new accounting rules require
that we include with that copies of our engagement letter, the letter we
received from management regarding representations made during the
audit, as well as the management letter and the single audit findings.
All of which have been in this before, but we attached it separately.
We also do a couple other minor reports. All these reports have
been issued. And again, I'll review these with you.
On page 3 lists the major funds in your component unit. And our
focus on the audit is literally on major funds. That started a year agò
with GASB 34. GASB 34 said, instead of focusing on fund types,
pick the funds that account for the most dollars in the county and just
focus on those. Everything else goes into what we call other fund
information.
But these seven funds in total account for roughly 80 percent of
your assets and revenues of the county. And the nature of our opinion
is we almost are expressing an individual opinion in each of these
funds.
You have six component units, two of them are the water and
sewer district for the county, and then the Goodland Water District we
issue a separate audit on just those for bond purposes, and then you
have four authorities that are principally designed to facilitate bond
Page 65
-~_.._.---_.."-..._._.._,~_._--,,----~ ~-- .'~"u -----"
June 22, 2004
offerings and those types of things.
On page 4 is a snapshot of the county on June 30th -- excuse me
-- September 30th. And in your CAFR, this is essentially the same
thing you would find if you open to your balance sheet. And I would
encourage you, if you only get a chance to look at some of the CAFR,
I would read the management's discussion analysis, the transmittal
letter, and also go back to the statistical section, because it gives you
good information on 10-year trends regarding a lot of the types of the
county functions and their expenditures and revenues.
But you can see looking at this, we break it down to
governmental activities, which is what the commission deals with
most of the time. Under your business-type activities, which is
principally the water and sewer and solid waste. That also includes
EMS and the airport.
The cash investments, you can see, in total, are up. Actually the
governmental activities is up almost a hundred million dollars from
last year, and that's because of that gas tax bond issue that went out in
2003. And a lot of that was still unspent at September 30th.
The receivables. The bulk of the 22 million is amounts due from
other governments. In the governmental activities is very small
amounts that are due from the citizens; however, over in the
business-type activities, probably $8 million of that 17 million is your
-- just regular billings on water and sewer, and then 5 million of that is
special assessments.
You can see your largest single asset is your capital assets, $1.1
billion, and that includes everything in the county, and that is net of
depreciation, and that includes your infrastructure. Again, that was
something that was changed last year with the new GASB 34.
Previously we did not reflect roads, bridges, those types of things
on your books. N ow they are reflected. And I think the total value at
cost that was brought on was about $290 million this year.
Your liabilities in relation to the assets are not large. Your most
Page 66
--~------~.__._"<~.'"_.__.- '"""'^"'---"^"'-'~""
June 22, 2004
significant is your noncurrent, which is your debt. And you can see if
you look at the tot -- the right-hand column, that went from 215
million to 312 million. Again, that was principally the 2003 gas tax
bond issue.
Fund balances are broken down between the amounts that are
invested in capital assets net of related outstanding debt. In the case of
the gas tax bonds, net of unspent bond proceeds.
Then you have restricted amounts, and then you have
unrestricted amounts. The unrestricted in the governmental activities
at the end of the year was 161 million, up from 133 million from the
previous year, so that was a good increase.
Page 5 is your income statement for government. And, again,
this is an important statement. It's one that did not exist before last
year. And the reason I like it is because it gives one snapshot against
the whole county's activities, and it's the only place you can get that.
Previously you'd have to go through about a dozen pages in your old
financial statements to pick up this information.
But the far left column shows all your functions that the
government provides, and they're broken down, again, between the
governmental activities and the business-type activities.
And then the following column shows the different charges for
services that are generated by those functions. Then you also get
operating grants and capital grants, and you corne down to what we
call a net expense or revenue. And as expected, the business-type
activities generally generate a revenue with the exception of EMS,
where we subsidize that every year with a large transfer from the
general fund.
And the government activities generally operate at a loss. And
that is what citizens' property taxes cover. In fact, if you'll look, the
loss this year, or the cost of your net government activities was 174
million, and your property tax revenue was 174 million. So, literally,
your property taxes covered the cost of government that was not
Page 67
---- ---_.~
June 22, 2004
covered by charges for services.
In the prior year there was a shortfall of about $23 million.
Again, there was a large increase this year in your valuations.
All of Florida's been blessed with escalating property values.
And in this time with reduced earnings on our investments, people
looking for tax relief, those types of things, the increase in valuations
has been good. You also are blessed with a lot of growth, which also
brings us headaches.
But then down at the bottom, we reflect these general revenues,
which are property taxes, other taxes which could include gas taxes,
revenue sharing, that type of things, your earnings on unrestricted
investments, which you can see is down 7 million from fiscal 2002,
and that's actually lower than it was in 2001. Again, the low interest
rates have had a big impact on governments as far as earnings that
they would have off of those.
Overall, your total fund balance, or your net assets that the
county increased, 105 million this year versus 93 million. And I think
that's a very healthy increase.
Now, on page 6, I focus on just the general fund, and that's
probably the most important fund, because that's the one where most
of your governmental activities take place. That's where most of your
property tax revenues go. It's the one that has the most focus on the
budget.
And what we were presenting here was a chart showing your
general fund balance over the last five years. And you can see from
2001 to 2002, it went from 18 million to 27 million. This year it
jumped to 40 million.
And as a percentage of your expenditures, it's about 19.8 percent,
which is good. That's comparable to where you were back in 2000
and 1999. I would say most of the county governments I deal with,
and I do deal with five other counties, are in the 15 to 25 percent range
as far as what they have.
Page 68
....-....--- ~._._-.
June 22, 2004
And it's important to have a fund balance, because you've got to
be able to plan for financial emergencies. If a hurricane carne
through, you know, you want to be able to react and not wonder where
you're going to get the money from.
You've got a lot of growth going on, and you've got the ability to
handle that growth and plan for it rather than reacting to it. So it's
important to have that, and I think the county has a very healthy fund
balance.
You do have other funds, special revenue, debt service, and
capital projects. The special revenue essentially is revenues that are
received that are legally earmarked for specific purposes so they have
to be spent on what they are. A lot of it goes for transportation types
of issues.
Capital projects is way up from the prior year. Again, that relates
to the 2003 gas tax bonds.
Now on page 8 and 9, 10, and 11, I'm just going to summarize.
They're revenues for the last five years and the expenditures. But you
can see the significant increase in five years in the total revenues of
the county from 211 million in 1999 to 363 million -- 361 million in
2003. And $90 million of that increase has been related to property
taxes.
You can see other things that have gone up, the charges for
services, which, again, reflects the use of county services as well as
increasing some of those charges. It's gone from 15 to $27 million.
Intergovernmental revenue, which includes grants, has gone from
44 to 64 million. But the biggest chunk of revenues is the property
taxes, and that was up $22 million this year.
Page 9 reflects a pie chart showing how much of your overall
expenditures of governmental functions rely on different sources of
revenue. In this case, this year taxes, which includes the other taxes,
revenue sharing, those types of things, but total taxes cover 55 percent
of your operating costs. That's up from 52 percent in the prior year.
Page 69
--,-~_. -'~--"-~"-'-
June 22, 2004
And, again, that's more of a function of the increase in revenues
than a decrease in other things. And, again, we generated a surplus
this year.
Page 10 reflects the same information for expenditures.
Expenditures in 1999 were $190 million, and now they're up to $355
million. And, again, I think most of those expenditures have been
driven by the tremendous growth that takes place in this county, the
need for roads and those types of things.
Really compared to the prior year, there were no significant
changes other than a drop in debt service, and I think that was because
last year we paid off some bonds, and then a drop in capital outlay.
And again, that fluctuates. I imagine that would probably be up quite
a bit next year as we start spending some of those gas tax bonds.
Page 11 reflects a pie chart. Again, your largest cost of operating
the government, which is true in any government, is public safety.
Thirty-three percent of our expenditures are related to public safety
matters.
On page 12 we give a little chart on your outstanding general
government debt. This is not the enterprise fund debt, which is
covered by revenue bonds that are paid for by the revenues, but this is
covered by taxes, an amount set aside by the general fund.
And again, you can see last year we went from 70 million to 95
million. We had a $45 million bond issue that paid for things like our
voting machines, the new jail, SAP implementation. And then this
year we -- the bulk of the increase is the new gas tax bond issue.
Page 13 provides the same information in your water and sewer
fund debt, and you can see how that debt has been dropping as far as
the revenue bonds, but going up as far as the notes payable. And the
notes payable are almost all state revolving loan moneys which are
provided through a federal program that allows you to use these pretty
much for improvements to be compliant with required terms and what
the EP A says and growth, and those are $55 million this year. They
Page 70
" __M_.~_~_·_· ".,-
June 22, 2004
average around three percent on a fixed interest rate basis, so they're a
very low rate.
N ow the last few pages just highlight some of your enterprise
funds. These are designed to operate as a business, so they're
supposed to not really operated with a government subsidy. The first
page deals with your water and sewer -- water and sewer fund.
You can see your revenues went up from about $8 million this
year, about 13, 14 percent. Expenses went up 5 million. Your net
income stayed relatively about the same as the prior year, about
$900,000 down.
Your net assets in the unrestricted category dropped
considerably, and I'll show you that on the cash flows, but there was a
lot of money spent on capital assets this year that carne out of your
earnings that had accumulated and were not generated because you
had floated bonds to pay for certain capital improvements.
In fact, this next page is the cash flow statement, and you can see
-- what you want to do is, you want to generate money from the
operations of the water and sewer system that can serve as your debt
and allow you to expand the system. And the earnings generated this
year are $21.9 million of cash.
You also get contributions from developers that are doing new
developments. Those types of things.
Capital expenditures this year were significant, $96 million. And
the only moneys that we borrowed were the $16 million on the state
revolving loan. So again, you've been eating into your unrestricted
assets to pay for most of these capital expenditures over the last couple
years. So we had an overall decrease in cash investments of $47
million.
Page 16 shows your solid waste system. Again, that's pretty
much debt free. The revenues cover the expenses. Not much to say
there.
Page 17 is the Airport Authority. The revenues were actually up
Page 71
'-_.'_..._-~"--_.~-..-.,.,,^-- ---.--...--...,.,.,- .-----.,.. _n...._'_
June 22, 2004
a little bit this year, $200,000. We still had a loss of about 1.4 million.
About half of that loss was depreciation expense. The other half was
essentially a cash loss that was funded by an $824,000 transfer from
the general fund over to the Airport Authority.
Page 18 reflects EMS services. And, again, this is one that is
designed -- it's an enterprise fund. You charge services, but as the
case with all counties, the charges don't cover the cost of providing the
service. Some counties have actual specific ad valorem taxes that are
dedicated to cover EMS services. In your case you make transfers
from the general fund.
The transfer this year was $7.9 million, which really probably
was not enough, because you lost $2 million in your net assets. That's
a typo. It should be dropped from 4 -- dropped from 4.4 million to 2.4
million.
Just a couple two pages on the end, composition of cash and
investments. Again, you have an aggressive objective of earning as
much money as you can on your idle cash and investments.
At September 30th, those amounts are actually lower than
probably at different times of the year because you haven't started
receiving property tax revenues and other types of revenues. But even
with that, they were at $450 million, and most of it was in U.S.
Agency and U.S. Treasury.
And then the last page, we do do a state single audit and a federal
single audit each year. Again, we audit individual programs. And this
lists the six programs that we audited this year. The state ones were
the bigger ones this year. The Livingston Road with the improvements
on that. You did receive $7.4 million of funding, and we audited that
program.
Drill Aftercare was 1.4 million. SHIP, which is a program we
choose every year, is about two and a half million. The major federal
programs were COPS, 1.7 million, and the state revolving loan, about
18.3 million, and they rotate.
Page 72
.---.-..--- -."...-"'-' _..~-_...__.~ ~--
June 22, 2004
If you recall, we audited the FEMA moneys you received on the
tropical storm for Hurricane Gabriel that did some damage here. We
looked at your CDBG grant, we looked at your local law enforcement
block grant. And on the state side, we looked at things like the voting
machine money that you received, state-aided libraries, those types of
things.
But you had a copy of the management letter in our single audit
findings and the financial statements. I think the county's in a solid
financial position.
I think Jim categorized it properly. There were a lot of issues on
this year's audit, a lot of things that affected that. I hope we've moved
through those and that next year we get back into a -- more of a
routine-type audit situation.
I'd be happy to respond to any questions or comments.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Chip, some of your findings and
recommendations tend to focus on issues like reconciliation of cash
and capital assets and also the effective management of accounts
receivable. To what extent in your opinion -- I've read the staffs
response, but to what extent in your opinion are those the result of
changes in our financial accounting system?
MR. JONES: Well, I guess you could say that the financial
accounting system, I think, complicated things, and the demand on
staff led it not to get the attention that it should have.
I think they've got it pretty much under control. I don't think it
can be blamed on the fin -- I mean, there are some things when we
were going through it where we were finding issues on the
implementation that were creating those problems, but I think they've
pretty much been addressed. That's on the cash side.
The fixed asset side was a mess. And you know, Kelly
particularly, I know, spent a lot of time going through and trying to
sort this stuff out, because literally, we're trying to row forward, look
Page 73
^M'. _,-'u. .-..-.-,-.-----
June 22, 2004
at last year's numbers, look at how they carne this year, look at the
additions, make sure they go through the proper procedures, make
sure they're being recorded, make sure they're being depreciated, and
we had numerous exceptions.
And I know they've kind of gone back to the old system, I think,
as a temporary thing to kind of get things cleaned up, and then go -- I
think you want to eventually go back to the SAP system.
But that was a pretty complex module. I'm not that familiar with
individual software models, but I know the issues that we saw during
the audit as well as when we carne down and looked at the review
right when they went live. We identified fixed assets as one of the
issues where they were having some significant problems.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to finish up the
question. There's an issue with respect to staffing items on the EMS
receivables. You know, we do provide a lot of services for people
who cannot afford, or don't pay for their bills. But rather than just
writing those things off, I would hope we'd have some way of more
effectively pursuing collection, even if we have to turn them over to
collection agencies rather than just writing them off. So in order to
solve those, I would hope we wouldn't just take a -- take a position
that we'll write them off just because they're old.
MR. JONES: I think you do turn them over to collection
agencIes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. JONES: These are -- even after that procedure's been
exhausted, some of these have been around 10 years. And I mean, it's
just been building and building, and it's almost to where when you
look at the printout, you're looking at more bad information than good
information because there's so many accounts in there where they've
really exhausted, I think, collection efforts. We do look at the
Page 74
--,-,--_.. ,~.. -....---'
June 22, 2004
procedures they use for collection.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what do you think of the
procedures? Are they adequate?
MR. JONES: Yes. In my opinion -- from what I hear from my
staff, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So this is merely an accounting
issue of cleaning up some old, old account --
MR. JONES: To me this is more of an accounting issue than
pursuIng.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- where you've exhausted all the
opportunities to collect.
MR. MUDD: What you have is some contractual write-offs with
Medicare and Medicaid and those particular issues, okay, that you
have to do.
N ow one of the things that we have to do, and what I plan to do
based on the management letter, is draft a -- some recommendations,
some questions that I have from the County Manager's Organization
back to the clerk, okay, in order to get -- to resolve some of these.
Miscellaneous billings. I mean, that darn thing's been there for how
many years now, okay?
MR. JONES: Three years.
MR. MUDD: And we've got to get after it, okay? I went and I
thought about three years ago we had this one, but we don't have it
quite yet, and we're going to talk about how we're going to fix that,
because I really don't want to see that again next year.
1997, the board wrote off -- you know, we have to corne to the
board with that final write-off for contractual. It was 1997 the last
time we went to the board with write-offs, okay?
So I would tell you, from a staff perspective, we haven't been on
the spot on this one, and we should be corning to you almost on a
yearly basis, okay, to talk to you about, here are the contractual
write-offs we need to do in order to balance the books and rectify
Page 75
-..... ----
June 22, 2004
those things to make sure that they're correct.
So there are some things that we need to do between the clerk's
office and the manager's office in order to tighten those procedures,
okay, so that we get a handle on it so it isn't a seven-year lapse before
the last time we've seen the board with an EMS kind of issue. So
we've got to get those things resolved.
So I'm going to draft a letter over to the clerk's office. I'll copy
all the board members of the management issues. If there's some
questions, you'll get to see them. And at the same time, there'll be
some recommendations from my side of the house on how we can
make it better by getting together more often in order to balance
particular books.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
that we were doing the right sort of thing with respect to trying to
collect these debts. And if we are, that's the major problem. The other
is an accounting issue. Yeah, okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In regards to the fixed assets and
having a difficult time in adjusting where these went into the equation
because of the fact that you were working with the SAP system, are
we looking to see that we're going to have this problem addressed and
that next year we'll have the CAFR report submitted to us at an earlier
date?
MR. MITCHELL: The answer to your question is yes. It is our
goal to have that to you late March.
The fixed asset issue is a very complicated issue, and it all
revolves around the integration that's built into SAP. And at the same
time, the -- what we're trying to do is utilize a software that is not
streamlined for government type of fixed asset management.
Let me tell you what our plan is. Our plan in the short term is to
migrate back to the FMS system. That is a fairly simple solution that's
going to get us through the '04 cycle. It's our understanding in
Page 76
~"._-_... .- ~._--~-,--
June 22, 2004
discussions with the County Manager's Office that they have some
enhancements that they want to do with assets.
One of the things that's been talked about is bar coding assets.
We have to inventory assets on an annual basis, and if there's ways
that we can streamline that, we want to do that.
Mr. Mudd has expressed a sincere concern or a desire to be able
to track low-dollar type assets. Currently the SAP system does not
allow us to do that. What our goal is, is to sit down with the County
Manager's Office and corne up with exactly what it is we want an
inventory fixed asset system to do, and then to see if SAP is the proper
solution for that or is it something else.
In the short-term to be able to ensure that our financial statements
are accurate, that we are timely, we're going back to the FMS system
for that purpose.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I like that when you said you're
going to sit down with the county manager and we're going to go
through this.
The other thing that concerns me is, will the county manager
have a day-by-day breakdown of what our flexible -- what our income
is and where we stand as far as -- money-wise?
MR. MITCHELL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And that will be reported to
him on a daily basis or whatever --
MR. MITCHELL: What we'll do is provide him the ability, if we
doesn't already have it, to be able to go online and pull that up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
MR. MITCHELL: I mean, one of the things that we do is we
manage cash on a daily basis. We know what our position is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. But I think we were lacking
that in regards to what was available for the county manager, and
being that this is a one-billion-dollar corporation, we want to make
sure that we understand exactly where we stand as far as cash flow.
Page 77
_"'W .~..- ..-~ ^~._-,...
June 22, 2004
MR. MITCHELL: You and I have talked about that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: I want to make one correction to a statement
that Chip made, and it had to do with our investment portfolio. He
made a statement that we aggressively pursue yield. We have very
serious restrictions on what we can invest our -- the surplus county
funds in. Our policy is not to enhance. What it is is preservation of
capital. I just want to make sure --
MR. JONES: Yeah. That was a poor choice of words on my
part, aggressive. I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of governments
just use the local government surplus trust fund, and that's their only
source, and the county's more proactive on looking at U.S. Treasuries
and Agency Securities to increase the yield back to the county.
Aggressive was not a good word.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not using derivatives?
MR. JONES: No, no. That's still a bad word.
MR. MITCHELL: We don't use derivatives.
In closing, I want --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning has something to
ask.
MR. MITCHELL: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a statement. It's -- you
know, it's really disheartening that we spend literally millions of
dollars on a new system with support from this new system and it
doesn't work, to take from the old system and transfer to the new
system. And I'm not sure if the guidance to go to the new system was
prudent, but we got so much money --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Invested in it at the present time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Invested in it just to go to
another system or the old system.
MR. MITCHELL: We're not saying that. What we're saying is,
Page 78
,~.ø_'" <---- ~-_.-
June 22, 2004
once we've identified what our needs are in relation to that one
module, we need to go back and look at SAP and see if it can do what
we want it to do.
You can change systems, you can reconfigure them, you can
make them do other things than what they are primarily designed to
do. But until we know what the entire basket of desires is going to be,
we can't answer that question. SAP is a very powerful system. It does
a lot. It is fully integrated. But this year there were a couple of issues
that we had to deal with that really slowed us down, and,
unfortunately, the fixed asset inventory side of it was our primary
culprit.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So do you have the problem fixed
now?
MR. MITCHELL: Weare--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In other words, you've got the
software glitch taken care of?
MR. MITCHELL: Absolute -- well, we haven't got the software
glitch taken care of. In the short term, we're migrating back to FMS.
FMS is going to be our subsidiary ledger, and our goal is to make sure
that at the end of the year when we balance back to our general ledger ,
that we are in balance. That's the problem that exists out there today,
is that when we went through and ran our depreciation, we had to
manually run it through our general ledger, and it didn't show up in
our subsidiary balance. Our goal is to make sure that we have a
subsidiary ledger that agrees with what is captured and reported in
your financial statements.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I guess my bottom line is, are
you going to be able to eventually get in with -- to basically integrate
everything with SAP --
MR. MITCHELL: That's our expectation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- with whatever needs to be
Page 79
---~'-'"'" ""~~~-'-
June 22, 2004
addressed in the software department?
MR. MITCHELL: That is our expectation.
In closing, the one thing that I want to say is, these financial
statements is a huge snapshot of the county at one time. It doesn't give
you a lot of the minutia, the detail. If any of you individually have
certain areas that you would like for us to corne to you and give you
more detail about, you're more than welcome to do that.
In addition, as you go through some of these documents that are
presented to you today, you have questions, please feel free just to
either let myself, Derrick, Kelly, or Connie know. We'll be more than
happy to address them. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you so much. Thank you. And--
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, that brings us to item -- we're back
to public petitions now. That brings us to item 6C. It's a public
petition request for Jeff -- from Jeff Bluestein to discuss the Board of
County Commissioner's versus Brian K. Greenling, case number,
CEB-2000-026.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chair, county attorney addressing, and
I'm happy to tell you that this petition is being withdrawn. The
petitioner has worked things out with code enforcement, so you may
proceed to the next agenda item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, happily, we do that.
Item #6D
RANDY FREDRICKSON TO DISCUSS SDP AMENDMENT FOR
CENTER POINT COMMUNITY CHURCH - MOTION TO
MR. MUDD: The next agenda item, Madam Chair, is 6D. It's a
public petition request from Randy Fredrickson to discuss SDP
amendment for the Center Point Community Church.
Page 80
.~-~---,.... -.--
June 22, 2004
And, sir, when you corne to the podium, just state your name for
the record.
MR. FREDRICKSON: Good morning. And thank you for
hearing our petition. My name is Randy Fredrickson. I'm here
wearing two hats today. I have one hat that says I'm a contractor for
the church and the other hat that says I'm a board member of the
church.
So I'm going to try to bring this thing together briefly so that it
will all corne together.
We, as a church, have decided to do some improvements on the
property, which threw us into an insubstantial SDP process. In that
process, we wanted to add on 200 square feet that was actually under
roof, however, it was part of the footprint of the original building.
We also had some other peripheral improvements that we wanted
to make at the same time, including landscaping. There was a portico
that we were going to build that we decided not to. But what this did
on this insubstantial SDP is threw us into the land -- land development
code to put us under the scrutiny of the Transportation Department.
And what's incurred (sic) is that the Transportation Department
carne back to us and said that we would need to build sidewalks on
66th Street. Our church is, by the way, on the corner of 66th Street
Southwest and Golden Gate Parkway.
And it's a five-acre tract, and it's approximately 1,000 by 330,
which would throw us into the sidewalks that are quite monumental.
From what I understand, the 200 square foot threw us into the
situation where we'd be responsible for paying the county either in
lieu of or actually construct the sidewalks themselves.
The sidewalk issue would corne to probably approximately
$30,000 to do, and our 200 square foot improvement would be
probably about the same number. So it threw us into a situation where
we felt that it was undue for the county to ask us to do this, and we're
here to ask leniency concerning that mandate from the land
Page 81
-_..- -_._,---~-_.__._-_.- .----.- -
June 22, 2004
development code.
And that's really kind of a nutshell of what we'd like to do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commission Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to have this placed on a
future agenda, and my understanding from transportation
administrator, he doesn't have any problem with the request.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They are building sidewalks, a
part of the expansion of Golden Gate Parkway, anyways.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Henning to bring this back for -- to a future agenda,
and a 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: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good, sir. Thank you for corning.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we'll bring this back on the 27th of
July.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good, sir. Did you hear that?
MR. FREDRICKSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right.
MR. FREDRICKSON: Thank you very much.
Page 82
.--.-
June 22, 2004
Item #6E
DR. SAMUEL J. DURSO DISCUSSING SIDEW ALK VARIANCE
WITHIN CARSON LAKES, PHASE II, IMMOKALEE- TO BE
MR. MUDD: That brings us to the next public petition, and the
last one, I hope, is 6E. It's a public petition request by Samuel J. Durso
to discuss a sidewalk variance within Carson Lakes, Phase II,
Immokalee.
Mr. Durso, state your name for the record.
DR. DURSO: Good morning. It's Dr. Sam Durso. It's my honor
to serve as president for Habitat for Humanity of Collier County. I'll
be very brief.
As you know, we're 26 years old now. We've built 650 homes.
We did 120 this year. Our biggest challenge is both land availability
and high cost, and we certainly appreciate everything that you folks do
for us.
I'm proud to tell you that we right now have raw land for the next
1,000 homes in Collier County, so you're going to see a lot of us over
the next couple years, because none of the land is zoned. So we'll be
here quite a bit.
Just recently, last week we moved 28 families into our Carson
Lakes subdivision in Immokalee. And this week with great help from
Torn Kuck and Joe Schmitt, we're going to move 45 families into
Charlie Estates, the first 45 families there.
We have a minor problem in Carson Lakes, and I'm asking for
some relief there. Carson lakes was done in two phases. Phase I, the
sidewalks were four feet.
In Phase II, the -- there's some confusion as to whether it was
approved for four-foot sidewalks or five-foot sidewalks. But in
February of this year, I found out they were supposed to have five-foot
Page 83
_.____'<"0"'.
June 22, 2004
sidewalks, and the sidewalk's are already in, and they're four-foot
sidewalks, which were done to match Phase 1.
We would like a deviation from the standards to allow four-foot
sidewalks, and we'd like to get that on the commissioner board--
board agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion that
we have this brought back for consideration. I think it's realistic.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a couple seconds. That's
all right.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, I will tell you staff has no problem
with this particular request, okay?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
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.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 5-0.
MR. DURSO: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
Item #7 A
PETITION V A-2001-AR-1706, MARK AND SHIRLEY DOWDY
REPRESENTED BY TIMOTHY HANCOCK, OF TALON
Page 84
--..-- ....~_._..
June 22, 2004
MANAGEMENT, INC., REQUESTING A 14-FOOT AFTER-THE-
F ACT V ARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR
YARD SETBACK TO 6 FEET FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
AND A 4-FOOT AFTER- THE-FACT V ARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 25-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR PRINCIPAL
STRUCTURES TO 21 FEET, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 316
FLAMINGO A VENUE, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOT 12,
BLOCK U, CONNERS VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES UNIT 3,
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 7A, and
that's the Board of Zoning Appeals, and it reads, this item requires that
all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
It's petition V A-2001-AR-1706, Mark and Shirley Dowdy
represented by Timothy Hancock of Talon Management, Inc.,
requesting a 14-foot after-the fact variance from the required 20-foot
rear yard setback to six feet for accessory structures, and a four-foot
after-the-fact variance from the required 25-foot rear yard setback for
principal structures to 21 feet for property located at 316 Flamingo
Avenue, further described as Lot 12, Block U, Conners Vanderbilt
Beach Estates, sec -- excuse me -- Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates
Unit 3, Section 29, Township 48 south, Range 25 east.
Mr. Timothy Hancock will present.
All those people that want to speak, would you please raise your
right hand and have the court reporter swear you in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And for the commissioners, do you have
any ex parte disclosure; Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I have received some
email correspondence, and they're in my file for anyone wishing to
.
reVIew.
Page 85
._____~_._"d_".--· .. ~-~ ^ _...,__._._..,.m..."_'_."~"'·····"'''
June 22, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have in my file
correspondence, emails, and phone calls, and I also -- because there
might have been a conflict, I also requested that the Commission on
Ethics in Florida review all of my files and letters, and that carne back
that there was no conflict of interest.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I have received emails and -- and
that's all. I have just received emails. Okay.
MR. HANCOCK: Still good morning, Madam Chairman,
Commissioners. My name is Tim Hancock. I have the pleasure this
morning of representing Mark and Shirley Dowdy, the property
owners in this matter.
As you can tell from your package, this has been a long and
arduous process to arrive here this morning. Because of that history, I
will do my best to be as brief as I can, but because of the nature of the
matter, I feel compelled to place into the record all information
necessary, should the decision of this board not be one that's perceived
as fair and just, that the Dowdys then will have the appropriate
recourse.
You should have received a variance 2001 chronology prepared
by your staff, by Fred Reischl. I'm going to hit some of the high
points of the chronology on how we ended up here today, what went
into this process, and then move on from there as to the exact
conditions that we're considering and requesting relief from.
The history of Vanderbilt Beach setbacks is a little difficult. In
1991, the land development code established a 10- foot setback for
accessory structures and 25-foot rear yard setbacks for principal
structures in the RSF zoning district.
Page 86
_.m._
June 22, 2004
Then in December of 1994, the way setbacks were measured was
changed. Previously they were all measured to the property line for
all properties. In 1994, December of that year, they were measured at
that point forward to the near (sic) of the seawall bulkhead line, top of
bank, et cetera.
So in 1994, we had a significant change in how setbacks were
measured. And in Vanderbilt Beach, that had a very material effect,
because most of the lots were platted at a depth of 120 feet, but the
actual field measurement to the physical lot was somewhat less than
that.
In some cases it's more, but in most cases it's actually less, and
we have some surveys to show you, to show how that was calculated.
But -- so, in essence, folks in Vanderbilt kind of lost a few feet across
the board when that change went into effect in 1994.
In 1996, an additional setback of 10 feet for accessory structures
was required for pool decks that rise more than four feet above the
seawall or top of bank.
The reason we're hearing this variance today is that in addition to
the architect of the Dowdy home incorrectly applying the rear yard
setbacks, the county review staff was still reviewing and permitting
construction as late as 2001 by measuring setbacks from the property
line.
The Dowdy home and -- as you'll see, was permitted and built
according to the permit. The problem is the architect incorrectly
measured the home from the property line, not from the nearer of the
seawall. That's the crux of the issue that we face in what we're trying
to address here today.
It's clear from the number of potential violations that exist in
Vanderbilt Beach, that this problem is not isolated to a single
architect, a single builder, or a single county staff reviewer. But the
people continued designing, reviewing and approving plans the way
they had been doing for the past 15 years, in particular in Vanderbilt
Page 87
>,,-,_..- --
June 22, 2004
Beach, despite the change in the land development code.
While this does not excuse the mistakes that were made on any
one person's part, be it the architect, builder, or staff reviewer, it
certainly should be considered as a mitigating circumstance with
regard to the Dowdys' request for a variance.
Your staff has prepared the chronology I cited earlier in how this
particular variance carne to light. The Dowdy home received a valid
building permit on (sic) January of 2001 based on setbacks of 25 feet
for the principal structure, and 10 feet as measured from the rear
property line.
The survey was -- and I'm sorry. In March of '01, the builder
submitted a spot survey that was denied because it failed to show the
dimension of the seawall in relation to the pool and the property line.
This is a very important point in that this board initiated a spot survey
years ago for the sole purpose of not being here after a home was
constructed finding only then that the architect made a mistake or the
builder built outside of the setbacks.
The whole purpose for the spot survey was to be the check and
balance that you are able to check the setbacks to make sure they were
applied correctly, make sure the builder's application was correct, and
that they were within the approved and permitted envelope.
In this case the builder was asked to show the seawall on the
plans. The builder resubmitted a survey that showed the location of
the seawall and showed a setback of the pool from the seawall at 6.6
feet. That setback is correct in that the pool is built in that location.
The spot survey was approved, and they continued with construction.
In this particular case, as in many others, as I'll show you later,
the check and balance failed. The contractor was building the house
in accordance with the original issued building permit and proceeded
only after receiving an approved spot survey. In addition, the spot
survey was submitted confirming the setbacks.
While the plan reviewer knew enough to request that the seawall
Page 88
M.'_ ~.__. --
June 22, 2004
be shown on the plans, the spot survey was still approved with
incorrect setbacks.
At the Planning Commission, the contractor was accused by
more than one speaker of shopping for the right reviewer or somehow
influencing review staff. And if you've ever been down to the
building department, you know that that's really not how it works.
You walk in, you take a number, you get who you get. When the
contractor brought the plans back in, went to the counter to the
reviewer and submitted them, they were reviewed and approved.
Now, I know that the contractor in this case is not exactly
popular in Vanderbilt Beach, but I hope we can stick to the facts in
this matter without unnecessary rhetoric with that respect.
Subsequently in August a permit for a screen enclosure was
submitted indicating a 10- foot setback from the seawall. This
obviously was not correct.
The permit was applied for by a subcontractor and not the
general contractor. And the reason I make this point is that at the
Planning Commission, there was a perception that the contractor
submitted a spot survey that shows the setback from the seawall and
then turned around and filled out an application saying the enclosure
was 10 feet from the seawall, which he knew it wasn't. It was a
different subcontractor who filled out the application and submitted it
than the person who did the screen enclosure.
So again, there was no part -- no effort on the part of the general
contractor to deceive anyone. The general contractor who submitted
the permit for the screen enclosure was a different contractor and
filled out the application incorrectly. Again, not making an excuse,
just stating the factual matter so that the two are not confused.
Somewhere during this process -- and, of course, it was -- the -- it
was caught at that time. And also somewhere during that process, a
complaint was filed by a resident regarding the setback of the pool.
Staff investigated and discovered that the pool was, in fact, 3.6
Page 89
^---~.~
June 22, 2004
feet into the rear yard setback because, again, it had been submitted
and approved as being measured from the property line and not the
seawall.
In November I submitted a variance application to address the
setback issue for the pool. Subsequently, we were notified by county
staff of setback violations of both the house -- again, it was measured
off of the rear property line also, and it was 25 feet from that point. So
the house extended 3.6 feet into the required setback also, just as the
pool did.
In addition, the pool deck was noted at being more than four feet
in height. Now, the pool deck is built at the finished floor elevation.
And unlike a lot of homes in Vanderbilt Beach, the Dowdys did note
raise the finished floor above what was absolutely required in order to
get living space underneath or garages or anything. They build it at
the FEMA floor elevation, and the pool deck extended straight out
from that.
So we don't have a situation of someone trying to take advantage
of, you know, room under the house by elevating the pool deck. They
just logically extended the pool deck, and the result was an elevation
of six feet above the seawall.
So that's what takes a norrnal10-foot setback and increases it to
20. That's why we're dealing with, in essence, a 13.6 or 14-foot
variance here instead of the 3.6 variance, is because of the height of
the pool deck.
Well, at that point, there also was another violation, as if the
dream turns into a nightmare and the nightmare gets worse. The steps
on each side, because of the height of the pool deck, encroach too far
into the side yards. Each one less than a foot. That's easily
correctable. We're not requesting a variance on that. The stairs will be
revised and corrected once we get this matter all resolved. So the
stairs are not an issue.
There is a way to fix the height of the pool deck issue, and it's
Page 90
_._...~~
June 22, 2004
been used in Vanderbilt Beach time and time again. We don't like it
as a solution, but it is available. And that solution is to raise the
seawall cap. We have photos of homes throughout Vanderbilt Beach
that have done just that.
When they go in to repair the seawall, they raise the cap. In this
case, you could raise it two feet, backfill behind it. Now you're four
feet above that seawall cap and you're done.
So that height issue can be made to go away. In our opinion, the
cure is worse than the disease, but if that's the only means available to
us to address that issue, then that will be the course we'll have to take.
So really we're down to two issues. The first is the measurement
of the home and pool from the property line, which extends 3.6 feet
into the water from the seawall, and, again, the height of the pool
deck.
I met with county staff and identified numerous violations
throughout Vanderbilt Beach that pointed to the fact that while the
code had been amended in 1994 and 1996 relative to waterfront
setbacks, many design professionals and county staff alike continued
to design and permit construction measured from the property line, not
the seawall. Again, the Dowdys are not an isolated case.
Mr. Schmitt agreed to undertake a survey of the area while
ultimately narrowing the list of violations down to five or six from the
original list of more than 70. We were asked at that time to proceed
individually with our request for a variance since the number of
violations appeared to be -- and I'll use Mr. Schmitt's word--
manageable.
After viewing a large number of properties, I knew the list of
potential violations was far more than five or six. It has never been
my intent nor that of the Dowdys to drag anyone else necessarily into
this process, but it appeared at that point that the Dowdys were, in
form, being unfairly singled out because they just happened to get
caught, whereas ones that occurred before them, there appeared to be
Page 91
_.. ~. ..-.----'"
June 22, 2004
no enforcement action against them.
Forty county permit files were requested. And of those 40, from
the list of the original 70, less than a dozen actually contained surveys.
Of that dozen, not all of them had dimensions that allowed you to
view whether or not the setbacks were appropriately applied or
whether they were measured from the property line or from the
seawall.
This is an example of one of the surveys without the house
placed on it, and I want to point out a couple of things to you. The
dimension my pen points to on the right side of the screen indicates
that it's 120 feet. That is the platted dimension.
Next to it is the actual field measurement of 118.39 feet;
however, when this particular home was submitted for permit, all of
the setbacks added up to 120 feet, not 118.39.
There were a couple other examples similar to this which
showed, again, that the staff was measuring setbacks to the property
line. And this was in 1999. Unfortunately, because the files are
generally incomplete for building permits dating back to 1994, it was
impossible to determine the number of violations out there, and that's
why Mr. Schmitt and his staff had to force -- or had to narrow it down
to five or six that they could really put their finger on. There are a lot
more that were questionable. They just didn't have enough data to
confirm the violations existed.
So I guess my case and my point, that this was a wider spread
issue they couldn't prove. And so here we sit going through individual
variances for these five or six, since the staff can't confirm a violation
that they can't prove exists.
What I felt we needed to do then was to prove our case beyond
that point. What we did then is we went out and actually visually
inspected the properties from a boat in Vanderbilt Beach, and I can tell
you, it's not four or five. It's at least a dozen. Probably if you had all
the surveys, it's going to exceed two dozen. But the problem is more
Page 92
--- .-
June 22, 2004
widespread than five or six.
Let me go ahead and present you with some examples, and I will
be providing this at the conclusion of my remarks to your staff. I did
meet with Mr. Schmitt and discussed this with them yesterday.
The first example, at 140 Conners, is a 2003 permit issued for the
house and the pool. The pool is set back 8.5, or about eight and a half
feet, from the edge of the seawall. I obviously have no way of telling
you this, but the principal structure, if it was measured off that same
line, is going to be in violation also. And this contains 14 examples,
12 of which are clear, a couple of which are less clear.
Next example, 434 Conners. The pool deck is set back six feet
from the seawall. Permit issued in 2000. Again, principal structure, if
based off the same line, is also in violation.
246 Bayview, a 1995 permit, again, after the '94 change in
measurement. The pool's approximately seven feet off of the seawall.
Again, the house appears to be measured from the seawall also.
Again, I didn't go on anyone's property. I had no way of confirming
that.
Probably the one that stood out to me the most, 175 Bayview. A
permit issued in 1996. The pool is less than five feet off the seawall.
You can tell by the location of the principal structure in the picture
here. But it definitely is not 25 feet off the seawall, and it's across the
entire rear of the property.
In order to enforce your codes on this property owner, it would
probably require the destruction of both the pool and the home.
The point of this is not to, again, drag others unnecessarily into
this, but to really support your staff's contention that this was not an
isolated issue. This was not one property owner, one builder, one
architect, one staff reviewer.
Simply put, when the code changes were made in '94 and '96,
they did not trickle down to the reviewers in an appropriate fashion.
I'm not excusing the architect or the builder. Mistakes were made
Page 93
~--
June 22, 2004
there, but mistakes were also made on the review side. The ultimate
check and balance of a spot survey even failed to pick up these
distincti ons.
Where does that leave us? Well, I think for those reasons, when
you hear your staff presentation, it's very unusual, I think, for your
staff to recommend approval of a variance. Anyone in the
development community knows how this board feels about variances.
We know how your staff feels about variances.
Only in situations where there are extenuating circumstances
would I think your staff is even remotely close to recommending the
approval of a variance.
The additional considerations in this case, I feel, are that when
the Dowdys originally applied for this variance, we had letters of no
objection for property owners on both sides. In other words, the
adjoining neighbors have no objection to the variance. The reason is,
as you can tell from this photograph -- and the Dowdy structure is the
one in the middle that is devoid of landscaping, because to put it in
now and possibly have to rip it out would make absolutely no sense.
You can see it doesn't really stick out -- if you draw a line on an
aerial, the Dowdy pool structure is approximately one feet (sic)
seaward of its neighbors to the east and one foot landward of its
neighbors to the west.
This is a picture of the Dowdys' property down at the wall
looking to the east, and you can see, while the pool cage to the east is
slightly behind it, it is about a foot, maybe a little more than a foot.
As you go to the west -- and I intentionally took this picture right
on the line of the pool cage -- you can see Mr. Bobb at 288 Flamingo's
pool cage sticking out a foot on that side.
Now, we found out in the Planning Commission that the letter of
no objection that we had from 288 Flamingo was no longer valid
because the house had sold, and that was the first we had heard of that.
Since that time, we have been in contact with Mr. Kent Bobb at
Page 94
_.~ -'_.,--~~-
June 22, 2004
288 Flamingo, and we have provided him with -- and I'm sorry. The
residents from the Vanderbilt Beach Association stated that they had
canvassed him and that he was objecting.
Since that time, we've provided him with information, and I have
-- it's my only copy, and I would at least ask that we can make a copy
of this for me to take with me also.
I have a fax from Mr. Bobb stating that, to whom it may concern,
I reside at 288 Flamingo and have no objections to granting a variance
at 316 Flamingo, after reviewing the information that the building
department had approved his plans prior to construction. Again, his
words, not ours. So I'll enter that for the record today also.
So we sit here today with objections from neither property
owner. And I think that when you combine the fact that there was
more of a broader set of errors being made by design professionals,
contractors, and the county staff in review, we have property owners
that are not obj ecting on either side, the two most affected property
owners of this variance, and then you take and -- in addition to that,
the fact that we actually have one neighbor who extends further to the
water than the Dowdy house does, obviously this variance does not
have any longstanding effect on anyone other than those two
neighbors, and they don't -- they don't share or hold an objection to
what we're asking for.
The last item that I think your staff factored into their
recommendation, which we obviously support, would be the great
difficulty in making the corrections to the house and to the pool deck.
First, the house -- the only part of the house that protrudes into this,
this 3.6 feet, is a pool bath on the left-hand side; however, it's
integrated in the roof trusses of the house. So in order for that area to
be removed, it would actually require that you eat back into the roof
trusses of the house, reinstall roof trusses, and rebuild at least 25
percent of the roof.
When dealing with 3.6 feet for the pool, the inside wall of the
Page 95
.-..^- ----- --........-.
June 22, 2004
pool lies exactly three and a half feet from the edge of the pool deck.
To go in and take that out, because the pool sits on pilings, would
require the pilings be removed, redriven. And as you can see from --
you have far more experience with that, Mr. Mudd, than I do.
This is one side of the Dowdy home where the retaining wall is
up at the forward (sic), and you can see the very narrow area, seven
and a half feet between the house and the property. Of course, those
stairs would have to be removed to get any equipment back behind
there.
On the other side of the house, all the pool equipment, AC units,
and stairs would have to be removed. Even at that, we're told the
ability to drive pile would have to be done from a barge in the canal.
So if the destruction of the pool is required, the redriving of pile
obviously would be of tremendous impact, not just to the Dowdys, but
to their neighbors.
And when you put all this together, I believe it all culminates in
the position your staff has taken that -- and I hope that you'll agree,
that while there were errors made here -- and I'm not ducking those
errors. I'm not here to tell you that the architect's a wonderful person.
In fact, this particular architect no longer has a license to practice in
the State of Florida.
And the Dowdys' run of luck on this has not been very good.
The Dowdys, when they built this home, had no idea that their
contractor would end up in a two-year legal battle with associations in
Vanderbilt Beach. They had no idea their architect would have his
license revoked in the State of Florida.
And now they sit here, two years later, just wanting to live in a
home that they've been paying taxes on for two years, and just simply
wanting to be treated fairly.
I think that the commission has at least two options available to it
today, and one of those options, and one we really would not like to
see happen, would be to enforce the code requirements on all
Page 96
.---.- -".---..
June 22, 2004
properties retroactively, requiring all incorrectly permitted structures
in the same situation as the Dowdys, including portions of houses be
removed, thus ensuring that the Dowdys were not unfairly singled out.
I don't think that's an attractive option to anybody, but if the only
enforcement is what has been shown as a pattern of things just not
being reviewed correctly is the Dowdys' home, then they, in fact,
would be singled out and treated unfairly.
The second option is to do what is probably the least comfortable
for anybody, and that is to accept that mistakes were made in the
applications and approvals for many homes at Vanderbilt Beach, not
just mistakes on the part of your staff. The overall percent of errors
that occur in your building department is infinitesimally low. They do
a good job, but mistakes happen, and this mistake was one of history
taking over instead of code changes being trickled down
appropriately.
I think your staff is ready to show you that safeguards have been
put in place, that the line in the sand has been drawn, that these
mistakes, God willing, will not happen again to another property
owner in Vanderbilt Beach, and that the community will not have to
corne down here and spend all day listening to these kind of
testimonies in the future. And I will leave that to them to present that
to you.
But hearing variances either one by one or as a group, such as the
Dowdys' today, that you would grant those that do not unduly affect
the quality of life of their neighbors, as the Dowdys' does not, and
making reasonable adjustments where possible.
It's my sincere hope that Mark and Shirley Dowdy will receive
your consideration of the staff recommendation to approve these
variances in light of all of the history this project has, and that we
wholeheartedly support the staff recommendation.
And I thank you for your attention, and your staff has a
presentation to make. I'd be pleased to answer any questions that you
Page 97
-....-,,........-- -"_. -~._-
June 22, 2004
have at this time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We won't be asking any questions now.
We're going to continue on with staff, then we have four speakers, and
then the commissioners will --
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- have their conversation.
MR. REISCHL: Thank you, Commissioners. Fred Reischl,
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review.
As Mr. Hancock referred, Mr. Schmitt has implemented
procedures that hopefully will eliminate this from happening in the
future.
Spot surveys are no longer approved over the counter.
Somebody just doesn't corne in -- while there's a line behind one of the
planning techs., they don't look at the spot surveys with the pressure of
the people waiting behind them in line. They're taken in. Two
planning techs. that only work on spot surveys look at them. When
they have time, they can reference the codes.
And also an elevation is required for waterfront lots. And I have
a graphic to show you a little bit about that. This is a waterfront lot.
There are two sections of the code for accessory setbacks, waterfront
accessory setbacks.
If the height of the pool deck is under four feet -- and here I have
three feet labeled -- then the required setback for the accessory
structure is 10 feet; however, in the case where the pool deck is four
feet or more above the top of the seawall, which you see here, then the
required accessory setback is 20 feet, and that is the -- one of the big
mistakes that was made here is that the 20- foot setback was not
enforced.
In fact, when the encroachment was found -- as Mr. Hancock
went through the chronology, when the encroachment was finally
found, it was that it didn't meet the 10- foot setback, which was not
true because it didn't meet a 20- foot setback, but it was caught at that
Page 98
,--- -"'-~'--
June 22, 2004
time, and then I had conversations with Commissioner Halas, who was
then the president of the association.
I went out to the site for my preplanning commission site visit,
took some photos, and discovered that it was true that the pool deck
was greater than four feet above the top of the seawall, and, therefore,
it didn't just have to meet a 10- foot setback, but a 20- foot setback. So
there were mistakes made both on the builder's fault and on the staffs
fault.
Hopeful -- thankfully they were caught, and the whole thing is
sorted out and, unfortunately, in front of you now. As I said, the -- we
hope that the new procedures will not allow this to happen again. I
don't know if you want me to go through any more of the chronology
or --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. I don't believe so.
MR. REISCHL: -- answer questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think we've kind of heard that.
MR. REISCHL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. And right now then, staffs
presentation is finished, you think?
MR. REISCHL: Unless there's any further questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. We'll ask questions later on. Thank
you.
And so now we have the speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Madam Chairman. We have four speakers,
the first one being BJ. Savard-Boyer. She will be follow by Dr.
Richard Bing.
MS. SA V ARD-BOYER: Good morning, Madam Chairman and
Commissioners. My name is BJ. Savard-Boyer, president of the
Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association, and I also am here
today -- I'm not happy about all of this.
And as you can see, Mr. Hancock brought up some present-day
violations of the code. What I have here -- I'd like to pass out some
Page 99
-- -~--
June 22, 2004
paperwork to you.
What I have here is a past violation of the code and what these
people had to go through to correct it to enjoy their home. The first
thing that you're getting is a -- the CCPC. They met in August of
1996. The petitioner was the Schultz', Gary and Terri Schultz. Their
home is 164 Heron.
I'm just going to quickly turn to the back page. You can look
through their questions and answers and everything. But the back
page, staff recommendations. Staff recommends that the Collier
County Planning Commission forward petition V96-20 to the Board of
Zoning Appeals with a recommendation for denial due to a lack of a
land-related hardship. So the CCPC denied it in -- August 30th, 1996,
for their home.
What they were asking for -- at the top you will see they were
requesting a 3.3-foot after-the-fact variance from the required 25-foot
rear yard setback, to 21.7 feet for property located at 164 Heron
A venue. This is a lot less than 14 feet.
Next is a resolution. I'm a little confused with the procedure of
these things. After the CCPC I think it has -- to a zoning board
appeals; is that right? Anyhow.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know what, we can't read it while
you're talking anyways.
MS. SAVARD-BOYER: No, I don't want you to read it.
Anyhow, what I want you to know is that the Schultz went through all
of the procedures. They went through the CCPC, the Zoning Board
appeal. The Zoning Board appeal referred that they would like this to
be approved. The Zoning Board appeal was, please approve it.
After that it carne before the Board of County Commissioners,
and I have this -- you want to give those out?
MR. MUDD: Sure.
MS. SA V ARD-BOYER: The Board of County Commissioners
met on October 8th, and at that time, Chairman Norris conducted the
Page 100
-......--....--.
June 22, 2004
meeting, and the commissioners were Commissioner Hancock,
Commissioner Mac'Kai, and -- Norris, Hancock, Mac'Kai, and I'm not
sure of the -- Constantine.
And if you go through this -- the building envelope that was
surveyed for the property was staked by McKee and Associates based
on architectural plans that had an incorrect dimension on the lot that --
resulting in the 3.3-foot encroachment.
The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed the petition
on September 19th, and they determined that special conditions exist
due to the fact the property abuts a 100- foot wide canal, and that the
three foot -- three foot, three inch variance will not negatively impact
the neighboring properties.
Commissioner Hancock stated, someone is going to have to
explain to me how can you stake a lot using survey equipment and not
realize that there's a problem. It goes on down to say, he says, I'm
getting a little tired of letting shoddy work off the hook. You know,
this is another situation where we're faced with telling a property
owner that they have to go through about six months of a bunch of
garbage before -- because someone didn't stake the lot properly. How
many times have we seen this in the last two years?
It goes on -- and I'm not going to go through this. It goes on
through the whole back and forth of the questions that you as
commissioners would ask.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. SA V ARD-BOYER: I'm not going to be allowed to finish?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, we have five minutes.
MS. SA V ARD-BOYER: All right. I would -- I'd like two
minutes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, then Mr. Bing, will you give up two
minutes of your time while she takes it? No, okay.
MS. SA V ARD-BOYER: Okay. All I want to say is, the final
outcome was that there is a letter here from Commissioner Hancock
Page 101
- -_._"--~' --
June 22, 2004
stating that he does not believe that the variance should be given to the
Schultzes. And I have a copy of this letter directly from Mr. Hancock
saying, I suggest your future efforts may be better placed in taking the
necessary steps to satisfy the needs of the future homeowner so that
they may find some level of comfort and correct the problem.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mrs. Boyer. We do have to
stop and move on. We're running --
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mark Dowdy. He will be
followed by Doug Fee.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aren't you next?
MS. FILSON: Well, he wanted to be last. I'm sorry.
MR. DOWDY: My name is Mark Dowdy. I do live at 316
Flamingo. We bought the property -- and I'll try not to be redundant.
Mr. Hancock has gone over the majority of this.
We bought the property in 1995. We hired an architect in the
year 2000. We proceeded with applications for permitting, and
submitted our blueprints and site plan, all of which was approved,
which has been entered into evidence here.
We proceeded with the building. And during the building phase
of this project, we had no less than 13 county inspections. Some of
those 13 individuals were redundant. They had corne out there
multiple times. Nobody had made any recommendations that this
height of the pool was too high or the setback was not enough. This
was through the entire process.
The first time I had learned that we may be in building code
violation was from Mr. Halas. He carne to our house, welcome to the
neighborhood. Hi, I'm Frank Halas.
So we talked a little bit. He looked over the house. He left.
About a week later my wife called Mr. Halas looking for a
recommendation of lawn care. Mr. Halas at that time said, you're in
code violation and you've got problems with your house, and some of
that may have to corne down. Well, by the time I got home, my wife
Page 102
-~~
June 22, 2004
was just about in tears.
This was a home we built for retirement for our family to enjoy,
and we never heard a word about any of these problems till the paint
was dry, till we had moved our personal belongings in. That was more
than we could take.
Last couple of years while the studies have gone on, we've paid
our taxes, 10,000 last year, 11,000 this year. Who knows what it's
going to be in 2004. There's no retribution for that either.
There's other code violations in the area, and that's just in the
lagoon that we were able to see. This has got to be more prevalent in
other areas of the county as well.
There's a lot of canals here. There's a lot of investigations that
could go on, and I don't think that we should be singled out over this.
One question I'd have to ask, is what does the board -- what does
the county gain by us taking our house down or taking part of it
down?
My neighbors don't object to it, the canal-- people just drive by.
There's no gain to the county to disassemble this thing.
We talked about, well, who loses in this situation? Well, my
wife and I lose. Jim Allen has made the statement that he's going to
pay us a $15,000 fee that he has to pay in order to introduce me to his
insurance company. That's his deductible. So he's going to wash his
hands of this and walk away, and I'm going to be back looking for
recommendations on how to fix this problem.
I don't think it's fair. And I would respectfully request the board
consider my petition. That's all I've got. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Doug Fee. He will be
followed by your final speaker, Mr. Richard Bing.
MR. FEE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Doug Fee. I'm here representing North Bay Civic, which is
an organization that has worked very hand in hand with the Vanderbilt
Beach Association. And any time there's a variance before you, it's a
Page 103
-- >.. .._~<--,~
June 22, 2004
tough call, tough decision.
And associations stand bravely before you understanding the
facts and trying to protect their neighborhoods. Two wrongs do not
make a right. And to point down the street at history where somebody
did get by with a -- you know, an encroachment or a mistake, we're
here today with the facts in front of us.
And I'm here to support the Vanderbilt Beach Association. We're
talking 15 feet, multiple setback violations, and I don't believe that, as
tough as this is, your LDC, which is 2.7.5.1 -- there are five reasons
that you can grant this. And my opinion is, I don't see any of them
being met.
Is this in the public interest? Most certainly not. The
neighborhood will be harmed by this action.
Would this grant a special privilege to the homeowner? I
believe, yes, it would, and the mistakes that the professionals did --
and I believe that may be where he can get recourse, the architect, and
the -- and the contractor. Mr. Hancock has stood up and said, they are
at fault. So I believe that the landowner can seek some recourse.
And the bottom line is, seeking a variance and granting a
variance sets to harm the whole code. I mean, everybody has to abide
by the laws, and any time you corne -- you know, people corne before
you to seek, you know, a variance or something, it's undermining the
law.
And I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Dr. Richard Bing.
MR. BING: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman and Board of
Commissioners. I'm Richard Bing, 10951 Gulfshore Drive, the
president of Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association, as well as
chairman of Vanderbilt Beach Zoning Committee, which is a coalition
between B.J.'s group and our group.
As you know, on 5/20/04, this petition was sent to you by the
CCPC with a unanimous recommendation for denial with all nine
Page 104
--...-
June 22, 2004
members present, despite the staff recommendation in favor of
approval which, as it turns out, was obviously flawed and admittedly
so. This is not anything personal with our association with Mr.
Dowdys and his wife whatsoever.
Let's look first at the LDC as it applies to variances --
Jim, could you help?
MR. MUDD: Sure.
MR. BING: -- and what you're restrained by as far as 2.7.5.1.
And it says, you may grant a variance only if not contrary to the
public interest. Obviously when some body's flaunting the LDC, it's
not in the public interest.
Special conditions peculiar to the property which run with the
land. There are no conditions here that run with the land.
The owner is being denied a level of utilization others enjoy.
Well, let's ask the reverse. Are others not being able to enjoy the use
he is because they did follow the code? So obviously that's not a valid
argument.
And no adverse effect on the community at large. Any time the
LDC is flaunted, especially to this magnitude, and multiple times, it is
not in the community's best interest.
Staff, in recent times -- and I won't take time in the short period
that I have -- May 13, 2003, January 13, 2004, and September 25,
2001, made it clear that hardships only run with the land, not the
expense, et cetera, to the owner, and we feel this owner has lots of
recourse as far as that is concerned.
Despite the fact that the building permit was issued, it does not
absolve the responsibility of the architect or engineer or contractor to
follow the land development code. The red stamp that goes on there
that is signed requires people to follow the land development code,
regardless if staff made an error in issuing the building permit or not,
and that's also regardless of whether others have done it or not in the
past.
Page 105
~^' " -'.-.-
June 22, 2004
I mean, it's a totally illogical argument to say, because other
people escaped through a loophole or whatever, whether it was on the
county's part or nobody objected, that then the next guy should get
through it, because that's a never-ending downward spiral.
It'd be like Frank and I driving down Airport-Pulling this
morning, and he's ahead of me and I get pulled over for speeding and
he doesn't. He gets away with it and I argue with the officer, hey, you
know, this guy got away with it. Sorry, I caught you. And that's
where you are in this situation.
In the chronology that you had before you, there was clearly
shopping for a tech. that went on on 3/28/01 where the first one went
in -- or first person went in to a tech. that denied the application, and
later the same day it was approved by a different tech., and
somebody's hand-drawn lines put in where CAD drawings are
normally acceptable and handwritten dimensions.
This denial should have served as a red flag to all the parties
involved. And I don't think the Dowdys were informed by the people
they had hired to deal with this, their architect, their engineer, or
contractor, and that would have been in the easy time to fix this
problem.
On 9/14, the final spot survey was denied, was another chance.
The petition -- the petitioner applied for a four-foot variance; however,
upon on-site visit by the county, other violations were found.
And then as I mentioned, the petitioner brought in photographs of
other violations as a justification for granting a variance for this
particular situation.
During the course of the CCPC hearing, which as I've already
said, went unanimously against the recommendation, Mr. Schmitt
said, under sworn testimony, he would have to admit that this was a
case of build now and ask for forgiveness later. Flagrant violation.
This brings up an interesting relevant observation, which was alluded
to.
Page 106
~-- --_.~.. -~._~ .._~ .....----
June 22, 2004
Can I have 30 seconds, please?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thirty seconds.
MR. BING: The same architect was involved with the Manatee
and the Bellagio, as well as this. Well-known person who should be
very familiar with the land development code, and we request that you
deny this variance. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Bing.
Is that the last of the speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Then I will close the public hearing and
ask for questions from our commissioners.
Commissioner Henning, you're first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that was from before, but
I just got to say --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- since it was brought to our
attention, there are some violations of our code in this area, that we
must ask our staff to enforce that. I mean, we're all duly elected to
enforce the laws of the State of Florida. So I think this particular item
has brought out a lot of problems in that area.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Did you want to say something,
Mr. Reischl?
MR. REISCHL: Yes. I just want to address a couple of
clarifications in some of the testimony.
First, on our analysis in using prior variances, each variance that
we analyze is on its own merits, and a lot of times that's used against
us. People say, well, this one was approved down the street, and
you're still recommending denial. We look at each one on its own
merits.
Also, it was brought up that several variances in the past were
denied because they didn't have land-related hardship, and that's true.
Last year criteria number three in the variance section was amended to
Page 107
._^-<.-' -".-
June 22, 2004
include the language, create practical difficulties.
In fact, I think it was two years ago whenever I spoke with
Commissioner Halas as the president of the association, I told him that
we were leaning towards recommending denial of this very same
petition at the time because there was no land-related hardship. In the
intervening time, there was a change in the code, and that allowed us
to recommend approval of it.
Also, Mr. Schmitt said he has some -- a chronology of the study
that he did in the couple of years since this variance carne forward,
and when the -- when we're here today, and he wanted to know if you
were interested in seeing some of that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not interested in another
chronology.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Okay.
MR. REISCHL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The county's approval on a site
plan is in no way meant to verify or not to verify survey information;
is that correct?
MR. REISCHL: Could you repeat that, please?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The county's approval of a site plan
is in no way meant to verify or not verify survey information along
with elevation requirements; is that true?
MR. REISCHL: I believe so, because we are -- the surveyor is
sealing the plans, and thus stating that it's his professional opinion that
these numbers are correct. The county accepts those numbers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how often do the builders go
through a refresher course or the architects go through a refresher
course in regards to being updated with the land -- the latest land
development codes?
MR. REISCHL: I'm unfamiliar with that. Do you know?
Page 108
-- --,-,---.-,,_.,----" ..---,,,---.,,,.- --
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how do they -- how do they
know what's been changed?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, again, Joe Schmitt, Community
Development/Environmental Services Division administrator.
Commissioner, to answer your question, they're notified about
the change, just like everyone else through public meetings, public
hearings. Any time the land development code changes, there are two
public meetings before -- public hearings before the Collier County
Planning Commission and two public hearings before the Board of
County Commission.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where I'm going with this, it's the
responsibility of the builder, the architect, to make sure that they
comply with the laws of the land development code; is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, that is correct, but it's also --
that's why we have a review process. When they corne in and go
through the review process either at building permit, building review,
or the review process conducted at -- validate the setback criteria.
That's why we have a review process as well, just to make sure that
they comply. In this case it was a breakdown in the system.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other point is, if one of the
employees of the county makes a mistake, is it the county's problem,
or is the law have -- is the law still upheld even though a person makes
a mistake?
MR. SCHMITT: I would have to defer to the county attorney for
a legal opinion. I believe the county is indemnified from culpability in
that regard. But I need to turn to the county attorney.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney. If it's a mistake of law in the issuance of a building
permit, there's no vesting against that and the law has to be upheld.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So they have to follow -- the rule
of the law prevails, whether a person makes a mistake --
MS. STUDENT: If it's a mistake of law, that's correct.
Page 109
-~- .__...~...,-_._,.._~- ,.^--..,,~..."'" ---
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In the county giving a building
permit; is that correct?
MR. STUDENT: That's correct, if it's a mistake of law.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'd also like to put on record
that, yes, I did talk to Mrs. Dowdy. And the time that I talked to Mrs.
Dowdy in regards to the situation, that was after the sign was put up
on the lawn that they needed a four-foot variance. And when I went
back there with my boat, then I realized that they had a serious
problem there because there was that six-foot wall there, whatever it
measures, but --
MR. DOWDY: Can I respond to that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, the public hearing is closed. I'm so
sorry .
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we need to open the public hearing
again, Mr. Halas, or -- Commissioner Halas wants to talk with him.
MR. WEIGEL: There's no -- you are the Chair, but there's no
requirement to re-open the public hearing. With the closed public
hearing, the commissioner, operating through the Chair, can ask
questions of staff or any individual.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So you can ask questions of
individuals?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you want to ask a question?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure. I mean --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Because I don't want this to be a
bantering back and forth.
MR. DOWDY: Well, I don't--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're not going to be --
MR. DOWDY: I'm not trying to turn it into that either, Madam
Page 110
-.--
June 22, 2004
Chairman.
But Mr. Halas, we had returned to Detroit. I didn't know that that
sign was out in front of our house when you had spoke with my wife.
We had been home for about a week.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's how I found out about it, sir.
I mean --
MR. DOWDY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- because there was a four-foot
variance that was out there, 2001, or whatever, that's when I called --
MR. DOWDY: Well, the point I was trying to make, we found
out about it from you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. DOWDY: That was the first time, after, as I said before, the
paint had dried. That's when we found out we had a code violation.
N ever before that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm surprised that they wouldn't
have told you that they had to go before (sic) for a variance. Didn't
they tell you that your house had -- was going to be for a variance?
MR. DOWDY: The only thing that I was told about was a pool
cage variance, and I was told that that was going to be taken care of by
staff. Now, did I get a notification that there was a sign on my lawn,
no, I didn't.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Even -- well, how did the variance
get started? This is interesting.
MR. DOWDY: Well, the variance -- I was under -- my
impression, that the variance was, in fact, for a pool cage. That was
during a discussion with the builder, and he handled it from there.
MR. REISCHL: If I could clarify.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
MR. REISCHL: The original request for a variance was for a
pool cage. That's how -- in this chronology of events, the tech. who
caught this caught it as the pool cage encroaching.
Page III
~-_...- '".~_. .._.-,"~ ---
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: By four -- that they needed a
four- foot variance; is that correct?
MR. REISCHL: That's what she assumed when she caught it. It
was actually -- should have been 20-foot rear yard. She was
measuring it as 10 and saw that it didn't meet the 10 and, therefore,
referred it to the planning department as a variance petition, which is
why the building director gave the Dowdys the temporary CO because
the house, he assumed, did not have a variance on it. It was just the
pool cage. So the pool cage was the only thing in question initially.
It was the site visit. You -- I talked to you, and I went out and
did the site visit and saw that the pool cage was, indeed, over four feet,
and, therefore --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Six foot high.
MR. REISCHL: Yes. And, therefore, it needed the 20- foot
setback instead of the 10. That's when we took it off the agenda for -- I
believe it was March or April, because we would have to readvertise
for all these other problems. Mr. Hancock carne in and talked with Mr.
Schmitt and myself, and that's where we are today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Amazing.
MR. REISCHL: Right. The sign is posted -- I don't think it's 30
-- 15 days prior to the hearing.
MR. SCHMITT: Fifteen days prior to the hearing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so who is holding the bag
here? Did the bank payoff the mortgage on this?
MR. DOWDY: I don't think that's relevant. I don't --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it is.
MR. DOWDY: I don't have a loan on the building.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Pardon?
MR. DOWDY: I don't have a loan on the building.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, somebody was saying that
the bank paid off on this.
MR. DOWDY: I had a construction loan up till the -- I had a
Page 112
"""---------'" ,~,~ --
June 22, 2004
construction loan up until the final closing of that loan, which meant
that the CO -- this temporary CO was sufficient for the bank to pay it
off. They paid off --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Amazing.
MR. DOWDY: -- after they made sure that all the mechanics'
liens were gone, they made sure that all the paperwork was in place,
and that temporary CO was sufficient for the bank, and I paid them
off.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Amazing.
MR. DOWDY: There's nothing owing on the house.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Unbelievable.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What are the legal reasons that we
can approve a variance under this circumstance?
MR. WEIGEL: Ms. Student will recite them to you from the
code. There are four or five, some have been alluded to earlier
relating to hardship, relating to site-related issues, relating to public
benefit, the action, either one way or the other, things of that nature,
and she can read it to you specifically.
MS. STUDENT: There are eight criteria.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute, wait a minute, hold
on a minute. I know what all those are.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What I'm trying to find out is,
which one of those provides the legal foundation for approving this
petition?
MR. WEIGEL: Go ahead, Marjorie.
MS. STUDENT: It could be anyone of them. It's based upon the
weight that you adduce to any of the criteria based upon the staff
report, staff testimony, and the testimony that's presented here today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, maybe the staff can tell me
which ones they used for the purpose of recommending approval.
Page 113
'._'_0" -_._.<~..- ..--
June 22, 2004
MR. REISCHL: Well, as I said before, the primary one that I
used in, in effect, changing my recommendation was, number three,
where it says, will it create practical difficulties. Because this was
partially county staff responsibility, this should have been caught at
the spot survey stage, staff should have found it then when it was -- I
don't even want to say easy, but changing the foundation would
certainly have been a lot easier than changing a house that was
finished.
Several times you've seen variances corne before you where
they're at tie beam stage, and that creates problems. This was a totally
finished house. The only thing that wasn't COld was the pool cage.
So we took that as the principal one that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You said there was -- in the interim
there was a change in the regulation which permitted you to change
your recommendation?
MR. REISCHL: Right. The addition of the language said
practical difficulty.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the addition of that occurred at
what point in time?
MR. REISCHL: 2003.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it occurred after the building
had been built?
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that -- is that an appropriate
application of the change?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. The variance is before you today with the
law that's in place today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it is retroactive then?
MR. WEIGEL: No. As you know, code enforcement may find
violations that have been in place for a long time, but the standard that
you apply in regard to a variance is a current standard based upon a
current petition at this point in time.
Page 114
..._,-...,~-~_.. ~~
June 22, 2004
So it is a -- it is a part of the standards that you have to apply.
Anyone of the several could serve as, call it a critical point, a point of
making a finding to approve. You are not constrained to make that
finding. That is, your decision and discussion is whether you achieve
any acceptance of any of those potential findings corning into play
here, being applicable here, and you may not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't know which way this
is going to go, Mr. Dowdy, but I'll give you a personal opinion.
You know, when we talk about the government making mistakes,
you know, I figure I'm the government. When we make mistakes, we
should have the honor to stand up and admit it and treat people the
right way.
Now, I understand that the law doesn't -- doesn't really read that
way, but I think it's the honorable thing to do.
But I see nothing so far in this hearing that indicates the law is
going to be going in your favor.
But I also think that the only honorable thing to do under
circumstances like this is to deal with all violations, not just single out
one person, and deal with it. And we are aware of violations. If we're
going to cause one person to tear their house down, we should require
that all those people tear their houses down, and that's merely a
personal -- personal impression.
I've always felt that when I give my word to do something, I
should keep it to the extent that I can. It's an unfortunate situation,
and I don't know of any easy way out of it. Quite frankly, I don't see
where a strict reading of the law permits you to get approval for this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, did you have
something to add?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I've got a feeling I'm going
to be going contrary to the direction the commission's going, the way
the Planning Commission went.
But this variance procedure is exactly the reason why we're here,
Page 115
-..-- ._-~~,_.-, ~._".
June 22, 2004
is to allow for us to be able to deal with situations like this where
mitigating circumstances prevail.
In this case we have the neighbors who have no serious
complaints about what's taking place. Immediate neighbors can live
with it. We have a builder and the county that seem to both be at
fault, and now we're going to -- we're talking about laying the
responsibility and the penalties on top of the homeowner who's sitting
by trying to figure his way out of it.
I'm a little bit lost with the direction that was taken by the
Planning Commission on this and the way we seem to be heading on
this. I just wanted to share that with you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
I'd like to ask a question also of staff. What have we done to
assure that this does not happen any longer? It seems to be violation
upon violation. The petitioner has pointed out many, and I want to
know what's being done to prevent it.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, just to highlight. When this
first carne to my attention, there was seventy -- approximately 78, 79
properties that were identified.
Commissioner Halas was briefed on this several times as we
went through the investigation. That has been narrowed down to 10.
Of the 10, five have now been released. Two of the five remaining
have been closed out, so you'll see three more corning before you -- in
addition to this one, three more for a variance request.
All the other properties have been investigated. And based on
the evolution of the code -- and I can go through a briefing if you want
to hear it -- but in a nutshell, this code has evolved from basically
1972 on through -- up and to 1996 and then beyond even, the
evolution of the code on where you measure setbacks from, what the
setbacks are, and the application in the Vanderbilt Beach area.
But the bottom line is, there will be three variances -- three
additional variances corning before you, and each one is, of course,
Page 116
_.__m_~ --
June 22, 2004
weighed on their own merits.
In regards to this case, as far as the mistakes that were made, well
over 18 months ago I implemented a procedure that, no more, are
setbacks reviewed at the counter. At one time it was an action where
you carne in front -- at the counter to a planning tech. and simply
circled and verified the setbacks.
And I'll just basically show this one. Fred, if you could put that
on there. Now, I have two people that work in a separate office away
from the counter. All setbacks are reviewed by two planning
technicians to ensure that where we are in the county, the proper rules
are applied.
Unfortunately, the ones you see are the mistakes. And we can
talk about mistakes you had seen in regards to some made out in
Golden Gate on setbacks with lots out there. But those are -- those are
rare.
We do probably in the neighborhood of 7,000 permits a year.
Approximately 10,000 spot surveys are reviewed a year. You see one
or two or three mistakes. And I know we hate to go through those,
but, in fact, what happens -- as shown on the visualizer, the circles are
drawn around the setbacks, the tech. verified at that time that these
setbacks were correct, and at that time the builder was given a green
light to proceed.
So that's -- that procedure now does not happen at the front
counter. It happens -- frankly, now it takes -- it's a longer process
where they actually drop the plans off to be reviewed, and then they
corne back to ensure that the setbacks meet the criteria as defined for
that zoning district.
Hopefully that answered your question.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. The problem here is, we're
talking a 16- foot setback, or 14- foot setback.
Page 11 7
~----'-~-" ---,---"" ----
June 22, 2004
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're talking about encroachment
by the steps on each side of the pool cage. What we're talking about is
where we put a huge home on a small lot. And to start with, they
measured out in the middle of the water, or three foot from the water,
instead of being where it's stated in the land development code that
was present at that time, the seawall; is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the -- that's the responsibility
of the architect and the builder. And I think that that's where the
source of the problem is, and I make a motion for denial.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second the motion.
We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Halas, and a
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have three opposed? Okay. We have
Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Henning, and Commissioner
Coyle opposed to the motion. Commissioner Fiala -- so that motion
dies.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pardon me?
MR. WEIGEL: For clarity, could you restate the votes, identify
the votes of the commissioners, please.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
Page 118
._-----~
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I voted for denial.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, you voted for denial also. I'm sorry.
Okay, fine. So do we need a three --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just to --
MR. WEIGEL: The motion--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Simple majority?
MR. MUDD: You have one that's a -- you have one that's on a
microphone -- just for clarity purposes. There was a motion on the
floor to deny the variance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
MR. MUDD: Okay. The motion was -- the motion was brought
forward by Commissioner Halas, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
There was no more discussion.
Commissioner Coletta, because you're on a microphone, or on a
speaker, and you're at a distant place because of a family emergency,
how did you vote on that particular item?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I voted in the negative.
MR. MUDD: So you did not want to deny; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: Okay. So you basically said no?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: All right. And then we're just dealing with the
four people that are on the dais right now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And we have Commissioner
Halas to deny the variance, Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Coyle. Commissioner Henning, you voted with Commissioner
Coletta; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So that's then a 3-2 in favor of.
MR. WEIGEL: You have a 3-2 vote in favor of the vote motion,
which is a motion to deny. It takes a mere three vote majority to
approve a variance. The matter has been decided.
Page 119
_^n__.._',"_..,'.·___"_" ~-
June 22, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have a time certain for one
o'clock, but we haven't taken lunch either. So could I make a
recommendation that we -- that we corne back at 1 :30 to start back up
again, because then we've got a two o'clock right on top of that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Can we all do that? Let's see, that
would give us 37 minutes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about to put the baby (sic)
and do a 45 minute lunch?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You got it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good. Forty-five minutes it is, sir.
Thank you. We'll be back in 45 minutes.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You have a hot mic., Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Meeting is back in order. Please take your
seats.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2004-41 THE RECODIFICATION AND REVISION
OF THE COUNTY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TO
BECOME EFFECTIVE ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 - ADOPTED
W/CONTINUATION OF SECTION 5.06.06C-8A "POLITICAL
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have -- the next item is 8(A).
This item was to be heard at 1 :00 p.m., but because of the length of
7(A), we went into that lunch hour. And it's consideration of an
ordinance adopting a recodification and revision of the county's Land
Development Code to become effective on September 27th, 2004.
Commissioner, as you remember -- Commissioners, as you
Page 120
_.._......_........_n...._. __ .~,~._,_.-n.._.~..·· "'"'-- -_.-
June 22, 2004
remember, this item was presented to you by the contractor before it
went to the planning commission, kind of to give you an introductory
look at how the chapters were laid out. And it was a pretty -- and it
was a -- it was a pretty thick book, okay, that we gave you to take a
look at.
And hopefully Mr. White will present from the County
Attorney's office. However, I would ask Mr. White to try to keep his
comments to changes, if any, that the planning commission made, and
then go to your questions, so that we don't go through another hour,
hour and a half presentation on something that you might not need, if
that would be okay with you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh, that's fine.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Patrick White will present this particular item.
MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White and
proj ect manager for the UDC revisions and recodification.
A housekeeping matter, Commissioners. I've reviewed the
affidavit of publication for this item. Although it was continued from
the last meeting, the period of time was such that we had to
readvertise, and we did so. And I have found that the ad is legally
sufficient. I'm turning over the affidavit of publication to our minutes
keeper for recordkeeping purposes.
At this time there is, to my knowledge, really only two things we
need to bring to your attention. One of them has to do with an
amendment to the ordinance itself that was prompted based upon a
discussion at the CCPC. It started at their workshop on June 11 and
was, I guess, affirmed on their meeting of 6/17 where they found all of
the provisions of the UDC as proposed consistent with the compo plan
and recommended your approval.
The ordinance that you've been provided has within it in Section
5 a provision that we're calling, for lack of a better, I guess phrase, the
unintended consequences process. What it does is attempt to, in a very
clean way with quick turnaround times, resolve unintended
Page 121
--" ._,--""'- - ....- .,.._--,,,,,
June 22, 2004
consequences. I think that was something that this board had
expressed at our last meeting and certainly something that the CCPC
has picked up on. They're satisfied with this process as it's written.
The issue I think that's left for your consideration is more of a
policy one with respect to the process. And I would suggest to you
that that issue is your consideration of whether you want to let the
final determination of the conflict status lie with the CCPC as this
ordinance proposes, or you would like to take on that responsibility as
well, as a final back stop.
I believe that the opinion of the CCPC was that they were hoping
to spare you from those considerations as they may corne forward.
The counterweight, countervailing argument of course is that it's your
LDC, your code, and you may choose to be the final decision-makers
of any unintended consequences from the adoption of the UDC.
So to that extent, that's the only policy question I think that's
before you for consideration, and we'll look at that when we get to that
point.
The other item that I have to bring to your attention with respect
to the ordinance is that it also now includes the political sign provision
as an actual substantive amendment to the previously existing LDC.
This is an actual change that was intended and I believe desired by this
board, and what it does is effectively remove a $500 bond requirement
for folks who corne in for sign permits for political signs.
Last, for your information, we've given you a change in revision
list that is up to date. What we've had to do, rather than give you a
whole new series of volumes, as the County Manager's indicated,
we've gone ahead and pointed you to all the specific changes we've
made. There's three dozen of them. I don't consider any of them to be
effectively substantive. They're really nothing more than I think a
cataloging of the types of errors that we told you we knew we were
going to find and that I suspect we will continue to find. As we told
you before, as far as scriveners errors go, this ordinance gives us the
Page 122
-..-" " --,. -."-
June 22, 2004
authority to correct those prior to publication.
My expectation is that as we move forward, assuming this board
goes ahead and adopts this ordinance and code today, is that we may
be back before you on July 27th to make what I would call some
amendments that are in the nature of what I'm calling with the staff
super scriveners errors. They are not effectively substantive changes,
they are, though, changes required beyond the scope of just typos,
renumbering, lettering and formatting. And so we want to make sure
that this board would have acted upon those changes so that we'd have
them in the record and that we would time them such that by
considering them at the end of July, that would be hopefully, and I
believe will be, before the actual proofs corne back for the publication
of this document.
Assuming again that we go forward today, July 27th we'll be
back with an amendment to our Municipal Code contract that will
allow for electronic versions of all the codes that Municipal Code
publishes. That would be the code of law and ordinances as well as
UDC, so that they would be available to the public in a CD-rom type
version, and that all of the staff would have access to them in-house
off their own computer.
So we have a plan of action to implement this, if it's your desire
to move forward with it today. If you have any specific questions
either about the changes or about the change to the ordinance that I
mentioned before with the policy issue, I'd be happy to address those.
Other than that, I believe that is the presentation that's the shortest
. .
verSIon we can gIve you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's pretty good. Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I find the planning commission
competent enough to hear those insubsident (sic) changes or --
MR. WHITE: The unintended consequences.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Unintended consequences,
Page 123
_.._--- -.-.-...---
June 22, 2004
thank you.
In the handout that you were giving, some of the language was
highlighted in yellow?
MR. WHITE: Yes, that's their precise text that we changed.
They're summarized in the list of changes/provisions to the UDC, and
they go through increasing section number and chapters as you go
through the UDC. But you do have the attached pages where the
actual specific changes to the text have occurred. We wanted to be
able to provide you with a complete record of what it was that had
changed since last we gave you your volumes of the proposed UDC.
What we're going to do today, assuming we have the favor of
your vote, is take the digital versions of those documents and
immediately transmit them to Municipal Code, as well as the
Secretary of State's office, and at that point begin effectively what will
be a very, very quick 90 days, I'm sure, from Municipal Code's
perspective, to try to turn this around by September 27th. That would
be the new effective date.
So with that in mind, we also have items that have to corne back
to you for your July 27 meeting pertaining to code of laws provisions
that we would have to move effectively out of the old LDC into the
code of laws to get them away from the land development regulations
and more in the general regulations of the county. We will probably
be back to you either the first or second meeting of September for
discussion and hopefully approval of an administrative code that
likewise will take some of the pieces of the LDC and put them into an
easier to amend process of administrative provisions. So--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only concern I have with
the changes is I haven't had time to review them.
MR. WHITE: Understood.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if I have a problem with any
of them, is there a chance for reconsideration of --
MR. WHITE: Yes, there's --
Page 124
-~..._-~'-'...- -_.""'0"
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- any of the changes?
MR. WHITE: There's two ways to look at it. Because the
ordinance gives authority to correct scriveners errors, we can do that
on our own. We will track every character of change that we make
from this day forward, once this ordinance is passed and adopted.
We'll change -- any character change, even if it's a scriveners error to
correct a misspelling, you'll be able to see it in our changes
downstream.
The second way that it may be resolved is if it needs to be part of
that super scriveners amendment that we're contemplating for July
27th, we can bring that back. So depending upon, you know, the
degree to which there's some issue, we'll find the appropriate
mechanism to resolve it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And one final thing. I have a
real problem with changing the sign code, not demanding a bonding
for political signs. Remembering when that bond was either increased
or imposed back in the Nineties it was because candidates failed to
remove their signs. And being that the previous board tightened up
the sign code for everybody else and then to loosen it for a politician, I
just have a real problem with that.
MR. WHITE: May I address that point, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
MR. WHITE: I'm not sure that I'd characterize our deletion of
the $500 bond requirement as a relaxation of the regulations. There's a
counter to that that's added in as new text that essentially allows for
each sign that is not taken down within seven days after the event
concludes to be issued a citation which can have effectively a $100
fine tied to it.
So I believe, and we've discussed with code enforcement staff,
that the notion that that would be a very effective hammer for folks
who did not remove their signs. They'd be given a grace period to get
them down. If the county had to take them down, they'd have a period
Page 125
,.-.--.
June 22, 2004
of time to corne and claim them and essentially pay us for the storage,
but if they were not taken down within the seven days, citations would
be issued. And as you can imagine, if someone is not diligent in
removing those signs within seven days after the event, those citations
will add up very quickly. And I'm hoping that it won't take us having
to go that distance, but if we do, I suspect that it may get some
coverage in the media and hopefully other folks will have learned by
the missteps of those who get the citations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you tell me where that
language is so I can see it?
MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. I think one of the things we handed out
to you today was what we call a side sheet. If you don't have one, I
apologize. I will read the text into the record for you that I'm
specifically referring to. It's essentially the last sentence of what
would be 5.06.06, capital letter C8, small A. It's -- Russell's going to
give us the page number in a minute here.
It effectively deletes the $500 bond requirement, but instead says
that for all signs for the candidate or the issue for which the permit
was issued -- excuse me, you'll find it on Page 136 in Chapter 5. I'm
fairly certain that you have it in your change list and that would be the
place that would probably be easiest to find it, under the heading of
the citation I gave you a moment ago for 5.06.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: .36?
MR. WHITE: 5.06. And the text reads that -- I'll start over.
All signs for the candidate or the issue for which the permit was
issued -- this is the new text -- must be removed within seven days
after the election, referendum or other event the sign pertains to.
Failure to timely remove each such sign will constitute a separate
violation of this code and the permittee will be subject to issuance of a
citation from Collier County Code Enforcement and all other penalties
allowed by law.
My belief is that that is a very effective enforcement mechanism.
Page 126
. "-, ---- ~_.- ~'-
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one more thing for the
County Manager.
New elected county commissioner has several sign violations,
$100 a pop. Do you have a problem with enforcing that?
MR. MUDD: No, sir, I have no --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're boss.
MR. MUDD: I don't have a -- I don't have a problem with that
because I'm under a contract with the Board of County Commissioners
and it takes three votes to throw me out. And I think it would be --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we have two other votes here?
MR. MUDD: But I do mean -- but I will tell you, sir, that it does
put the County Manager's staff in a precarious situation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And not only that, if that
particular commission (sic) or the County Manager at present comes
to the Board of Commissioners, says hey, I got a commissioner that
wants me to do this, I got to corne to all the commissioners and do it,
then it puts the Board of Commissioners in a precarious place.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, it wouldn't put me in one. If
somebody is disobeying the law, hey, you know, that doesn't bother
me at all.
MR. WHITE: As a matter of fact, Commissioners, because
they're specifically contemplated to be citations, they're effectively
tickets and they would go to court. And so it wouldn't be you who
would be asked to decide, it would be the judges. And my expectation
is that they'd have no problem enforcing the county's code.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we just -- why don't we
just leave it as a $500 bond? Because you made a statement, and I'm
not sure just how it falls in the sequence of things. You said first of all
that the person that's campaigning for office, upon the day after the
election he's got seven days to go around and round up all the signs.
Then you said the county would do this and put them in storage. So
Page 127
-~,,~ "..-~..-"
June 22, 2004
what's the event timetable here, if the county's going to put them in
storage?
MR. WHITE: The provision pertaining to the county doing so is
really more along the lines I guess of an administrative policy. It's not
part of this written procedure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This would be seven days after the
event of the election --
MR. WHITE: After seven days --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- the county would go around and
pick all the signs up?
MR. WHITE: Staff would have the option to be able to do that.
They do that anyways with any kind of unpermitted sign, if they
cannot find some way to have it otherwise removed. And the
traditional practice is to allow someone 30 days to corne on in and
claim them, and after that they're destroyed. The point being I don't
think anyone's going to want a campaign sign from a matter that's
concluded, but if that's the case and they're willing to pay for it, to
kind of take it out of hock, then fine.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what the $500 bond is for,
isn't it?
MR. WHITE: The $500 bond was to essentially cover the costs,
I believe, of doing so. And certainly we're not making a policy
recommendation about this, it's simply here because the supervisor of
elections office had asked us to try to provide some way to ensure that
there was a level playing field, not just for county commissioner
positions, for also those that are, I guess, mosquito district and those
lesser I guess offices that that $500 may make or break an election.
That's the perspective we're bringing to you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could I chime in?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I wasn't finished but I'll let --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead. I'm sorry, I'm just
Page 128
-.""..----......--
June 22, 2004
having a hard time reaching my button from here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay, Commissioner
Coletta. I've got the timer, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But anyway, I have a problem with
it. It's like, for instance we have -- well, for instance Commissioner
Coletta, he has a large area, and when people are out campaigning,
whether they're incumbents or new into the election process, they set
forth a group of -- a task force that go out and set these signs up. And
a lot of times they may go out and set these signs up and forget where
they put all the signs. It's like a squirrel, you know, trying to hide
nuts. You end up and you put signs all over and then you -- after the
day is over, the election day has occurred, then you send out a task
force and you go out there and try to pick up all the signs. Well, you
might miss one or two of them. So are you saying you're going to
charge somebody $100 for something of that nature? Whether it's a
commissioner, whether it's somebody running for the fire department
or the school board.
MR. WHITE: The possibility exists. I think the traditional
manner in which code enforcement applies any of our regulations is to
give someone notice and give them the opportunity to cure. And I
think it's only those folks who refuse or are otherwise just unwilling to
do the right thing that these regulations are intended to apply to.
And I want to make sure you understand that as far as signs that
the code enforcement staff removes, those are the ones that are in the
rights-of-way where there are safety issues and concerns about them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ifwe left it at --
MR. WHITE: This--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ifwe left it at $500 bond, what
would that -- what kind of position that's (sic) going to put us in?
MR. WHITE: I think it leaves us ripe for an equal protection
challenge, quite honestly. And I think that was the concern of the
supervisor of elections office, that we were creating to some extent an
Page 129
'---'- -...-...- -------
June 22, 2004
unlevel playing field for those folks who wanted temporary signs that
were for political purposes, elected office, and for those temporary
signs that are not --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Real estate signs.
MR. WHITE: -- and I can tell you that my legal research
reached the conclusion in fact that that was a viable concern, that there
was one reported case out there that effectively recognized that you
had to have a uniform rule for all of this class of signs.
So the only way we could effectively make our regulation lawful,
in my opinion, would be to impose that $500 bond requirement on all
temporary signs. I don't know that that is something that this board is
prepared to do, but certainly whether we leave it as it's proposed to be
or change it back to what it was or to something else is entirely at your
discretion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got one last question, that's it.
Who basically brought forth this particular complaint? Was it the
people in the real estate area or--
MR. WHITE: No, it was the supervisor of elections office. The
gentleman's name I can't recall.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, just so we get an idea of --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, and the reason it was brought up,
they didn't want to dissuade somebody from running for office, and
there is -- there are ways that you can become a candidate, okay, by
petition or whatever without paying a fee, and there's also -- and then
all of a sudden you have to put up a $500 bond, and they wanted
everybody to have the right to run for office without having to worry
about the monetary issue of putting up the bond up front, and that's
why it's the way it is today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, that explains a lot.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. I agree
totally with what Jim Mudd just said. And the elections office is
Page 130
..-..~.,<,- ~"-
June 22, 2004
correct. As an incumbent, you don't have the problem raising the
funds if someone is corning up from the bottom looking to get into
public office. And it shouldn't be so top heavy that we discourage
those people from trying to run for office. Some day -- I remember
what I went through in my first election, and I'm not going to mention
the sitting commissioner at the time, but it was quite a -- quite a
situation there. She was interpreting the code, sign code differently
than what's supposed to be interpreted, at which case she got some
very preferred places, played some games like covering the signs as
you're putting them up, and avoided the intent of the law. And I
promised myself I'd never allow that to happen if I ever got into
office. And I feel the same way about the $500 -- (audio disturbance)
-- if someone wants to corne on board and give it a try, they're going
to be at a tremendous disadvantage if they have to put together a
whole campaign with enough money and still pay a $500 fee.
MR. WHITE: Commissioner, we're getting a lot of feedback. Is
there something on your end that can be done to help the court
reporter clearly hear what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, let me try turning the
volume down.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Hello?
MR. WHITE: Hello?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He turned it down all right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He really got it down. I think Troy just
went in there. Troy ran out of the room.
MS. FILSON: He did.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, to see what he could do about
stopping the feedback.
Commissioner Coletta?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, why don't you just take over here
and --
Page 131
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me bring up a slightly
different complication here. When you issue those permits and you
post the bond, they're posted in the name of the campaign.
MR. WHITE: They're actually in the name of the permittee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They are?
MR. WHITE: Yes, who mayor may not be the same as the
candidate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, let's suppose that it is
the candidate.
MR. WHITE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, the candidate cannot incur
any expenses that can be paid by the campaign --
MS. FILSON: Okay. He's back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- after the election. You're not
going to be assessing a fine until at least seven days after the election.
So you're going to be assessing a fine which a campaign cannot pay,
and it will become an obligation of an individual, whether that
individual is a worker for the campaign or the candidate him or
herself. How are we going to deal with that? And is that a fair way to
proceed?
MR. WHITE: Well, I believe the way it would be dealt with
would be between the candidate and the permittee, who I'm assuming
would be some type of campaign worker or family member, even.
And I don't know that the intent of the regulation is to decide that
issue beforehand.
Similarly, with respect to the $500 that was put up before, I don't
know whose money that would have been, whether it was out of
campaign funds or otherwise. But the notion is that we're trying to
create a level playing field and provide an adequate enforcement
mechanism.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The question, though, is do you
create a level playing field by forcing the expense to be paid by an
Page 132
---.- -~_._-_._-..~_._. ___H··'_,
June 22, 2004
individual rather than by a campaign? If you have an individual who
is running for a position which is perhaps not paid, or if it is paid at
all, maybe not very much, the campaign itself, campaign fund itself
cannot be used for the purpose of paying that fine. So you're
transferring the cost to the individual, which quite frankly, if the
individual is responsible for that, then that's where the cost should be
transferred to. But from the standpoint of creating an equal playing
field, are you really achieving your goal by transferring that cost from
the campaign account to the individual?
MR. WHITE: I'd argue, Commissioner, that the choice is in the
hands of the permittee. They're going to be made aware of these
regulations at the time that they apply for the permits. They certainly
will be given an opportunity, once the events are done and the signs
are not removed, to act accordingly. We're going to have their contact
information. So I would submit that to the extent that an individual
does not follow the law, that the imposition of a penalty is fair, and it's
an equitable way to achieve the desired public policy of having those
signs removed in a timely manner. But again, as I said before, the
ultimate decision about how to create that level playing field is the
responsibility of this body.
And if there's any other questions, I'd be happy to address them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I would say that the
determination on this change, as far as I'm concerned, is up to us, and I
vote to leave it the way it was. I thought it was working fairly well.
And I don't think this change is going to achieve the desired goal.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me say -- Commissioner Coletta, did
you have anything to add?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, first off I want you to
know that Commissioner Coyle did not hang up on me. That--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I wish I could have.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hurry up, he's got you on the
clock.
Page 133
-- --'.. ~~-
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The only thing I'm concerned
about is the fairness to the upcoming politician that wants to get
involved in it and the $500 could be a deterrent. And I'm opposed to
carrying that deposit forward, especially since it carne from the
elections office as a recommendation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, I ask if we have any public
speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Then at this time I shall close the public
hearing.
We have Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, after hearing all the
arguments, I think the proposed changes can be more stricter if
somebody doesn't abide by the code. And it's only, you know, making
politicians or future public servants or wanna-bes higher level than we
were before. And I don't think that's -- there's anything wrong with
that. I think that's what the public wants. I think it's a well thought
out plan, myself, is, you know, equal playing field for everybody.
Fire commissioner makes $5,000 a year, school board 32, county
commissioner, whatever, 64. I think my wife knows what I make, but
I'm not sure exactly what it is. But anyways, it just provides a level
playing field so that -- in holding public servants to a higher level.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You mean in charging the $500.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, in the proposed amendment
the way it's structured.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The way the new, the amendment?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, the amendment does.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I thought, too, if I were -- in
response to Commissioner Coyle's concerns, if I were the candidate, I
don't care if I was running for mosquito patrol or if I was on the losing
end of a county commission race, if I knew that I was going to be
charged $100 for every one of my signs, you better believe the day
Page 134
--,.,
June 22, 2004
after the election I'd be out there taking that down. And with each one
that I took down I'd figure well, at least I saved $100. When it's going
to attack your own pocketbook, you're really a lot more conscientious,
I think. So I agree with the changes that they're proposing.
So now we have -- oh, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just to get this on the record, when
we're talking about taking down political signs, we're talking about
taking them down in the right-of-way; is that right?
MR. WHITE: Typically. Sometimes they are placed on private
property. That probably isn't the best thing to do, but if you've got the
property owner's permission, it's not something that typically is --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that -- if the property owner was
reluctant or didn't take the sign down in seven days, then is the
property owner --
MR. WHITE: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because it's not in the right-of-way,
right? This is only in county right-of-way; is that right?
MR. WHITE: No, no, the regulation applies regardless of where
the sign is located, and would impose, if it's enforced by way of a
citation on the permittee, the person who gets the permit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So the person that's running the
campaign then has to go out and make sure that all the signs are taken
down also from private property, then, is what you're saying?
MR. WHITE: That is correct. And there is an assumption that
those folks who put the signs there have the responsibility and the
right to locate them there. Most of the signs that end up in the
right-of-way we try to remove because there are concerns about
health, safety and welfare. They're in the visibility triangle, typically.
And as a result, the large majority of the signs that you see for these
events are on public property where the property owner's permission's
been given.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
Page 135
-~._.-~ __.~__,~__..~, ___"_·0_ ._ ..-.-
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a real concern with this,
because somebody could have as high as 1,000 signs out there, and if
he ends up with 950, he's got 50 signs out there that's going to be a
$100 fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, then he will --
MR. WHITE: Well, that I would submit is --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He should have obeyed the law in the first
place.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you might not know where all
the 50 signs are.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, then you better choose somebody
who's organized enough to write down where they put each sign.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute, wait a minute.
Sometimes what you do is have a lot of these signs printed up and you
hand them out to people and they give them to their neighbors and
their neighbors give them to neighbors and people have them in their
yards and they're scattered around. There's no way you're going to
know where they are. That's why I do not agree that this thing has
been thought out from the standpoint of what actually goes on in a
.
campaIgn.
So if you're talking about large billboard signs, you've got one
situation. You've got yard signs, you've got another situation. They
could be sitting there for weeks, if somebody just wanted to have it in
their yard, and you'd never know about it. But yet, you'd get -- if you
had a political opponent who really wanted to make life miserable for
you, then you're not creating a level playing field and you're not
achieving the desired goal.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, can I -- Madam Chair, if I can just
interject myself, okay? Code enforcement, after about the sixth day,
okay, will go out and they will notify the candidate if they have a sign
that's out there. They do it now if you've got an errant sign. You know,
if I was your opponent, based on this law, 1'd gather up all your signs
Page 136
~._. ..-....- ..----" <-
June 22, 2004
about 30 minutes after the election if I lost and I'd plant them in all
different kinds of places, okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Don't give anybody ideas.
MR. MUDD: No, but -- but, see, that's just -- that's a way to get
back, especially if it was a nasty campaign. And so -- but Michelle
and her folks will go out there around the sixth day, and if you -- you
know, and you got up the majority of them, for instance, you brought
up the thousand sign issue, you went out and got 950, call the code
enforcement folks, hey, look it, I've been in every right-of-way that I
knew my signs were and I pulled them, okay. If you find one, let me
know and I'll be out there Johnny-on-the-spot to pick it up. Because
we don't want to do it, but that's what I know so far. So if somebody's
put one someplace that I didn't know about or somebody that I didn't
like decided to put it someplace, I'll go pick it up and so I won't get
fined. And she'll basically -- her folks call the candidates to tell them
where the sign is that they need to pick up. And they don't give you
the $100 fine. Right now they don't give you a fine or anything, they
tell you where the sign is and they ask you to get your sign out.
MR. WHITE: And that's a good point --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Don't you have to get a -- I'm sorry.
Don't you have to get a permit to put a sign up anyway? So you have
to have the person's signature -- huh?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have to have the person's
permission to put the sign up on a residential property. On a
commercial property you do not.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I thought you had to on a commercial,
too. Didn't you have to have something signed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you can't get a right-of-way
permi t for --
MS. ARNOLD: No, okay, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement
Director. As a part of this process, they get a bulk permit to put signs
throughout the county, and as a part of that bulk permit it tells you
Page 137
-- ___..0..__..______·_ -
June 22, 2004
when you need to get permission and where you can place a sign. The
signs are not permitted in the right-of-way, they're supposed to be on
private property.
And the County Manager is correct, after the time period, we'll
go out there. If we see signs, we note the location. And because of
the bulk permit, we get the information as to who we can contact to let
them know where those signs are. We tell them and we give them so
much time to take it up. If they haven't, then that's when the citation
gets issued.
MR. WHITE: And that indeed is something that could occur
today. And in fact, my understanding, and Michelle, correct me if I'm
wrong, I don't believe we've ever withheld the $500 bond from
anyone. So what we're trying to do is to create something that does
not have an equal protection problem, that meets the desired request of
the supervisor of elections office and in fact creates a somewhat more
efficient enforcement mechanism that, with the appropriate discretion
exercised by the staff through the County Manager's office, that we
believe has the best balance.
And I understand it's ultimately this board's decision. None of us
being elected officials or having ever run campaigns certainly
wouldn't know all the intricacies of what your concerns are, but we're
here to try to address them if you've got some direction.
If ultimately we don't approve this, we're at some point going to
have to bring back to you something that changes the permit
requirement to impose the $500 bond across the board, regardless of
whether they're, quote, political signs or not. Just in order to create, or
to eliminate the equal protection issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'd like to make a motion that we
approve the proposed ordinance, including Exhibit A of the Land
Development Code of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor from
Page 138
-_....-"._-~ ~.._- .... ",~,,,..,-"~, ,,---~_. .--
June 22, 2004
Commissioner Fiala -- couldn't pronounce my own name right -- and a
second by Commissioner Henning.
I have comments by Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I still don't feel comfortable with
this, and I think as Commissioner Coyle stated, that it's way too
complex, and I think we need -- what we need to do is why don't we
just approve the rest of it and I think it needs to be thought out in more
detail in regards to the sign ordinance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I really like it the way it is, so my motion
stands.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My second stands.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, I couldn't hear
how you voted.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I voted in the affirmative.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, so we have a 3-2 vote. The two
opposing are Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Coyle.
MR. WHITE: If I may --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't we need a super majority?
MR. WHITE: I was just going to raise the issue here. Although
we are not effectively changing any of the use provisions, and I
believe that it would be entirely appropriate to approve this with a
majority, I know that there are folks in the community that would be
concerned about it. And based upon the vote you've just taken that
Page 139
---.-".--. -_..~,--- ~----_.
June 22, 2004
reflects a split, which I believe is the result of the discussion about the
political sign issue, I'd ask you to take separate votes for each of those.
In other words, to take a vote on the balance of all of the changes for
the revisions and recodification, take that vote separately and then
have a vote on the political sign issue alone. I was going to suggest it
beforehand, but not being able to predict the future, I thought there
was some chance we might get a super majority. But that having been
demonstrated, I would ask the Chair to have this commission
reconsider its vote just taken --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
MR. WHITE: -- for the purposes -- thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, so we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning to reconsider the vote.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second by Commissioner Coyle.
And in that -- when you say reconsider, does that then say that
we're just addressing one or just reconsider it, period?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're looking at the Land
Development Code changes less the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, I just want to know if he just wanted
to reconsider.
MR. WHITE: The motion for reconsideration would be
effectively, I believe, to legally nullify your prior vote.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So that's what we're doing right
now.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And it takes a member that voted in the
affirmative to bring up the reconsideration. And Commissioner
Henning just did that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, he did.
MR. MUDD: And it was seconded. So you need to take that
vote and then open the floor back up again, and then Mr. White, if you
could please help the commissioners with the vote.
Page 140
- ----~----''^------"-,.._-----" ~~-
June 22, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, you voted in
favor?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. That's a 5-0.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we accept
the recommendations, except for 5.06.06C.8a, the political sign.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I second that motion.
Okay, so we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That is a 5-0.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, I -- it's obvious
that we haven't addressed everybody's concerns. To me it addresses
all the concerns, and I don't understand the concerns of others, so I
make a -- is it appropriate to make a motion to continue the political
sign issue to a further meeting?
MR. WHITE: I believe that you can take any number of ways to
get to the same endpoint, but my recommendation would be if your
Page 141
--_._~" ..~-_. ----"'-"-
June 22, 2004
desire is to not accept it, that you just do so and not continue it, that
you just effectively --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ignore it.
MR. WHITE: -- deny it as a change and we will have to corne
back to you with something after we have a discussion with the
supervisor of elections and the staff.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only reason I say continue
it is because I think if we -- well, I shouldn't say. I just think you did a
great job of -- on the political sign issue, or staff did, and we just
haven't answered the concerns.
MR. WHITE: If you want to continue the item till the July 27th
meeting, I think that that would be appropriate, and in fact it may be a
sufficient amount of time to address those concerns by meeting
individually with those commissioners who have those concerns, as
well as finding ways with the staff and the supervisor of elections
office to resolve them in a way to everyone's satisfaction. I can't tell
you that I can guarantee that, but we certainly will make every
reasonable effort.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Exactly. And I think
that's all I ask is try to address those concerns through communication.
MR. WHITE: We know that we'll be corning back to you on
July 27th, as I'd mentioned earlier, for a super scriveners ordinance to
amend what you've now adopted to the extent that we are finding what
I'm calling now transcription errors. So we can easily bring this
forward and include it as part of that package, without having to go
the further distance of more advertisements.
We will of course have to do this fairly quickly because we're
going to need to get it, I believe, to the planning commission as well,
at least to get some direction from them. They were satisfied with it
as it is, but I would want them to look at whatever changes we might
want to propose to this body.
Page 142
,.-.,--- ----
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All right, thank you. We've got
an August primary corning up, what, on the 30th, 31 st, I believe it is?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 29th.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 31st.
MR. WHITE: And that is the reason why this was included as a
substantive amendment, even though we'd otherwise told you that we
really weren't going to bring any substantive amendments forward in
this cycle. It was a question of timing in order to get it in for the
election cycle, and that was at the request, again, of the supervisor of
elections office.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: See, I keep thinking there must be
something that prompted them to put this on here. They must have
identified some things that maybe aren't corning through to us right
now. I can understand Commissioner Henning wanting to bring it
back again rather than just obliterate it. They must have had -- they
must have been prompted by something.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we possibly continue this
till later in the meeting and maybe someone from the elections office
corne over and enlighten us, and that might help us to make a final
decision?
MR. WHITE: I'm willing to try and make that contact,
Commissioner, and if that's the will of the board, that's what we'll do.
And I'm certain if it becomes a little problematic, if we can't, we'd
have to bring it back to you later today and see if we could continue it
to the July 27th, again, if that's the board's desire.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we can do that.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we just ought to bring this
Page 143
.-....-------" --
June 22, 2004
back on the 27th. We'll have adequate time to address this and there'll
be adequate time for people to get their campaign signs out there. I
think we just need to have staff look this over carefully and I think
they need to corne to each one of us commissioners and make sure that
our concerns are addressed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, so you'd prefer not to have the
elections office corne in today and postpone talking about this, instead
to address it at the July 27th meeting?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. WHITE: I think that may be adequate for the election cycle
concerns, and it certainly would be adequate as well for the
publication concerns we have with respect to the Municipal Code.
MR. MUDD: Well, in any case, the old sign ordinance for
political signs would be in effect until this new one carne into being; is
that correct?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
MR. WHITE: Assuming it was not acted upon at the point in
time it was continued --
MR. MUDD: Well, I'm just -- I'm asking the question, Patrick.
If they decide to continue it, the old -- the old LDC on this particular
section is in effect.
MR. WHITE: Yes. Anyone who comes in for a sign permit -- at
this point in time --
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, I recommend you get a motion and
figure out what the board wants to do with an agreement, and we go
with ever which way you want to go. But the 27th is fine, and I don't
think that --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think that's where we were heading
anyway. And so I will make that motion that we continue this till the
July 27th meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So, I have a motion on the floor by
Page 144
.~_..- ,- ' .. >00"" ."~ --
June 22, 2004
Commissioner Fiala, a second by Commissioner Halas to postpone the
sign ordinance discussion until the 27th of July for further discussion
with the county commissioners who had some questions about it.
MR. WHITE: Just for the record, the legal effect if this vote is
approved is to leave that portion of the text as it is today and it will be
effectively continued until July 27th for further consideration.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, you are voting
with the five, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. That's a 5-0.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to time certain items
at 2:00. And I just want to make sure the chief judge knows that we're
-- well, we're trying.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sure he doesn't run behind
either.
Item #8G
Page 145
.-~._- --,..--. ~--
June 22, 2004
ORDINANCE 2004-42 IMPLEMENTS NEW SECTION 939.185,
FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PROVIDES FOR IMPOSITION OF
ADDITIONAL COURT COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES;
ALLOCATES FUNDS RECEIVED FROM ADDITIONAL COURT
COSTS; PROVIDES FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 939.185,
FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDES FOR CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDES FOR INCLUSION IN THE
COLLIER COIUNTY CODE OF LA WS AND ORDINANCES;
MR. MUDD: The first item is 8(G). This item to be heard at
2:00 p.m. Request that the board approve the proposed ordinance,
which ordinance implements new Section 939.185, Florida Statutes,
and provides for imposition of additional court costs in criminal cases;
allocates funds received from additional court costs; provides for
amendments to Section 939.185, Florida Statutes; provides for conflict
and severability; provides for inclusion in the Collier County Code of
Laws and Ordinance; and provides for an effective date.
And Mr. Mike Smykowski will give you a brief summary of
what this ordinance is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second. Okay, you have a motion to
approve by Commissioner Henning, and three seconds led in the pack
by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion on this item?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have to close the public hearing. By the
way, did we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No speakers. So at this point I'll close the
public hearing, even though we've got a motion on the floor and a
Page 146
-- ~-- ,----
June 22, 2004
second.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that is passed. Thank you for the
wonderful presentation.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: You're welcome.
Item #8H
ORDINANCE 2004-43 IMPLEMENTS AMENDED SECTION
318.18(13), FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PROVIDES FORA
SURCHARGE ON CERTAIN ENUMERATED TRAFFIC
VIOLATION AND OFFENSES; ALLOCATES FUNDS RECEIVED
FROM THE SURCHARGE; PROVIDES FOR AMENDMENTS TO
SECTION 318.18(13), FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDES FOR
CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDES FOR INCLUSION
IN THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS AND
ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDES AN EFFECTIVE DATE-
.ADOEIED
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, the next item is 8(H). This item to be
heard following 8(G). Request that the board approve the proposed
ordinance, which ordinance implements amended Section 318 .18( 13)
of the Florida Statutes and provides for a surcharge on certain
enumerated traffic violations and offenses; allocates funds received
from the surcharge; provides for amendments to Section 318.18(13),
Page 147
._-",.~ ".--- --'-
June 22, 2004
Florida Statutes; provides for conflict and severability; provides for
inclusion in the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinance; and
provides for an effective date.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Move for approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Halas.
Do we have any speakers on this item?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Public hearing is then closed. Any
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That is a 5-0. Thank you.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: That was wonderful, Mr. Smykowski.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He does good work.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He just sells us on his ideas.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2004-44 AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 72-1, AS AMENDED, ALSO CITED AS
SECTION 122-81 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS
Page 148
-~_...._-- .-."' --.-.-
June 22, 2004
AND ORDINANCES, WHICH CREATED THE COLLIER
COUNTY LIGHTING DISTRICT, TO ADD A REFERENCE TO
THE AREA DESCRIBED, AND TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S
ERROR TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR TRADE CENTER
OF NAPLES, TRADE CENTER OF NAPLES REPLAT OF LOTS
44 & 45, INDUSTRIAL VILLAGE, INDUSTRIAL VILLAGE NO.
2, KATHLEEN COURT, LOT 155 J & C INDUSTRIAL PARK,
AND J & C INDUSTRIAL PARK; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION
IN CODE OF LA WS AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN
MR. MUDD: The next item is Item 8(B), and that's a
recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Collier County
Ordinance No. 72-1, as amended, also cited as Section 122-81 of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinance, which created the
Collier County lighting district to add a reference to the area described
and to correct a scriveners error to the legal description for Trade
Center of Naples, Trade Center of Naples replat of lot 44 and 45,
Industrial Village, Industrial Village No.2, Kathleen Court, Lot 155 J
& C Industrial Park and J & C Industrial Park. Providing for inclusion
in code of laws and ordinances, providing for conflict and severability,
and providing an effective date.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas. Do we
have any speaker on this item?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, then the public hearing is closed.
Do we have any discussion from any of the commissioners?
(N 0 response.)
Page 149
-.' ..__nw ~--
June 22, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you, that was another
sterling presentation.
MR. MUDD: Yes, that's true.
Item #8C
MOTION TO CONTINUE AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING
THE QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO
Next item is 8(C), and that's a public hearing, and this is to be
continued, if you remember correctly, from --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right, to the 27th of July.
MR. MUDD: To the 27th of July. And that was at the petitioner
and staffs request. And this has to do with the quarry community
development district CD D.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to continue by
Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Page 150
~ -.-< ~-- --
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
Item #8D
MR. MUDD: Next item is 8(D) and that's
PUDZ-2002-AR-3411, and this is the Nagle-Craig PUD. And again,
there is a -- there on the addendum sheet, correction sheet, this was to
be continued indefinitely and that's at the petitioner's request, and
because they --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
Okay, so we have a motion to continue by Commissioner Halas,
a second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a 5-0 on that as well.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2004-45 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2003-61,
Page 151
~.-.----""'-- ~-
June 22, 2004
CODIFIED AS CHAPTER 49 OF THE COUNTY'S CODE OF
LA WS AND ORDINANCES; INCORPORATING CHANGES TO
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FEE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE
EROGRAM - A DO£IED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 8(E). That's
adoption of an ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2003-61, codified as
change 49 of the county's Code of Laws and Ordinances,
incorporating changes to the implementation of the fee payment
assistance program. And Ms. Michelle Arnold will present.
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. I'm here to
propose an ordinance for the special master's --
MR. MUDD: Excuse me. Are you -- you need to stand up to
that microphone then.
Ms. Patterson will present. My correction to my statement.
MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon. Amy Patterson, Impact
Fee Manager, for the record.
We're here to present a change to Chapter 49 of the county's
Codes of Law and Ordinances, otherwise known as the fee payment
assistance program. This is an ordinance that was adopted on
November 18th of 2003, which provides fee payment assistance to
economic development businesses to reduce the economic effects of
increased impact fees.
The formula in the ordinance as written read that companies
would be eligible for a maximum payment amount not to exceed the
cost of the above described fees, the impact fees, multiplied by the
current millage rate and then multiplied by either 10 for projects
located outside of the enterprise community or 15 for proj ects located
within the enterprise community.
Application of the formula as written brought forward a number
that was much lower than the intention of the program. And there's a
Page 152
.--,.. ._-,-~_.- -
June 22, 2004
chart in your executive summary that shows the original calculation of
the award versus the proposed calculation of the award, which I'll get
to. For example, Sky truck, which is a recently approved company for
the program has an estimated impact fee amount of $120,000, but by
applying the original calculation they would only be eligible for an
award of$8,000.
The proposed calculation replaces the dollar amount of the
impact fees with the capital investment, which brings forward an
amount of $120,000 that they're eligible for in incentive award.
Now, if the amount of the incentive award exceeds the dollar
amount of the impact fees, they are only eligible of the amount of the
impact fee dollars; they can never receive a cash reimbursement or
anything like that.
So if you have any questions, that's pretty much the whole of the
change that we're proposing here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor to approve by
Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Halas. Did we
have any speakers on this subj ect?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Again, I will close the public hearing.
Any further discussion?
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know why there wasn't a
motion to approve right off the bat? Because you do such well on
presenting.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The question I have is the chart
in our agenda packet is an example, it's not -- we're not approving for
facility "X" and "Y" monies, right?
MS. PATTERSON: No, that's correct. These are just examples
Page 153
-..-
June 22, 2004
that you could see how the dollar amounts played out. The top two
have already been approved at previous board meetings. The bottom
two were just examples of some estimates that we've given out in the
past, or things that may be corning forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that is a 5-0.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Ms. Arnold, would you like to get up to the
microphone?
Item #8F
ORDINANCE 2004-46 ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL MASTER
PROCESS FOR COLLIER COUNTY; SETTING FORTH THE
POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE SPECIAL MASTER;
ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES; AND ESTABLISHING
PENALTIES, AND APPROVE THE RELATED BUDGET
A.MENDMENT
Thank you. This next item is 8(F). It's to adopt an ordinance
establishing a special master process for Collier County, setting forth
the powers and duties of the special master, establishing procedures
Page 154
~---- e..__--" --
June 22, 2004
and establishing penalties, approve the related budget amendment.
And this is also a companion item to 12(B).
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by --
MS. ARNOLD: I do have to say one thing before you take
action.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: There are two modifications that were put into
place in the ordinance, and it's not anything -- it's something that we
just needed for clarification. They were identified on Page 2 of the
ordinance under definition, we just added the utility billings
department in there, as well as Page 4. Again, that's a clarification to
adding the enforcement duties that the utility billing department had.
And that will be provided to Sue Filson so that you have the, you
know, modified document for signature.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I still have my motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Henning.
Can I ask if there are any speakers on this subj ect?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No speakers on this--
MS. FILSON: I mean, you can ask, but no, there aren't.
MR. PETTIT: Before you close the public -- for the record,
Mike Pettit, Chief Assistant County Attorney. Before you close the
hearing, could we read specifically the language changes?
MS. ARNOLD: Sure. This is in the definition section. The first
definition under code enforcement investigator, it indicates previously
means an authorized agent or employee of the county whose duty is to
assure code enforcement ordinance compliance and who has
successfully completed the required training as defined in the training
plans. This is the added language: For either the Collier County Code
Page 155
--.---... --
June 22, 2004
Enforcement Department or the Collier County Utility Billing and
Customer Service Department, where applicable. So that was added.
And then on Page 4 of the ordinance under Section 7, Paragraph
E, under the powers of the special master, we added: Power is to hold
hearing and contest citation -- on contested citations issued by but not
limited to Collier County Sheriffs Office, the Collier County Code
Enforcement Department, Domestic Animal Services, and the
following language was added: And the Utility Billing and Customer
Service Department for violations of local codes and ordinances.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I think the public
__ this is a good item that, you know, we're trying to take business
away from the court system and bring it into the county system and
keep the monies here.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, exactly what we're trying to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if we can just kind of tell
the public what this all entails.
MS. ARNOLD: What we're proposing with this ordinance is
exactly as you stated, to keep -- minimize the impact on the court
system for local ordinance enforcement. Currently we're going
through the court system with the new legislative change. It was
going to require the fines and funds paid for those cases to go to
Tallahassee, and not likely to corne back to Collier County, because
we're a donor state.
So this process would enable us to process those things at the
county level. The revenues collected would be maintained in the
county's general fund. It does not prevent the public, however, to -- its
due process for appeals. If they're not happy with a special master's
decision, they still have the ability to go through the appeal process in
the court system.
MR. MUDD: Now, one of the things that she didn't men -- that
Ms. Arnold didn't represent to the board is if it goes to the court
system, there's a fee of $10 that you must file, and the losing party
Page 156
---".'" .,.,_.,,-~ --
June 22, 2004
pays an additional $40.
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
MR. MUDD: So by having the special master initially without
an appeal, we're foregoing a $10 outlay of county funds just to get it
into the court system, and then, depending on if you're on the winning
side or not, there could be another $40 fee that would corne out of ad
valorem dollars for this particular -- particular case, or it would corne
out of the finee funds.
Now, if he then or she pays the fine, that fine would get sent to
Tallahassee, and it would not corne back to Collier County. So not
only do we preclude paying a fee to file in the court system
potentially, but we also have the ability to keep the fine fees in Collier
County.
At this time we've done a very conservative estimate that
basically says that what we think on the caseload it will more than pay
for the special master and an assistant and it will probably be a bit of a
revenue generator for Collier County.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Bottom line is that you're going to
be saving the taxpayers of Collier County possibly hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Could be million.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, could be millions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for pointing that out,
Commissioner Coyle. Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to mention -- you know, thank the
Sheriffs office and the other departments that have been working with
us in establishing the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
So I have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Halas, second
by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
Page 157
.___,_.r~ -----'-'^. ~--
June 22, 2004
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, that brings us --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, you were on that,
weren't you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I was. I was one of the
five.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. That's a 5-0. Thank you.
Item #9 A
HIGHLIGHT AND HONOR VOLUNTEERS THAT SERVE ON
IHFSO+A~OARDS- A~OVED
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, next item is 9(A). This item was continued
from the June 8th, 2004 BCC meeting and it's to highlight and honor
volunteers that serve on the 50 plus advisory boards. And it was put
on the agenda at Commissioner Henning's request.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, we recognize
our employees for doing an outstanding job. Our employees get paid
for their service. Literally thousands of volunteers in county
government. I think they should be duly recognized for their service,
with criteria established by our staff, the staff liaison, and one of them
should be good attendance, productive, of value to the advisory board
that they are serving.
Page 158
. _.._,,~·k._,"__..·,._ ....--_.~". ---
June 22, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I think that's a wonderful idea.
I was sorry I didn't think of it myself. That was a wonderful idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, you think a lot of good
things.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I would like to make a motion that
we approve this suggestion of volunteer of the month and possibly
volunteer of the quarter and volunteer of the year as well, because
these volunteers save us so much time, so much money, so much
effort and ask for so little, and I think that this would be something
very nice to do. So I make a motion to approve.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that, but I've got a
question.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion to approve by Donna
Fiala and a second by Commissioner Halas.
And yes, sir, you have discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. How are we going to
differentiate or choose who is an outstanding volunteer quarterly and
half a year and yearly? Because we have an awful lot of different
commissions and volunteers that are involved in this. So I think it's
going to be a task and it's going to be --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're going to do that on your
own?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But no, I was just wondering how
we were going to go out and figure out who should get the top award
--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you give staff direction to set up
a program to recognize volunteers that are on our advisory boards or
the board's advisory board, I will work with Ms. Filson, I will work
with the County Attorney's office to corne up with criteria, to corne up
Page 159
~ .._~_m ___,,___m -.<-
June 22, 2004
with the procedures on how that particular selection is going to be
made. There will have to be nominations for different committees, and
sometimes committees might not nominate because they believe they
got the one or two already recognized that they wanted. So, you know,
there's 12 months a year and in most cases these committees only have
seven members, some have nine, but I don't know of any that have 12,
unless I'm mistaken, Ms. Filson.
MS. FILSON: Members?
MR. MUDD: Members.
MS. FILSON: Oh, yes, I have committees that have 20-some
members.
MR. MUDD: Well then, we'll have the option to have overlaps
into another fiscal year. But we'll corne up with some criteria in order
to do that, bring it back to the board for your approval, and then we'll
energize the program, if that's the wishes of the board.
MS. FILSON: And may I ask a question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Just kidding.
MS. FILSON: Well, it depends on my budget. If -- is the plaque
for the recognition going to corne out of the respective department's
budget?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry, how about a
certificate?
MS. FILSON: Certificate? Okay. I can do a certificate, but I
just don't have a budget item for plaques.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what we do with our
employees.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My error.
MR. MUDD: But, Commissioner, we'll also take a look at that,
and I know we're going to have a budget workshop here real quick,
but if there's a UFR out there for a couple hundred bucks, we'll also
identify that and bring it to the board as an above the line kind of item.
Page 160
~._----_. . . _.- _.._..~- ~-
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would think that if somebody that
volunteers and is a volunteer of the year ought to get a plaque, so that's
where I stand. Especially if they are really dedicated to their job, and
most of the people that do volunteer are very dedicated. So I think
you answered a lot of questions and I appreciate that feedback.
MS. FILSON: A certificate on a plaque?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala, a second by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That is a 5-0.
Item #9B
DISCUSSION REGARDING DUAL MEMBERSHIP ON
COMMITTEES DEALING WITH TDC PROJECTS AND
FUNDING - ST AFF TO BRING BACK SUGGESTIONS AND
RF,COMMENDA.II.ONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9(B) and that's a
discussion regarding dual membership on committees dealing with
TDC proj ects and funding.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, thank you. That was at my
suggestion. Actually, it was something brought up to me that there
Page 161
.------,_._'- ...~-''''-' ---- ~-
June 22, 2004
might have been an appearance of conflict of interest in that on one
committee which recommends the spending of TDC dollars to another
committee which recommends the same spending of the same dollars,
they thought that there might be a conflict of interest.
So we've written to the municipalities and asked them if they
have a problem with it. The City of Naples said no, it's fine just the
way it is. They were happy with it. The City of Everglades felt that
there definitely was a conflict of interest. And the City of Marco
Island said whatever you want to do is fine with us. Speaking of a
draw, that's it.
So Commissioners, I'm just putting it to you. If you feel there is
no conflict of interest, just let me know and we can put this one to bed.
If you feel that maybe we ought to adjust it somehow for future, not
taking anybody off of committees now, of course, but you know, in
the future maybe we would suggest to municipalities that they might
like to select someone different for each committee, that might be a
good idea. And that's where I was going with this.
Yes, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have to go along with you,
Commissioner. I feel the same way, especially these two committees,
because they intertwine with one another. And I have some concerns
on that. And I really feel that in this particular aspect that there should
be some divorce between members being on both of these committees.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, I know if it were me and I
presented what I thought was just a sterling idea at one committee, I'm
not going to go to the next one and then vote against myself. I mean,
there's going to be pride in authorship. So I think it's very difficult for
board members to serve on both committees and, you know, you've
got to know that they're going to be voting the same way. But
anyway, that's my own opinion.
Any other comments?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
Page 162
__··"·o_"_·___"_··'~·_ H'O"_ -.,,-- --
June 22, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about circumstances where
we sit on boards that make recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners, like the redevelopment agency board? Any other
boards that we might individually --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But we're elected to do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, and these people are
appointed to do that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But what I'm suggesting is I think
that's a conflict too, quite frankly. I think it's a conflict where we sit
on a board that then makes recommendations to the county
commission to make a decision about something. I think it's all a
conflict, and I'm concerned about it. I just don't know how to solve it.
But with respect to the TDC and the CAC, the argument has been
provided to me that there's not an overabundance of people who are
scrambling to get on these committees, and if we start making it
harder for people to get there, we're not going to have people
represented at all, and I can understand that. What I can't understand is
one committee making recommendations for expenditures and then
turning around, putting on a different hat and some of the same
members saying okay, now I'm going to approve what I just
recommended. And that's what I have a problem with and I continue
to have a problem with it. Although I've been -- people have informed
me that they don't think it's a conflict of interest. I tend to disagree.
And I would support separating at least subordinate committees. And I
think the people should be different. We get a better opinion that way.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But that's what we're looking for are
opinions and comments, fresh new ideas. And I think it's hard if you
sit on one that recommends to the next committee to corne up with
fresh ideas. And I just wanted to see if we couldn't make the process a
little bit better, as well as in the eyes of our community. I mean, we
Page 163
,--- ~........__..~ ---
June 22, 2004
want to -- we have -- what did we get, a 64 percent or something in
ethics this time? We want our community to believe in us and I think
that this cleans up the process just a little bit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, remember the potential for it
being applied to us directly. I think each of us sits on some kind of a
committee.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd be happy not to sit on those.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Yeah. And those people
make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have always felt that that is a
potential for conflict.
But if we make this decision, we have to understand its possible
implications for the committees on which we sit. Although they're
legally constituted, the principle is the same.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The principle is the same. And I know
that when I've voted, like on the TDC, for instance, and that's what
brings it to mind, is you can't then corne and vote against yourself
when you corne to the BCC, because you've already deliberated and
you know how your group feels and you want to carry that message
forward. That's what you're there for, you're the board liaison to
whatever committees we're appointed to, right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I make a suggestion? Before
we make a decision on this, can we ask that the County Attorney's
office look at all of these relationships we have, all these positions we
occupy and wear two hats? One day we'll be a member of a committee
making a recommendation, the next day we'll be the county
commission making a decision. And it applies to MPO and county
commission, it applies to the redevelopment agency and the county
commission. There's some --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: EDC.
Page 164
._.-_._-"_..._-_.._".~- -
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- very significant issues here. And
while we know we can separate those issues, it would be somewhat
disingenuous if we were to tell people at the city level they can't do it
but we're doing it. So whatever we do, let's be consistent and let's
understand why we can do it that way. And it would be helpful if we
took a look at it from the standpoint of a very, very strict ethics
interpretation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd love that, myself.
Commissioner Coletta, are you trying to say something out
there?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I was. I don't like to, you
know, interrupt a conversation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right, we can't see your button.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know. I pushed the button
before and it hung me up. I think Coyle rigged it that way.
But any case, I feel we're talking about two different things. Like
you mentioned earlier, we're elected to serve in a certain capacity and
I don't think we can tie the two together. Now, I'm willing to
reconsider it possibly on the TDC and the -- what is it the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: CAC.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The county manager's advisory
board, do you have that, the one Coyle sits on, productivity
committee. Those might become a position where you're non-voting.
I think that would be the best thing to do, and then these people can
arrive at their own decisions separate from the commission. That
would be fair. I think that's a separate issue.
I think we really need to deal with this one here where we have
one agency making suggestions, like Commissioner Coyle mentioned,
to another agency with the same person stepping over there and then
reconfirming that. And it does raise a problem. I think we need to
stick just with that item today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
Page 165
.._---,. ""_,".~"------- -.----- --
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I concur with Commissioner Coyle
and also Commissioner Coletta. And I think that we need to set this
up with the attorneys and let them decide, make sure that we're in
compliance also. Because if we ask other people the same way as
Commissioner Coyle brought up, we ask people that they've got to
divorce themselves from other groups, then when we sit on other
groups, like myself, I sit on the EDC, and so there's a lot of things that
corne forward and there's times that we have to make a decision at
EDC on things. So maybe if we put ourselves in a position where
we're there to observe but we can't vote.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Actually, I did check with the County
Attorney's office before I even brought this up, and the County
Attorney's office said no, legally there is not a conflict of interest.
There might be a perception of a conflict of interest, but there is no
legal conflict of interest.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In my opinion, there is no
distinction. If there's a perception of a conflict, then it's something we
shouldn't do, because the public doesn't have any idea whether or not
it violates the law. And with the experiences with previous decisions
by the Florida Ethics Commission, I believe, you know, that their
decisions are so inadequate that there's no point in having a Florida
Ethics Commission. And if we're not going to interpret these things
more stringently than the Florida Ethics Commission might, then
we're going to see our ethics approval rating plummet rather than
climbing the way it has been in the past couple of years.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mike, did you have something to
comment on?
MR. PETTIT: Mike Pettit, Chief Assistant County Attorney, for
the record.
Commissioner Fiala, when you just made your comment, was
that a response as to the situation of commissioners sitting on dual
boards or --
Page 166
---. ,-,^".,._-~, _._.,'--~-- -, -.--- -
June 22, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No.
MR. PETTIT: -- the issue that you raised?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, the issue I raised, I'm sorry. Thank
you for clarifying that.
MR. PETTIT: We'll be happy to take a look at that and bring
that back as an item, if you wish, under either under the County
Attorney or we can bring it back and let you raise it as a commissioner
item, whatever you please.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
MR. PETTIT: I think I understand the issues that you want us to
look at and bring back for discussion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to bring another
scenario up. A City Council member votes to fund beach
renourishment at the city level and then comes to the CAC and votes
the same way. Now, isn't -- I mean, couldn't you perceive that as a
conflict? The only reason I said that is I just think that there's no
silver bullet here, and we're not going to fix all the scenarios.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, you're right. And I'm sorry I
brought up such a touchy subj ect.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it's something that should
have been brought up.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But I think it's important for us to discuss.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where did we leave this now? Are
we going to take a look at all of these potential conflicts, or are we just
looking at this one issue?
MR. PETTIT: If I understand, there are really two levels of
issues you've raised. Commissioner Coyle, you have -- initially I think
Commissioner Fiala raised the question of individuals other than
commissioners sitting on dual committees that then have some sort of
interrelationship that require them to vote on issues. You've raised a
second issue about commissioners who sit on, for example, the MPO
or the TDC, and then some of those recommendations or decisions
Page 167
--- .--.---....--,
June 22, 2004
may corne back here at some point.
W e'lllook at both sets of issues, if that's what the board wishes us
to do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let me clarify. I know that
our membership on the TDC and the redevelopment agency board and
the MPO is perfectly legal. I know from the standpoint of the law that
it doesn't violate the ethics ordinance. My question, however, is does
it leave the perception of a conflict of interest? And as I said before, if
there's a perception of a conflict, I'm as concerned about that as I am
about whether or not it violates the law.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's kind of hard to research, isn't it?
MR. PETTIT: Well, I was going to say, Commissioner Coyle,
you may be beyond a legal question with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's why we pay you the big
bucks.
MR. PETTIT: I understand. We will take a look at it and report
back.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good. So you will corne back
to us with both prongs, with suggestions or recommendations on both
ends?
MR. PETTIT:. Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not only CAC -- where members
volunteer on both boards, but where we're assigned to different
boards, correct?
MR. PETTIT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. Is that agreeable with
everybody here?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. We have a bunch of nods.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, what do you want to do with the CAC,
TDC membership?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right now we're going to just let it sit
Page 168
..,--,,~,...--,,-,--.~ --
June 22, 2004
there. We're not going to do anything.
MR. MUDD: Let's leave it alone, because in every one of these
particular cases you're looking for an ordinance change.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're going to just leave it alone. I
mean, there's nothing that's, you know, just rushing this along. I'd
rather just give it a little bit of time.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you. But at least we've
brought it to everyone's attention.
And we move on to 8(C) (sic.)
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2004-221 DECLARING A V ACANCY ON THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -
.ADO.ITED
MR. MUDD: The next one is 9(C), which is a recommendation
to declare a vacancy on the Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So moved -- okay, move to approve and
second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second -- oh, you seconded it,
okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, that's all right. Commissioner
Henning moved to approve and I have a second from Commissioner
Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 169
--_._-----_._.,~_.- '-"---' ~-
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
MR. MUDD: 9(D) was continued. 9(E) was done prior.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2004-222 APPOINTING NICHOLAS P. HENES TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -
Al)()flEJ)
Brings us to 9(F), which is appointment of member to the Collier
County Code Enforcement Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve Nicholas
Heims.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second. I have a motion to approve
Nicholas Heims -- Heims to Collier County Code Enforcement Board
by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, that is a 5-0.
Item #9G
Page 170
--,- - -.-----
June 22, 2004
DISCUSSION / DIRECTION TO COUNTY ATTORNEY AND
COUNTY STAFF WITH REGARD TO SUPPORT OF A REQUEST
FOR AN OPINION OF THE FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL
ON SELECTED ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE EFFECT OF
MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION OF AN EXISTING CRA AREA OR
TO PURSUE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY
OE..N.AELFS - A-eEROVED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9(G), which is a discussion/direction
to the county attorney and county staff with regard to support to
request for an opinion of the Florida Attorney General on selected
issues pertaining to the effect of municipal annexation on an existing
CRA area or to pursue an interlocal agreement with the City of
Naples. And this is at Commissioner Coyle's request.
I will also let the board know that there's a similar item, verbatim,
I might add, on Number 14(A). And the county attorney thought there
might be an option there to give direction to the staff versus the
discussion that's going to transpire.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let me explain why I asked
that this thing be brought forward.
There's been talk of the city annexing Ruffina for many, many,
many months and we still haven't reached a conclusion. There is the
issue of tax increment financing. The -- of course, for those who are
listening, the problem is that we have a community redevelopment
agency that includes that area, and what -- when we redevelop an area
within the redevelopment district, the increase in taxes resulting from
the redevelopment area goes into a fund that then helps other portions
of the district get redeveloped.
If the City of Naples annexes Ruffina, which is primarily the
only redevelopment in that particular portion of the district, then the
benefit will be lost to the redevelopment district. And I don't think
Page 171
--'.,---- ^'.-...,--~-- .._~'-
June 22, 2004
that's in the best interest of the county or the city. The City of Naples
has repeatedly told us that they would like to see the entrance to
Naples improved and redeveloped, and certainly the mini-triangle is
an area that is under consideration. If the tax increment funding is
stripped away from that portion of the district, then there's no
opportunity to do the redevelopment, it serves nobody's purpose.
Now, while all this has been going on, lawyers, perhaps present
company excepted, have been going to Tallahassee and asking for
interpretations from the Attorney General. Months have been wasted,
and we are nowhere, as far as I'm concerned.
My question is, why don't we -- and I've asked the same question
of the city and they say they're agreeable to this: Why don't we direct
our staffs to get together, work out an interlocal agreement that is in
the mutual interests of the city and the county concerning the sharing
of the tax increment financing funds, and then if we want an Attorney
General's opinion, send that agreement to the Attorney General and
say hey, here's what we agree with, do you see if it violates state law?
I'd be willing to bet that he's going to say it's fine if we've agreed with
it.
So I would just like to get that off the ground. And I think that if
we were to propose to the City Council that we form a committee to
work this out, we can get this moving along and reach some
conclusion without spending many more months doing something.
It's my belief, and I think it's a belief shared with our legal
department, that the city has the right to annex Ruffina and take all the
money. I hope that's not the case. I hope they will not exercise that
right. But I hope that we can sit down and talk and work out an
interlocal agreement to get this solved.
By the way, the lawyer for the Ruffina developer is in full
agreement with what I've just said, and in fact made that
recommendation to the county -- or to City Council just in the past
couple of weeks. During my last meeting with the City Council in a
Page 1 72
---.. --..-
June 22, 2004
workshop, I made the same recommendation, and -- but it takes two
people to corne together and negotiate.
So that's what I'm suggesting, is we just give staff direction to get
together with the city staff, work out an agreement. If the city rejects
it, if they don't want to work together, then we know where we are.
But if we will at least formally indicate our preference, then perhaps
we can move ahead with it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I just so totally agree. And one of the
people that will benefit from this that you didn't mention is Ruffina
itself. As long as we don't have those TIF dollars to improve the
mini-triangle, as well as the entire triangle, starting with the
infrastructure, like the stormwater management, we're not going to be
able to attract businesses to redevelop or to build new development in
that area, because we -- it's such a -- it has so many infrastructure
problems.
Meanwhile, as they're building Ruffina, all they can look at are
the boarded up buildings that are -- or abandoned buildings. And so I
figure that this is -- there's got to be a good compromise here, and I
would wish that when we -- if the City of Naples is agreeable to this,
we also have people that sit down at the table who know how to
negotiate and who are willing to corne to a compromise, rather than
walk in with a closed mind, because we're not going to get anyplace
that way.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I see what's happened on 5th Avenue
-- I'm sorry that I'm taking your time, Commissioner Halas. I see
what's happened on 5th A venue as we gave them the privilege of
having a CRA on 5th A venue. It's already rebuilt, and that was seven
years ago, I believe. And -- but all the while now as the tax rates are
exploding down on 5th A venue, none of that comes into the county to
run our business, it all goes into the city, and it will for the next 23
years. And I would hate to see that happen with Ruffina.
Page 173
~-
June 22, 2004
So I hope that we have some people that work together for the
benefit, and let me underscore that, for the benefit of both the county
and the city and Ruffina. Thank you for letting me spout off.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, with that
workshop that you attended, did you feel that there was an error of
whereby the city wanted to have an open dialogue in respect to this?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're trying to get me in trouble
again, aren't you? We had a very spirited discussion that day. I was
told that the county staff and the city staff had gotten together and
they had worked out an agreement. I asked for a copy of that
agreement and I have not been able to find a copy of that agreement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hmm.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do not believe such an agreement
was actually ever put to paper. And what I asked was, and I
specifically said look, call off the lawyers and let's get the people
working together who can hammer out an agreement. It's my belief
that the City Council as a whole wishes to resolve that issue as quickly
as possible.
I will also say to you, however, that some of the members of the
council have expressed the opinion that the county has no right to
those tax increment financing dollars.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I don't know how it's going to
turn out. And my feeling is it doesn't make any difference whether the
city has the right to take all that money or not. What makes -- what
makes more sense to me is doing the right thing. And just because
you have the legal right to do something doesn't mean you should do
it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I would hope that if we were
Page 174
" .~----.^_."-_._..- ._--~-"'_.- ------~ --
June 22, 2004
able to sit down and talk with the staff, that we could hammer out an
agreement that makes sense for everybody. We have to work
together. And I would hope that we would make the overture to do
that. And I would also hope that the city would not refuse that
overture.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: May I ask a question? As long as you
have the ERA, the developer and the attorneys, would they ever
reconsider annexing into the city, to stay in the county if we in turn as
the county would work with them for whatever their needs are and --
you know, whether it be for permitting or whatever it is, to work very
diligently to answer their needs so their need isn't to annex into the
city.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't know. I've never had
that kind of discussion. But I can tell you, there is such a great
frustration among all the developers in the triangle, in the
redevelopment district, with respect to our permitting and the delays
and that sort of thing, that they're all wanting to leave, quite frankly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know. I know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I would say that if we could
find some way to do something with all of the mini-triangle and link
that entire development area together, it might encourage somebody to
do something with the whole package. But that's going to require
eminent domain action, and I don't know that this commission,
including myself, would be willing to do that. So I don't know.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I would love it if you would talk to
your developer and to his --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's not my developer.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, to the person that is developing
Ruffina and possibly suggest if we can help him through that process
and guide it in a streamlined fashion, and if that would be the only
reason he's annexing in the city, if we could keep him as our own,
because he'll -- in the end he'll benefit by that also as we begin to
Page 175
--.- "^.~.__._._.,,-- ~-
June 22, 2004
repair the damage that has been wreaked on that whole area for the
many number of years that, you know, behind us, maybe he would be
willing to do that as long as we -- you know, it's worth --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't I suggest -- I don't want
to go to the developer and start trying to work deals, but why don't I
suggest to them that if there is an interest in working with the county
in any particular way, that they corne before us and we can schedule it
on a public hearing and listen to what they have to say. Is that okay?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That would be great, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. I can certainly do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sounds great.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Looks like you're getting a bunch of nods.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So is that a nod to work together
with the city -- or propose to the city that we try to draft out an
interlocal agreement on the annexation that would be mutually
agreeable?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You got this nod.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh.
MR. MUDD: Now, there are two things that you talked about. I
want to make sure I understand. One of which is you're going to ask
the developer if there's a way that -- to corne in front of the board to
have him tell the board how the board can help him so that he doesn't
have to annex. That's one thing. And Commissioner Coyle, you're
going to carry that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll carry that ball.
MR. MUDD: You're going to carry that ball.
And the other part is we're going to open a dialogue with the City
of Naples to try to corne up with an interlocal agreement, if Ruffina
does annex into the city. I want to make sure when you say staff,
you're talking to the County Manager or are you talking to Aaron
Blair, your Director of the CRA? You've got two staff --
Page 176
'_"M'____ ,. --"--,-."-_. ,--.- ......-
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm talking to the County Manager.
MR. MUDD: Okay. But I'm going to have to get Mr. Aaron
Blair involved, too, because he also works for you, and the CRA --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. MUDD: -- is his. I want to just make sure, you got two
folks that touch this area. And that's why it's on 14(A), too, because
that's under the CRA side of it. So when you say staff, I'll grab Mr.
Blair and I'll make sure he's sitting at the table when we go through
that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Definitely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good, good.
MR. MUDD: I have direction. I had three nods.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And we move on to 10(A).
Item #10A
QUARTERL Y REPORT ON THE NEWLY ADOPTED
TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM-=.ERESENIED
MR. MUDD: 10(A), which is a presentation of the quarterly
report on newly adopted transportation concurrency management
system. And Mr. Norman Feder, the Administrator for Transportation
Services, will present.
MR. FEDER: Thank you, Jim.
Commissioners, we're going to seek to be brief on a fairly
complex issue. But hopefully you've all received, and we have
outside for folks that are here, an overview of a slide show. We're
going to go through that fairly quickly, as I noted.
But it's important to note for you this is the first of our real time
concurrency quarterly presentations to this board. We're not going to
Page 1 77
-~_.",. --
June 22, 2004
go through all of the inner workings, but what I did want to do is make
sure that first of all the board and the public watching today and here
in this meeting room is aware that in fact one of the most aggressive
and most sophisticated concurrency management systems, as directed
by this board, for transportation concurrency is in effect, it is in place
and is being utilized today.
That process is very detailed, it is utilizing outstanding data and
we're daily in the process of updating and refining and expanding that
data source, and we'll try to give you a feel for both, a demonstration
of what we're doing, how we're doing it, as well as what we're doing to
expand even our database capabilities.
Beyond that what I did want to do is just give you the bottom
line. The bottom line is that we're up and running. The bottom line is
that because of your construction program we are keeping up with
demands, with one area that is -- with accelerated growth has
particularly been brought out as this process should do, as the sensitive
area's corning up on us fast, and that is 951 and 41. We'll show you
that in the presentation as well.
And the other thing that it highlights is an issue that this board
has attended to already but we really need to specifically get to, and
that is the issue of vested units that are unlikely to develop and yet are
within this system. And so in effect we are evaluating all
development as to whether it can proceed on the basis of not only
what's on the ground today, but what is vested. One-seventh of that
development is in that process and we got cases, as we know and as
we've discussed, where maybe 700 units, let say, were approved, 400
were built, all the land area has been built out, and those other 300 are
still on the books. Or we have major developments, developments
with regional impact, for instance, where there's been a lot of
discussion about them down-sizing, based on market conditions today,
and yet they haven't. So when they have that legal right, we have those
trips in there and we are evaluating those as vested, as committed trips
Page 178
~'._-,"---'> ~..- ~-"--- _.__c_
June 22, 2004
under the checkbook system. So that is an important area you'll see
out of this that we need to attend to as we continue to apply and refine
the system.
That being said, Alan EI-Urfali and Phil Tindall, both from your
transportation planning staff, again, we'll try to be extremely brief but
give you a feel for where we are. And then of course any questions,
and we encourage anyone who's interested in the system to contact us
and we'll be happy to go into greater detail. Thank you.
MR. TINDALL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Phil Tindall. I'm with the transportation planning
staff.
As Mr. Feder explained, we are going to try to be brief, but
please feel free to stop if you have a need for us to expand on any
particular issue.
Here are the table of contents. It's a little bit different from that
described in the executive summary, and that's simply because as we
went through practicing this presentation, we saw we really needed to
pare it down in the interest of time, and that's what the slide variations
are about.
We're going to cover checkbook concurrency, briefly overview
how that works. We're going to explain an overview of how our
concurrency management system database operates, and we're going
to actually give you a live system demonstration, which will include
an up-to-date status report on the current concurrency status of our
road network, how it is actually today, because we now have that
capability to do so. So we're going to show that off for you.
We're going to cover also any administrative components of the
concurrency management system that we need to address for
clarification purposes in doing so, and we'll also address some future
improvements we'd like to make in the system, and then we'll also
conclude with particular emphasis on future planning aspects of the
system, and of course cover any questions you'd like.
Page 179
-'----.."" ,..---,.,..
June 22, 2004
Okay, first, how checkbook concurrency works. It's very
analogous to maintaining your personal checking account in that it's
all about total volume and remaining capacity in the system. Traffic
volume is analogous to expenditures of funds, whereas capacity is
analogous to revenue and monitoring income in your personal
checking account.
We start off by determining total peak -- or total volume based
upon total peak hour directional trips out in the system, and we derive
that from actual machine counts from over 150 count stations
distributed throughout our network. And we add to that trips that are
banked into our trip bank and our database. And that includes vested
trips, which we'll discuss on the next slide, as well as trips that we
enter into our database from a review of new development proposals.
And then we determine our remaining capacity as our running
balance in our checkbook, if you will, and we take our calculated
capacity for each link on our road system, which includes the capacity
derived from future improvements that are planned for construction
within the next two years, that's pursuant to board direction, and we
subtract from that our total volume, and that gives us our remaining
capacity.
As Mr. Feder mentioned, we did have to take into account vested
development and how that is factored into our baseline capacities as
our starting point in our database. What we did last year is we had the
law firm of Carlton Fields do an in-depth analysis for us of planned
unit developments by reviewing all 300 plus PUDs that we keep track
of, reviewing the individual ordinance for those and also the annual
monitoring reports, and they carne up with a best estimate of the
number of vested trips out there in the system, and those are outlined
as you see there.
What we did then is we determined that we needed to
incrementally add those vested trips into our system, and we carne up
with a rate of growth for that vested development at one-seventh per
Page 180
^~.__._--_....._, .-- .. .---...--- ~>-
June 22, 2004
year; in other words, a build-out rate of a total seven years. And that
was not something that was arbitrary, that was based upon some
analysis that our utility staff did for similar purposes related to
concurrency. They did a very detailed comprehensive study of
various types of commercial and residential development of varying
sizes, and they carne up with an average of about seven years to
build-out for the typical development. And that's where that carne
from.
What we're going to now do is just give you an overall discussion
of how the data flows in our system and an actual live demonstration.
And I'll now turn it over to Mr. EI-Urfali.
MR. EL-URF ALI: For the record, Alan EI-Urfali, senior project
manager, Transportation Planning Department.
I'll briefly describe the process of the day-to-day operations as
part of the transportation review and also as part of the concurrency
test.
The process starts with applications from -- that arrive from CDS,
we actually pick them up, Community Development and
Environmental Services. They corne in the form and type of site
development plans, final plats, plats and plans and site development
amendments. We conduct a transportation review, which includes the
review of the -- all EISs that are required with the type of
development.
Once the review is complete, it is fed into the system. Now, this
is the first place where actual data goes in. We have this process
almost automated, with the exception of adding the trips to the
segments themselves. Once the information is fed in, there's a
concurrency test conducted, and it leads to either yes or no, basically.
And we have reports to show you.
If the -- if there is available capacity and if the development can
go forward, the data is further inputted into the system. This process
here is automated completely. The trips are actually banked. There
Page 181
-
June 22, 2004
are other processes involved, which we can talk to -- talk about later,
in between here. A -- basically a COA is issued and the process stops.
Otherwise, if there's not available capacity on a particular link or
segment, the applicant has these options available. And reduction
phase intensity is one of them; mitigation for added capacity is
another; and of course direction or -- from the board to reduce level of
servIce.
Once a potential solution has been identified, it's fed back into
the system and it runs the concurrency test and pass and hopefully
stops there; otherwise, development is denied.
And I could go in -- what you're seeing here is our concurrency
database. It's the first form that appears. It allows the user to either
select from a predefined development order that's already in the
system, that you don't have to put in the information again and again
and again, or actually put in the information if it's not there. And we
have a couple of them over here.
Concurrency allowances is done immediately. You can see the
segment that the development has impacted. This form here is a pretty
good form. It's got some smart buttons on it. The concurrency report,
from this point on I can print out this concurrency report and then later
on bank the trips. However, there are these two smart buttons, what
we call them. If one of the links that are identified falls in a TCMA or
a TCEA, that button actually lights up. If it doesn't, of course it's
straight up.
Go to a report real quickly. I think the reason why it's not trying
to print the report, because there's no printer attached, so I'm going to
end that.
This also will give you a TCMA report, and it's not doing that
either. I think the printer attachment is -- I didn't test this before I
carne here. I can guarantee you this works.
But the last option is to bank the trips. Once the trips are banked,
certain things happen. First of all, there's a timer on it for one year.
Page 182
.^-"".__.~._.__..",-- -,-"-
June 22, 2004
The -- I'll show you here in a moment where development orders that
are banked are reserved. Other trips that are vested are vested. So
there's a clock on it for one year. If there's no CO issued -- or COA
issued, then basically the development order is purged from the
system.
MR. FEDER: While you're working with that, if I could,
Commissioners, very quickly, let me just point out to you, as you look
across this chart what it's doing is just what you saw in that formula.
What you're seeing is each segment has a capacity assigned to it.
You're seeing what the actual peak hour, peak directional, and that's
important. That's basically the volume in one direction, the peak
direction for that hour. So sometimes you'll see it, it looks like 41,
why shouldn't it be almost 58,000, rather than, let's say, 29. That's
peak directional, okay?
So it's showing you how much volume is out there today. It
shows you what's banked. That's both, as was said to you, the vested
trips as well as anything that's been approved, based on there being
capacity available. And this is done real time and live.
Then it shows you what is being asked for on that project.
You've got an idea of how many trips are still left, whether or not you
can improve it and bank it, and the system does automatically do that.
Let me hand it back over to Alan.
MR. EL-URFALI: Thank you. The first table you see right here
is all the segments that are outside the TCMA -- both TCMAs and the
TCEA. They're sorted by remaining capacity. First link you see right
there, that's our 951, it's got a negative 77. You can also see the
capacity that is assigned for that segment, number of lanes, the
standard level of service adopted, peak hour, directional volume and
bank trips, which account for the total volume. And of course that's
subtracted from the capacity, and you will get that result.
What's very interesting about this program, it's not like just a
spreadsheet like other municipalities have. Each one of -- if we
Page 183
- ... _._-_._~-" .-._--
June 22, 2004
wanted to look at the bank trips for each segment, where they're
corning from and what developments that are generated -- generatìng
them, then we can do so by the built-in queries that we have in here.
For instance -- oh, here we go. Right now I am examining
segment No. 95, which is the East Trail, from SR-951 to -- east to
Marco. And you can see that we have reserve capacity vested and
there is one development right here. Let me blow this up. Charlie
Estates, Phase II. AR No. 5754. It's reserved. And if you add this
column right here where it says peak hour, peak direction trips, if you
add that column, that's where the bank trips are in the other table that
you saw. So we can do a lot of things with this program.
The next table is the TCMA segments, and they're also sorted by
remaining capacity. The Livingston Road is included in that, and we
don't have volumes on it yet. Weare receiving them. By next month
we should have it in here. But it's in fairly good shape. It's got one
segment that's low. That's old U.S. 41.
And the next table would be the TCEA. Small table. We have
Tamiami Trail, Airport to Rattlesnake Hammock, carrying negative
304. But it's in a TCEA, so we have some provisions for that.
With that, if you have any questions about the database -- of
course I forgot to mention that the database is housed, or the hub of
the database is in Microsoft Access. We're using about 66 tables
altogether. Some of these tables are also ported to GIS application, in
particular, ArcView. So we can produce maps, either by volumes,
remaining capacity. And if we even wanted to go further on than that,
we can also include turning movements and stuff like that.
MR. FEDER: Thank you, Alan.
I wanted to have Bob Tipton give you a very quick view of some
of what we're doing on the data now. Obviously you can see that the
system is set up, and most of it you still have very well to go through
that data and to apply it under the purpose.
What Bob is doing right now is taking our computerized signal
Page 184
-----~...- ---<._~- " ',~"o__~--- --
June 22, 2004
system and taking the equipment that you see out there now that
everybody wonders what those cameras are out there, they're actually
up in the air. They're detectors, loop detectors, rather than in the
ground as they previously were. And through that process he's able to
get lane-by-lane capacity, which means turning movements at
intersections as well as volumes, which is something that we've never
had before. They usually went into the controller when they were in
the loops and the controller used to look at the timing, and then they
went away and never were captured for data.
So I wanted you to see this. It's pretty interesting how we've
been able to obtain this data and how useful it will be as we continue
through this system.
While they're setting that up, the other thing that I'll point out to
you is in addition to having this system up and running, as I
mentioned to you, the vested trips issue that we're dealing with and
then expanding the data, we're also working -- as we told you,
one-seventh of the trips is the assumption under vested right now.
Based on other changes you made in the Growth Management Plan,
you provided for a very expanded annual PUD monitoring. And in
that PUD monitoring, we're going to look at each development and see
what its actual growth rate has been. In some cases that may be a little
faster than one-seventh, in some cases a little bit slower. And because
it's very important on a link-by-link analysis that we understand
particularly the growth rate of those developments that affect those
lanes. We'll again be able to refine the data as we continue through
and get that PUD monitoring and, again, as I said, annually make sure
that we're applying those vested trips to the system correctly as we try
to use that in looking at new development and whether or not we have
the capacity to meet its needs.
MR. TIPTON: Okay. Just very quickly, I'm sure everyone is
starting to notice as you drive around town, especially at the locations
that have mast arms, is a camera up above, looking at the traffic
Page 185
---.-,.".- -..,.--.."-...... ---.--- -
June 22, 2004
corning down the street. We use those for video detection. That's a
scheme that we've gone to to get away from using the loops. We get
better service from them, but then our transportation planning
department carne to us, asked if there was a way that we could use
those to get turning movement counts at the intersections, real time,
and then provide them to them for their planning purposes.
We took a look at that and found that we could. And working
with the vendor and our contractors and such, we've corne up with a
method of doing that.
Now, this is a video image. This is not actually corning back
from an intersection, but we went out to an intersection and captured
what the camera actually sees. And as you look at the traffic corning
through here, you'll notice that we have these long green arrows.
Those are actually detector zones that are running the intersection,
telling us that we need to hold a green signal for that movement.
But out in here we have counting locations. These are actually
counting the cars as they go through. I t was difficult to set up at first
because the other cars from other directions get into the picture
sometimes, so we had to corne up with a logic that would allow us to
only count cars that were going in this direction through the
intersection and not the ones going through the left. We used logic
gates with those.
And we're able now -- we're at 11 intersections. Tomorrow we'll
be wiring up the 12th one of being able to collect 24-hour turning
movement counts at the intersections. At 10 of those, we have them
already on the signal system, so we can actually bring those counts
back daily. We download from the signal system and we can put them
into archives so that the planning department can use them at any
time.
We've got three more that the board approved. The LAP
agreement with the DOT, which is funding three more of these
locations to be installed later this summer.
Page 186
. ..-----.---- . _,"'n ....-" ._~-
June 22, 2004
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please?
MR. FEDER: Bob Tipton, traffic operations engineer.
Commissioners, there's a lot more of the presentation, but I
realize how big an agenda you have, so I'll open it up to any questions.
And of course, as I said at the outside, we have some of the handouts
we gave you outside, if anyone wants to grab it. And we encourage
anyone that wants to get more information on the system to please get
in touch with us.
With that, let's open it to any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think you guys are doing a great
job. I think we're in the -- we're moving in the right direction. There's
only one concern that I have and that is the way that the traffic was --
or the traffic count was vested for years ago on PUDs that are just now
corning into being developed. And could you explain how you're
addressing that? Because obviously when these PUDs carne on line
and somebody wanted vested traffic, it was a lot lighter then than it is
now, and how are we adjusting that so that we don't run into a problem
with PUDs that are now just brand new ones that are corning on line,
versus the old ones that are now still out there?
MR. FEDER: That's a good point, Commissioner. Really two
ways I have to answer that. One is, we're taking into account those
vested trips. That's why we went through that process. And while it's
for planning purposes, and we could go into a legal discussion with
someone along the line, we pretty much have gotten a feel that we've
got a pretty good handle on all of those vested trips out there and we're
taking them into account. So yes, the vesting process was easier, it
didn't have this testing process, which is what you asked us to get
going and what we have up and running right now.
The other part of the answer that I have to give is the other issue
that I raised. And before Marjorie hits me with something, because
it's not an easy issue to resolve but one that we're working on, and that
Page 187
-,..,"----,,-,,~. Me ~_ _ .. .-.-
June 22, 2004
is we need to go back to those vested trips, especially where we've had
those PUDs for a long time. Some places they've built out maybe all
the developable land but they still have trips on the books that we have
to take into account, or some of those other developments that
continuously talk about maybe reducing the level of development but
haven't done so and still have the legal right to develop to that level, so
one that we'd have to take into account.
Plus we'll be refining it, as I said, as they corne in with PUD
monitoring and we're able to go even more sophisticated than the
one-seventh relative to how each individual development (sic) and
what segments it impacts, so therefore we'll get even more detail.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Specifically I'm looking at some of
these large commercial areas that bought vested rights, and of course
if this was done back in 1992 or '93, their traffic count or the way they
were vested is a lot different than we're looking at today. And now
these commercial areas are being developed, and specifically I'd say
like something like a W al- Mart.
MR. FEDER: Yeah. Generally they were vested for a number of
trips. But then again, some of them were just vested in general.
Again, we have a lot of issues to work with in the past. This board has
taken a very, very aggressive approach. Your staff is trying to be very
responsive to that. I think we've got a much better system now and
we'll have to work through those items.
But in answer to your question, for the most part there was a
vested number of trips and that's what we're responding to. Above
that, there has to be adequate capacity to meet it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, in the bank one of the things that
you saw from the staff member that showed you the capacities, you
have a -- and I'm looking at -- I'm looking at the first table that said
CONC segments all, you have a trip bank in there, and in the trip bank
is where he keeps his vested trips from previous developments so that
Page 188
---.-. -"-""-'~"~--'-
June 22, 2004
they're added -- they're taken away from the capacity of road already,
so it's already gone.
Now when you look at that piece -- that page, there's an item up
there that I want you to pay attention too, okay, because it's the one
that you got a minus number on with remaining trips. And, you know,
what I was hoping that one of the commissioners were going to ask,
and I knew you were, so I'll kind of give you a hint. You should ask
Norman, now that you got minus 77 on State Road 951, US 41 to
Manatee Road, how did they get negative and what are you doing
about anybody that comes forward with adding any more?
And I really believe, Commissioner, when you start -- when you
talk about that particular question, you get -- because there's an
intersection down there, okay, and Commissioner Fiala knows it quite
well, it's 951 and 41 on the East Trail. And everything to the south on
41 and everything to the south on 951 going to Marco causes grave
concern. Why? Because Lely Resorts has got a great number of
vested units and so does Fiddler's Creek, okay? Now, not too sure that
they're going to develop all those vested interests, and that's one of the
things that we query upon. But I promise you that if a development
comes in like a Super Wal-Mart, okay, and all of a sudden they're on a
__ they're on a dead end road and there's no more capacity, Norman
Feder is not going to give them a go on their SDP and basically said
sir, I'm sorry, you can't build here right now because we don't have
capacity. And he'll give them some options of what they might be
able to do in order to get capacity, i.e., they can build an extra lane in
each direction, okay, if they need to, on that road segment to give it
more capacity. They could go to Fiddler's Creek and say hey, how
many of those vested units aren't you going to build and I would like
you to free those up. Or they could go to Lely, like Wentworth did, to
get those 1,000 units out of their particular case so that they had the
capacity on the road segment in order to do it. All of those things are
within their prerogative in order to do. Not necessarily something that
Page 189
^._._....._'.m_..___~_ ~~---.- --"-~--
June 22, 2004
staff nor the Board of County Commissioners have to force them to
do, you just basically have to say unless you can show me where I
have capacity, either you decrement the vested out there of
communities that surround that particular intersection or road
segment, or you build additional capacity in. Then we might -- we
might be more amiable toward your particular request.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, every time we discuss that,
we still have this problem of a lot of vested units being included in our
numbers to determine level of service of the roads. And we're not
really sure if all those vested units will ever be developed. How are
we doing on trying to find a way to clean out all of the vested units
that we know will never really be developed?
MR. FEDER: Yes. Marjorie, I believe, is up here. I'm going to
let her jump in.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right.
MS. STUDENT: Yes, I've had -- for the record, Marjorie
Student, Assistant County Attorney. And Commissioner Coyle and I
have had this discussion, and I've laid out a process, and we're in the
process of trying to get information from other local governments as
to how they handle it and also as to what a more immediate solution
might be.
One of the problems with this is once a development right is
given, and especially in the DRI scenario there's case law that tells us
that once it's vested under the statute, and that would be for
concurrency, as the Edgewater Beach case, it's vested. So we have to
proceed carefully and corne up with a process to, you know, take -- to
reduce these number of units or to take these development rights
away.
I've been in consultation with our outside counsel at Carlton
Fields about getting us some information about how this is done in
other areas. One possible solution is when a developer comes in for a
Page 190
_^U."_"'''.___' ---
June 22, 2004
final plat or final site development plan, it's understood that that's it
and those units or that square footage is gone.
Another tool that may be in the tool box, but we have to have a
process to have the developer corne in, is to do a development
agreement where the developer would agree that -- or a subsequent
homeowners association, this is it, this is the number of units we're
going to have.
Looking to the future, the idea has been to put timelines into
PUDs for which they must develop. But that doesn't get again to the
issue of those that, I call them phantom units, that are out there.
And then finally we're left with corning up with a process for all
the rest of them where we would have to have some kind of process to
take that development right away and do some kind of an omnibus
ordinance that would catch all the PUDs.
And there would have to be some exceptions. For example, if
you have platted and subdivided lots even though a home hasn't been
built on a lot yet but it's been sold, I mean, that's as good as a home
being there. And it may be a little more difficult with a multi-family
situation.
But it's something -- I have done legal research and can't find,
you know, any cases or anything that deal with this type of issue, so --
and it is -- I don't think it's necessarily unusual but a way to deal with
it is novel, especially with the growth rate that we are experiencing
here. And all I'm concerned about is to avoid any Bert Harrises or
anything like that, we have an adequate process to make sure that the
concerns are met.
And when I had talked to Commissioner Coyle, it was with the
idea of, you know, hopefully towards the fall, you know, corning back
with something, so -- and we are gathering information.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, there's -- there are two other
points I'd like to make. One is that there are certain circumstances
where we know that density is not going to be developed. For
Page 191
- ---'"'..-.-.- .. _. M____.." - - ...---
June 22, 2004
example, the -- what used to be the Sable Bay development, owned by
the -- previously owned by the Colliers, we know that was approved
back in the Eighties for around 4,000 units or so. We know now that
we're going to be able to reduce that down to around 1,700. So there's
about 2,300 units that should not be built, and we know that. And a
PUD is going to be corning before us and we can approve it at the new
density and we can immediately wipe out 2,300 units there
somewhere. So we're going to have a number of those corning up
over the next several years.
But then as you point out, there are others that have really just
finished building, and yet there are units left in their PUD that haven't
been built and we need to find a way to deal with that. And we'll -- so
we'll get something maybe in the fall that will help us deal with that.
MS. STUDENT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The other point is, and correct me
if I'm wrong here, but it's my understanding that because you have all
of that vested traffic already accounted for in your calculations, that
the level of service is determined not by the traffic that is on the roads
right now, but the level of traffic that has already been approved to be
on the roads right now; is that a true statement?
MR. FEDER: Yes. Basically the level of service is already
indicated. But the amount of available capacity, how much capacity is
assumed used, is not only what's out there today but also what is
banked and, therefore, vested, you're correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if we have a level of service for
a roadway of E at the present time, that level of service is based upon
traffic that is there and traffic that is authorized to be there, and so --
MR. FEDER: That level of service E gives you a service
volume, how much capacity that segment has at that level of service.
A six-lane roadway "X" has more service capacity at E than it does at
D, just as a statement. So that level of service has been decided for the
particular roadways, which the board has already done in its
Page 192
__'m~__~"_"__"<_"~_'_'____ ' -,._.~._~- ~--
June 22, 2004
Comprehensive Plan, D and E. E in some sections, D in others. That
level of service gives you, along with other variables, how many
signals and other issues, what your service capacity is on that
particular link. So that's that first item you saw in there, in the
capacity .
Then as you point out, from that service capacity you're not just
looking at trips on the ground right now, you're looking at those trips
on the ground, plus the vested, plus anything we've approved because
the system showed us we still had some trips left. So that bank is both
vested and what's been approved since the system's been up and
operating already.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And that's exactly the way
it should be, you know, that's the safest way to --
MR. FEDER: And to your other point, Commissioner, just to
add to it, as we continue to work forward on this vesting issue, and as
I point out, that's a major need that we see, especially as we're starting
to get closer to segments where we may not have the capacity and the
ability to say to go forward without some of the other issues being
addressed. One option that we do have and that we're looking at as
well, again, as I mentioned, is we get PUD monitoring in. At that
point we'll be able to see an idea of how quickly some of these are
developing and their prospects to develop, so no longer just use the
one-seventh, which is a very good test, not only do utilities use it but
we did a test of basically all that's vested plus what's been happening
out in the Estates, which of course can go and is not vested in and of
itself, so 900 plus annual residential building items out there.
With that in mind, we tested that against what we've seen as our
annual growth and it carne in pretty much on.
But the issue in transportation is link by link. So while the
one-seventh is a good test county-wide and we're able to affirm that
the utility uses, we need a link-by-link. So that PUD will allow us to
do that. It will also allow us to look at how quickly some of these --
Page 193
^"--.-.. --~ --
June 22, 2004
and if they are totally phantom units we can try to address that in how
many of those vested trips we're bringing on from a realistic
standpoint.
But we needed that PUD monitoring. We didn't want to make
any assumptions other than the one-seventh at this time until that
upcoming PUD monitoring comes forward.
So that's another way, as is what Jim mentioned. I'm sure the
industry will find that if someone's ready to give up units, those units
are out there. But again, that takes trips off the system to allow trips
to go on. It is not allowing any development that can't be addressed
within our infrastructure, and that's what you've asked for,
concurrency, real-time concurrency.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, do you have any
comments or questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Apparently not. Okay.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I do have one concern, Norm, and
maybe you can make me have that warm fuzzy feeling. And that is
we're talking about the vested trips and everything else. But as this --
as summer closes and we start getting into the fall season, we see quite
an abundance of trips being generated on our roads as people who
aren't here for three or four months start to corne back into our
community and we notice a huge volume of traffic to the point where,
let's take for instance u.S. 41 and Pine Ridge Road. And it gets to the
point where it's a total bottleneck.
I believe you still have some vested traffic that's -- that can be
utilized on U.S. 41, but yet the people out there see this to where they
feel that it's at full capacity. How are you going to address that? I
know you said you're doing traffic counts, but if we've got all this
vested stuff, how are we going to --
MR. FEDER: Weare, Commissioner. And let me just quickly
Page 194
-'.- _·._...."~._u_..." .-"...-. -
June 22, 2004
hit, and I won't take too long. But essentially what you've got is we're
using traffic counts. Now, we are using 10 months of the year. We
took out the peak of the peak, if you will. We acknowledge that.
We've got a level of service that's already been reduced down to D and
E. So we're not at level of service C. So we've already built in
accepted some additional delay in the system.
But with that in mind, all those people that have the part-time
home here, all those businesses or hotels that are drawing the tourists,
all of those things have been factored in relative to the peak trips that
we're utilizing, plus as they develop or as they propose to develop, if
they're vested, their trips are added into the system.
So understand that the person who stands at a light -- and we're
also working on that on the computer, our signalization system -- but
that stands at that light in one direction they're going to be sitting at
that light. They look at it and there's a lot of volume out there. Yes, at
times of the year our system is set for level of service D and E. But at
the same time, we're making sure that we don't go beyond that, that we
don't get into a system that comes to the failure of level of service F,
because we have the infrastructure to meet our accepted level of
service, which is D and E, based on 10 months out of the year, peak of
about the 250th highest hour.
And with that in mind, we are controlling for that, so it isn't a
matter of summertime, wintertime issues, it's controlled throughout the
year based on that level of service.
I hope I answered your question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You did.
MR. FEDER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I hate to ask another question because I
know we need to break here and give our court reporter a break, but
just one other question, then. The road that frightens me of course is
Immokalee Road, as we have the big four plus the giant fifth corning
on board. And so if you see that the road can't handle that capacity
Page 195
-.--..",. ~-
June 22, 2004
and they're still building, is there any way to control that, or is it -- is it
already just vested so that we can't solve that problem?
MR. FEDER: No, I think you've got a couple of issues there,
taking Immokalee as an example.
We're in the process, as you know, of six -laning one section. The
other is corning forward, all of Immokalee as well as sections of 951,
as an example. We have a lot of development pressures out there, but
we've got a lot of available capacity as well.
But in answer to your question is, this system, and you didn't get
to see a lot of it, you'll see it over in quarterly reports where we're
taking a lot of your time now, and I appreciate it. But essentially it
has a lot of ability for us to play what if, to look out, to understand
how things might operate, but its real key is down to real time, first
corne, first serve is the capacity there. So if we get down to the point
that those developments you mentioned, if they're vested, the trips are
already in there. If they're not vested, their trips aren't in there until
they do a final site plan, plat or plan or they do a developer
contribution agreement to commit those trips, and so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, but -- I hate to interrupt you. I
understand about vesting. I think we all understand about vesting.
But if we find that the road is broken, no matter how many are vested
and no matter how many are written in there, if the road isn't
functioning, is there a way for us to correct the problem before adding
additional trips onto that road?
MR. FEDER: The answer to that is, first of all, Immokalee's
probably a bad example because you've got the capacity, and we're not
near there yet. A good one is obviously 951, as we just showed you.
While the trips out there today -- and this is what you wanted
done. Normal traffic counts would have said I still had capacity out
there to approve more development along that section of 951 south of
41. But in reality, because of vested trips, I do not, as it stands today.
So the answer is, we would not allow any more trips on that until we
Page 196
-_._..~.- --"- .,. ..,-- -~- .,~-" ~~-
June 22, 2004
either somehow find more capacity or we eliminate some of that
demand for trips, vested or whatever.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Even if they're vested?
MR. FEDER: The vested we cannot stop it, and that's the only
section you saw a negative. So if we're doing our system right, you
should see no more go negative. So we don't have that problem.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Lastly--
MR. FEDER: That's why you developed the transportation
concurrency management areas and exception areas so that we could
manage those where we knew we had some issues, and then make sure
we don't find any more in the future, that we don't allow development
unless infrastructure's available, and that's the charge that this board is
asking to be --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm just worried about past --
MR. MUDD: Well, the past thing you have is that minus 77, and
that's why I brought -- that's why I brought it to your attention, okay?
It's the only negative number that you have there, and it's because
you've got vested trips. It has a lot to do with Fiddler's Creek that's
sitting right there that's gone.
So if there is a development on that segment or one below it
that's corning online, Mr. Feder is going to say, I'm sorry, we don't
have the capacity on our present road system, and we won't have it for
four years, three years, or whatever that's going to be.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But you understand what I'm saying about
-- about Immokalee? I'm just -- I'm just so concerned that all of those
-- I mean, we've got 1,600 homes, 1,200 homes, 850, 3,450 homes all
going to be pouring out onto that thing, plus another one that's 1,200,
and that's over and above what we have right now. And even -- and
they're vested because they were figured on a different configuration
than the sensible one that we're addressing right this minute. But they
are vested, and is there away, if we find that they're breaking the back
of the road --
Page 197
-.-- ,,~,._._-" ...---.-
June 22, 2004
MR. MUDD: They're already in here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, but they're not on the road.
MR. FEDER: But they're in here, and, therefore, we are counting
them. What's on the road plus what's vested is already reserved. If I
don't have any additional capacity beyond that, then I don't give
approval for any more to get vesting or to get adequate public facility
certification.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm trying to solve a problem that already
existed. Excuse me. Commissioner Coyle, that's the last one, I'm
sorry. I need to get out --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But they're right, Commissioner
Fiala. What this does is it provides us with a very precise way of
measuring whether the road is over the -- over capacity or not. In this
particular case, we only have one in the entire county that is over
capacity .
What happens is, we sometimes have a tendency to go out and
drive on a piece of road, and we wind up waiting longer than we think
we ought to wait, and we decide that the road is broken, and that's not
the way we have to manage concurrency.
This system counts what's on the road and what was approved in
the past to be on the road, and so it takes into consideration all that
traffic, even though it's not on the road yet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so that gives us a very precise
way of measuring, which keeps us from making decisions because
somebody was out there during a really heavy period of traffic and
they're -- they feel it's terrible and they get upset and angry and then
tell us that the road is all broken. It gets us away from that, because
that's not the right way to make those decisions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I chime in?
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, I thank you for your time. The
Page 198
~'.. .._-_.__."--" -._-- ~~-
June 22, 2004
only thing I want to tell you is, obviously, this will help drive as well
where we look at where we do our future improvements.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I hate to cut this off, Commissioner
Coletta, you have one more question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I want to tell you I have
confidence in the system that Norm's putting together. I tried to
respond a few moments ago, but something -- for some reason you
couldn't hear me.
I think we're going in the right direction. This is not unlike what
they have out in Arizona and Nevada when it comes to water. That is
determined in what their growth factor is. Unless more water can be
brought in to service those communities, they just can't build. Same
thing's going to be happening here as far as our transportation element.
I think it's going to be a model for the rest of the state to follow.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Commissioner Coletta.
Thank you, Transportation Department.
We will now break for 10 minutes and give these guys a chance
to change over.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a quorum. Do you want to
go with a hot mike? Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Madam Chair, we have a four p.m. time certain, and that is item
10L, which we moved to 14B.
Mr. Pettit, I think you have some instructions for the board?
MR. PETTIT: Yes, Madam Chair. It would be my
recommendation that you recess at this time as the Board of County
Commissioners and reconvene as the Community Redevelopment
Agency.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I will recess as the Board of County
Commissioners and reconvene as the CRA Board, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
Page 199
___,._m_ .---~-~~-_.
June 22, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right. Does that -- are -- those are all
the words you need?
MR. PETTIT: Well, you might want to -- I hate to be
formalistic. I don't know how Dave has done this, but I would
recommend a motion and a second --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. PETTIT: -- to recess and--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I make the motion.
MR. PETTIT: -- reconvene.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a second from Commissioner
Halas.
Commissioner Coletta, are you there?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I am right here, dear.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a 4-0 on that. Thank
you.
So we are reconvening.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the item -- I think you've -- that
one motion was to --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Convene as --
MR. MUDD: -- recess and then convene as the CRA.
Item #14B
Page 200
-^--.. ^-_..,~ ----
June 22, 2004
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROVE
THE USE OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS (TIF) TO ASSIST WITH
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE RURAL HEALTH TRAINING CENTER
IN1MMOKALEF - A EP.R OVED
Item is 14B, old 10L, the Board of County Commissioners sitting
as the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency,
recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency, CRA,
approve the use of Tax Increment Funds, TIF money, to assist with the
establishment of a Florida state university school of medicine, rural
health training center in Immokalee based on a determination of the
expenditure being consistent with the Immokalee CRA area's
redevelopment plan.
Sir, state your name.
MR. MOSS: Yes. Good afternoon. John David Moss,
comprehensive planning.
Last week the Immokalee Redevelopment Advisory Board met to
recommend the use of $250,000 in TIF funds to establish a Florida
state university medical training facility in Immokalee.
The purpose of the facility will be to train students, who will
then, in turn, provide medical services to Immokalee residents.
The $250,000 will be used towards various expenditures that
were stated in the executive summary addendum. Some of those
include an appraisal of the building, environmental impact study,
building inspection, building renovations to accommodate teaching, a
vehicle to transport students and equipment and furnishings. All told,
the total is $370,000.
And, of course, the advisory board recommended the use of
$250,000 towards those expenses in order to attract the facility.
Because the specific expenses are not known, the advisory board
Page 201
~-~'_.. -'-"'-."---". .-.,." ~"~~'-'- -,,--
June 22, 2004
is simply requesting a conceptual approval of this item. Once the
specific expenditures are known, staff and the legal department will
verify their consistency with the redevelopment plan and, of course,
with state statutes, and then bring the item back to the board for final
approval.
And I'll take questions, if you have any.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any questions from board members?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to say, this is a -- this
would be a tremendous thing if we were able to pull it off for
Immokalee. It not only will provide medical care, but a whole new
industry in town.
I'd like to make a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'll second the motion.
Do I have any discussion on this?
MS. FILSON: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: There was -- and I believe his name was Richard
Acken, who requested this as a time certain at four p.m., but he hasn't
registered to speak, and I don't know if he's here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't see him.
MR. MOSS: No, I don't -- I've spoken with him. He's not
interested in speaking any longer.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Oh, there he is. Sorry. Okay.
Very good. So we have no speakers.
We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta, and a
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 202
.,.~_.- ._.,.~._---- ~_..~ "'-" _.,,-,--- --
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 4-0, thank you. Thank you very
much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, while you're still there as the CRA
--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
Item #14A
DIRECTION TO CRA STAFF AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
WITH REGARD TO SUPPORT FOR AN OPINION FROM THE
FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL ON ISSUES REGARDING
MR. MUDD: -- there's an item 14A on your agenda. I believe
you already gave us direction during the discussion. You remember it
was a companion item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yeah.
MR. MUDD: It was under paragraph 9. Unless Mr. Pettit has
something else that the board has to do for 14 A, I think we're pretty
well done with this particular item.
MR. PETTIT: Yes. I was going to suggest we do the same thing
you're suggesting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
Okay. We have a motion to approve from Commissioner
Page 203
_.~-~-". ,>~-,.. --..-
June 22, 2004
Henning, second from Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that is passed as well.
MR. MUDD: You didn't need a motion.
MR. PETTIT: You didn't -- yeah. I was going to say, I don't
think we needed a motion.
MR. MUDD: But we have one. What you basically gave the
direction to do was for Commission Coyle to go talk to the developer
to see if he would be amenable to corning to the board and talking to
them about what the board could do as far as helping him with permits
so that he would not annex to the City of Naples, to see if he would
take kindly to that suggestion, and you told staff to go on out there and
work out an interlocal agreement with the City of Naples, if they're
amenable to that suggestion, and to make sure Mr. Aaron Blair was
there with us when we were doing it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right, that's true. This one also addresses
the opinion for the Florida Attorney General.
MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. So did
item 9, and we took direction from the BCC, and will from now the
CRA, that because your desire is to have us pursue the interlocal, we
will not pursue anything with the Attorney General's Office.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So that is now on the record.
Thank you very much.
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
Page 204
,.."_.,,-^-~--- ~-"~_..".. -~-
June 22, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. PETTIT: I think the only thing that's necessary now,
Madam Chairman, is to move to adjourn as the CRA and reconvene as
the BCC.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to adjourn the
CRA Board and reconvene as the BCC. That motion was made by
Commissioner Henning, seconded by Commission Halas.
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.
(N 0 response.)
Item #10B
CONTRACT FOR RFP #04-3629 "CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR
THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS LONG-
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, the next item is item lOB, and that's
a recommendation to approve a contract for RFP number 04-3611,
consultant services for the Metropolitan Planning Organization
Long-Range Transportation Plan 2030 update in the total amount of
360,717.86, and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
MR. MUDD: -- Johnny Limbaugh will present.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor from
Page 205
--".- ,_."., ~ ~~-
June 22, 2004
Commissioner Henning to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I have two seconds, the first one is
from Commissioner Coletta.
And do you need to state something on the record, Johnny?
MR. LIMBAUGH: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any speakers on this subject?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any discussion on this subject?
(N 0 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.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that is 5-0. Thank you.
Item # 1 OC
A CONTRACT FOR RFP #04-3611 "CONSULTANT SERVICES
FOR THE PUBLIC INVOL VEMENT ELEMENT OF THE
METRPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION LONG-RANGE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2030 UPDATE" - MOTION TO BE
BROUGHT BACK AT THE JULY 27, 2004 BCC MEETING-
AE£ROVED
MR. MUDD: Next item, Commissioner, is item 10C, and that's a
recommendation to approve a contract for RFP number 04-3629,
Page 206
~,..........~__~M··_ _"____ ._....__.._-_.~ ---
June 22, 2004
consultant services for the public involvement element of the
Metropolitan Planning Organization Long-Range Transportation Plan
2030 Update, in the total amount of $362,416.57, and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
MR. MUDD: And Mr. Johnny Limbaugh will present.
MS. FILSON: And I have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta.
We have two speakers, and we have some questions that are
waiting to be answered, and Johnny Limbaugh to present. Please
move forward.
MR. LIMBAUGH: I'll answer any questions. The public
involvement process is a very key element of the Long-Range
Transportation Plan. It gives us an opportunity to go out and ask the
public what they think the future transportation needs of Collier
County are and how they should be addressed.
We'll be looking at the transit system, how it links up with Lee
County in t4e future. We'll be looking at roads, bridges, of course.
We'll also be looking at airport connections. It's a multi-modal plan
and the public -- like I said, the public involvement element is very
key to see what the vision of Collier County will be when we grow up.
I also have Chris Cella of Cella Associates, the proposed
consultant, that can answer any technical equip -- questions as far as
what will be provided.
Some of the key things I should probably note that are included
in the scope of services, realizing it is a large sum of money to address
public comment being (sic), but public surveys -- we'll have online
surveys via the web. We'll have transit surveys, going actually on the
buses to get transit issues out there.
We're proposing to work with the school system and maybe do a
class project, working with middle school students to see what their
Page 207
-_.~_.~. ~---- --" ,..~--^ ~~-
June 22, 2004
vision are (sic). As you're aware, decisions we make today on the
transportation system are really to the benefit of our future -- our
children's futures actually.
We're looking at approximately 50 public small group meetings
to determine what those future projects might be. Also a social
cultural data base. What that is is a demographics data base, which
will allow us to go in -- as we go into corridor studies and project
development -- something that Collier County transportation will be
able to use as we move forward is, when we go in to look at a corridor,
we'll be able to go in there and see what the impacts are to that area,
the residents. The churches will be identified. Any parks, recreational
facilities will also be identified. That's all the high points that I could
point out at this time.
I'd be glad to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to point out, public
participation is great. That's how we make good decision (sic). But
this expenditure request is higher than the actual study of the
long-range plan, which I find difficult to swallow. The public meeting
places will probably include private sites. Does that include rentals?
MR. LIMBAUGH: Your -- the question is -- the technical end of
the project road (sic) is 360,000, and this is three hundred and--
MR. MUDD: Two.
MR. LIMBAUGH: -- sixty-two. Well, anyway the technical
scope, we're also working with Lee County on a model, which isn't
included in this consultant -- there's other elements of the technical
end that aren't included in this consultant contract, where, with the
Cella contract, that's all inclusive public involvement under one
consultant umbrella versus on the technical end we're partnering with
Lee County MPO and the FDOT for the model development.
So in actuality, that technical end probably could reach up into
Page 208
-~ -,,- ~--
June 22, 2004
the 400-, 450,000 to $500,000 range.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. LIMBAUGH: Given all the different pieces that are
associated with it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the public meeting
places?
MR. LIMBAUGH: The--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that a part of the contract--
MR. LIMBAUGH: I can let Chris --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- cover the costs?
MR. LIMBAUGH: -- address what's all included as far as the
setup for the --
MS. CELLA: Good afternoon, or almost evening. Chris Cella,
with Cella and Associates, for the record.
We intend on using schools. The transportation division has an
excellent relationship --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They still rent those out?
MS. CELLA: No. They just have an agreement with -- for the
county to be able to use the schools.
The small group meetings that we're intending on doing would be
going out, seeking out Kiwanis clubs, different trade organizations,
meeting with the editorial board. So those will be at locations where
they already have a predetermined location and meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you anticipate any room
rental?
MS. CELLA: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you anticipate any change
orders?
MS. CELLA: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I've got a real problem with
this amount of money, Johnny. I really do. We're talking about
Page 209
~--,..' -.'.- ~--"-
June 22, 2004
enhanced public involvement activities.
You know, we could hold a meeting a week for an entire year
without spending this kind of money, and we could advertise them
without spending this kind of money, and I would doubt seriously if
you'd get more than a couple of thousand people participating at all,
anytime for the entire year. And this is an awful lot of money to reach
that many people.
I also think that when it comes to things like economic interest,
we've got the EDC, we've got our own transportation staff that has
evaluated the road networks, we've got our own CA T people who
understand where the passengers are for our rapid transit, we have
demographic data already collected in the county.
I don't understand why we need to duplicate all of that, assuming
that we are. But I can't imagine why we'd spend this kind of money if
we're not duplicating it. If all we're doing is gathering information
together to help us make some decisions about transportation modes in
Collier County, I'd be surprised if 90 percent of the information we
need isn't already available. And so I'm real concerned with spending
$362,000 just to enhance public involvement activities.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, well you should be, I hope that
what you're going to find -- and I'm going to turn that back over to
Johnny and Ms. Cella.
Basically what you're looking at is an education program. What
we have right now is, nobody knows that there is an MPO long-range
plan, that the county establishes its priorities and its decision how to
improve on the basis of that.
Now, an education program is real cheap if you want to just go
out and go to a school and tell people what you're going to do. One,
they won't show up, and two, people don't like to hear it.
What we need to do is an education in both ways. We need to
hear from them as to what their needs are, their desires, and what we
need to be doing. At the same time, they need to understand the
Page 210
--"~".._--. --... .-_._"-- --.-
June 22, 2004
process and how we go about it and how we pull it together.
The other part of public involvement has to be -- you don't just
ask somebody what they want, and then leave those meetings to
develop a plan. You've got to get back and explain to them where you
utilize their idea, how you modified, how you went to the root cause,
and what you did or did not do relative to the issues they raised.
That's what this program is supposed to be doing, so I'm going to
let them present to you exactly that, I hope, because we are not
looking to just take raw data out there. We've got plenty of that now.
I hope they're going to capitalize on every bit of that.
I don't look to replicate data of development. This is an
education process that's both ways. And we've seen what happens.
When people don't know what's in the plan, when people don't know
what the process is -- we've already had Logan Boulevard as an
example of the issues that we face, and we'll pay much more
downstream for not establishing consensus.
The other part of that equation that I don't think was really
clearly said, and I'm going to say ETDM -- is it --
MR. CELLA: Yes.
MR. FEDER: Okay. The new process is requiring, essentially,
that you establish some level of consensus on what's in your plan by
getting the various groups together and establishing a level of at least
conceptual consensus on proj ects in this portion.
That's what Johnny was referring to could have been in the
technical end of it. It's more of a public involvement end. That is
required as requirements under the state, especially for us now that we
are a transportation management area, TMA, as a larger MPO. That's
why our PO funds -- excuse me -- why our PO funds increased and
why the demands on us for data both in the model and the public
involvement have increased.
But well you should be concerned, as I said, there's a technical
component in the consensus building on projects. It's a new item
Page 211
-"~._-- " '~---~.'-""""-'-- "--" -"-
June 22, 2004
required of us. And the other part is an education, but both ways, up
and down, not just one directional that has to follow.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand that there's a need to
make sure people understand what we're doing and why. But the
problem is, there's no way to force them to participate in this process.
You can't go out and make sure that all of the people get
involved. Only the people who are really interested will get involved,
and then it won't be the people who are really interested in the final
product, because you'll find the same thing that you found with every
other project that we do.
We have public hearings, we -- we talk to people in
neighborhoods, and nobody really gets interested until the time comes
you're laying contract -- asphalt in front of their homes, and then they
get interested.
Now, I know that what you want to do is solve that problem. I
don't think you're going to do it this way, and I think we're going to
spend a lot of money and we're not going to accomplish the desired
goal, but that's a matter of opinion, and I understand I can be wrong.
So let's approach it from this standpoint. Why don't we require
that there be a list of deliverables that we can see before we sign off
on a little over a third of a million dollars. You know, I'd like to see
the list of deliverables? What's supposed to be done, when is it
suppose to be done? How many times are we going to do it? And that
would make me feel a lot more comfortable about approving this kind
of money.
MS. CELLA: Commissioner, I think it'd be helpful -- first of all,
we do have a list of deliverables. It's in the contractual documents that
we've provided to purchasing and to the MPO staff. I think I need to
little -- maybe break this contract a little bit down for you.
Norm Feder referred to the ETDM process, which is the Efficient
Transportation Decision-Making process that the Florida DOT is now
requiring the MPOs to participate in.
Page 212
-.+.....-..-.--.-. --~_._.. ~---
June 22, 2004
And what that -- we're referring to this sociocultural data base.
What that is, it's an evaluation data base that puts in information into a
GIS system, that it will help us to evaluate social effects, economic
effects, land uses effects, aesthetic and visual effects. That will all be
input into the state system together with the ultimate transportation
plan, so that part of our contract, which is about $100,000, is more in
conjunction and working with the transportation plan update itself as
opposed to public involvement.
It addresses social issues, but it's not part of, per se, reaching out
to the community and communicating with the community. That part
of the process, we do intend to have focus groups to at first identify,
you know, what are some of the issues.
And we've got a steering committee that we're going to be putting
together. It's not only going to have local members of the
government, the T AC and the PAC and the CAC, but we are going to
be reaching out to the different communities in Collier County so that
we can draw them into this process very early on.
You're absolutely right, people don't get interested until the
construction stake goes in the ground, and that's why our program is
designed to be completely proactive. Weare not going to ask them to
corne to us. We're going to go to them.
And that's why we have put together a plan where have -- our
firm has done a lot of public involvement down here in Collier
County. We have a very great list of service and civic organizations,
the Kiwanis, as I had mentioned earlier. But there are other groups
that are underrepresented out in the Immokalee area, and the Indian
tribes, that we are planning on contacting and going to them and
taking the process to them.
I think Johnny kind of talked a little bit about this, is that -- I
think Logan Boulevard's a perfect example. And everybody -- the
DOTs in Southwest Florida are seeing this all the time now. People
don't know where the road comes from. You start a planning project or
Page 213
---.-- ...-
June 22, 2004
a design job to widen a road, and people go, where did this corne
from?
And this really happened, I've noticed -- I've been in business
down here for over 12 years. I really noticed it in the last five years.
There's been a huge influx of new people. I would say that all MPO
transportation planning updates in the past, public involvement was a
workshop and a hearing, that was it, done, and nobody knew where
anything carne from. And there's never follow-up, there's never
follow-on literature.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Let me --let me state on the
record here that we were given one page of executive summary and
one page of signatures and asked to vote on $362,000 without a plan
in place, without a plan of action, without a plan of work, without a
timeline, without any success stories, without any way to check to see
where this has been done around the State of Florida, and we're asked
to point to -- put $362,000 to it, and I find that very difficult to do,
quite frankly.
MR. FEDER: Madam Chairman, I appreciate that. What I'd
recommend -- while we do need to move forward on this --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. FEDER: -- we are going to ask, with your indulgence, that
we bring this back to the 27th of July. Before that time, you will have
the contract in front of you and a list of deliverables and a further
explanation of how we're going to go out and go to people to get their
involvement as opposed to expect them to corne back to us.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I want to know where it's been done
in the state so I can check and see how successful it is --
MR. FEDER: We'll be happy to do that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- if it's worth spending this kind of
money.
MS. CELLA: We'll be able to provide you some Web sites that
you can go to directly and try to get you that information before the
Page 214
.--., ^"--
June 22, 2004
nex -- the 27th meeting so you can look and see the other areas. A lot
of the other MPO areas are going -- moving forward into this process
with the update right now.
So there's not a lot of them out there because we're all kind of on
the same time cycle, but you will see that Lee County is moving
forward with that. They're just starting theirs, their public outreach for
their update.
But, frankly, we are hoping that by looking at all the different
areas, which is what we did to put this program together to try and get
out to the public, that we're doing something that will continue here as
a model for Collier County so that you don't have your staff -- your
staff, the transportation staff, you personally having to explain to
people what -- where did this widening of Logan Boulevard corne
from, so that in the future people may not like it, they may not agree
with it, but they'll understand how that line got on a map, and it
answers a big question that the staff deals with, as they said, down the
line.
It's going to help you. And I know that Lee County feels the
same way. I sat on the CAC in Lee County four years, and it was the
biggest frustration level that people don't know what we're doing, how
even -- how we even do our transportation planning process, and it --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: She'll be corning back into -- I don't mean
to cut you off --
MS. CELLA: Right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- but we do need to move on. I don't
want to hear about Lee County right now.
MS. CELLA: No, sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas has a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The reason that I was so abrupt in
putting this on -- or to approving this is that we have experienced
where we had a multitude of studies in regards to the overpass. We
spent $500,000. Logan, I think we probably spend an additional
Page 215
- --"~.^."....-.._-~ ---' -
June 22, 2004
$50,000.
So I'm hoping when I talk to Johnny Limbaugh about this one on
one -- the reason that I'm encouraged on this is I'm hoping that the
educational process is such that we don't end up with the -- with all
these additional expenditures that we've -- that we've had in the past.
So I'm willing to gamble on that, but I'm also -- would like to see the
additional information corne forward.
So at this time I'd like to pull back my --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- motion in this -- in this regard.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. And Commissioner
Henning, you'll -- naturally that deletes your second then, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He didn't second. It -- the phantom.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, Phantom Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I pull back my second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd just like to make an observation,
and we'll, I guess, make a final decision when we corne back.
But let me tell you, you're chasing a ghost. I have participated in
Collier County in the visioning 2000 process and the focus process,
which involved the entire county. I've participated in these things for
almost 10 years.
There are people who sit here who have participated in the sign
ordinance, who participated in the community character committees,
and a lot of good things carne out of those, and there was still the same
confusion about what happened.
The focus process was a very highly advertised process that
involved many, many committees and people from all parts of the
community working together and trying to create a vision of what
Collier County should look like in the future, and they've produced
Page 216
--- ..""",.-- ~-
June 22, 2004
some good things.
Still people have no idea why those things were produced,
because by the time you get to the point of implementing anything
we're talking about here, there will be no memory whatsoever of how
it all carne about.
So I'll tell you that I think your goals are great, but they're
idealistic and they're not going to achieve what you think they'll
achieve, and we will have spent a third of a million dollars trying to do
it. But nevertheless, that's one man's opinion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to continue to July 27th
meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coyle, to
continue to the July 27th meeting.
I have two speakers waiting out in the wings.
MS. FILSON: Your first speaker is Jack Pointer. He will be
followed by Sally Barker.
MR. POINTER: Madam Chair, I waive till the 27th.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Sally Barker?
MS. BARKER: Waive till the 27th.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, good.
MS. FILSON: You have no further speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My only concern is how's our
agenda look for 27th?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've got the 28th -- we've got
the 28th scheduled, too.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: How does it look, sir? It's filling up.
Page 217
.----. ~-
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I just don't want to get
ourselves in an overburdened process here.
MR. MUDD: Well, hopefully, Commissioner, when you get it
on the 27th, you'll get a breakdown on every -- on every cost that
you're about ready to approve, okay? And right now you're a little bit
at a disadvantage.
So my apologies for that. And hopefully you'll have a laundry
list and you'll know exactly what it's going to cost, and you can -- you
can even probably cherry pick off that list if you'd like in order to
corne up with those costs of what this board's willing to do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
We have a motion on the floor and a second. And you have who
the motions were made by, right?
Okay. 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.)
Item # 1 OD
RICHARD YOV ANOVICH REQUESTING PERMISSION TO
SUBMIT BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS IN ADV ANCE OF
APPROV AL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHICH HA VE
BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND
AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND ARE PRESENTL Y
UNDER REVIEW BUT HA VE YET TO BE APPROVED -
AEEROVED W/STœlIL.AIlONS
Page 218
-~ .- ..- ~--
June 22, 2004
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 10D, and that
is a recommendation to hear Richard Y ovanovich requesting
permission to submit for a building permit application in advance of
approval of a site development plan and to commence construction of
the building foundations for the expansion of two existing agricultural
packing structures prior to the approval of site development plans
SDP-04-AR-5941 and SDP-04-AR-595 -- excuse me -- 5995, both of
which have been submitted to the Department of Zoning and Land
Development Review and are presently under review but have yet to
be approved.
Sir, state your name.
MR. URBANCIC: My name is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
MR. URBANCIC: -- Greg Urbancic. I'm pretending to be Rich
Yovanovich today. I'm from Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson.
MR. MUDD: You're not doing very well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're a better imitation than he is.
There's a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Coletta seconded.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
I have a motion from Commissioner Henning to approve, and a
second by Commissioner Coletta.
Do we have -- Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Before I go ahead and vote
on this matter, I just want to make sure that if there's any problems
with that site development plan, that after you pour the cement, that
you're going to take full responsibility, or your client's going to take
full responsibility to make sure it comes within -- in compliance.
Page 219
_.~,.,~- " ~. ..- ~----,.- ~, --
June 22, 2004
MR. URBANCIC: Absolutely. We acknowledge the risk in
pouring the foundation beforehand, and that if there is a compliance
issue, we will bring it into compliance. I have the chief operating
officer of the corporation here today in case you wanted him to speak.
His name is Blake Dunn. And we acknowledge that responsibility.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other question I have is for
staff. How far away are you from okaying all these plans at the
present time?
MS. MURRAY: For the record, Susan Murray, director of
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review.
Our records show the site plans were just submitted in late May,
and the first set of reviews is due mid June. So -- well, that's right
about now. So we should get through the first review here shortly,
and then likely there'll be a resubmittal necessary.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so what's your best guess for
--
MS. MURRAY: It really depends a lot on how quickly the
applicant turns around based on staffs comments, because our review
time for the first review is 30 days. And--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, this is fast-tracked, I
understand, right?
MS. MURRA Y: Yes. So I'm going to guess, if all goes well,
probably two months, 60 days.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And when do you plan to start
pouring cement?
MR. URBANCIC: As soon as we can get the building permit
submitted and approved. You know, as soon as we can do it.
MR. SCHMITT: Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt, Community
Development/Environmental Services administrator.
Just to understand, they can do a simultaneous review at the
second submittal when -- as Susan just said, when they corne in for a
resubmittal on the SDP comments, they can also simultaneously
Page 220
--~ - "-."..,-.-,...-..- _.''''''''~'._- ~--
June 22, 2004
submit for the building plan reviews.
I would expect that would be no more than 20 to 25 days,
probably less. This may be a 10 or I5-day review for this. It's a --
pretty much a standard pre-engineered building, and they cannot do
anything until they get a building permit, regardless of where they are
in the SDP.
But based on your -- the board's approval, we will-- once the
building permit it approved, they will be able to place concrete and
proceed up to the point, of course -- and to the point where, awaiting
for the SDP approval.
And I made it very clear to the applicant that they assume full
responsibility. It's their property, and it's their site. We, frankly,
control the cards. We talked about -- in regards to allowing -- or
requiring a bond, but there's no -- there's no need to bond it because
we would just red tag the site and withhold inspections until they
comply with the SDP requirements.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any speakers, Sue?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. I have three speakers. The first one
is -- oop, I'm sorry. We're on -- no, I have no speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good.
We have a motion on the floor by -- made by Commissioner
Henning, and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Mr. Mudd looks like he's ready to be saying something.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I just want to make sure for the
record that, since Mr. Y ovanovich isn't here and his impersonator is
doing a better job -- one of the words that Mr. Yovanovich used at the
last meeting or so was the fact that his clients basically had some bad
planning, and I believe Commissioner Halas beat that drum, and beat
his head a little bit as he was standing at the podium, to make sure that
it was basically his lack of planning that basically required this action
to corne to the board.
Page 221
-~-- ~^.,-. ".~-- ---
June 22, 2004
And he reiterated a number of times that if there's any problems,
that they will correct it at their cost, and that this particular action
would not preclude the board from taking an action that would be
different in the future to this permit granting based on SDP or any
complications thereof, and he was pretty amenable to those particular
conditions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's part of staffs
recommendation and part of my motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. URBANCIC: Yeah, absolutely, we agree with the risk.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor and a
second.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does that go along with Coletta's
second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Second goes along with
Commissioner Henning's addition.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Do you need the motion
repeated? Okay.
Commissioners, do you need the motion repeated? Okay. Very
good.
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: Very good. Thank you.
Page 222
--"" ...,,--"- ."-. ..'...-". _..,,- ..-----.-..-- .._-
June 22, 2004
Item # 1 OE
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDED WITH
INFORMATION THAT RESULTED FROM THE MA Y 21, 2004
WORKSHOP HELD BY THE EMS ADVISORY COUNCIL IN
REGARDS TO ORDINANCE 2004-12- STAFF TO BRING BACK
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10E, and that's a
recommendation to provide the Board of County Commissioners with
the findings and recommendations that resulted from the May 21,
2004, workshop held by the Emergency Medical Services Advisory
Council in regard to further amending Collier County Ordinance
2004-12.
And Ms. Marla Ramsey, the interim administrator for Public
Services, will present.
MS. RAMSEY: Good afternoon. On April 13th of 2004, Mr.
Kurt Potter carne to the board requesting a public petition to make a --
to have heard before the board an amendment of the county ordinance
2412.
Your direction at that time was to send the county's EMS
Advisory Council to look at and review the ordinance and corne back
with a recommendation for you on that topic.
At this time I have Dr. Fay Biles who can give you have a little
update on that meeting.
DR. BILES: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Fay Biles, and I'm
the chairperson of the EMS Advisory Council.
First of all, I want to thank you for letting us have our workshop,
postponing this so we could hold our workshop and do two or three
sessions on studying all the impact, everything that could happen with
this whole thing.
And I know, of course, that you are as pleased and proud of our
Page 223
--.-.- "-., ~.-
June 22, 2004
EMS system as we all are. We have just worked night and day for
years, as you know, to make it at this time best in the country. And I
keep saying that, the best in the state and best in the nation. And we
are sticking right with that level of performance.
And I know you've heard about our technological advances with
our sim. man and our sim. baby, and I don't know if you know we
have a sim. baby now, a mannequin that treats babies, saves there are
lives many, many times, and our AutoCore, which listens to and
monitors and analyzes sounds of the heart so that they can have an EK
__ an ECG really, much better than anything we've ever had. And so
that is at the top of the technological scale in health care and
emergencies right now.
And then, of course, our AutoCore -- or the AutoPulse, which is
now doing perfect, perfect CPR compressions. We no longer have to
count just on CPR or by doing the manual. This machine puts it right
over the chest, pushes the button, and it does it automatically.
So the changes that have occurred, I think, are just wonderful,
and I just wanted to just say that, because I wanted you to know how
good our EMS system is. And we do appreciate it.
We did hold a lengthy workshop, and then we all did a couple
sessions to look at everything connected with any change that could
possibly corne.
We know that our advice to you is just that, advice, but we feel
that in order to maintain our high level with our local fire companies
working as partners now, that we -- we feel that at the present time
EMS can do anything in this county at any level, and we really don't
need to have anybody else corne in and do anything.
I'd like to hit first the financial impact on the residents, the
taxpayers, and the Board of County Commissioners. The COPCN
agreement with NCH has cost us $2.2 million. We know that when
we lose transport fees, it increases the millage rate, so we've gone
from .17 to .26.
Page 224
~ .-_.. -,-~,-_._._--- ..--. _.~-
June 22, 2004
Based on the ALS and BLS non-emergency transports for 2004,
the sum is $3,678,667.50. That's a sizable loss.
Adding other COPCNs could increase that millage rate to go to
.34 and asking the taxpayers to pick up $6 million by 2005. The result
would be a shift from what we have, a user fee based system, to a
general fund tax base system.
And I don't know if you remember back, I think it was 2000 or
2001, remember the county -- I mean, the -- I'm back in Marco -- the
commission asked us to change because we were -- we had high taxes
and low user fees. I don't know if you remember that or not. And so
what we have been doing is this, so that the user fees are going up and,
therefore, the taxes can be held lower. But now if we make any
changes, we're going to go right back to where the taxes are going to
be higher and the user fee down.
EMS currently does transports to doctors' offices and nursing
homes. A BLS vehicle is needed for stretcher patients, must be.
There are now some non-BLS vehicles being used to transport
stretcher patients, stretch patients, and we have to put an end to that,
because that is -- that can't be.
Requests from doctors and nursing homes can contact EMS at the
present time and tell them that this is a medical condition, they have to
be transported, and then they can put -- put a bill in to Medicare and
Medicaid.
So the problem is, if a CP -- COPCN is issued to a private
company, who will the nursing homes call? Will they call 911? If
they find out -- or if they don't and if they get an ALS or a BLS, will
they call -- suppose a private company answers the call, then they get
there and they find out they must have an ALS or an EMS care. It
could be confusing and time wasted if that BLS vehicle arrives and
they have to get an EMS in anyway. So the transport rates are higher
than EMS for NCH, and so it makes a difference in what the cost is,
even with NCH.
Page 225
---
June 22, 2004
Now, one of the questions is, who's in charge of response times
and complaints if we should make some changes to this one?
First of all, EMS -- EMSAC, the EMS Advisory Council, is
responsible for a constant watch of response times. And, you know
our resitation (sic) rate is way high, one of the highest in the country.
We're -- went up to 52 percent of people saved when the national
average is six to 10 percent. So we have really maintained high
standards.
And they're also responsible for quality assurance for NCH as
well, and they must be in charge of quality assurance for anybody
that's an emergency in the whole county.
It is not a certainty that private ambulance companies could be
made to answer to EMSAC. And that, I think, is a question we need
to look at. We keep careful records on everything, response times, in
minute detail.
Now, the other thing that's worrying us a little bit is the effect of
granting other CO PCN s for our present EMS personnel.
I talked with Dr. Tober yesterday because I wanted to make sure
that I didn't say anything that wasn't correct, and he said, well, you
know, Fay, I want to tell you right now, he said, the biggest worry to
all your EMS paramedics is their jobs. They're scared to death that if
we do other COPCNs, in the end, it means -- it's going to mean a loss
of jobs for them because of the money, we'd have to lose 10 engines,
all this type of thing.
So I said, well, we can't have that. He said, no. He said, I want
my paramedics to have their mind on their job. And if they have to
make snap decisions, they can't be worrying about anything else.
So we have talked with them, and we said we are going to do our
very best to please, if we can, and if we can convince you or give you
the advice, please, please do not change the way it is now.
We did the change for NCH, but we really feel that we would ask
you, please, don't change anything else.
Page 226
- ._.<.~,-<.~,..",.__. ~..".".~ .'--'-- ---
June 22, 2004
Any questions?
Jeff Page is here if you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you, thank you.
Do we have speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. We have three speakers. The first is
David Bryant. He will be followed by Eric Ducrou.
MR. BRY ANT: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman,
Commissioners of the board, may it please the board. I've David
Bryant, and I represent Med-Assure. Weare here to, I guess, agree
with what Dr. Biles says in part and disagree in part.
But what we believe right now should be done is that the board
should not make any change to the ordinance. What we would like to
see is some more studies done. We believe there's some other issues
that maybe, the advisory committee, it was not presented to them, or
that they didn't fully understand.
What we really want to do is be able to, hopefully, provide a way
for people that are being transported by non-emergency type
transporters, such as Med-Assure, that they can receive
Medicaid/Medicare reimbursement. Those people today are not being
able to receive that. They're paying full dollar out of their own
pocket.
There are moneys available for those people to receive that type
of reimbursement, and we believe it's only fair to those same
taxpayers that are paying it out of their pocket to be able to benefit
from that.
So what I would respectfully request the board to do this
afternoon is to continue the matter just the way it is, leave the
ordinance intact like it is, and give us the opportunity to, again, meet
with the advisory committee, talk with them, go over the statistics that
Mr. Page's office has, go over the statistics that we can look at on
non-emergency transport, and see if there's really this negative
economic aspect to the county.
Page 227
.,_., --." " ·_h""'~ ...--
June 22, 2004
We respectfully believe that it's not really there once the hard
data is looked at and the data and analysis is reviewed. We think that
the type of work that any type of provider, such as Med-Assure would
want to do, are really the type of runs that the EMS department --
which is, I think, the most outstanding department, and I've
represented them in the past, and I think they're great people -- are not
really wanting to do.
I think that when you really look at it, you don't want to tie up a
$250,000 vehicle taking somebody from a doctor's office home, taking
somebody to a dialysis treatment home or to that type of facility.
You want that vehicle out on the road doing what it is created,
what it is set up to do, and maximizing the benefit to the taxpayer,
doing emergency -- true emergency runs.
And we think that there is probably some way to be able to
intermingle these types of needs so that the taxpayer does benefit and
the individual that's not getting reimbursement today can receive that
reimbursement.
And we would respectfully request that, as Dr. Biles said, you
leave it alone as it is and give us the opportunity to work further and
see if we can't work this into an acceptable goal for both EMS and
Med-Assure, or any other private provider. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Eric Ducrou. He will be
followed by Burt Saunders.
MR. DUCROU: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity
to speak. For the record, my name is Eric Ducrou, and I'm the newly
elected president of the Southwest Florida Professional Firefighters
and Paramedics.
We request no changes to the ordinance, 2004-12. Issuing a
COPN (sic) to a private ambulance provider will have a drastic,
negative impact to the taxpayers, patients, and EMS workers of
Collier County.
With regards to taxpayer issues, adding another COPCN or
Page 228
._-"-~-~- ..._-^'-~----- ---,- --
June 22, 2004
amending this one, will cost Collier County government an additional
three and a half million dollars in lost user fees.
This will shift the EMS transport burden to all taxpayers and not
the users of the current system, which is fee based at present time.
With regards to the patient issues, currently Collier County
patients receive the best patient care available, and we don't desire to
see that capacity reduced.
With regards to Collier County EMS issues, this reduction in
EMS transport volume will require an increase in tax, a reduction in
county ambulances, and a layoff of its employees. This reduction in
county ambulances would also result in reduced capacity to mass
casualty incidents, natural disasters, or incidents involving weapons of
mass destruction. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Burt Saunders.
MR. SAUNDERS: Good afternoon. My name is Burt Saunders,
and I'm legal counsel to a company called AmbiTrans.
I do have two documents I'd like to hand out, if I could, for the
board's consideration.
And I'll start off by saying that I think it's unanimous, no one
wants to open up the existing EMS ordinance, which is ordinance
81- 7 5, to permit additional CO PN s (sic). So that -- I think that issue is
off the table, and everyone's in agreement on that.
I will also just make one quick comment. In terms of the cost
that was described that the county is incurring because of the NCH
arrangement in terms of the NCH having their own system for
transporting their patients, certainly there are lost revenues to the
county. Noone can dispute that.
But the reason the county did that was to avoid additional costs
that would be incurred by having to put additional units on the road.
So when you start putting all that together, it made sense for the
county to not do those out-of-county transports and those transports
between facilities that are owned by NCH. So I just wanted to get that
Page 229
-",'._--"-- -- "--._-- -..'-
June 22, 2004
on the record, that this is not just a cost to the county. You are
avoiding a tremendous expense. And when you put that together, I
think it comes out as a win for the county.
I certainly have no issue with waiting until July or sometime to
resolve this issue, but I think there's a couple things that you have to
understand. The -- one of the documents that I've given to you is a
letter from Lee County to accompany -- it was back in 2002.
Lee County has the same wording in their ordinance as you have
in your ordinance. And the particular issue that's kind of created this
problem is section 4 of ordinance number 81-75, which provides some
exemptions from any kind ofCOPN (sic) requirements. And it says
that the certificate, or the COPN, shall not be required for vehicles
used to transport persons for routine scheduled medical treatments.
Vehicles transporting persons who require service en route -- and
here's the problematic language -- or who must be carried on a
stretcher, are not covered by this exemption, meaning that if you're in
a wheelchair and you don't need medical intervention, you can be
transported by a wheelchair transport company.
But if you happen to not need any medical intervention but
you're on a stretcher, you cannot legally be transported any other way
other than by a Collier County EMS unit.
The problem that you have is that there are companies operating
right now that are transporting these stretcher-bound patients, and
they're doing so with the knowledge of the county, with the
knowledge of Emergency Medical Services department, and with the
understanding that these are transports that EMS doesn't really want to
conduct.
They're not transports requiring any medical intervention of any
kind. They're not emergency transports. They're transports to routine
medical exams, they're transports from the hospital home, they're
transports that your department doesn't really want to engage in, and
they're not engaging in.
Page 230
~._" ..,. .- ~-
June 22, 2004
So if you legalize that process, I would submitted that you're not
costing the county any significant money because those transports are
already being conducted by private companies. The problem is that
those transports are all illegal under your ordinance.
Now, the Lee County letter recognized the same problem they
had in Lee County, and they said, okay, we're going to write you a
letter and say, okay, it's legal to do this under our ordinance.
The second document that I've given to you is a memo that kind
of explains a change to your ordinance that will make it crystal clear
that if you are transported and you need medical intervention of any
kind, then it has to be Collier County EMS. Those are the more
serious transports.
But if you're simply on a stretcher, needing no medical transport
__ I mean no medical intervention, you need to be transported by these
private companies, you simply have to -- and I've got on page two of
the memo, I suggested language change to ordinance 81-75, to simply
say that certificates shall not be required for vehicles used to transport
persons for routine scheduled medical treatments.
Vehicles transporting persons who require medical services en
route are not covered by this exemption. So you're making it clear
that if you're on a stretcher and you don't need medical intervention,
you can be carried by these private companies.
I would submit to you that you do have a situation out there that
you have to rectify at some point in time. And today may not be the
time to do that, but certainly over the next couple months, I think you
need to rectify that, and that is that you have authorized and permitted
companies to operate to transport patients that are on stretchers, you've
authorized that because your department doesn't want to do those
transports, but it's illegal. It's technically illegal, and you should take
steps to legalize that process.
Now, if you do that, then either through a letter, as Lee County
has done, or through a simple wording change in the ordinance, you
Page 23 1
----. -- ,.-.-_..- ~~->-
June 22, 2004
will provide competition, which I would submit would help drive
down costs. It would not increase costs.
You would also free up your EMS from having to deal with these
types of transports. And as I've said, your EMS department does not
want to deal with these transports.
So I would be happy to corne back in July or August, whenever
you want to bring this issue back. But I think that you do need to
either prohibit those companies from operating altogether, which I
think would be a mistake, or recognize that they're operating and make
your ordinance consistent with that ongoing practice.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. I have some questions from
Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I don't--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, and Commissioner Coletta, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have any questions, but
just for everybody's information, we asked EMSAC to take a hard
look at this and give us a report. I just wanted to remind everybody.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I have a series of questions.
I'm going to need a little time.
Jeff, can you tell me how many emergency transports we handle
every year and how many non-emergency transports we handle every
year?
MR. PAGE: For the record, Jeff Page, EMS director. Yes, we
can.
Traditionally we do about 30,000 responses, 25,000 of those are
emergency responses. The result is a transport number of around
19,500. So although we respond to 35,000 calls, 19,500 are
Page 232
----"'-- ,~._----_.-""""^ ......_,-
June 22, 2004
transported.
I would say roughly around 7,500 are what we are proj ecting for
next year to be routine, intrafacility from -- what we actually did is a
query to the billing system, using both identifier codes for the type of
transport, where it would be routine BLS, intrafacility ALS, and also
we did a query for all transports originating from a nursing home,
clinic, things of that nature. There's about 27 in the county, either a
destination to or from.
Because I think it's important to remember here, Med-Assure
wanted something different than AmbiTran, and Superior was
involved, who wanted both ALS and BLS and county. So all three
were asking for something a little bit different.
So certainly the fiscal impacts were different, but those are the
numbers as far as what we're looking at --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So roughly 19,000 emergency
transports, and around 7,500 --
MR. PAGE: No, sir, 19,500 total, 7,500 of which are routine in
nature.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay. So a little less than
half of them are routine in nature, right?
MR. PAGE: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now -- so that you
understand where I'm going here, I'm not -- I'm not going to get
anywhere near advocating that we do anything that endangers the jobs
of our EMS personnel or our capability here, but I just need to sort
through the issues so I understand the long-range impact.
MR. PAGE: Understood.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Our EMS department is
specifically equipped and trained to handle emergency transports.
MR. PAGE: Correct. Your responses are always ALS.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's very expensive.
MR. PAGE: Yes.
Page 233
._ ·_._."._.H_"~·__ .>"~"--"--"~- -
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Far more expensive than doing a
routine non -emergency transport.
MR. PAGE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But because our people are not
always out on an emergency transport, wherever there is a routine
transport, we take that and we do it, and we get paid in some cases,
maybe most cases.
MR. PAGE: Actually most.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And so we are using the
routine transports to help underwrite our emergency medical service
capability?
MR. PAGE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing wrong with that. But in
the long run, if you were to staff up with emergency medical service
capability, advanced life support capability and personnel for every
routine transport, it would result in very high costs for the people
being transported?
MR. PAGE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that right?
MR. PAGE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I would presume that over the
long term, it would not be the county's objective to buy more
equipment and to train more EMS personnel to deal with the growth in
non-emergency transports.
MR. PAGE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But we do want to protect
what we've got --
MR. PAGE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and we want to make sure it's
good and people will have jobs. So is there any long-term strategy
which will help us maintain the revenues that we need to keep our
existing medical service -- emergency medical service capability but
Page 234
~-~,.- ~""'----~--"~' '." ~'-
June 22, 2004
begin to phase out the non-emergency transports?
MR. PAGE: When we get big enough, that's certainly the
direction. I would love to do that today, but I don't think the -- the
impact on the taxes, the ad valorem draw. There's another way to do
it. You can put them under an MSTU or a number of different ways
to do that, but I don't believe we're big enough yet.
Certainly as we get -- within five years, and it may be something
that the board would like to contract out certain parts of our mission
statement, but I don't think we're there yet. We need that tax support
along with the user revenues, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I understand that, and I don't
want to do anything that's going to interfere with that.
But the principle essentially is, to the extent we can, we want to
use our highly trained people and our specialized equipment for
emergency medical services, not for routine transport for people to
and from a doctor's office?
MR. PAGE: Well, I can assure you that any unit that's
dispatched to a routine call, if there's an emergency call, it supersedes
it. There's just a delay in the routine transport.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay.
MR. PAGE: But we think we're using them to the best benefit of
the department. I mean, I don't want the guys just sitting there waiting
for the one emergency call they may have that day. They need to keep
active, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I think I understand the
issue then. For the long-term, maybe sometime in the future, you
might want to start moving those non-emergency transports off to
somebody else, perhaps even under contract to you, to our EMS
department?
MR. PAGE: That's one of the options we had posed to the
manager's office.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That way you use less
Page 235
^----,- -',..~" ~--
June 22, 2004
expensive equipment and less expensive personnel to do
non-emergency work, and I think that makes a lot of sense.
Now, let's go to the other issue, and that's the one pertaining to
the ordinance itself and removing the requirement for the stretcher
cases. What's your take on that?
MR. PAGE: It certainly is something we can do, but, again, we'd
have to publicly notice the ordinance, go through the changes. And I
think everyone's fear, certainly on my staff, is once you open that up,
you never know what's going to happen.
I had actually talked to Senator Saunders about the letter that
Mike Grant had received from Lee County, from their public safety
director. And I think that we have always looked in the past 23 years
-- and keep in mind, a number of these companies have corne and
gone over the years, so you can't ever really depend that they're
always going to be there.
But having said that, certainly this board could provide a letter
similar to what was provided to Mr. Grant, because our position has
always been that they're operating under a taxi license. There's no
medical intervention that they're providing in those units, so there's no
need to provide them with a COPCN for a BLS or ALS license.
Now, the one point I'd like to make as far as what Med-Assure
was talking about, those patients that would like to have their transport
paid by Medicare or Medicaid, all they need to do is call us --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They still do.
MR. PAGE: -- and we'll take assignment for that. So that may
be an educational issue.
But I think currently -- and they can correct me if I'm wrong
here. But currently let's say they bill $60 for a stretcher transport. If
they had a BLS license, they would actually be able to receive, say,
165 for Medicare or Medicaid because the patient's stretcher bound.
So it actually allows them to get more additional revenue, and I
understand that, but it's just the impact that it would have on our
Page 236
-......+-...---...'.. ~..._,---~~.,- -.--
June 22, 2004
system currently, and I don't think we can afford to do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So at present time, you
wouldn't want to see the stretcher limitation removed from the
ordinance?
MR. PAGE: That was certainly EMSAC's position, and
certainly, if you're asking my personal-- yes, I would hate to see that
happen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And you don't want to do
anything that would reduce the amount of the revenue corning to the
EMS department?
MR. PAGE: Not until I see what the real fiscal impact is with
NCH, no.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then my last comment or question
would be, if it ever gets to the point where we would like to use less
expensive equipment and personnel to do routine transports, do you
see any way that would work if it were coordinated through your
office; in other words, all calls were to corne to your office, and then
you would make a determination as to how they would be
transported?
MR. PAGE: Yes. That -- I mean, that is something that could
actually take place. Some of that revenue is 100 percent collectable,
and it helps your collection rate, and it balances out the
noncollectibles. So obviously there is -- it may be something that may
be profitability to the point where you're offsetting your emergency
calls, and that's what we have here today is the fact, I can't let go of
that revenue because that's what's standing me up right now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You've answered all my
questions. Thank you very much. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. If I may, I'd
like to follow right behind on Commissioner Coyle's comments.
Page 237
...,--.---..,.- ~--
June 22, 2004
Now, the financial impact from Naples Community Hospital, you
haven't been able to discuss it yet?
MR. PAGE: Well, we're -- if what they're saying is true, they're
estimating that they're going to be able to eliminate 3,000 calls. In
looking at FY -'03 call numbers with Naples Community Hospital, and
then if you backed out the 200,000, or 250,000 they were going to pay
us this year, if you're looking at all that and everything remained the
same, what we had projected next year, the fiscal impact could be
relatively high.
However, the good news is, is that, we'll be corning back to you
with -- you know each year we corne back with the user fee, and we're
doing those studies right now. We're working with the advisory
council on that. We expect to have that to you very soon. And that
will offset that loss.
So in other words, if you're going to -- if you're going to lose
your user fee, you're going to have to increase it by -- or if you're
using your revenue stream from the amount of transports you take,
you're giving it to NCH, we're going to try and offset that by
increasing the user fee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Page?
MR. PAGE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is it true that the cost for
transporting the patient by regular EMS such -- a non-emergency
patient, one that just needs transport, is considerably more when EMS
does it rather than a private vendor?
MR. PAGE: Well, that would depend. If you look at NCH, their
base rate was actually higher than ours.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that -- we put rules on
NCH that show -- constricts them, that they have to hold to the same
rules that you hold to. And if I'm not mistaken, they have -- about the
only people they can hire is our own EMS personnel to make their
runs.
Page 238
-... _.0_- ._.~- --
June 22, 2004
MR. PAGE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And so we put the rules in place
to make that rate high, and we have to corne back and adjust that, too.
My concern is the consumer out there. We're talking about what
it costs to run the business, and we're charging one end of the public a
high rate when there's no need for them to pay for that service, and it's
to subsidize at the other end.
But let's go back to some real facts. Every single run that you
make, when you average it out, we still have to subsidize it; is that
correct?
MR. PAGE: I'm sorry, Commissioner, I couldn't hear. Could--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll try again. I'm sorry about
the connection here.
Is it true that every single run that EMS makes, when you
average it out, the taxpayer still has to subsidize it?
MR. PAGE: Oh, yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whether it's an emergency run
or whether it's just a transport?
MR. PAGE: Yes, sir. And I have some rough figures that
actually I was going to provide to EMSAC on this very issue.
But basically, if you take the cost per transport of our services
currently, it would corne to about a thousand dol-- $1,041. That's the
cost for each transport that we provide.
Now, I will tell you that user fees on the west coast on the
average are $1,200, in the southeast they're about 450, $500. But what
you have to do for that $1,200 -- as you know, we do receive taxes to
offset that cost.
When you bill, let's say, a transport, if the base transport is 500
and your mileage is $10 a mile and you travel 10 miles for an average
transport of, say, $600, then you only have a collection rate of, say, 60
percent. Well, you would receive $360 of what you charged, of the
$600, so that means that currently, just a rough estimate, the county is
Page 239
. -. .'. _...._.,-,-,._-~~ ~-~-,~--- -.---.
June 22, 2004
picking up $681 of the cost of that transport.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand that. I
understand that you got fixed costs based upon the equipment you
have in place now and the personnel, and I understand, too -- I mean, I
do agree with the fact that we're not in the business to be laying people
off from our EMS service after we spent so long to get them there.
But isn't there a way that we might be able to corne up with a
long-range plan that, through attrition or just through the fact that
we're going to need more and more people as time goes along, that we
might be able to hold the ranks where they are now and start to farm
out some of this non-emergency type care to private vendors to bring
the cost down to the consumer; wouldn't that be a possibility?
MR. MUDD: And Commissioner Coletta, this is Jim Mudd.
Yeah, there's a way to do that. I think the way to do that is to show it
to you on the AUIR when we brief you in December, to show you
when units, growth units are supposed to corne on.
At that particular juncture, those are the decision points that we
have to take as staff, EMS director and his staff, to figure out, is it -- is
it better to bring that growth unit on, or is it better to divest themselves
of non-corps competency, non-emergency transports and the best way
in order to do that so that we start focusing more on a corps
competency, which is the emergency type carriers, at which time
you've got to think about relocating particular units to another area in
Collier County, because that's where the -- that's where the
development occurred. And you spread those out into that process.
One of the things that Mr. Page also has to do when he takes a
look at that, is he's got to make sure that he doesn't decrease our
reaction times that we've got set to -- you know, that we've got set for
our AIR -- AUIR to make sure -- you know, we've got a six-minute
rule and we've got an eight-minute rule in order to get things done, so
he's got to make sure our response times are there as we go through
that.
Page 240
__·"0·_'.......·" -
June 22, 2004
But there needs to be a concerted effort on our part before we add
growth units on and keep in -- and keep doing these non-emergency
transports.
We really need to focus on our corps competencies. We really
not -- we need to examine in great detail before we ever add another
growth unit to -- if there's somebody else that can do it better for the
taxpayers and it doesn't increase the tax rate of Collier County by
doing so with EMS, and so we're not putting the burden on all
taxpayers because we're divesting ourselves of some hauls, we need to
do that, and we need to do that in the most efficient and effective way.
And I'm going to ask staff, in order to take a good, hard look at
that during the AUIR to determine where those decision points are
going to be in our future and to take a look, based on PUDs that are
corning online, where things need to be relocated so that we can do
those things, and then when it's -- with EMSAC's help, to take a look
at what things we need to change in that ordinance so that we can
divest ourselves of those non-emergency transports and do it in a very
smart way.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree. You've got it down pat,
Mr. Mudd. I guess the whole thing that we're looking at now, if it
continues for some time into the future.
MR. MUDD: Well, I think the first time we need to take a look
at this again is at the A UIR, and I'll make sure that we've got some
time laid out so that we can spend a couple -- good half an hour on this
particular item so Mr. Page has an opportunity to show you where
those points are going to be, where he believes growth units are
corning on based on our BEBR projections of the growth in Collier
County, and then we can take a look exactly where he thinks those
locations of those units need to be at and what we can do to downsize
our demand on non-emergency transports.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I would appreciate it in the
next couple of months, and to this point in time when this comes
Page 241
,---- -«.-.----.... "'..---
June 22, 2004
forward, if I might possibly be briefed on where the progress is on this
transport issue.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You were stating basically, you're
looking at a five-year possibility of where we have a transition.
Where do we stand today as far as staffing and head count? Are we
above or below head count?
MR. PAGE: We're fully staffed and have been for several
months.
DR. BILES: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And what is our projected
growth for the next couple of years?
MR. PAGE: Well, I'll tell you this, when I carne on board in
2000, 2001, we were actually projected to have two growth units that
year.
What we did is we, per the direction of the manager's office, we
relooked at how we were doing business and moved some people
around. And we actually avoided, over the last three years, three
additional growth units that we were supposed to have projected back
in 2000 at this time.
In talking to Mr. Ochs about this, we're predicting that we
probably -- we're supposed to have a growth unit in the next three
years, one each year. I don't think we're going to need that. And that's
part of what Mr. Mudd was talking about. We're not expecting any
additional growth units for quite some time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, but our population is
increasing, isn't it?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, it is. And what happened, for instance,
when we did the NCH, when NCH picked up their intrafacility, you
freed up an ambulance. I call them cracker boxes, but you freed up an
ambulance. And when they started doing out-of-county transport, you
Page 242
.~...-..._._-- --.--
June 22, 2004
basically freed up another growth unit.
So you freed up two. So the two that we were going to bring on
here in the next couple of years, we don't have to bring on any more
because of that particular agreement that we made with NCH. And
what I'm saying to you is, as we get out into the fifth and sixth year
where we should, because the population is increasing to the tune of
anywhere from 12,000 to 15,000 residents of Collier County every
year, as those people corne onboard, there will be a demand for
growth units, okay, in order to supply them. That's when you start
divesting yourself of your non-emergency transports so that you don't
have to add that growth unit, and that's when you kind of relocate your
growth -- your units where they are right now so that you can still
provide that service.
And that -- those growth units are almost a million dollars a unit.
By the time you bring the new ambulance onboard, you equip it, and
then you basically put five crews, because that's what you need on that
ambulance so it's 24/7 and people get two days off. So when you do
that, it's about a million bucks.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's why -- where I'm going
here, is that I'm looking at the most cost-effective way of transporting
people that's non-emergency, and I think we can do it a lot quicker
than in the five years that we're talking about right now. With the
potential of growth and everything else, I would think that we could
look at this and proj ect that maybe we should start divorcing ourselves
of non-emergency transports sooner than five years.
MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, you just -- you got rid of two
growth units that you're basically in the negative for right now.
You're missing about, anywhere from a half million to a million
dollars because of the push to get NCH to do their intrafacility
transport.
So you're basically -- you're basically catching up. So when that
new growth unit was supposed to corne online next year, you're
Page 243
June 22, 2004
basically getting that half a million to a million dollars, and you've got
a break -even point.
And then -- you're right, that's why we're going to talk about it on
the AUIR, because in the AUIR, one of the graphs you get is it pushes
it out 15 to 20 years when the growth units are going to corne on.
We'll be able to show you that, and then we can talk about those
particular decision points that we need to have prior -- a year prior to
those units being needed so that we can forego bringing the new
growth unit on and divest ourselves of the non-emergency transports.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, getting back to the transports
that are being done illegally at this point in time, and those taxpayers
don't have the benefit because maybe for some reason they find that it
might be cheaper or whatever to where they call a private company
but yet can't use the benefit of Medicaid and Medicare, how do we
address that?
MR. PAGE: Well, they do have the ability to utilize us, and we
will bill Medicare and Medicaid, so that is out there for them. If
they're calling a private provider -- and I think there's three actually
doing it right now -- they're calling the wrong people, if they want that
supplement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why would they call the private
people?
MR. PAGE: I have no idea. I mean, it -- like I said --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There has to be a reason.
MR. PAGE: Well, I'm sure that their rate is cheaper right now
than our rate. I'm assuming it's around 65, maybe $75 a transport.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So it does -- are you saying -- are
you telling me -- or maybe I should fish some more here -- that when
they call you to transport somebody that's non-emergency, is there a
limit to how many times they can use you because Medicaid and
Medicare says, hey, you've exceeded your limit?
MR. PAGE: No, but there is a provision in there that says that
Page 244
._'~
June 22, 2004
they have to be stretcher bound. In other words, if they're able to
ambulate on and off the stretcher, Medicare will not cover them. They
need to call them. So the only calls that we're talking about that they
would be able to bill with Medicare are the actual stretcher bound type
patients. And if the nursing home is calling them, they actually should
be calling us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, now, if some body's not
stretcher bound and they -- let's say they can't drive any longer and
they have to go to a dialysis --
MR. PAGE: Medicare -- they need to take a taxi. Medicare will
not pay for that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. PAGE: They set the guidelines, and it's very specific. In
fact, a doctor has to sign to the effect that this patient has to be
transported by stretcher.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if they're -- if they're not on a
stretcher, there's no way they can get the supplement from
Medicaid/Medicare; they've got to be on the stretcher?
MR. PAGE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And--
MR. P AGE: And they've got to be bed bound.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And it can't be a fake stretcher; it's
got to be -- in other words --
MR. PAGE: They can't ambulate. They have to actually be
required to be moved on a stretcher.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
DR. BILES: A wheelchair.
MR. PAGE: Well, they will not pay for a wheelchair, so --
MR. BRYANT: Commissioner Halas, in response to your
question -- and I'm going to use these rough numbers. But it's my
understanding that Med-Assure transports one way, and their charge is
$100, roughly $100. It's my understanding that Jeffs agency, it's
Page 245
e~_.___,.____ -- "'.-..-.,...
June 22, 2004
roughly close to 600, isn't it?
MR. PAGE: Right. But all they would be charged is their
Medicare or Medicaid --
MR. BRYANT: Exactly, but what I'm saying is that there is a
great difference in what EMS charges that person and what
Med-Assure would charge that person. That's one of the reasons, in
response to your question, why they would call a private provider as
possibly (sic) EMS.
Also, it's our position that Med-Assure is able to respond quicker
and be able to do those real non-emergency, simple transports that
Commissioner Coyle was talking about, Commissioner Halas is
talking about, and also Commissioner Coletta was talking about, to
decrease that call -- that cost upon the county and the taxpayers for the
future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you state your name for the
record.
MR. BRYANT: Oh, I'm sorry. David Bryant. I thought she got
it the first time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, we already had
speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we've discussed this quite a
bit, and I don't think -- really think this is an action item. I think the
county manager made a great suggestion of, let's, you know, look at
this in more detail at the AUIR, and it should be looked at as the
response time also.
It's very important. Any time that we make changes, it has the
potential of affecting our response time. And the only
recommendations that I think that, hopefully we'll make, is direct the
county staff to bring back all those issues at the AUIR, write a letter to
EMSAC and thank them for looking at this issue and bringing it
Page 246
-_.. _.._."....~, "...--
June 22, 2004
forward to the Board of Commissioners in more detail, education.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And make no changes now; is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So would you like to put that into
a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think all we need is direction,
give them direction.
MR. SAUNDERS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: County--
MR. SAUNDERS: With all due respect, Commissioner
Henning. I understand that --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, but our speakers have finished.
MR. SAUNDERS: Could I just make one point that I think is
critical? You've got --
DR. BILES: Then I want to make a point.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Everybody's going to want to get up
again and speak. And really, we've got a motion that's on the floor,
and I'm just asking -- if you don't mind, I'm just asking the county
attorney.
MR. PETTIT: With respect to additional speakers?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't need a motion. Do we
-- just a kind of direction. This is, as I see it, it's not an action item.
MR. PETTIT: I don't think you need a motion.
MR. MUDD: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a direction.
MR. MUDD: This was just to provide the findings from -- from
the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council per your request
to them to take a good hard look at this to see if you needed to amend
your ordinance any more, and they basically carne back and told you
that you didn't need to do it at this particular time.
Page 247
"~-, .--.-- _.~~-~_..- -,._-.
June 22, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. And so now we're going to wait
till the A UIR to see what recommendations corne out of that.
Right now we have accepted the EMSAC recommendation to
leave things as they are until the further study, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And let's send a letter of thank
you for them spending an -- extra time on looking at this issue. It is
important. And, you know, I've really gotten educated over the
process, so I want to thank them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And I would like to do that,
thank you, on behalf of all of us.
MR. MUDD: We'll get it drafted for the chair's signature.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead, Mr. Saunders --
MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- but then we have to get Fay Biles up
here, too. You got it -- you have one minute.
MR. SAUNDERS: One minute is more than I need. I just want
to point out that you have a practice in place right now that's illegal.
And we're not talking about the 7,500 transports that EMS is making
and paying for. We're talking about other transports that are being
transported now illegally under your ordinance.
I would suggest that you direct your county attorney to look at
how you can legalize that practice without opening up your ordinance.
As a governing body --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You've got your one minute.
MR. SAUNDERS: -- how do -- how do you sit back--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. SAUNDERS: -- and permit a process that is clearly illegal?
The letter from Lee County addresses that -_
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Saunders, please.
MR. SAUNDERS: -- in a very effective way, and I would
suggest --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have to --
Page 248
-_._'~-- .....- '" _._~"--"_.....
June 22, 2004
MR. SAUNDERS: -- that you do the same. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have to -- all right.
DR. BILES: Less than a minute
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know.
DR. BILES: Again, Fay Biles. I just want to make one
comment. There is still a severe shortage of very good paramedics in
this country, and we don't want to lose ours, because we right now are
fully staffed with the best that we could possibly find, so that's another
issue we have to think about.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Okay. You have your direction, and we'll move on to the next
item. Thank you.
Item # lOG
A STORMWATER FUNDING POLICY FOR THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO ENSURE ADEQUATE FLOOD
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, that brings us to item lOG, and
that's a recommendition (sic) -- yeah -- recommendation to adopt a
storrnwater funding policy for the capital improvement program to
ensure adequate flood protection and water quality, estimated fiscal
impact of $140 million from Collier County with a total of $346
million over the next 20 years.
And Mr. Peter Hayden will present. I'll get it, Peter.
MR. HA YDEN: For the record, Peter Hayden, Collier County
Storrnwater Management. Good evening, how you are,
Commissioners?
Back in March, March 15th, Collier County Storrnwater, along
with Big Cypress Basin, held a joint workshop for storrnwater issues
Page 249
--- -..-
June 22, 2004
in Collier County.
At that time we identified problem areas throughout the county
that we face over the next 20 years and in the future for storrnwater
management in the Collier County.
Today we're bringing to you recommendations on a funding
policy for the board to look at, as outlined in table one. Just a note, in
table one this is a 20-year plan that you're looking at.
We've identified basically three different areas here. Also this is
a $346 million program outlined over the next 20 years. And we've
broken it down into three separate components. Our basic capital
improvement program, which is $200 million. We've broken that
down into funding sources in three different ways.
As you can see there, there's a third from the county, a third from
Big Cypress Basin, and a third from MSTUs.
Below that is our tertiary system that needs maintenance and
updating. That's $130 million. We've outlined that as half with the
county and half with grant money.
And below that we have our tertiary -- tidal receiving areas that
we had talked about previously. Those are those tidal receiving areas
basically between where the, Ron Hovell's group leaves off on the
passes, back to our solidity weirs. We have this tidal zone area that
hasn't been maintained for many years.
As you can see here, that's a $16 million program to be split
jointly between the county and Big Cypress Basin to do the initial
restoration, and then after that we're going to the operating
maintenance mode of that, and that will be an MSTU.
The one major reason we're corning today looking for a dedicated
millage towards the utility is, with that dedicated millage, that will
ensure that we can go after grant money, D EP money, that we have
been able to go for now currently. Right now we don't have a
dedicated funding source, we don't have a utility in place. That makes
it very difficult year to year to year to try to plan, you know, a 20-year
Page 250
--- _.~..>~'¥.... .~ -..-..-....
June 22, 2004
program, yet alone, just our five-year program.
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. I just try to keep it quick. I
certainly --
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, what I asked the storrnwater folks
to do -- and Commissioner Fiala got to see this on my blackboard as
we sat there. I mean, we beat this and we kicked this can down the
road. And I believe previous commissioners have kicked it down for
over a decade.
In 1991 they had the idea for the solution, but they never had the
fortitude to implement it as far as the fee was concerned.
What I asked our folks to do is take a look at a dedicated millage
within, within the tax rate today. Not an increase; within the tax rate
today. I also asked them to do -- is to make sure that they didn't take
away, usurp, the responsibility of the folks that live within the project.
And I've listened to Commissioner Henning say lots of times, the
new developments have paid their price in a new development, and
they've got a 25-year storage event on site within their development,
and then the water goes over the weir after that 25-year event.
How many times do we get a 25-year event? Depends on the
duration. Is it one-day, a two-day? We can get two-day 25-year event
about three times a year here in Collier County. Can I get a 25-year
event over a five-day stretch? Not unless we have a hurricane, okay?
And I hope that never happens in Collier County.
The -- but what we wanted to do is make sure that this plan also
I.D.'d the responsibility of the people that are out there in those basins.
And most of those folks in those basins that we're talking about having
major capital projects on aren't in new developments.
There are some issues, but what we're trying to do is to make the
project so it's not so overwhelming that no MSTU in their right mind
would touch it with a 10- foot pole, so we'll just -- we'll just keep
flooding. And as it grows and we get more impervious surfaces, it's
just going to get to be a bigger and bigger problem, and you're going
Page 251
,..,..,.-----.," -"---
June 22, 2004
to get more and more phone calls.
The problem that I believe the commissioners have is very
difficult to -- when somebody's up to their elbows in water,
stormwater corning through their front door, it's kind of tough to tell
them no.
And so -- but that's what we've been doing. It's only knee deep or
waist deep this particular -- or over the engine block in some particular
cases. But we've basically been giving them a stiff arm and, say, well,
we'll work on it and it will be better next year.
Well, we keep putting more impervious surfaces, i.e., we're
putting more concrete and asphalt on the ground, so there's less stuff
to soak in, and what we do is we exacerbated the problem.
Even with a 25-year retainage on a new development, after the
25-year event, when it gets to be 30, it's going over their weir, it's
going out into those drainage canals that go through these old
neighborhoods to get out to the coastal areas. And that's where most
of the old neighborhoods are, in the coastal areas, or close to them.
All you have to do is look at the Pine Ridge area. All you have
to do is take a look at the Fleischmann property the board picked up.
All you have to do is go into the old Lely neighborhood, and what you
get on a heavy rain event is you can't even get down St. Andrews.
People are driving over the median in order to get down the road to
and from their house, and I've seen that, too.
So what I asked the group to do is to corne up with a plan that has
some balance to it, i.e., some MSTU requirements in some shares, and
you're taking a look at the total -- at the total requirement over a
20-year period of time.
You break that out over a 20-year period of time, and it's $7
million for the county. It's about $3.5 million for the BCB, okay. And
then when you look at an MSTU, you're about $3.2 million per year
over a 20-year period of time. That's doable across Collier County.
But if you have to take a $45 million Lely LASI, the Lely Area
Page 252
---,.,,~ .~ -.-.---- --,."-.- ,~.g'._,~.."" -'--
June 22, 2004
Storrnwater Improvement project, and do it all on an MSTU, that
MSTU's never going to fly, and I don't believe this board has the
wherewithal to stand up there and say we're going to make it
mandatory for you. Enjoy it.
You might do it once, but any commissioner that touches that
area won't get reelected, and so that causes some real problems.
I think you have a plan in front of you. It might not be perfect,
but I believe it gets at the issue. It doesn't increase the tax rate on the
taxpayers of Collier County outside of those MSTUs that will benefit
in those particular areas. I think it gets the extraordinary costs down
so it's actually a doable project, and it can -- it can make things better.
And with your concurrence, I'll push this to make it happen over
the next couple of years. I will brief this to the Big Cypress board to
get their buy-in on the -- on the 8th of July in order to get that critical
partner there on the table. And once you create the utility, we'll have
to corne forward to the board to change the utility that was put in place
in '91 that had no funding mechanism to make sure it's okay, and then
we can start applying for grant money.
That's pretty much it in a nutshell, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I really appreciate all you've done on this.
This has been my top priority.
When we started this year -- each year we have another top
priority. Well, this year this is my top priority, and I'm so glad that
you're tackling it for all of the people that are in the pathway of these
storrnwater problems.
I think we have Commissioner Henning and then Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Coletta. Okay. I don't
know which order you're in, so you get third.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- I don't see anywhere in
the executive summary or the old ordinance where it provides a level
Page 253
------ --".,. .'--
June 22, 2004
of service. What goal do we want to meet as far as stormwater? How
much water do we want to go in the estuary?
MR. HA YDEN: Right. Currently in our growth management
sub-element for the drainage, there's an outline table, and I wish -- I
apologize. I didn't bring it with me today. But typically we go for
that 25-year storm, three-day event.
We also -- a lot of times we're not even meeting that. In the areas
like Lely, Gateway Triangle area, we're trying to go in an area that's
totally developed, totally impervious. Gateway, we're stretching now
just to hit a 10-year event. So we're making some allowances there in
some areas not even to meet that level of service for that three-day,
25-year event.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So are -- what you're telling me
is the capital project in table one, funding split, would be a 25-year
event?
MR. HAYDEN: That's our optimum solution. But like I said -- I
have to qualify it. We do have a few areas there in these older
neighborhoods -- unless they were totally redeveloped, we will never
be able to attain that 25-year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So the maximum --
excuse me -- would be as a 25-year event?
MR. HAYDEN: Right. Three-day, three-day.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The tertiary system would be a
25-year event?
MR. HAYDEN: That's what we're trying to maintain, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The tidal receiving areas, what
kind of level of service?
MR. HA YDEN: Right now -- they've been so neglected the past
30 years or so. Again, it's pretty much -- as far as that question, yes,
it's that three-day, 25-year, and we're very restricted. Like the Rock
Creek area; Haldeman Creek we're working on now; Palm River area
we have problems. They've -- it's been no clear direction from --
Page 254
-- -.,-- -. --
June 22, 2004
because basically we don't have a right-of-way. The right-of-way
issue's been murky, at best. And we've done a good job on the
coastline. We've never done a good job in that in between area. I
mean, it really has been that gray area that's been neglected.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Well, the tidal
receiving area, we have a 16 million -- $16 million item down there,
so we must have some kind of idea how we're going to dredge that, to
what kind of standards --
MR. HAYDEN: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that's the only question.
MR. HAYDEN: That's that three-day, 25-year and--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three-day.
MR. HAYDEN: I'm sorry. I apologize. The three-day,
25-years. Yes, that's what we're trying to attain.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you elaborate on that?
Because I don't understand, three-day, 25-year.
MR. HAYDEN: I'll let Jerry--
MR. KURTZ: Hi. I'm Jerry Kurtz. I'll give it a shot. The
three-year -- 25-day (sic), 3-year (sic) is a particular design storm
even, which is a standard floor design for water management for
development as well as our primary, secondary tertiary systems. It's
just a design standard. It's a given amount of rainfall that drops to the
ground over a three-day period.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the tidal receiving area is
areas that -- it's not a holding area. It's an area that's -- that's going out
into the Gulf, so there's no three-day event.
MR. KURTZ: Right. Well, we're talking about conveyance as
well too--
,
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. KURTZ: -- not just catchment and holding and
continuation. We're talking about conveying the flows that have been
controlled to a point. They have to get out against the tide. So mainly
Page 255
---~-._-,~._.._~., . <-._.. ~--
June 22, 2004
in those areas, we're talking about removing exotic vegetation that's
choking down the points, the rivers --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Silty--
MR. KURTZ: -- sand bars, that sort of --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. KURTZ: -- thing been neglected. And we've found out that
we really need to do something.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So there is a way to measure
that, to have a game plan on what needs to be done to fix the problem?
MR. KURTZ: Absolutely. The measure is to eliminate any
restriction. Once you pass that water out of a controlled system, you
want it to go uninhindered (sic) downstream through these tidal areas
as well. So there's a way to measure it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Are we able to get
permits to do that? Because you're putting more water -- rainwater out
in potential estuaries and things like that.
MR. KURTZ: Right.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what you're able -- you're able to
get the permits, and it -- the permits are basically to get you to a
pre-interrupted state. For instance, the -- what was it, the Cocohatchee
River that we had Mr. Lusic (phonetic)?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Palm river area, yeah.
MR. MUDD: In the Palm River area, you know, it's silted in,
okay? They'll let you get to the pre-silted-in stage, to get it in a more
natural flow. They won't let you dig it out so it looks like something
like the Panama Canal, but they'll let you get it to a natural piece to
get the sediment out so that the neighboring communities -- if it
sediments in, the water will go out to the neighboring communities,
and they'll get flooded because the water's going to go to the path of
least resistance.
And what you basically want to do is you want to keep it within
the natural footprint of that particular river or creek or whatever it is in
Page 256
~. --~..._- ---"^..-. O"··M_
June 22, 2004
order to have it go out into -- into the Gulf.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. While you're on deck,
County Manager, I want to ask you. Tertiary systems, you're asking
for us to tax all the people in Collier County $65 million to fix the
neighborhood problem, tertiary system, that's what I understand. It's a
neighborhood problem. You're asking all the -- all the taxpayers to pay
for that, correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. How much of that
money will be reimbursed to the people who have built and
maintained their neighborhood tertiary system?
MR. MUDD: How much will be reimbursed to them?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. MUDD: None, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I don't see where
there's a benefit to some of our county residents --
MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, let me --let me give you a
perfect example, and one that's near and dear to my heart.
Glen Eagle, where I live, which is in your district, the LASI
project -- the LASI project incorporates Glen Eagle. Glen Eagle has a
25-year plan in order to retain its water; however, under the -- under
the premise of an MSTU, Glen Eagle would be taxed at the same rate
that the rest of the people in the MSTU would be taxed, for instance,
Old Lely, in order to bring that $45 million project onboard.
So I guess what I'm saying to you is, even in an MSTU kind of
process, there really is no deduction for a development that did their
job when they carne onboard because they still have exit water that
leaves their development. It doesn't totally stay within it.
But I agree with you, Commissioner, there are some newer
neighborhoods that have good conveyances that have been done
correctly, and there are some old neighborhoods that don't. There is an
estates area that we've got helter-skelter type process out -- you've got
Page 257
<----..-
June 22, 2004
culverts at different levels, you've got culverts of different size, you've
got some of them even -- even sloping in the wrong direction, okay?
And when you only have a half foot drop per mile out there, that
could have a big impact upon somebody's front yard getting water or
not. We have to go back out there and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, to your example--
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the Glen Eagle LASI issue,
that's what I assumed that the $200 million is for, the capital projects,
where you have a third of the county --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So your example is, the
tertiary system is for Glen Eagle to pay for my neighborhood in
Golden Gate Estates where we have different culverts at different
levels?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I'm not going to
support that, because I think that's unfair. I think that I and my
neighbors need to pay for our benefit, because it's no benefit to Glen
Eagle or any of those other communities that have paid for their
neighborhood system.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I guess I can't understand that.
When we have a sheetflow that starts from the north end of the
county, the northeast end of the county, and works its way down, and
we have water rolling off of every community into another, we've got
to handle that community, and we have to work together as a
community. We have to work together as a community. It's not just
my little square. Excuse me. I'm sorry, I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the --
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, what I'd like to add to that is,
you're looking at an overall storrnwater management system. We've
broken out into components, tried to corne up with a structure, but I
Page 258
------ .----- ___·_.__._.u. ~~-_.
June 22, 2004
think you need to look at the overall plan.
And what we're saying is, this is a plan. And if we're going to do
it, the county needs to step forward and make a commitment. That
commitment will allow us to go after grants we haven't been able to in
the past. That commitment is also one that we plan on bringing with
Big Cypress Basin as well as with individual communities through
MSTUs.
I understand the commissioner's concern, but I will tell you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You could do it through MSTUs
and the tertiary system, grants and MSTUs.
MR. FEDER: And again, they are getting advantage on the
primary system and the overall. If you don't have the primary
working, the secondary doesn't work, the tertiary doesn't work, and
vice versa. So it's a whole interconnected system.
And although we've identified it separately, to try and identify
some focus to funding, the overall focus plan in dollars is what we're
trying to bring to your attention.
The county's got a need to step forward and provide a funding
source, a dedicated funding source. As I said, that would allow us to
pursue others, as well as Big Cypress Basin as well as MSTU, and all
those components are provided for here. It's an overall network. And
I think if you take one little piece of it, that's like saying, when I'm
improving a portion of Immokalee Road right now, that I don't think
anyone should pay gas taxes because they live down in Marco Island
today and they may not drive on Immokalee in the next month.
MR. MUDD: Norman, let's -- and, Commissioner, you have a
good question, okay, and it's a valid one because it's very difficult to
find the interconnections, and I think that's what caused the utility to
fail in '91, and then it got -- and then it got into a fight, well, what's my
rate going to be versus another basin's rate.
And the only thing I try to -- what I tried to think about, for
instance -- and let's -- and I'm going to use your street as a
Page 259
-",....... ...,-~,,-". ~--
June 22, 2004
hypothetical, okay, just as an example, not -- this has nothing to bear
with the truth.
Let's say you have a couple of problems on your street with
either -- somebody didn't keep their culvert correct or whatever that's
down there, or your drainage canal isn't correctly aligned or whatnot
and it has a tendency to flood.
And on your street the residents don't want to join in an MSTU in
order to fix the particular problem; however, the street to your -- to
your east, which flows -- which their water flows down your street,
decides that they want to get an MSTU and they want to fix all their
problems so they get the water off their property faster, so when it gets
to your street now it has -- it bottlenecks, and it creates a worse
flooding problem than you have before.
How do we get at that? If they don't want to create an MSTU,
you just let them flood till they flood and they move out, or do they
corne to the board, or does the board sit there and say, well, I'm going
to mandatorily make your street become an MSTU for the benefit of
everybody?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what I understand is, that's
what the $200 million is, is for the secondary system, not the tertiary
system, for that case. The LASI is a 200 --
MR. MUDD: For your bigger basins, yes, sir, they are.
MR. FEDER: But as the commissioner's pointing out -- County
Manager's pointing out, the impact of one portion of the tertiary
system impacts others.
What I'd like to do is take this opportunity -- throughout today
we've had a visitor, a new director for storrnwater and maintenance,
Ricardo Valera, who is going to be with us starting mid-month, and sat
through all the meeting today, and felt that he wanted to add
something to the discussion, so I'd like to introduce Ricardo as a water
management district employee at the moment, I guess, but very
shortly as a director over storrnwater, working with the good work that
Page 260
<--"-- ... ~-
June 22, 2004
Jerry and Peter and now Max and Margaret, who we introduced you to
previously, developed in the process they're bringing forward.
Ricardo?
MR. V ALERA: Thank you, Norm.
Hello. For the record, my name is Ricardo Valera. I'm a
professional engineer, and I'm currently unemployed.
There are several questions and comments that the
commissioners were formulating that I could maybe elaborate a little
bit. For instance, the 25-year event, where does that corne from?
Parameters that measure stormwater are intensity, duration, and
frequency. The 25-year storm event is pretty much the standard for
the Southwest Florida Water Management District, which Collier
County is within that jurisdiction, for flood protection of roads and
water management, is basically designed with the 25-year event in
mind.
Finished floors for homes is set up a hundred year -- at the
100-year elevation.
Now, what happens, going on to the second question that
Commissioner Henning was formulating, subdivisions, for instance,
De La Sol or Villages of Madaya (phonetic). It's a modern
development. It's been designed and permitted recently. It complies
with the 25-year, three-day event.
They have neighbors downstream that are older developments
like the Palm River, that they are creating a bottleneck for the people
of De La Sol. So if improvements are not made, even the De La Sol
that's upstream does have a system that was designed according to
new criteria, they're pretty much held hostage by existing conditions
that are downstream. So it does affect everybody.
Today it may be possible, as we've seen in events, that you drive
and see older subdivisions flooded and newer -- new subdivisions that
are not, but there will be a time when the stake raises so high that the
new subdivisions will not have protection either. So it does affect the
Page 261
___..._n,,__ ,~-~-
June 22, 2004
whole -- it is -- it is part of a -- a big picture system.
And most of these old subdivisions, especially here in Collier, are
located near the coast. Everybody wants to be near the water. So if
we don't improve the conditions to get water out, you know, it's only
going to hurt the overall big picture.
And one final comment about the tidal condition. In modeling
and in doing stormwater, it's assumed that the tide is going to change
as it does on a daily basis, but it won't surpass the maximum stage,
unless there's a surge or a hurricane corning around.
So to answer your question, the issue with discharge of fresh
water into tidal areas, it's basically maintenance, making sure that all
of the sediment that is dragged through the years is removed, and it
not (sic) necessarily requires permit, sometimes it's just a maintenance
and operation issue, so -- depending on the scale of the work, so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. V ALERA: Any questions?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say I want to
commend everybody in staff that got really actively involved in this.
As the county manager stated, it's been 30 years that they've been
kicking this can down the road, and all it's been doing is exasperating
(sic) the problem, and thank God that we're to a point now where we
can address the stormwater issue. It's not just one area of Collier
County. It's everybody in Collier County.
MR. V ALERA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: To me that's more -- that's so
important. You've got water that's draining all the way from
Immokalee that moves its way, sheetflow or however you want to call
it, all the way across this county till it gets to the coastline, and it --
with the amount of growth that we've got, we have less places for the
water to soak in, and we need to go forward on this thing.
I think it's great. It's a mill -- or a -- it's .15 of a mill, but it's not
Page 262
~----- _ _~ ~d...",_ ...~~ -"--, --_0-
June 22, 2004
going to affect the ad valorem taxes because we're going to adjust the
-- whatever else is in there so that the ad valorem rate remains the
same.
MR. V ALERA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that, to me, we -- I think we're
really on the right track here, and we need to address this, and thank
God we're getting the storrnwater commission.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Halas, or Commissioner
Halas.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I'm not too sure
who to direct the question to, but I'm going over the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They'll jump in.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is Clarence Tears there by any
chance?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Is Clarence Tears--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, he isn't.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, he isn't, okay. Then I'll
address my question to staff. I do have a concern, one of them is the
canals out in Golden Gate Estates. Those canals are only rated for a
one in 10-year event, not for 25 years like we're talking about.
I don't see any mentioning of the canals on this sheet, which is
quite a concern, a very big concern. I don't know how I can support
something that doesn't address the problems with the canals. It does no
good to have the culverts drain if they haven't got a canal that will be
able to take the water that's run off. Is there any reason why we
omitted the canals?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Peter Hayden has stepped up to the mike.
Go ahead, Peter.
MR. HA YDEN: Peter Hayden, for the record. How you doing,
Commissioner?
Page 263
.... -....,.- -,,_.'-- .~.~
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm doing fine, thank you.
MR. HAYDEN: Good. Back in March when we had our joint
workshop, we discussed that issue. I mean, I'm going to try to recollect
here. I know Clarence -- on a couple issues here that we've talked
about today. One is I know they're currently working on modeling
some of those existing stormwater canal systems basically east of 951,
about that issue as far as the 10-year storm.
Also, with the South Florida Water Management District in the
Everglades restoration project, countywide, which will take some of
the burden off the coastal zone areas that we're concerned about, we're
trying to divert water basically east and south, basically out of the
Golden Gate main canal and out of the Immokalee Road canal.
I apologize. I can't give you the total answer for that. I know
they're being looked at. I just -- I don't think they're totally going to be
solved overnight.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll tell you what the story is,
and this is the part that's got me very upset. It's been omitted for a
very good reason. They'd rather leave the water laying out there than
to do anything that might endanger Naples Bay. I'm not going to
support this unless it's added, the 25 years for the canals in the Golden
Gate system, beginning and end of it.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I remember correctly, at that
workshop, Mr. Tears was talking about a -- a 10-year event out in the
Estates area, and I believe at that particular juncture if you have to --
and most of that tertiary work is out in the Estates type area, as
Commissioner Henning has already -- has already mentioned, and that
will have to be an item that you'll have to work with the Big Cypress
Basin Board in the fact that, this isn't their stormwater program.
It's basically Collier County's and what we're responsible -- and
we're trying to get them to partner with us and find -- and if you take a
look at funds that are laid out as far as what the grant money is, the
MSTU dollars and Big -- and Big Cypress Basin, we basically got that
Page 264
~~-- -.- ~--'--
June 22, 2004
divided in fifths, and what we're basically saying is, 40 percent of the
cost would be incurred by Collier County, and the other 60 percent
would be incurred by the federal government, the state, Big Cypress
Basin, and then a fifth by the MSTU s, if you look at the total price tag
that's sitting there at the bottom of that chart where the arrow is at
right now. And that's what we're trying to do. If--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, I don't mean to
interrupt you. May I for just a second? There's a point of delay in this
response. I don't know if you responded or not. Am Ion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, you're on.
MS. FILSON: Yes, you're on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, and I apologize.
Forgive me, but I had a conversation with Clarence Tears back a
couple months ago on this very subject, wanting to know about getting
my canals out in the Estates, which is going to receive a major part of
the population of this county in the very near future, and having them
raised from a one in 10-year event to a one in 20-year.
And he said, well, that will be very difficult because if we do,
what are we going to do with all that water that's going to corne into
Naples Bay? It's going to ruin Naples Bay.
So I'll be honest with you, what I'm concerned about is the life,
safety, health and welfare of the residents that live out in that area.
Until we can provide for it in a meaningful way -- you can split
however you want. Who pays what cost for what means absolutely
nothing unless you're going to take care of my canals.
You don't take care of those canals, you haven't answered the
problem. You put a large percentage of the county in jeopardy for the
sake of everything else. Now, there's a way to do it for everyone.
Now, we got on this for a reason, and that reason is because there's a
concern over fresh water in Naples Bay.
Well, I'm concerned about the lives and the property out there in
Golden Gate Estates.
Page 265
--.-., ,. '-_._-----_._~ "-"-
June 22, 2004
MR. HA YDEN: Commissioner Coletta, this --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coy Ie is up at bat right this
minute.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. It's my turn now.
Okay?
MR. MUDD: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is a countywide program.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it is a great program. I
strongly support it, and I am disappointed that anybody would oppose
it merely on the fact that it doesn't do everything for their district.
Now, I'm looking at the budget highlights for FY-'04 by district.
And Commissioner Coletta, your district has gotten more money than
any other district in the entire county by a margin of almost $20
million a year. So I hope you will indulge us a little bit when we try
to do something for some of the other districts in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very much so, Commissioner
Coyle. Just don't place my residents in danger, and that's what you're
doing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't place your residents there
in the first place, and I haven't done anything to put it in danger. What
I'm trying to do is develop a storrnwater program that will benefit lots
of people in Collier County. And I'm going to make a motion that it be
approved --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I second --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- right now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- that motion.
Okay. We have a motion on the floor to approve the
recommendation for this. Let's see. We have a motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Approve the storrnwater.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- the storrnwater authority funding policy
of .15 mills ad valorem dedicated solely for the Storrnwater
Page 266
--,."., ,..-----.-- --.__.. ..----
June 22, 2004
Management Capital Improvement Program; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You bet, that's it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that was -- the motion was made by
Commissioner Coyle and seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
We have Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Again, I'm not going to support
this item. The reason is, what we are told is we want to get to a
25-year event.
The existing new neighborhoods already built theirs to a 25-year
event, so there's no improvements or no detriment down the line. So if
anybody can prove that to me in future approvals of that, I would be
happy to do that, but I'm not going to delay this vote. And I would
like somebody to try to convince me in the near future.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I also would like to make a
comment, if I may.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know it sounds very strong
what I'm saying, but this has been weighing on me for some time, and
I -- those residents out there in the Estates have corne very close in the
past with those canals right at the level of the ground. A couple more
hours of rain and there would have been flooding within the houses.
It's only a matter of time before we exceed that one in 10-year
event. Without having some sort of future plan where it's going to be
recognized, I just can't support it. I don't care how much money you
put out in the Estates. If it doesn't go out for the right reasons, it won't
matter.
Thank you very much for the opportunity.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, this is a
start. This is a beginning. We're going to address those problems out
there. It's going to be addressed countywide. So we're concerned just
Page 267
-_.",~. ..... "~-~_._, "---.".. -.---,."
June 22, 2004
as much as you are with your constituents out there. I'm concerned
with my constituents. I know Commissioner Fiala is very concerned
about her constituents.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: My daughter lives out there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We all have -- we all have very big
concerns in regards to storrnwater issue, and it's a beginning. And
we're going to make sure it's addressed in all areas of the county.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I might add that it goes all
the way to financial year' 12, and there's nothing in here that addresses
the canals.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All -- we have a motion on the floor and a
second.
Sue, did you want to say something?
MS. FILSON: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have three for, and that's
Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Coyle.
Those against are Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Henning.
That passes with a 3-2.
Thank you. Thanks for all your hard work.
MR. MUDD: I plan to go to the Big Cypress Board with this
policy and get their buy-in at their 8 July meeting and start working on
the sponsors.
We will corne back to the board with a utility ordinance with a
dedicated source so I can start going out there and apply for grant
money from the state and the federal government that we have not
Page 268
_. -- . ..--.,-.......-...,,------ ~--
June 22, 2004
been able to get in past years because we didn't have a --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, that's wonderful.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fantastic.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's great work. And now -- right now
we're going to take a break, okay? We're -- and you know what, let's
take a 20-minute break. We've still got about five or six subjects here,
and I think we all need to breathe a little bit, okay?
MR. MUDD: Ten minutes to seven, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's good.
(A recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a hot mic. Ladies and
Gentlemen, will you please take your seats.
Item #10H
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE FOR
ACQUISITION OF THE FORMER ARTHREX BUILDING FOR
THE RELOCATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
OEEICFS- A-eEROVED
Commissioner, that brings us to the next item, which is 10(H).
And this item is continued from the June 8th, 2004 BCC meeting. It's
a recommendation to approve the attached agreement for sale and
purchase for acquisition of the former Arthrex, Inc. building and
expenses associated with this purchase, necessary renovation and
relocation of the Transportation Division offices from leased facilities
at a total cost not to exceed $6,309,000. And Mr. Skip Camp and Mr.
Chuck Carrington -- Mr. Skip Camp is the Director of Facilities for
the county and Mr. Chuck Carrington is the head of our real property
section, he's the Director of real property for the county. And they
have basically accomplished the analysis in question.
If you remember why we continued, we had an interested party
Page 269
-, ,---~ "-,,-- ~--
June 22, 2004
with some -- with some excess space. The present lessor of the
facility that we're in right now carne forward and said hey, we might
have -- we might be able to give you a better offer and meet your
demands better than Arthrex.
I will also tell you since that time there has also been e-mails
from Mr. Arnold, who owns commercial property in and around that
area of Horseshoe -- South and North Horseshoe, and we've evaluated
their particular property, too. And with that, Mr. Skip Camp will lead
off.
MR. CAMP: Thank you, Jim. For the record, Skip Camp.
We -- this is the second time you've seen this particular issue.
Weare out of space as it relates to the Transportation Division. I'm
under the direction from your chief executive to get out of leased
space to the extent possible. We have a five-year plan to do that. This
is in concert with that plan.
There are a number of facilities that we looked at, which Chuck
Carrington will give you the analysis. The fact is we think we have
the most appropriate one. It has the right amount of warehouse and
office space, and it also is the least expensive option.
With that, I'm going to ask Chuck just to give you some analysis.
I believe you've got it in your packet. And I'll follow up with some
questions and you do have some speakers.
MR. CARRINGTON: Good evening. For the record, my name
is Chuck Carrington. I'm Manager of Real Estate Services.
You have in your packet this analysis that was done at Mr.
Coyle's and Mr. Coletta's request. We included the Horseshoe Square
building, and we also included -- it's called Horseshoe Park
Commerce, but for ease of language, I'm calling it in the comparison
the Arnold building, because it's owned by the Arnolds, Arnold and
Arnold.
As Mr. Mudd said, this was completed last Wednesday and since
then last Friday and then recently as yesterday, we received other
Page 270
-----_._..._....._"_._~-~...._,._-,,.,._- ,·_··____.._~w,...~ -._~-
June 22, 2004
information. So there's some changes I need to go over with you on
this. And then afterwards I can -- or I can give it to you beforehand. I
can give you a revised copy. However you would like it.
MR. MUDD: Do you have the revised copy?
MR. CARRINGTON: Yes.
You won't be able to see that from here.
The first change I'd like to make is not on here, but I'd like to
point it out, that the owner of the Arthrex building has lowered the
price. Even though he's agreed under contract and the contract that
was submitted to you for signing was for $5,950,000, that price has
been reduced to five thousand, eight hundred and seventy-five
thousand dollars (sic).
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Five million?
MR. CARRINGTON: Five million, I'm sorry, eight hundred and
seventy- five thousand dollars. I was trying to get it down some more.
And what that does, too, on the executive summary, because it
was higher than the appraised value, stated that we would need a super
majority vote. But now since it's at appraised value, only a simple
majority is required.
And I can't see that from here, my eyesight's not that good, so I'll
just kind of go through this with you then on necessary changes.
Going down the line items over your left, if you would go to the
-- the first change would be under building size, under leased square
feet space, under the Arnold building it reads 42,400. You need to
change that to $45,600. And that's a negative number.
In the next line down under net usable square foot face then __
feet, that goes from 28,000 square feet down to 24,800 in square feet.
Then going down to transportation's 20-year space needs, under
the Arnold building, 28,000 square feet there needs to be revised to
24,800 square feet.
Then over underneath Horseshoe Square, this was the change that
we received yesterday, they have 3,381 square feet of warehouse
Page 271
-,-,.., "...._,...._-~_._._. .- -....-- ."....,
June 22, 2004
space and not 1,865. So that needs to be changed.
In the comments section of the same area, in the second sentence
it says Horseshoe Square lacks 8,135 square feet. That should be
changed to 6,619 feet.
In the next sentence, this is a little bit different change now, it
reads the Arnold building lacks 4,000 square feet of needed office
space and -- and does not have any warehouse space. That was my
mistake, I apologize. That should read, the Arnold building has
sufficient office space but does not have any warehouse space.
In the next sentence, the 28,000 square foot figure should be
changed to 24,800.
And then on the next line down, 19,000 square foot -- square feet,
excuse me, should be changed to 19,800 square feet.
And then in the same sentence, the 9,000 square feet should be
changed to 5,000 square feet.
Going to the next page, two-thirds of the way down, the first item
there, it's the lease income reported under these buildings. The Arnold
building reported $990,458 in annual income. That was if the entire
building was leased out. But of course if we bought it we would
occupy some of it, so that number should be changed to $621,537 in
annual income, and that would be a negative figure. The total in that
column then of $422,482 should read $791,403.
Then in the cost summary, in the same column, the $422,482
again should be changed to 791,403. And then the total to bottom, the
total cost of the purchase should be changed from 19,598,752 to
$19,967,673.
Any questions on any of those?
(N 0 response.)
MR. CARRINGTON: Okay.
MR. MUDD: You want to talk about these write-ins that are in
that column?
MR. CARRINGTON: I'm sorry?
Page 272
...--.--.-,..,."........-...--- -,."+.~....._-~"..._.~~. ~-
June 22, 2004
MR. MUDD: It's on the Arthrex building. You have write-ins,
first year costs went to -- from 664 to 662.
MR. CARRINGTON: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. What I did here, I
went on and tried to make the corrections that it would make, and
they're kind of rounded off a little bit. What the -- the lowering their
price to $5,875,000 would do.
And so going back to the second page then, the -- under the first
year's cost, that would be reduced from 664,810 to 662,310. And the
total -- you bring that same amount down, 622,310 down under cost
summary and the total amount then would be reduced to $9,533,785.
And that's give or take. I did that math longhand and I don't know
how to do that anymore.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you finished?
MR. CARRINGTON: Yes, sir, I'm done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. CARRINGTON: With that part. I was going to go through
and go through the highlights of the comparison, or I can just answer
your questions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it probably would be good if
you did both, but let me ask a question. A lot depends on the final
conclusion in this analysis, on the total amount of square footage that
will be needed over a 20-year period of time.
MR. CARRINGTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, the Transportation
Department says it will need 30,000 square feet over--
MR. CAMP: 32,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 32,000 square feet, the next 20
years or so.
MR. CARRINGTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you give me some idea how
sure we can be that they won't require more than that?
Page 273
-- ~--,_..-'''-- .~._--. ""'-
June 22, 2004
MR. CARRINGTON: I'll have to get Mr. Feder to address that
for you. Or Skip.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Camp?
MR. CAMP: I think I can. If it relates to the amount of space
they're going to need in the next -- that part I didn't hear, in the next --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Twenty years.
MR. CAMP: Twenty years. Quite honestly, in the next 20 years
I don't know, and I don't think anybody really knows. We go out
about 15 years, and that's worked for us so far. We have discussed it
with Norm. We feel like this will be good for 15 years. Outside 15
years, I don't think anybody really knows.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The point I'm trying to make is if
you're wrong and you need more space, would you have made a
different decision today?
MR. CAMP: I think we made the right decision, and I think we
have the contingencies to back it up. I think we have options in that
area, if we choose this plan, that if there is any type of mistake 10
years from now that we have enough contingencies to take care of
that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's -- what is that
contingency?
MR. CAMP: Well, we have a number of contingencies. We
have property that is not adjoining but very close to there. We also
have -- and I believe you all remember approving it, we have 20,000
square feet of additional space that's continuous -- contiguous with this
property, the development services that go up a second floor, and they
share a parking deck which also can go up another floor. So we've
looked at just in case we're off, but we think we've got it down pretty
well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you'd have to pay additional
money for that additional space?
MR. CAMP: Absolutely.
Page 274
_.. .. . ~"·,....M _.~ u_,_______ ~-
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whereas, if you bought a larger
building now you wouldn't be faced with that problem, and I guess
that's -- I want to feel more comfortable about that.
MR. CAMP: Absolutely. But I'm not sure that we want to spend
the dollars unnecessarily. And I think that's what (sic) we're here. We
have a facility that will work, that's appropriate, and to buy more
space than we need I think is inappropriate. And typically it's just the
opposite. In this particular case this works.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. CARRINGTON: There's one other item, too. The
warehouse there has a ceiling like 30-some feet high, and if they do
need additional space, they can add a second floor in that warehouse,
much like Skip has over there where they did the computer training
for SAP. There's like a second floor built in there and the same thing
could be done there and they could add additional office space there.
It would take some time and some construction and some money, but
it would be much less than it would buying another -- a larger
building, I would think, especially when you compare the cost.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And how much additional space
could you create by doing that?
MR. CARRINGTON: Well, it's 10,000 square feet of warehouse
space. I don't think -- I think probably they might be able to use about
half of it. Probably about half, about 5,000 square feet of additional
office space.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, because I was looking at the
same thing. A lot of times when people start looking at how much
space they really need, they find two or three years later down the
road that they need extra space. And so I was looking at the
Horseshoe Square, which has 38,000, and we're looking at 32,000.
MR. CARRINGTON: Well, Horseshoe has 44,096 total, total
square footage.
Page 275
--,..", ,.-.--..,-..--...-"'- ------~ ~-
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. So you're saying that you
would never utilize that, or is it the type of square footage that is not
congruent to all the areas that you'd be -- want to work with?
MR. CARRINGTON: Well, it's just not the issue, I think, of the
square footage. It's also that the Horseshoe Square -- there's three
different buildings, and that facility --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's not all tied together --
MR. CARRINGTON: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- it's separated.
MR. CARRINGTON: Right. Yeah, it's a condominium and it
was designed that you have separate owners owning different --
several office space. There's not sidewalks that connect buildings to
buildings, it's not covered areas and all that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Also, how is the parking going to
be improved in this Arthrex building versus where you are now?
Because I've been over there many a times and you share the parking
with the V A there, and it's very difficult to find a parking spot.
MR. CARRINGTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So are you -- are we going to be
able to accommodate where your visitors corne over there or staff
people or whatever?
MR. CARRINGTON: Yeah, Arthrex -- the Arthrex building has
98, currently 98 spots. They're going to add -- they can add five
additional. There's a drive-thru. They can add five additional
customer spaces under that drive-thru then. And there's about 50
spaces in the parking garage that's available for them to use. So all
they need is 120 and they would have something like 140 available to
them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So you're saying that if you
need to expand, you have the capabilities in the interior of the building
and the warehouse where the 30- foot ceiling is, that you can divide
that up and make another level, if need be?
Page 276
.--"._~- -"'-'^'-- . --..,,,..,,. ~-
June 22, 2004
MR. CARRINGTON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And we're looking at
additional 5,000 square feet, then?
MR. CARRINGTON: Possibly, yes, sir. I would think so.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: A question that concerned me -- or rather
an item that concerned me, somebody sent us this stuff and they sent
us pictures, and in one place they showed us where the ceiling was all
rusty, and I thought metal columns showing rust in several places.
And I was wondering how much of a problem will that be? Does that
indicate that there's more rusting and do they have to replace those
metal supports?
MR. CARRINGTON: We had a professional inspection report
done on the building and it says the building is in good condition. It
has a life left of 35 plus years left on that. So I trust that inspection.
There are a couple of places like that. There's some fractures on
the west side of the building, just surface fractures. They'll be
repaired, as that there will be repaired. The inspection missed that, but
we've told the realtor and they'll be taking care of that as well. But
they've done a thorough inspection on it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So the rust is not in load-bearing
columns; is that correct?
MR. CARRINGTON: No, sir, that's just in the corner there, that
piece where the two glasses go together and it shows a little rust down
the joint there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So in your opinion then this
Arthrex building is the best of the buildings because it has capabilities
of expanding its -- its floors in the warehouse, as well as it's got ample
parking; is that correct?
MR. CARRINGTON: Yes, ma'am. It does all of those things. It
gets Mr. Feder's group under one roof, which he would like as well. It
costs 40 percent less than the Horseshoe Square and 108 percent less
than the Arnold building.
Page 277
_. ~__..m.'_"__·__·_____ --~ ,..--.--.- ......~,.- -
June 22, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I like the parking business. Every time I
go out to Norm's building, I circle around, circle around and then park
way out in the field someplace and then have to navigate my way to
his building. So I'm delighted to have extra parking.
MR. CARRINGTON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got one other question. I'm
looking here at the document that Commissioner Fiala was referring to
that was presented by someone else, I think. They show a picture of
the warehouse and the windows are such that it doesn't seem like you
get adequate light in there.
If you decided to go with a second story, is there some way you
can address light? Because I think people like to work in an
environment whereby there's windows and not artificial fluorescent
lights all the time.
MR. CAMP: Yes, that could be taken care of at that time. But I
will tell you that I personally walked through the Arthrex building, the
old Arthrex building, and was impressed with the amount of light that
the employee got. That's very, very important. And there was two
reasons: One was the outside lighting system, but also the work
stations that part of the executive summary is, we want to buy these
used work stations that have these light panels that allow the light to
corne all the way in through the windows into the work station so all
the employees receive light.
In typical executive buildings, the big shots, the directors are on
the peripheral, they get the windows, and the worker bees, the people
that do the real work, are interior. And this actually --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Isn't that the way it's supposed to
be?
MR. CAMP: Except for the core.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Look at Jim Mudd's face.
MR. CAMP: But this addresses that.
Page 278
-.-.-. ' . .._..----,~." ~-- --".~-
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where is your office, Jim?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is the picture I'm referring to.
MR. MUDD: I want to know where Skip is at 10:30 when I'm
still --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The way the picture is taken, it
doesn't look like there's that much light. I just -- that's what --
MR. CAMP: This is also the warehouse area that we could -- I
need to get on the mic.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
MR. CAMP: We would absolutely address that concern on the
expansion, and there would not be a problem. It would not be a
structural problem.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to approve the
purchase of the Arthrex building.
MS. FILSON: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pardon me?
MS. FILSON: I have speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You do?
MS. FILSON: Five.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Five speakers. I'll withdraw my motion
temporarily. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Mary Willkomm. She'll be
followed by Doug DeCaster.
MS. WILLKOMM: Good evening, I'm Mary Willkomm, and I
am the real estate broker for the Arthrex building, as well as a licensed
building contractor.
As a building contractor, I can tell you for the last 25 years, I can
tell you that the Arthrex building has some of the finest, highest
specifications I have ever seen in a commercial building. It is evident
that this building was designed and built by a very sophisticated end
user such as the Arthrex Company, rather than for the purpose of
Page 279
-,..,.-- .._u ".--- -"._-
June 22, 2004
resale and lease to third parties. Quality, rather than the bottom line,
was obviously the main consideration when this building was built.
But rather than take up five minutes going over the superior
qualities of the Arthrex building and being critical of other properties,
I would rather simply address the complete suitability of the Arthrex
building for the county's transportation department for the next 20
years.
The Arthrex building is the correct size for the department now
and the future. It offers a unique capability of expansion, if that ever
were to become necessary. It is the correct balance of office space
and warehouse space. It is the most advantageous location, in that it is
next to the county development services department and next to the
county's parking garage.
As I understand it, it is clearly the first choice of the people who
will be using it, the employees of the transportation department. The
Arthrex building is the right quality, the right size, the right shape, the
right location, and the first choice of the department that will be using
it. And amazingly, it is millions and millions of dollars less than the
other choices.
I simply ask why would the Transportation Department ask for
clearly the least expensive of the three choices if it was not in the best
interest of their needs?
I also would like to show you a few pictures. I didn't corne with
pictures, unfortunately, because -- we're kind of curious as to where
these other pictures carne from, because nobody was given permission
to enter the building. I've checked with the owner, I've checked with
the listing agent and I know I didn't give permission. So we're just
wondering where they carne from and we would like to see them
ourselves.
The quality of the building is second to none. And I say that
without reservation. And anybody who's seen the building will attest
to that.
Page 280
---'- ""'-.- ..-.---
June 22, 2004
I just would just like to give you a few pictures of the Arthrex
building, because one of the things that makes it so incredible is the
light that you get. It not only has a number of laminated and tempered
windows which you will not find in the other buildings, but it has
glass everywhere. Here are some buildings that were done for the
inspection reports -- some pictures, excuse me.
It also has clerestory windows everywhere that they'll have
partitions. So no matter where you're sitting in the Arthrex building,
you're getting natural light. You're seeing blue sky, you're seeing
greenery, you're seeing landscaping. The effect this would have on
employees I think is amazing. It's got to have a very soothing effect.
I know whenever you would go into the Arthrex building before, the
employees would tell you how soothing it was to work under this
environment. So, if anything, the Arthrex building is filled with light.
It's a wonderful, beautiful, magnificent building. Thank you very
much.
And if I do have any time, I would like to save that minute or two
that I have left to address if they do bring up issues that I don't know
where they're corning from, because the specifications to the Arthrex
building are clearly, clearly an incredible -- it's an incredible building.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Doug DeCaster. He will be
followed by Antoinette Pelc.
MR. DeCASTER: Good evening, Madam Chairman and
Commissioners.
I'm here as one of the owners of the Horseshoe Square facility. I
remember working closely with county personnel to not only design
but also build space for them. They moved in, in our case in May of
2001. And to my knowledge, things have gone pretty well between
the county and our facilities for the transportation services division.
Upon learning that the county and transportation services was
interested in purchasing property rather than leasing, we offered to sit
Page 281
---- ..._~._--' -_.-.,-- ~-
June 22, 2004
down and discuss that with you and with them, and in fact have had a
meeting since your decision of June 8th to accommodate that.
In comparing the two, I guess we had considered a number of
factors. One was the flex space design of this Horseshoe Square and
the size of it, allowing for expansion. In fact, the expansion
possibilities not only for office but also warehouse are also there. And
so when you look at a cost per square footage comparison, whether it
is now or later, we're not that much different in terms of square
footage price now, even though the space is much more office than it
is warehouse.
And the potential for expansion and the flexibility of that
expansion gives you even lower cost per square foot. And so it goes
down below the current cost of the Arthrex building in that respect.
The other thing is is I think that's key, key important to consider
is when you are purchasing for the county, even though someone says
they may need that space forever, that may not be the case. In this
case I think we have a property which is flexible in terms of its use.
Also for potentially other county space and departments, et cetera, that
may need office/warehouse in the future.
So in that respect, I think we have a property which not only
from a cost standpoint, that also includes maintenance and operating
costs. We think ours has been designed to be more efficient in that
respect.
If you look at a lot of glass and a lot of windows, that adds cost
and maintenance and, for example, heat gain, et cetera.
I guess in the end we have a property that we thought would offer
the county expansion possibilities, even though one, the transportation
services division may not need that space themselves. But it would
give you the opportunity to flexibly move more people, more
departments to that facility, if that were to be necessary in the future.
Whereas, if you take the Arthrex building as a -- designed as a
production office or warehouse facility and that that is by its nature
Page 282
-,.-..- .._._.-.-~ .~-
June 22, 2004
less flexible in its use, particularly in a park like Collier Park of
Commerce, where not only cost has driven an additional push and
trend towards more office and higher class office than in the past, but
that is generally now moving much more into an office environment
than it is a production environment.
So I guess in the end we would still be interested in discussing, if
you would like to, to see if we could corne to an agreement with
Horseshoe Square. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Antoinette Pelc. She will be
followed by Vince Pelc.
MS. PELC: Antoinette Pelc, and I'm owner of Horseshoe
Square. I'm going to address a few issues on the comparison that staff
has presented to you, but first I would like to answer Commissioner
Coyle's very important question. This is regarding the space needed
now and in the future.
I would like to tell you that currently department of
transportation uses in our facility 22,213 square feet of office space.
They do have employees doubling up everywhere; and, therefore, they
are scheduled to move into Utilities building space of 7,278 square
feet. This brings their total need of office space scheduled for today to
practically 30,000 square feet.
What Transportation is asking for in the Arthrex building is
22,000 square feet. So we do have a discrepancy here, and we
respectfully submit that the Arthrex building is already now too small
or will be in the very near future too small.
Another important point has been cited as the parking situation. I
agree. We also have to try to find a parking space from time to time.
I would like to tell you, Commissioners, that Utilities building moving
out in November will free 76 parking spaces. Utilities building have
packed themselves into a space like we have never seen, and therefore,
50 employee cars will be less, 12 -- they have the county vehicles that
read the water meter will be less, and at least five, I think it's even
Page 283
_.~."._~.~-_._,-_._.- --.---'. -
June 22, 2004
more, reserved parking spaces.
So the current situation is going to improve by 76 spaces from
November on. And this should leave the situation at Horseshoe
Square in a very comfortable situation.
I don't want to be too long. But on the comparison that you have
in front of you, obviously the first thing I would like you to do is
compare apples with apples. When the Arthrex building is being
presented as costing now with a revision $181 per square foot, it is a
little less expensive than ours, but please bear in mind that it has
almost 50 percent of warehouse that is not built out and whereas our
facilities are almost 100 percent built out as office space.
So for a fair comparison, it's important to add to the current cost
of Arthrex building the cost for transformation of the warehouse, the
cost to transform some way -- somewhat, and update the rest of the
building, and also to bring the building up to code.
In the package that we submitted, you have pictures of the porte
cochere of the main entrance. It is -- it does not meet current fire code
requirements. There are two feet, seven inches missing in height. The
other entrance, other main entrance on the west side does not meet
either height nor width for the current building code, fire code.
Again, going back to Transportation's needs for the next 20 years,
you -- staff knows that we are scheduled -- we are permitted for a
fourth building, which would give 9,568 square feet of additional
warehouse space. So whatever the county's needs are, we can meet
them, whether it's office space or whether it's warehouse space.
Then we have this sort of schedule listing different costs. First of
all, costs of renovation. It's -- I'm sorry, can I just continue a little bit?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Actually, we have to cut you off at five
minutes. We only give everybody five minutes.
MS. PELC: Except -- oh, yes, maybe I can borrow my husband's
time? He is scheduled also for five minutes. If I can just continue?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You can take his time, but then he doesn't
Page 284
.._~_."- _.__..~ ~-
June 22, 2004
get that time, okay?
MS. PELC: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right.
MS. PELC: We're a couple.
So cost of renovation and cubicles for Arthrex building, the cost
of renovation, which is transform part of the warehouse to office
space, is scheduled as being $143,000. This brings the cost of this
renovation to $24, a little above, per square foot, which is absolutely
impossible today.
Then you compare the cost of renovation scheduled for our
building is listed as 400,000. In our building everything is in place
and it's all built out. So what we do know that in DOR -- in Utilities
building, I think a conference room would be needed, and in DPN,
design purchasing network, probably the warehouse would be built
out.
But this price -- I mean, the difference of standard that was
applied to Arthrex building and our building in order to calculate cost
is just not right.
We have had to work through with staff or part of staff through
our facility and the project manager, Robert Fuentes of the Collier
County, he told us the build-out for any space into office space would
be between 68 and $72 per square foot. The numbers that staff has
given himself for the build-out of the Arthrex building is $24 a square
foot.
I believe after this, what I believe are corrections, we would just
like to ask you for a fair appreciation and fair comparison of our
building to the other ones.
In your package we have submitted, that in a fair comparison, our
building as is now is 15 percent less per square foot than the Arthrex
building, or it goes down to 32.8 percent less if the fourth building is
built. Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. I guess your husband has a
Page 285
"'---_...__...._-_.-.---_._-_.._--_...~."- ~._._~.____..u__.. .--.--
June 22, 2004
minute or two left?
MS. FILSON: Okay, your--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He waives.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker and final speaker is Don
Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: Madam Chairwoman, Commissioners, my
name is Don Arnold, for the record, from Naples, 45 years. But that
doesn't mean much.
First off, I want to offer you 1,500,000 square feet of warehouse
space at the price of $180 a foot, because that's what you're paying for
the Arthrex space, $180 a square foot for warehouse space. And I'll
sell you all you can get. But I agree with Mrs. Pelc on that, I think
you're comparing apples to oranges and there's -- they're looking at
478,000 for us for improvements and we're giving over a million
dollars in improvements.
What our recommendation is, that this was a 70,000 square foot
building that when you occupied it, it would be totally leased out at a
very good rate. One of the tenants is the State of Florida. I doubt if
they'll be moving for a long time. But the other tenants could be
moved as you expand it.
I agree, the department of transportation probably won't ever
need 70,000 square feet, but I'll bet you the county will. And it's a
Class A building, priced at $184 a square foot versus, you know, a
dated building with a lot of -- a very nice building in its time for a
very special use. And I think you're trying to mix a special purpose
building into the department of transportation.
The other factor, there is warehouse space available if they don't
want to build out all the office space at the Horseshoe Park of
Commerce.
I don't think in their comparison costs they took into effect the
cost of the 50 spaces in the garage. There has to be some cost
attributed to your shortfall of parking spaces. I don't know what that
Page 286
--~-'-"-"--"._-"-~--"-'-~-'-'
June 22, 2004
garage cost, but if you add it up and divide it by the spaces, it's
probably between 25 and $50,000 per space. So if you take 50 spaces
at 50, you know, that's a lot of money; another two and a half million
dollars that you need to add into that price.
I just think that somehow you're trying to force an issue through
that you didn't go out and ask the public to give public input, they just
started negotiating and got to this point. There was no bids put. I
looked at the recommendations. The staff says buy this building, it's
not priced right, but that's okay, and don't even bid it out, just use our
own contractors, the three approved contractors. It's just not the
perception that the county needs. The county should look at what --
everything that's out there, as far as I'm concerned.
My proposal was made from Pocono during the race, trying to
figure out -- because I only saw this in the newspaper. I didn't know
anything about it. Nobody carne to us. No one -- We call Michael
Dowling once a month, do they need space? No. We found this out--
I found it on the Internet looking at the Naples Daily News when I'm
in Pocono. And if you want to waste money, corne go racing with me,
do some advertising with me. And that won't be a race, we'll make the
county proud of us.
But I think you should look further in this. And I think our
building would be a great asset for the county to have. And the cost
factors that are shown here, you know, they just threw a bunch of
different numbers at you, and you need to go through this. They're
looking at -- I can't even make -- I can't make heads or tails of what
they've given you. It just doesn't fall together.
But if you look, you'll find if all our space is leased, and it's
leased where you'd be getting actually an eight to eight-and-a-half
percent cap rate return on your money, the vacant space would be
leased, you'd be having income which would lower your burden,
lower your cost, and then as you need it people can move up. For
example, I've got 4,000 square feet of offices in there, you know, I can
Page 287
--,-".,~- --"-^ .~._~...~ .-.- -----
June 22, 2004
move the day you need it. I've got other tenants we can move also.
But we can move them as you need them or they can stay. And it's a
great way for the county to expand with a beautiful facility. But I
don't think your numbers are anything. I'm done.
MR. CAMP: There's a couple of issues I'd like to square up.
First of all, Horseshoe Square has served us well. We went in there
for leased space. It was an interim move. It served us well. We
would never build a facility like that. It's a great facility for what we
used it for, but our employees have to go outside to go from one
department to the other, to use the elevator, stairs. It's not the kind of
building that we would ever buy, but again, it has served us well on an
interim basis.
Weare going to get more people per square foot in this building.
Quite honestly, we're going to buy some used work stations that are
more efficient.
There are some code issues that we do not have to address. We
are not improving more than 25 percent of the building.
All these properties have good points and bad points. The
bottom line is staff picked the most appropriate facility for this
application, which happens, again, to be the least expensive.
If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The parking spots in community
development, in the parking garage, is that needed for the near future?
MR. CAMP: With every parking deck you build more than you
need initially, and so there are plenty of extra parking --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry, let me ask it, because
I really didn't say what I -- the question. Would Transportation need
those extra parking spots in community development?
MR. CAMP: Eventually, yes. And they would be available.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How eventually? Is it in 15
years?
Page 288
-_.~ ."""',-,---_.,----"-- .~-
June 22, 2004
MR. CAMP: I can't answer that. But they are available.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's out there beyond the 15
years?
MR. CAMP: Not necessarily. I'm not going to go there,
Commissioner Henning. It may be this side of it. I just don't know.
But again, they're not only available now, but they're available in
the future. That parking deck can go up vertically, it was designed
that way. And it's adjoining, you know, it adjoins this property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have additional spaces
on the Arthrex site that can be improved?
MR. CAMP: There are some.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, it's like 12 or something
like that?
MR. CAMP: Right. But there are actually, I think, 98 now and
there's opportunity to put some more there. Not a lot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Is that going to be
needed in the near future?
MR. CAMP: That could be needed in the next couple of years,
absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because of employee growth in
Transportation?
MR. CAMP: Yes. Although I will tell you that this is one
department that doesn't have the kind of growth that some of the
others do. One of the things that they're doing is they're not putting all
the employees in the main office, and they're putting them in the
satellite stations like Davis Boulevard. They have these satellite
stations. Norm can probably elaborate on that, but I think that's
probably fair. The home office is not going to grow like the overall
Transportation Department is going to grow, because he has other
options, other places to put them.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator.
Page 289
.,-_.-. ..' ._._,._---~..'-~--,~ ~-
June 22, 2004
Transportation, through your efforts, is geared up for a very, very
aggressive program right now. We feel that we are and have been
pretty stable, if you look at our budget over the last few years.
Also we note that the work program, in particular in project
management, which is where we have expanded, as well as in road
and bridge, as we continue to take on more lane miles, we'll probably
be looking at issues out in the Orangetree Estates area for a little bit of
expansion. We've got an Immokalee facility today. Probably that
would be the expansion first and foremost for road and bridge
operations, and then later possibly for some project management to be
closer to the site.
So we're not looking for any real expansion, per se, we've got
some room for expansion built in here. You can look at our basic
trend line, the nature of our program. And if anything, if we do have
the need to expand in proj ect management and road and bridge, it
would need to be out where that demand will be out later, which is out
probably in the Immokalee area.
But our needs for right now, our office space and our warehouse
space, we've got the computerized signal system that we need to get in
the space, that's pretty uniquely suited there. And the parking spaces
meets our needs now. We've got 15 in the garage, as does Utilities,
who is moving out, has 15 spaces in the garage. So when you talk
about those 50, 30 of them are basically available today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's what I see in
Transportation, Norm, is you got a progressive schedule mainly in the
urban area for transportation improvements. And over the last I think
two years that I know of, we have allocated you to get that done, that
work program done, not only funds but also staff.
MR. FEDER: And particularly dollars, as you'll see, rather than
a lot of added staff, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I see, once we get through
this shortfall of infrastructure, is not a true need for adding of more
Page 290
>-.--" . ,..-,-.,- --.--
June 22, 2004
staff but relocation of staff such as what you said in the rural area
where you have most likely your construction engineering inspectors
located in that area, closer to where they work.
MR. FEDER: Closer to the work, yes. And that's what we're
looking at. If we do expand in the future, it would probably be first
road and bridge, as I said, expand the Immokalee operations or modify
where it's located, but expand that operation. And then secondarily,
project management probably aligned with that road and bridge area,
some relocation of staff closer to the jobs as they start to move out in
that area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So with the Arthrex building,
there's less space or less availability space of all of them to expand,
and maybe this will assist future budgets for requests for increased
staff in Transportation.
MR. FEDER: As I said, we've been fairly stable, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I need to corne back to this square
footage thing. How many square feet are you occupying right now in
the Horseshoe Square building?
MR. FEDER: We are currently occupying about 24,000 square
feet. We need more.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. How much of that is office
space?
MR. FEDER: Right now I'll have to defer, but I believe only
about three or 4,000 of that is in warehouse space. But one of the
problems we're having is just that, our crews are hanging out on the
side of the building, there's no crew room. We have the computerized
signal system, and that is not only a leased space, which is part of
what we looked at along with the plan to move to our own space, but
we need a hardened area for that expanded equipment and operations.
So we have a lot of expanded needs for warehouse space.
And right now, as is being pointed out, I'd be looking at neither
Page 291
.--..-"--.---- ___~..."_,,.~_u._ ~-
June 22, 2004
building trying to convert office space to warehouse space, some of it
not even on the first floor level.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, so if you move into the
Arthrex building, you're going to be occupying exactly the same
amount of square footage for office space as you're occupying right
now?
MR. FEDER: Actually, we've got a little bit of room for
expansion, but generally yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that means that over a period of
20 years you're not going to need any more office space?
MR. FEDER: Generally in that location, that's correct. What
we're saying too is we've got some room for expansion. There is the
option to convert some of that warehouse. But in reality what you
have is a drive-up situation for our right-of-way permitting that's one
area in that section of the warehouse. You've got the sign shop,
you've got the signal system, and you've got a hardened area for that.
So you've got an awful lot of that demand that is warehouse-oriented,
as well as obviously the demand for office space. And that demand
for office space allows you some room for expansion.
But, yes, you're correct, it's not a lot more than I have right now,
but I'm using also using some of that space, as I said, for warehouse
and I'm using it not very efficiently in that manner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're essentially making the
change in buildings to get you more warehouse facility?
MR. FEDER: That. And not only that, also to get myself --
because first of all, we're looking right now at a lot of offices. We're
going to move into modular, so we'll get some additional use in that
space. But beyond that, we're looking to get under one roof. There's a
lot of inefficiencies, not only for our own internal operations but also
for our customers who don't know which building to go to, which of
three buildings, which of five or six suites, to go to to get something
done. And I'm not too pleased when they corne to one and get told to
Page 292
--"<".. "..-...."" .,...."..-.- ^_."-~--._-,_.".- -
June 22, 2004
go to another building, no matter what the weather, especially when
they couldn't park at anyone of them.
So essentially we're looking to get under one roof, get all the
operations together, and yes, we're looking to not expand greatly in
the office space area. Most of our significant expansion right now is
in the warehouse space, our sign and signal crews, which are not out
of road and bridge, they're part of traffic ops and need to be there
because of the standards and issues, as well as the computerized signal
systems, and those issues are being handled out of, right now, the
Horseshoe leasing space and would be wherever you place us, but
hopefully under one roof in warehouse type space, not office space.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The Anthrax -- Arthrex building,
not Anthrax; well, it's got this logo on there that says it's chemical.
What about the putting in data lines? And is the building equipped to
handle the needed electrical infrastructure that you're going to need in
that building?
MR. CAMP: Within the budget that we've submitted, all those
things are being taken into consideration. In fact, they have a data
room already. So absolutely.
And back to Commissioner Coyle's concern also, which Norm
touched on, but the space is going to be much more efficient when
more people go into, I'll call them cubicles or work stations, it's better
for indoor air quality, it's better for the circulation, and quite honestly,
we get more people per square foot.
In this particular case the work stations are nice, they're smaller,
but they're -- they allow the light to penetrate into the core of the
building and it's just much more efficient.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My biggest concern also is parking,
making sure that customers that may be going to that location win
have adequate parking or staff that need to go over there for meetings
or whatever else. So that's a big issue with me, making sure that we
Page 293
---'..- -' .-._-"'_.-~"- .----^- --...-.-
June 22, 2004
have the parking.
The other issue, being from the private sector, is the fact that
people enjoy a lot of light, so I think we've addressed that problem. It
sounds to me like this is a very well lighted facility, other than --
MR. CAMP: Warehouse.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, besides the warehouse.
MR. CAMP: I would encourage Norm to take the same parking
scheme that the courthouse complex has, and that is for the general
public to be able to park close in and ask the employees to park in the
peripheral. It works really well in retail.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Coletta, did you
have a question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Has anyone made a motion yet?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion for
approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I second that motion.
We have a motion on the floor from Commissioner Coletta to
approve the purchase of the Arthrex building and a second by
Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That carries with a 5-0. I would have
loved to have seen us be able to afford the Don Arnold building. That
is really a nice big building.
Page 294
--~ "...,-".......~..~~"" --
June 22, 2004
Item #10I
A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH A. GROVER
MATHENEY REGARDING CERTAIN LAND TRUST
AGREE.MENTS - A EEROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 10(I), and that's a recommendation to approve a development
agreement with A. Grover Matheney, I mispronounced it, as successor
trustee under the certain land trust agreement dated June 29th, 1988,
and its successor trustee under that certain land trust agreement dated
July 10th, 1988. Blend-All Hotel Development, Inc., Walden Avenue
Blend-All Hotel Development, Inc., Dick Road Blend-All
Development, Development, Inc, and WR - I Associates, Limited,
collectively the developers -- so I won't have to say that again --
pursuant to which, number one, the developers will dedicate at no cost
to the county certain land along Immokalee Road needed for the road
proj ect in exchange for the county vacating a portion of an access road
presently owned by the Florida Department of Transportation; and
two, the county will modify the Irnrnokalee Road project, provided
that the developer pays all costs associated with the redesign.
Also, approve supplemental agreement No. 10 with Hole Montes,
Inc., which supplemental agreement is for the redesign of the
Immokalee Road project referred to and attached as Exhibit F in the
development agreement.
And Mr. Norm Feder, the Administrator for Transportation
Services will --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can I ask you a question before you
begin? Is this an access to the proposed Super Wal-Mart?
MR. FEDER: It is in that area, yes.
Very quickly, I'll give you the short version and answer any
Page 295
-'---"---"",'--'''' ..,,---._."~...~- ._..w__~"_, "___._____.' .___ ~-
June 22, 2004
questions you have.
The state, in developing I-75, in buying limited access rights
around the rural tight diamonds, because nobody's going to be near the
interstate, basically bought limited access rights out to a point, set up a
median opening, if you will, on the side streets and then carne back
with service roads in each direction, obviously east and west, if you
will, to service both north and south of those other roadway properties
so that they weren't into a taking in the limited access rights of those
properties that were butting up against the interstate main line itself.
Those service road have additionally -- up and down the
interstate have been removed, especially as the median openings
themselves had to be closed up because they were too close to the
ramps of the interstate itself.
In this case I need to point out to you that Florida DOT has not
given us that right-of-way yet, but they've indicated that they're in the
process of doing so, expect that shortly.
What we've done here is, the developer in this area, which does
include other development and including the Super Wal-Mart site,
across from the Strand, is what we're talking about, that that developer
wanted a portion of that 60 feet right-of-way of that service road. A
portion is going to be used by utilities as part of the construction job
on Immokalee Road. In exchange for that state right-of-way that's
corning to the county, we're going to get the full right-of-way that we
need on Immokalee Road in front of them.
What this shows you is basically the nature of the right-of-way
that we need here shaded, as you can see. And that right-of-way will
help us address the needs we have for the widening on Immokalee.
The other provision you have in here is that we are requiring that
they set aside basically in kind land for a second left turn lane. That
would be for a westbound left turn into this development, which is a
joint access of all the three developments there. That's why you had
the long list of names. And in doing so in that roadway that's going to
Page 296
--... "-.-- ~-<--
June 22, 2004
be south of -- across from Strand Boulevard, they provide joint access
to all three sites. And in doing that, we do get that right-of-way need
and we establish a second left turn lane for westbound to that
southbound maneuver, especially given that there is a big box planned
there, as well as other development.
I think the good news is is that they're paying for those issues,
they're providing us the right-of-way, and as soon as we receive the
right-of-way from the state, other than the portion that we need for
utilities relocation, we're providing that portion of right-of-way that
has no value to the county system over to them.
So I think it's a very good win/win for the county, and I'd be
happy to answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't have any questions,
thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any questions for any board members?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Henning to approve and a second from Commissioner
Coletta. Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 4-0.
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
MR. PETTIT: Madam Chairman, just -- Mike Pettit for the
Page 297
.--.".-" "'-
June 22, 2004
record. I want to clarify the vote. I'm sorry, maybe I was asleep at the
switch. My understanding of the motion for the purchase of the
building was that you included in the motion the recommendations of
staff which included a waiver of the purchase policy?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We didn't have to do that
because they carne down in price.
MR. PETTIT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The Arthrex building, they reduced
the price about $75,000 and I think that put us into the position where
we didn't have to do the --
MR. PETTIT: Okay, and the price was $5,875,000 they carne
down to, okay.
Item #1 OJ
THE SELECTION AND FUNDING OF A CONSULTANT TO
PERFORM A FISCAL STABILITY STUDY FOR COLLIER
COllNTY - AEEROVED
MR.OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes to us Item J, which is a
recommendation to approve the selection and funding of a consultant
to perform a fiscal stability study to review all the potential sources of
generating revenue for Collier County and to determine the proper
balance to promote future economic sustainability.
And Ms. Tammie Nemecek will present on behalf of the
Economic Development Council.
MS. NEMECEK: Good evening, Commissioners, Madam
Chairman. And Commissioners, thank you so much for taking the
time to hear us this evening. I am here to present on the fiscal stability
study, and I'll bring up for us Mr. Patrick Anderson that will go into
the details of it.
Again, Tammie Nemecek, Executive Director for the Economic
Page 298
.. ..- ~,,_.-
June 22, 2004
Development Council.
On May 11th, 2004, we brought before the Board of County
Commissioners a public petition requesting through the public/private
partnership for the Economic Development Council of Collier County
to move forward in a fiscal stability study, to -- again, as indicated by
Mr. Ochs, to look at all the potential revenue sources available to
Collier County, look at the balance of those revenue sources and
determine the proper balance of all those sources available to us and
understand the economic impact that is brought to the citizens of
Collier County to -- our opportunity to economic diversification, as
well as for housing affordability.
At that May 11 th meeting, the Board of County Commissioners
directed the EDC, through the public/private partnership, to develop a
plan for the fiscal stability study and return to the board with a
proposed direction, which that's what we're here today to propose.
During this process, the EDC researched and interviewed 11
economists, and the things that we were looking for in the economists
is obviously prior experience in doing similar types of study,
experience with working not only with just local entities but entities
around the United States, and through the search of those 11
economists, we pared it down to three, of which we received proposals
for.
At the end of the day we have chosen Anderson Economic
Group, who is here to present to you. And basically they were chosen
from these criteria: Expertise in economic policy, experience with
communities around the United States, prior experience with similar
studies, and a clear understanding, and I think this is probably most
key component to it, is a clear understanding of what our goals for this
study are and what we anticipate or what we would like to understand
as far as their research goes.
I'm going to bring up now Patrick Anderson, who is the principal
with the organization. He is going to go through their expertise, a
Page 299
-- --~ -..-
June 22, 2004
little bit of background about the organization, go over with you the
scope of the study, and we'll end with a timeline and what the BCC
action requested here today will be.
Patrick Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. Again, I'm Patrick Anderson,
I'm principal in Anderson Economic Group, and I have two of my
colleagues with me that I'll introduce as we go into this a little more.
We're going to briefly talk about the company, talk about the
purpose of the study for Collier County, overview our approach and
then answer any questions that you might have about how we're going
to approach this.
First, about our company. The core values that we bring to this
are expertise, professionalism and integrity. Let me just talk for a
minute about number one and number two. This is something that we
have a great deal of expertise on, have written published articles about
and have done work on in other areas. We do it consistently using a
written methodology in a manner that you'll be able to see the results
and how we arrived at them.
And we do it with our approach to integrity. And one of the
things that means is that we don't cook the numbers, we don't sugar
coat the results, we don't have a preordained conclusion. As you'll
see, if you look at some of our past work, the results are always things
that can be backed up and are customized based on the actual facts and
the community or the state that we're looking at.
Some of our expertise that we've done work on before, economic
and fiscal analyses and public policy studies, including studies that
look at specific types of taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, income
taxes, value added taxes, and other types of fees assessed for services.
And we've done quite a bit of market studies where we do work for
companies that are looking for a place to invest or for organizations
that are trying to get companies to invest, and that type of experience
means that we're very close to what actual investors think about,
Page 300
--".- ~- --
June 22, 2004
actual employers think about and actual consumers think about.
Some of our background, some of our clients from the states
here: Michigan, North Carolina, Wisconsin, all the economic
development -- all economic development oriented approaches. Also,
different municipalities: Cincinnati, Detroit, Fort Wayne, Indiana,
Norfolk, Virginia. In each one of these it's a different type of
environment and in each one of these we provided a custom analysis
for that specific organization, given the specific economic conditions
that they faced. You also see some of our private sector clients here,
Labatt, USA, sells alcoholic beverages; General Motors Corporation
sells cars; SBC sells communications; Taubman Centers is a shopping
center organization. So we have a good idea of the specific interests
that these folks who actually invest, hire workers, have consumers on
their list look at.
In some of our background, you see states that we worked in in
the past, including Florida and different locations where we've done
specific market analyses.
I'll talk about, just briefly, the project staff that we're bringing to
this. In my case here, 20 years of professional economics experience,
including being a deputy budget director for the State of Michigan and
chief of staff for our Department of State, and work as -- for two of
our larger financial institutions. I started my career with the Central
Intelligence Agency, and I've written, actually it's 90 monographs
now, including this book, Business Economics and Finance, published
by CRC Press in Boca Raton, Florida.
And also here with me, Ilhan Geckil, who is our economist, will
be the lead economist on this. Extensive experience in this type of
work. Just finished a similar project for the City of Cincinnati, and
one that we did in Lansing Township, Michigan.
Also Scott Watkins, who's had a chance to meet with you, with
some of the commissioners in the last couple of days, has done a lot of
work on economic impact analyses and on specific types of different
Page 301
----" -,--,,--,- _._-_.~.~- ----
June 22, 2004
communities and their goals and their particular situations.
As Tammie indicated, one of the reasons that we spent some time
organizing this properly is to properly understand the purpose of this
study, which is different from some of the others that we've done. Our
purpose here is to identify tax policy and revenue generating options
that will allow Collier County to do the following things: One, raise
sufficient revenues for the county government and provide a stable
revenue source. Second, support beneficial diversification of the
county's economy.
I would note that the EDC's purpose statement on this is
particularly good. And we had a chance to compliment them among
the clients that we have had around the country.
This EDC and I think this county commission understands the
importance of not just diversification for just general reasons but to try
to achieve the high value jobs, try to achieve the kind of revenue
sources and quality of life that you want to have here, and that's how
we approach diversification studies of the type we'll do here.
And then account for what we economists call the incidence of
taxes, meaning who pays them and fees, and in particular the effects
on housing and the balance of the tax and revenue burden among
different kinds, different groups of taxpayers.
Just to describe briefly our approach. We start off with collecting
and reviewing data pertinent to the study, including data provided by
the county. We've already started that process, collecting information
on your tax bases, your tax rates, the assessment policies, the
economic environment, the growth pattern, demographics and
geographic information; the kind of information that we use in those
different studies that we showed across the country. And we'll put
together a data base to manage that information and develop a model
that will help us to identify the impacts on different groups. And then
we'll make -- take projections of population trade and retail sales over
the next 10 years to allow to us figure out what's a reasonable set of
Page 302
'-'---- --
June 22, 2004
scenarios for the future, and then based on that, corne back to you with
an analysis of the options that you have.
And in each case we'll look at the following items for your
options: The amount of tax and fee revenue that would likely be
raised and how that revenue source would vary over time, which
would answer the question how stable is this, how much does it vary.
Second, how the policy option would support beneficial
economic diversification, what it would -- what types of jobs it would
encourage to grow here, what types of jobs it would encourage not to
grow, and what the wage structure of those jobs are and how the
burden of the tax -- how the incidence would be borne by different
groups of taxpayers within the county, and how that would affect the
affordability of housing and other important consumer goods.
So Mr. Chairman, that's the end of our prepared brief summary.
And 1'd be happy to answer questions that you have about the study
and the approach.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you tell me, and maybe it's too
early, too premature, but how many different scenarios are you going
to generate to bring to the Board of County Commissioners upon your
completion of your study?
MR. ANDERSON: Our agreement with the EDC I think says
somewhere between two to four scenario options, so my guess is that,
somewhere in that range.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Could it be more?
MR. ANDERSON: My guess is if we produced more than that,
it would make it -- we wouldn't be doing our job for you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you go back to the two
previous lines, six? Right there.
Number one, the amount of taxes and fee revenues. When you
Page 303
----"--._- --
June 22, 2004
do that analysis, I would like to know, by raising that how much
services you need to provide for the taxes raised. You know what I
mean?
MR. ANDERSON: What we would be identifying for each
scenario would be the population and the other indices that would give
an indication of that. So we'd be providing you the basic information
that would underline that type of -- answer that question. We wouldn't
be able to go to, say, the detail of how much people individually
demand of individual things, but we'd be able to say under this
scenario, if you're encouraging housing, you're likely to have more
people that are in housing and would demand the type of services that
residents typically demand. Or if you -- if a particular scenario meant
more commercial development, we'd be identifying that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And the demand on
commercial, demand on residential and what type of commercial
demand for services that you'd be doing that analysis?
MR. ANDERSON: I want to be clear, Commissioner, that we'll
identify the demand generally there, but the focus of our study
wouldn't be on predicting the actual budget line items that would be
associated with this as much as the tax policy options that you would
have. And clearly the best information to make that decision for you
would be by the context in terms of the underlying demands that
would corne from, say, residential, commercial, agricultural. So we'll
identify that by broad category.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Okay.
And then the taxes generated, you'll break that down of where
that would be corning from; commercial, residential?
MR. ANDERSON: Number C here, where -- in each one of
these options, we would identify the tax and then the incidence of the
tax or who pays it. So we would identify that by broad group again.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then just a question for the
clerk. Do they have a problem with the board making
Page 304
_.-. --_....~...".-. .. -----...-.".-- --'-
June 22, 2004
recommendations -- well, actually this is the EDC item.
MS. NEMECEK: It's an EDC item. That's what -- get to what
the BCC action would be today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just a public/private --
MS. NEMECEK: Yeah, this isn't actually an EDC item. What
we're requesting is that there be a budget amendment to the public --
the existing public/private interlocal agreement between the EDC and
the county to increase that public/private partnership budget in amount
not to exceed $62,000. So we have an existing interlocal agreement
between the county and the EDC.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. NEMECEK: So this would -- this is an EDC initiative
through the public/private --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to ask the clerk, this
did not go through RFP, from my understanding, because it is a
private entity? It did not go through the RFP? Anyone have a problem
with that?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks.
MS. NEMECEK: And that change to that interlocal agreement
would then corne back before the BCC on July 28th, pending direction
from the board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, do you have any
questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, thanks for asking.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do I hear a motion from--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we approve
the fiscal stability study.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: For the $62,000?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: For the $62,000.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second that.
Okay, do we have any further discussion?
Page 305
-'""~_."._..- "-_. --. . ,.---
June 22, 2004
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Coletta, you're with
us on that aye, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, that's a 5-0. Thank you.
Item #10K
RESOLUTION 2004-223 A REFERENDUM ELECTION TO BE
HELD NOVEMBER 2, 2004 TO DETERMINE IF COLLIER
COUNTY RESIDENTS ARE INTERESTED IN THE
ACQUISITION OF CARIBBEAN GARDENS BY SUPPORTING
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10(K) with the
board. Approve a resolution ordering and calling a referendum
election to be held November 2nd, 2004 within Collier County to
determine if the electors of Collier County approve the levy of an
additional ad valorem tax not exceeding .15 mil for 10 years, and the
issuance of not exceeding $40 million limited tax general obligation
bonds to be issued in one or more series, payable therefrom, in order
to finance acquisition of the land presently known as Caribbean
Gardens, together with the purchase of adjoining land held by the
same or related ownership as is necessary to complete the transaction
Page 306
-_._-- -~._._-~.~ ----
June 22, 2004
to assure the continued operation of the Caribbean Gardens providing
for an effective date.
And Mr. Mike Smykowski, Director of Office of Management
and Budget will present.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners. For the
record, Michael Smykowski, OMB director.
Mr. Mudd has stolen much of the thunder. The title of the
executive summary in essence capsulizes what we're looking for from
the board. There's been discussion, obviously, about the board
purchasing the property known as Caribbean Gardens and the related
properties adjacent thereto. And the question as to funding, there was
preliminary discussion amongst the board members to add this to the
November referendum to determine if the population at large in
Collier County is willing to support that with an additional dedicated
ad valorem tax, not unlike that for Conservation Collier where there's
a specific dedicated specific millage solely for the purpose of funding
this purchase.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not at all sure that the title
provides a clear understanding of everything we want to do here.
Certainly the preservation of Caribbean Gardens is one of our prime
concerns, but there's a lot of other property there that would likely
have to be purchased. And that is environmentally -- some of it is
environmentally sensitive land: Drainages for the northern part of the
Gordon River area, our Naples Bay area.
So I think it's important that there be an understanding that there's
more than just the Caribbean Gardens involved in this process. And
you certainly have mentioned that peripherally by saying that the land
under the same ownership necessary to complete the transaction. But
I just want to make it clear that we're talking about a large portion of
land, of which Caribbean Gardens is a relatively small part. But
there's a lot of environmentally sensitive land there. We have plans
Page 307
~-~" "'_._,.~_"_'_M' <-._--_.._._,--_._-. -~.~--
June 22, 2004
hopefully to create some kind of park and walkway in there if we get
our hands on it so the people can enjoy that property, rather than
having it all developed.
So with that, I'll make a motion that we approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second that motion.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Also, I believe before we continue
on with the vote, we want to make it clear and put it on record that
we're also looking to see if there's -- the public sector out there is
willing to donate money in lieu of this added millage to buy not only
Caribbean Gardens but the surrounding lands. So I think we're looking
at maybe establishing some type of a foundation or whatever, that that
would be a possibility.
So this is basically, if all else fails, this is how we're going to
acquire that land, but we're hoping that people will -- we can set up
some kind of a fund portion where they can donate money to this and
have substantial tax relief also.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's correct. Everything in this
thing is not to exceed. Once we find out when the property is going to
be available -- because I've been told and so has the board that the
property will corne up for sale. It is not ready to corne up for sale yet,
because they're trying to figure out what their highest and best use is
so that they can get the best price on the property when they sell it to
the county. And so, you know, any way you can squeeze a nickel.
The -- Mr. Seltzer is the person that represents the property
owners right now. It isn't Mr. Scott Cameron. He has not been put on
contract in order to represent them. So I just want to make sure that
you know even though he represented the Fleischmanns on the
property north of Golden Gate Parkway, he is not the official rep in
this particular property right now, Mr. Seltzer is the point of contact,
and I have his phone number, if you need it.
He said it will corne up for sale but it's not up for sale right now.
Page 308
June 22, 2004
They've -- what -- do we believe that the millage rate is going to be
less than .15 when it's finally levied? Absolutely. Michael and I have
done some work and we believe it's going to be anywhere from about
.1 to about .12. Okay, that's my crystal ball. You know, I've lost
super bowls before on that crystal ball, but I will tell you that we
believe it's going to be less than .15. And we believe, based on what
our appraisal office has done in a preliminary manner at the workshop,
that the price, the final selling price of the land, will be something less
than $40 million. He estimated anywhere from 27 to 35, if I
remember correctly.
So I think this puts us in a safe regard. And any private
donations, as Commissioner Halas mentioned, will lower the cost to
the taxpayers, and therefore, will reduce the amount of millage that
we'll need. And we've even left enough slack in there in case the bond
prices go up. Right now our interest rates are four something, and I
think in Mike's calculations he had it at six something. So I think
we've got enough safeguards in this particular referendum language in
order to purchase the property when it comes on line, and in case the
interest rates go up.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Since I wasn't available for the
workshop, the $40 million is for all the Fleischmann property?
MR. MUDD: About 150 acres.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: The Caribbean Gardens only sits on around 53.
It's about a third of it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me give you my
observation. The rest of the land is, what you're saying is sensitive
land, is should be preserved as green space, and some more land could
be used for storrnwater retention for the property up north in that. And
if I was opposed to this, I would make the argument is wait a minute,
they already have the money for the piece of green space through what
Page 309
-- - . . ._~. ~-- .~--.". ----.- -~-
June 22, 2004
the voters already approved, and oh, by the way, they just allocated a
dedicated tax for storrnwater. They already have that money. So why
should we give them $40 million when they already have a big portion
of it? That's just my observation. And some body's going to have to
overcome that. And I'm not going to argue that. I think if the people
feel that the Caribbean Gardens need to be saved, I totally agree with
that. Again, my family, we go there quite often. It's really nice that
we have some -- that amenity in the community. That's all.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think those are valid
concerns. And I think they can best be answered with respect to this
resolution by saying that none of those decisions can be made between
now and November, or when the property is likely to be up for sale.
In other words, I would hope that the Conservation Collier committee
would put some of this property on their list and would contribute
money to it. But we know they cannot move that quickly. And so
what we need to do is have a backstop situation. And that's what this
referendum would be all about. If we can at any point in time get
money from other sources, then we wouldn't have this tax. And even
if we had the tax, we could reduce it substantially as we get sources
from other -- or get income from other sources.
So this is to help us keep disaster from befalling this proj ect,
because if we're not prepared to act when it's available, somebody else
might get it. And that's the reason we need this particular tool in the
tool box.
But by all means, I think we all would like to keep -- in fact, we
said at the workshop, no matter what happens with this referendum,
we're going to keep all of our options open with respect to
private/public partnerships, donations, foundations, anything we can
get our hands on to try to preserve this property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the short answer is being that
it's so close to November, there's a lot of unknown questions and most
Page 310
.....,--~ -- _e_ -.--
June 22, 2004
likely and we're hoping that the amount of general fund monies to be
used is less -- I'm not saying general funds, but other sources could be
used.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely. Yeah. We discussed a
number of different things at that time. But the urgency here is that
we're under a deadline. If we don't get this referendum into the
supervisor of elections by July the 15th, in other words, two weeks,
then we're lost. We've got no way to react. But if we get this in and
we can put it on the referendum, let the voters take a look at it, tell us
what they think, at least there's a possibility we'll have an alternative
to save this property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fair enough.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, any comments?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for the opportunity.
I just want to say, whenever you've got a grass roots movement that
moves an item like this forward and they're asking for the voters to
make that decision, how can you not support it?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's right. I agree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's the grass roots?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Indicates.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Fiala to approve.
Do we have any further conversation on this?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
Page 3 11
-
June 22, 2004
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That is a 5-0. Thank you.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #10M
REQUEST FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO APPROVE THE ACCEPTANCE OF DONATED FUNDS FOR
THE OCHOPEE AREA FIRE CONTROL AND EMERGENCY
MEDICAL CARE SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT FROM THE
~'S Ar:r:Ol.INT-AEEROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to Item 10(M), and
that's a request to approve the acceptance of donated funds from the
Ochopee Area Fire Control and Emergency Medical Care Special
Taxing District from the volunteers account.
And Mr. Dan Summers, the Director of Emergency Management,
will present.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, Madam Chairman, good
evening. Dan Summers, Director of Emergency Management, for the
record.
The summary in front of you is relatively self-explanatory. The
action here is based on a lawsuit initiated by the Clerk of Courts
pertaining to the funds that the Ochopee district -- the -- an audit had
been performed at your request. That case has subsequently been
dismissed.
The action tonight is to receive the funds that were in the balance
-- the balance of that account, $1,423, to go into the fire district
account, the Ochopee regular operational account. The donation's
intention, as based on the information from the accountant is that
would be for supplies and equipment. And the activity here to accept
that account, that account has been closed and county attorney's office
Page 312
~~-
June 22, 2004
also would like to make a few comments, I believe. Mike?
MR. PETTIT: Yes, Commissioners, Mike Pettit, Chief Assistant
County Attorney, for the record.
I have just asked Ms. Filson to pass out a letter received in our
office at 12:59 today, I got it a little after 1 :00, that relates specifically
to this item. It's from the Clerk of Court's attorney, Mr. Pires. He
raises two issues: One is he indicates that he believes the executive
summary is inaccurate in characterizing certain facts and aspects
concerning the referenced account and the analysis by the CPA
retained by the county. I believe you can read that analysis for
yourselves; it's attached as backup. I really don't know what facts
otherwise are referred to here. I just wanted to bring this to your
attention because it was specifically addressing this item.
In addition, there is a statement that there are certain records that
have not yet been turned over to the clerk, and it would be my
intention to -- unfortunately Ms. Hubbard is in Europe, but -- who's
handling this case, but it would be my intention to get in contact with
Mr. Pires and see if he can give me more specificity, because both
from the staff and other people in our office, I'm assured that all
records related to this account and this matter have long since been
turned over. And that's really -- I just wanted to comment on that
letter and let you know that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we have somebody that's
representing the clerk's office here.
Could you be more specific in regards to what this letter is about?
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir, I cannot. As this is pending
litigation, I can't discuss it without our attorney being present.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, can we discuss it without our
attorney being present? If she's in Europe, how can we discuss this?
MR. PETTIT: Well, I don't think -- I just bring it to your
attention, but what I wanted to say is that to my knowledge, not as the
Page 313
---.-".- ~.._----. ~._---~ ----
June 22, 2004
attorney of record in this lawsuit, but having some knowledge of the
lawsuit and from the sources of information I could piece together
from staff in our office, at least with respect to records, we believe all
records have been turned over long ago.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let -- you know, there can be
a difference in interpretation here. If Mr. Pires is -- has determined
that there are some gaps in the records that he has received and then
makes the assumption that we have withheld those records, then from
his standpoint he hasn't received all the records.
If on the other hand we've turned over everything that we have
got, we have been able to obtain, and we have nothing else, then
there's nothing we can do about it if there are gaps in the records.
MR. PETTIT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, we need to find out
what situation prevails here.
MR. PETTIT: I understand. I intend to do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we need to clarify that very,
very quickly, because this has been dragging on much too long with
accusations going back and forth about the county won't turn over
records and the county saying we've turned over records.
So I think that can best be determined by asking Mr. Pires to
define the records that he thinks have not been turned over. Ifhe's
unable to do that and we're convinced that we've turned over
everything we have, then it seems to me we've met our obligation.
But that doesn't entirely solve my problem with, of course, the
recordkeeping with Ochopee Fire Department, but that's been going
on for 20 years, and I don't know how I'm going to go back and solve
that problem. But nevertheless, I still think the best thing to do would
-- if the clerk is not happy with the Ochopee Fire Department, we
should ask him to conduct an audit, even though we've already
conducted one.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what we're asking is the board
Page 314
---.- ~~-
June 22, 2004
accept the donated funds in that account, okay, in order to put it in the
Ochopee operating fund. At this particular juncture, the check has
been cut and I believe that Mr. Mitchell has it and he's got it on hold.
We need to get that money getting some kind of interest or whatever,
and we need to get it out of its status of being in limbo at this
particular juncture.
We've done what we can as far as knowing what data and files
and whatnot. I just asked Dan, I said Dan, we turned over every bit
we've got? He said boss, I've turned in everything I can get my hands
on. We've had an audit from 2000 to 2004 in the process, because that
was the issue that was in the lawsuit, or the time frame that was
defined. We've done what we can on this particular juncture. Now it's
time to get the fund turned over, turn it over to the clerk, have him
account for those dollars and put it in the appropriate fund and then
get on with business and whatever happens in the court of law happens
in the court of law.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Manager Mudd, have you
had any contact with the Clerk of Courts in regards to this, where
you've talked point blank to each other in regards to --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We talked about three funds yesterday.
One was the Ochopee one and one was the two that were discovered
that were using our tax LD. code that had to do with the Veterans Park
friends. And we're working on gathering all the data I can on the
Veterans Park friends. And what I can ascertain right now is one
account's got about $6,000 in it and one's got $2.02. We'll get all that
information, as much as we can, and we'll get it over to the clerk. And
I've been told that we've got all the data. Whatever records we have
from the Ochopee one, we've it turned over.
Again, it's been in existence since 1983, and if we found that the
account was out there and they had applied it wrong, per se, based on
the statutes in order to make sure it's over in the clerk's hands and they
Page 315
_..."_____,......,._ ''''''0'', ..,,_ ~--
June 22, 2004
didn't put it in a 501(3)(C) like they should have, I think we've got at
least to the bottom of it and we've got to the majority of the funds that
were in the account and got them turned over. At this particular
juncture, I don't know what else to do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you discussed with him
specifically this Ochopee Fire --
MR. MUDD: Yeah, he basically asked to get all the records that
we could over to him and I said that I would do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so that's been taken care of.
So you assumed that everything was hunky dory.
MR. MUDD: No, this was yesterday, this was yesterday.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: No. And so I assumed that I was going to go out
there and scrub for some more records and make sure I did a double
check on Ochopee and I was going to get all the stuff on Veterans
Park. And that's where I was driving to.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did he hint at what records are missing
that he's concerned with?
MR. MUDD: No, he just said get all the records.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning --
MR. MUDD: He's trying to -- he's trying to do another audit and
try to account for every penny since 1983, and I don't know if that's
possible.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What the executive summary
says is to accept a donation of funds from the volunteer account.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I don't see where the
problem is. And Mr. Pires is -- chose not to be here or explain in his
letter what kind of problem he has with the executive summary, so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can't get anything out of the Clerk
of the Court.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, because we're in
Page 316
._--- ,."--~----_._- ~-
June 22, 2004
litigation. That's working well, government agencies working well
together.
I'm going to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to second it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a slew of seconds and a motion by
Commissioner Henning. We'll say the second by Commissioner
Coyle.
Commissioner Coletta, any comments?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I like the direction we're
.
gOIng.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, that is a 5-0.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, I also need to tell you how
much I appreciate the counsel that was provided to Ms. Swisher and
Chief Wilson. There was many, many sleepless nights on what they
thought was their direction and the best of intent. That was important.
I think you saved two very good employees. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #11
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to Paragraph 11,
Page 3 1 7
---...'"- ^'_..- --
June 22, 2004
which is public comment on general topics.
Ms. Filson, how many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: We have two. The first one is Jay Westendorf.
He will be followed by Nicole Ryan.
MR. WESTENDORF: Good evening, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Jay Westendorf. I'm with Vanasse Day lor. We're
a consulting firm. Our client is Signature Communities, they are the
owners and developers of the Cocohatchee Bay PUD project.
We're actually here this evening simply to ask the board to place
the Cocohatchee project on the July 27th agenda so we can corne
before you and discuss processes that will be taking place with the
project.
Through recent meetings with county staff, it's been determined
that in order to maintain a consistency between the ongoing state and
federal permits that we've been involved in over the last several years,
and what's on file with the county records, that it will be necessary to
have an amendment to the current bald eagle management plan that's
on file with the county.
Toward that end, what we'd like to do is formally bring this item
to the board in July to discuss that process, to review the process so
the board can give direction to staff for that amendment. And quite
simply, that's it. Staff may have some additional comments on that.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a second speaker?
MS. FILSON: Second speaker is Nicole Ryan. And I've since
received a third speaker, Doug Fee.
MS. RYAN: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record,
Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And very simply put, we believe that the previous speaker is
correct, this item should go on an upcoming agenda. It's something
that there wasn't backup material for it today, and so any decision, a
policy decision does need to be made with public notice, public input
Page 318
._---". -------- .--_.- ~--
June 22, 2004
and staff review. And we look forward to debating the issue at an
upcoming meeting. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Doug Fee.
MR. FEE: Again, Commissioners, for the record, my name is
Doug Fee. Appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening.
And as public comment, and I want to make sure that as a citizen
in our neighborhood, that when this does corne before you in July, if
this does corne before you, that there will be plenty of time given to
the citizens and that the transcripts and the ordinance and the record as
it was created three years ago in the public hearings, that all of that is
brought out and that we make sure that the reason why we're there on
July 27th is a legal reason and not -- and not the wishes of somebody
or -- who maybe made some commitments and is now trying to undo
those commitments that were made. That's my comment. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is to County Manager Jim
Mudd. We're going to have two days of hearings. Are we going to
have enough time to encompass this, or are we going to have to put
this off to a later date?
MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, this is a little bit of an oddity
for somebody on public comment to ask the board to put an item on an
agenda. That normally comes under public petition.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's the way it should go
myself.
MR. MUDD: And so I'm -- we haven't had a chance even to talk
about this to know any facts about it whatsoever, and you're asking me
to bring it under the County Manager's agenda item for the 27th of
July.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I asked you -- what I said is I
don't think we can accommodate that at that period of time with the
amount of agenda that we've got scheduled for the next two days.
MR. MUDD: Yeah, if -- that might be a problem. The 29th --
Page 319
--.--..... ~.-----_.. -_......_- ~-
June 22, 2004
again, the 27th is starting to fill up. I was just on my -- take a look at
the calendar figure out the first meeting in September is the 14th. But
Joe, if you could clarify --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, let me, let me clarify it, Commissioner.
Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development, Environmental Services Division.
What we're dealing here is with process. We're not here to debate
the issue, nor will we be on the 27th to debate the issue in regards to
the merits of the PUD and the PUD amendment. What we're looking
for merely is policy guidance from the board so that we can bring the
Cocohatchee PUD back to this board probably well towards the end of
the year. But what we're looking for is specificity in regards to
whether we deal with amending the PUD from a PUD to a PUD
rezoning or do we concentrate specifically on the annex and that is the
eagle management plan. That's the only issue to debate, that's the only
guidance, and we can prepare an executive summary to provide the
appropriate background based on this board's previous guidance, and
we can -- frankly, all we're going to be looking for is guidance from
this board as to how the staff should proceed in dealing with this amen
-- dealing with the PUD, but more specifically how do we deal with it
in regards to updating the eagle management plan.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think the first thing we
ought to do is they have to go through the proper procedure, and they
can go through it by a public petition instead of going through the sort
-- the way we're going through here. This seems to me like we're
going through the back door.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, that's your choice, but we've
also done these kind of proceedings where people sign up in the
evening and discussed and you provided policy guidance. We've done
that in the past as well. So it's whatever your choice is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
Page 320
--_._-,.,.~_.. -
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, with respect to it getting on
an agenda, this is a relatively simple process. I mean, the staff can put
it on the agenda.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you need guidance from us, then
you put it on the agenda.
MR. SCHMITT: That's what we would do, we would put it on
the agenda for staff guidance. And that's what we would be seeking is
staff --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that what you intend to do?
MR. SCHMITT: We -- yes. It would be at the County
Manager's direction, of course, he controls the agenda. And that's
what the petitioner was here to sign up for tonight, was to petition that.
Frankly, this issue carne up in a meeting a week and a half ago
and there wasn't sufficient time to send the manager a letter to provide
the background as to what the debate was. And they chose to corne
here this evening and sign up as a -- during the open mic. period just
to basically make the same request.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, one of the problems is it's
difficult for us to make a policy decision without hearing both sides of
the argument, and it's difficult to get both sides of the argument if it
hasn't been advertised.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. We would do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that's the problem here. Now,
that doesn't prejudice the discussion. I mean, I'd be anxious to hear
both sides and so we could make a policy decision on it. But that can
only be done during an advertised hearing, in my opinion.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I don't have any problems if
the staff were to bring this back on an agenda item, you know.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
Page 321
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: At a future date.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Fine with me.
Margie?
MS. STUDENT: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to
make the point for purposes -- we would advertise it in such a way
that it would be to determine a process. And since these things are
quasi-judicial, we would not be able to go into the merits of the actual
merits or substance of the PUD amendment, it would only be
processed, because that's how we would be advertising it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let me ask you a question:
Will it say that Signature Properties would like to get a determination
as to whether or not they can open up their bald eagle protection plan
only as opposed to opening up the PUD?
MS. STUDENT: I think what the ad would likely say is then it's
a request by Signature Communities to have the board make the
determination as to the appropriate process under whatever provision
of the land code, you know, for amending the habitat and management
plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. As long as it says
something you can understand.
MS. STUDENT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, you know. Don't just
reference a bunch of codes and paragraphs and subparagraphs --
MS. STUDENT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- you know. We need to have an
explanation of what it is, otherwise we really haven't advertised it.
MS. STUDENT: Yeah, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So is this going to give us the
option to open up the PUD?
MS. STUDENT: I beg your pardon?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Will that give us the option to open
Page 322
-_._-~-_._^...~
June 22, 2004
up the PUD?
MS. STUDENT: Not at -- you won't be discussing the merits at
the hearing, it'll be giving the board the option of determining the
appropriate process, whether to open it up or just look at the
management plan. And it would be make that determination only, but
nothing on the merits. That would corne later when they actually
carne through the process to, you know, amend the PUD.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a guidance meeting then?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, guidance decision.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So do we need a motion to put this on an
agenda?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just direction.
MS. STUDENT: I think just direction.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
MR. MUDD: Here's what I'll do, I'll take a look based on the
quantity of stuff that's on the 27th as this comes to bay. If it looks like
I can get it on that agenda -- because this item is going to have some
debate to it, okay --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a feeling you're right.
MR. MUDD: -- it's not going to be three people, okay, I'll tell
you that right now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we got two days to get
everything done.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, first of all, you probably won't
have but four commissioners on the dais, okay, and I believe there are
some commissioners that have problems with the second day.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yep.
MR. MUDD: So I guess what I'm going to say to you is we have
a day, and what I'm going to tell you is I'm going to look at that
agenda and it better not be any deeper than the one we're in right now,
I'll tell you that. And I'll see if it fits. If it does, fine, we'll bring it on
Page 323
~~.._-
June 22, 2004
the 27th, and if it looks like the agenda is going to be overwhelming,
based on what's out there right now, I'll move it to the 14th of
September.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm looking at the 27th agenda
now and I only see -- I mean, I don't see any land use items on here.
There's very little. I mean, we continued a couple of them today, but
they can be continued also.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I know what's sitting out there as
far as land use items.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You probably know more than I
do.
MR. MUDD: And I agree with you, at this particular juncture it
doesn't seem like it's very full. But I know Mr. Schmitt's got a reading
that he's got to do and I also know that you got to set millage that day.
So depends how the workshops go, what kind of people are going to
-- how controversial that's going to be.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, any comment?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I think we're going in the
right direction. Let's leave it up to the County Manager.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So you'll assign it a meeting when
you find out where it fits best; is that correct, County Manager?
MR. MUDD: It will either be the 27th of July or the 14th of
September, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you so much.
Item #12A
DESIRED ACTION BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
REGARDING TWO CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN
FORECLOSURES - TO BE BROUGHT BACK AT THE JULY 27,
2004ßCC MEEII.NG - AEEROVED
Page 324
--~-
June 22, 2004
Okay, we move on to 12(A).
MR. MUDD: That's direct desired action by the office of the
County Attorney in two code enforcement lien foreclosure actions
entitled Collier County versus Anthony J. Varano, Jr., Case No.
99-4226-CA and Case No. 00-3430-CA.
MS. CHADWELL: Good evening, Commissioners. Ellen
Chadwell, Assistant County Attorney.
Weare here on an item that you may very well recall. About a
year ago you entered in into an agreement with Mr. Varano, who
owned two pieces of property at that point in time, both of which were
in code enforcement lien foreclosure actions.
As condition of that settlement, it allowed him to sell one of the
properties under the condition that that property be brought into
compliance within 60 days. And part of those actions were to either --
to either obtain a building permit or to obtain a demolition permit and
remove the structure. Neither of those things have taken place.
In addition, I'd like to point out and show you some pictures of
the other property that Mr. Varano has taken some steps. He had 120
days at the date of closing to correct the violations on the industrial
piece of property. And we did go and take another look at the property
yesterday. And it -- he has made a significant amount of progress on
that. And if I could just take a minute and show you the photos here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that before or after?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You should have seen it before.
MR. MUDD: This is the before. And Commissioners, you
might not be able to see this picture, but it basically has a series of I
think he called them antique cars.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, that's what he called them.
MR. MUDD: Antique cars and antique trailers and other trucks
that are sitting there, some of which have trees growing through the
top.
Page 325
.---- --.,--..-.,.. ----
June 22, 2004
MS. CHADWELL: And that's an aerial photo, just to give you
an idea of the extent of the exotic vegetation growth on the property.
MR. MUDD: Here?
MS. CHADWELL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And there's cars inside of there, by the
way.
MS. CHADWELL: There probably -- there were at the time of
that photo, yes.
The next photo was taken by one of Michelle Arnold's
investigators yesterday. And there evidently is only one vehicle left
and these two trailers on the property.
So he has made some significant progress on this particular
property. He would have to remove those remaining vehicles to corne
into compliance.
At any rate, according to the terms of the agreement, neither
property was brought into compliance within the time periods as set
forth in that agreement, and the agreements clearly provide that in the
event any of the terms are not met by Mr. Varano, that this board may,
at its discretion, terminate the agreement and go forward with the
foreclosures.
I have initiated -- I have amended the complaint and joined the
new property owner on one of the foreclosure suits, and I'm asking
you now for some direction as how you'd like to us to proceed.
Would you like to terminate the agreement and proceed with the
foreclosure proceedings?
The board could also decide to grant both property owners -- now
we're dealing with two, of course, because he has sold the one
property -- grant both property owners some additional time to corne
into compliance, keep the agreement in place as it stands.
And what is also a kind of a hybrid of those two alternatives is
that the board can terminate the agreement and then still give me
directions to not to take any action in filing any matters before the
Page 326
--.-
June 22, 2004
court within 30 or 60 days or something to that effect, if you wanted to
give these property owners some time to corne forward with -- for
instance, Mr. Varano could conceivably corne into compliance within
the next 30 days and corne forward with a proposal of settlement on --
and resolving that matter as to that one property.
Likewise, I suppose Ms. Capolino could corne before us or
propose a settlement for the board prior to us taking any formal action
in the court proceedings.
So you have some alternatives. It would be my recommendation
tonight that you terminate the agreement. If you desire to give these
folks a little more time to work on the property, in particular Mr.
Verrano who is very, very close to corning into compliance on this one
piece of property, I don't have any objection to that. But to me,
terminating the agreement is the cleanest way to go at this point in
time.
Of course the new owner of one of the parcels has invested some
money into that property and is likely to -- I mean, this is going to -- if
you go forward, you're going to have continual litigation in this
matter, so that's something you have to be aware of.
I guess that's all I have to say. I understand Ms. Capolino and her
attorney is here present to speak with you. I did attempt to call Mr.
Varano, and talked to his former attorney about this item appearing
before you today. I was unable to reach him. Both the numbers that
his attorney gave me were inoperable. So he's -- no one's here to
speak on his behalf. But otherwise I'll turn the floor over to Ms.
Capolino or her attorney.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Ifhe's not available, how did he clean up
the property?
MS. CHADWELL: Well, I did talk to him back in April. His
attorney withdrew from the whole matter in January. But I talked to
him in April and he had someone under contract. At that point he had
cleared the exotics and he was removing some of the vehicles, very
Page 327
-~-
June 22, 2004
slowly. And I encouraged him to make sure that they were all off the
property by the end of that month. And evidently he's had somebody
continually working out there, I guess, at removing the cars. So, I
mean, we did check the property probably three weeks ago, so he's
done something very recently to improve it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How long have we been playing
around with this?
MS. CHADWELL: Well, the foreclosure suits, there were two
actually pending. The first one is -- was filed prior to my corning to
this office, and that was probably early summer of 2000. The second
lawsuit was filed in September of 2000. Now, the liens on these
properties have been out there for probably nine years. They're good
for 20 years. And the agreement -- what the agreement did is it
basically capped or liquidated those lien amounts, because as part of --
if they brought the properties into compliance as part of that
agreement, the board would release the lien upon payment of $25,000
per property. So that set an amount on a lien that is otherwise
hundreds of thousands of dollars.
If you terminate the agreement tonight, all bets are off, so to
speak. I mean, the liens are back in full force and they continue to
accrue until the property's brought in compliance. And the $25,000
that was escrowed at time of closing on the one property for the
benefit of the county will also go away. I mean, you'll have no
interest or entitlement to that.
So it's kind of starting back to scratch on these properties,
continue with the foreclosure, and it's -- it's unfortunate, because I
think that we made an honest effort to try to corne to a very creative
solution with Mr. Varano. And quite frankly, Mr. Varano has taken
some steps in earnest to comply with the agreement. He endeavored
to sell the property, he did sell the property. The $25,000 was
Page 328
-----" "_.,----~
June 22, 2004
escrowed, as per our settlement agreement. He didn't cure the
violation on the Washington A venue parcel within 120 days, nor did
he take any action vis-a-vis the new owner of the Golden Gate Estates
parcel. But he has -- he has taken steps on the Washington Street
parcel to try to bring that into compliance. And so for what that's
worth.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: At the time when this agreement
was settled upon and Mr. Varano sold the piece of property out there
in Golden Gate, was it very clear to all parties involved exactly that
they needed to get both properties in compliance and that there was a
time certain that they had to get the properties in compliance? Was
this made really clear to them? When I read the backup, it seems to
me it's clear, but did they have a full understanding of what their
obligations are?
MS. CHADWELL: I'll respond to that, but I'm sure Ms.
Capolino's attorney will have something to say about that as well. I
can only -- I can't speak for what's in her mind. But yes, to my
knowledge she was aware of the agreement. It was put into her sales
agreement. The language, specific language regarding the abatement
of the violations was put into her sales contract prior to it being
executed. I had conversations with Ms. Capolino before we even
proposed a settlement agreement with this board about what was
wrong with the property, what needed to be done to bring it into
compliance, her interest in going after the property.
So the agreement was not recorded to that extent, but I -- you
know, I can't speak exactly to what extent that she knew, but I was
under the impression she knew every detail as to what this agreement
provided for.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What has she done to fix the property up
so far?
MS. CHADWELL: She did pull a demolition permit within the
60 days, but she did not remove the structure. The language in the
Page 329
- ~._---
June 22, 2004
agreement says remove -- obtain demolition permit and remove
structure. She could have obtained the building permit within the 60
days, and that would have carried on because we wouldn't have
required a CO within 60 days because that wouldn't have been
feasible. But I certainly didn't -- if they were going to remove the
structure, we wanted to shorten that time period specifically. We
didn't want just her obtaining a permit to be sufficient in that regard,
and that's why the verbiage "and remove structure" was put in that
second clause of that provision.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we have a speaker, I believe.
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am, Eric Vasquez.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When you get a chance, too, I'd
like to interj ect.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Did you want to wait till after the
speaker?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead, I'll go after the
speaker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. V ASQUEZ: Good afternoon -- or good evening,
Commissioners. Eric Vasquez on behalf of Kelly Capolino.
To respond to Ms. Chadwell's comments and to a question from
one of the commissioners with regard to what has been done thus far
by Ms. Capolino, Ms. Capolino has spent since the closing on this
property -- this property sold for about a little over $160,000. Since
that time, in addition to paying the $1,200 a month mortgage
payments, she has invested $8,500, $8,500 with regard to researching
the best use of the property.
I do have a photograph here that I can show to the board. She
has in fact done quite a bit with regard to the property.
I want to be clear that the history of this property doesn't
originate with Ms. Capolino. It originates with Mr. Varano. Those
liens weren't placed on the property nine years ago by virtue of her
Page 330
,_._.-- . -_._---~"-- ---
June 22,2004
inaction or something -- or her action, it was by Mr. Varano's. She
only became part of this when she was interested in possibly
purchasing the property. And the closing occurred in October of
2003, giving her really until December to corne into compliance. At
this point we're about 180 days from that compliance date, which is
not an awful lot of time when you see how long she's been involved
with regard to this project as opposed to Mr. Varano, who's been
involved now for almost a decade.
She has reviewed -- she has removed -- had all the debris on the
property removed, all the garbage, all fire hazard material, those sort
of things were removed pretty quickly, with regard to the property,
after the closing took place. Since that time she has obtained a
demolition permit, and frankly, it has expired. The reason why it's
expired and the structure was not taken down was because she
consulted with engineers and she spent, I believe, $2,500 or $3,000 on
engineers for them to evaluate the structure that's there now in
consideration of the new code that carne in last year in May to see if
she could use that structure with regard to additional building. They
believed -- they carne back with the opinion they believed that she
could, and a permit has been applied for. It was applied for about two
and a half weeks ago.
We have been in contact with the permit -- bless you -- with
regard to the permit board, with regard to planning, with regard to the
permit, and I found out from Ms. Capolino, she called this afternoon
and I just found out just recently, within the last half an hour, that
there are a couple of objections with regard to the structure that's there
and she has attempted to contact the architect at this late hour to see
what things could be done. But she is working towards resolving the
property .
Our concern with regard to tabling -- or with regard to rescinding
the agreement is that you then -- you then bring everything back down
to ground zero. And you're bringing things down to ground zero not
Page 331
'__0- -"^ .-,----
June 22, 2004
necessarily with Mr. Varano, but you're bringing it back down to
ground zero with Ms. Capolino, who has spent $8,500 to move this
forward.
We've spoken with the code enforcement department, Ms.
Arnold, and as far as I'm understand from her department, they're
happy with regard to the progress on the property because it is moving
forward. Albeit it may not be as timely as the county attorney's office
would like to see, and it may not be to the letter of the agreement, but
it certainly is with regard to the purpose of the agreement, and that is
to get the property into compliance to make it useful. And to go in
there and just tear down a structure that's been sitting -- you know, a
structure that can be incorporated into another building, I don't know
that that's actually the best thing to do economically.
What we'd be asking for you folks to consider is that you extend
the agreement for a period of time so she can secure the building
permit. In that time, we'll be more than happy to meet with the county
attorney, assistant county attorney and discuss an amendment to the
agreement, or at least have another agreement drawn up between the
county and Ms. Capolino directly to have some check -- some how
would you say, some benchmarks to determine and to ensure that she
is in fact moving forward with the property to completion. Whether
that is -- whether that is to have a new house on there or that if we
cannot get the building permit within a reasonable period of time
based upon the objections that have been made, that we haven't fully
investigated yet, that the property in fact be demolished.
But I would request that we extend it, I request that you extend it
further, and in the meantime we can speak with the assistant county
attorney and the county attorney's office to see if we can suggest some
other safeguards so the public's interest is protected.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I can remember this quite
well. It carne before us back a year or so ago. And Mr. Varano at that
Page 332
~,--~"^- m___
June 22, 2004
time was less than -- was not in good health, it was obvious, and he
seemed to be quite confused. I don't know, but I'll tell you what, I
know that we have to eventually bite the bullet on this, but I think
probably granting him a three-month extension with the understanding
this is the last straw and we will not go any farther. In fact, make that
part of the agreement, that that will be it and at that point in time the
county attorney will be able to move forward with foreclosure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner
Henning, then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ellen, do we have the possibility of
extending time on this particular piece of property and going forward
with the foreclosure on the Varano property? Or are they both
intertied together so much that we don't have that option open to us?
MS. CHAD WELL: Well, if you terminate the agreement, it
would affect both of them. And in order to go forward with the
foreclosure, you have to terminate the agreement, technically. But
there's no reason why you can't terminate the agreement and indicate
your interest to give this property owner some time, require that her
attorney get into my office and negotiate something that can be
represented to the board at your next meeting. That's available to you.
Or, you know, if you just wanted to -- if you want to give them
both equal amount of time, you can do that as well. But my concern is
I think it's -- I think it's relatively cleaner to terminate the agreement at
this point.
If you want to enter into a new agreement with Ms. Capolino so
that she's solely responsible for that, I suppose, you know, you could
take the position that the original agreement was with Varano and
perhaps you feel like you're dealing with a new innocent property
owner, I don't know, but--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if we carne up with some kind
of an agreement here where this young lady here would have like 90
days or 120 days to --
Page 333
--- ---
June 22, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: She's had eight months though, already.
MS. CHADWELL: Yeah, I would -- what I would do is I would
suggest that if you're concerned about giving her some more time, that
you perhaps table your entire action tonight and we corne back to you
on the 27th with his understanding that they need to corne offer some
terms as to when they can get a building permit. I would also
encourage this board to include in its guidance certain benchmarks
and an overall cap. Because first of all, I can't let the litigation pend
out there for a year, I'll be subject to being dismissed for failure to
prosecute. So obviously you have some outer limits where they have
to do something.
Quite frankly, if there's a problem getting the place built, tear it
down. You know, you knew those were your choices when you
bought the piece of land, you know, so I would encourage the board to
be very strict on this time frame but don't have a problem with this
corning back to you with something more concrete to look at, if you
feel that it's appropriate to give this property owner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we ought to do that and see
what they corne up with on the 27th. And then I think then we'll make
a clearer determination of where we're going to go with that, and I --
they need to have a plan and it needs to be addressed when it's going
to be done and if not, that's the end.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand why -- well, maybe
part of the reason why it's taken so long. The client has a lot of
properties in Collier County to manage. But I do have -- I would like
to resolve this. And I'm assuming that your client is wanting to
resolve it on her good faith, and I will support the motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But make sure we have a short time
line.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Absolutely.
Page 334
---~~
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we can get resolution on this
thing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's all been said.
MS. CHADWELL: Well, I just need some clarification. We're
talking to --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I want -- I want --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sixty days?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: There has to be a timeline, and a short
timeline, with foreclosure at the end -- I mean, with a drop dead date,
and that's it. I just feel that, you know, first of all, Mr. Varano lied to
us. And I went out, and nobody else carne there, but I did, and I took a
look at his property. He told me he had antique cars and a few
exotics. And I went out and looked at it and I was appalled to see what
he had out there. I couldn't believe the appearance of that property.
And so then we're sold -- we agreed to allow him to sell this off.
And we had faith in this lady who would buy this property and
then bring it -- you know, and then carry through as she had promised.
And now we -- now we have eight months. And that disturbs me a
lot. I mean, I believe in giving everybody a chance, but how many
chances do you have to get before it's a mockery and before you have
no teeth in whatever you present?
So I'll go along with this motion, as long as there's an end date
and as long as there's a firm --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't you pick the end date;
60 days?
MS. CHADWELL: Well, what I'd like to say is -- because there
are a lot of terms and conditions that I would rather not us try to throw
together here on the floor. What I would suggest -- what?
MR. MUDD: Continue this to the 14th of September?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I thought this was--
MS. CHADWELL: No, that's too long --
Page 335
-,,-_....- .,..."---
June 22, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, that's way too long.
MS. CHADWELL: -- that's way too long. I mean, it's got to be
next month or we might as well just cut it, pull the switch now.
Okay, so we'll bring this back to you. Perhaps in the interim I can
get Mr. Varano to complete his work on this Washington Street parcel
and we can -- you know, you can consider a proposal for disposing of
that at the same -- I will do my earnest best in that regard.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, he's also -- he's got to be in
total compliance. Total compliance. If there's one exotic left there, if
there's one trailer left there, if there's one car left there, he is not in
compliance. And from what you said earlier this evening was that he
is making an attempt to get it cleared.
MS. CHADWELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if there -- you know, that's why
I'm only -- I'm only going that direction. And whatever the time line
is, it better be done, because if it's not, that's the end. Both pieces of
property .
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So you've got till the 27th, right?
MS. CHADWELL: With the understanding that in order to get it
on that meeting agenda, we have to corne to some resolution probably
a couple of weeks beforehand.
MR. V ASQUEZ: Ma'am, may I have another comment,
Commissioner, Chairwoman?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we have a motion on the floor and
a second. Go ahead.
MR. VASQUEZ: First off, I want the board to understand that
part of the delay is also based upon third party action. Ms. Capolino is
not an engineer and can review property. But we are more than happy
to meet with Ms. Chadwell and bring forward to the board another
agreement, another proposal to make sure that you folks are
comfortable that Ms. Capolino's going to follow through.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sir, I'm ready to foreclose.
Page 336
--^,--,,-
June 22, 2004
MR. V ASQUEZ: I understand, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So no more excuses. Put together an
agreement and corne back with us on the 27th, period.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You've already had the engineering
studies and everything else done, so you should have something that
you can immediately decide how, which way you're going to go and
get with the program.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: There's a motion on the floor and a
second.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you.
Item # 12B
BOARD DIRECTION RELATING TO THE AMENDMENT OF
ORDINANCE NO. 97-8 AS AMENDED, THE FALSE ALARM
ORDINANCE - TO BE BROUGHT BACK AT THE JULY 27,2004
Bee ~G
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 12(B), and
that's board direction relating to amendment of false alarm ordinance,
Ordinance No. 97-8 as amended. And this was a companion item to
8(F), which was the special master item that you've already approved.
If you remember correctly, last meeting I mentioned to the board
that the Sheriff had sent a letter to the board -- to me to try to get a
Page 337
June 22, 2004
force alarm -- excuse me, the false alarm ordinance amended so that it
could be used along with the special master program.
We want to do that ordinance. I've passed out a draft ordinance
to you. I don't expect you to read it tonight, okay, I don't want you to
read it. I was able to get a couple of commissioners earlier with that
thing. What we basically want to get the board to do is declare an
emergency so we can get to the session on the 29th during your
workshop. It will be the first item on your budget workshop. And we
will advertise this particular item. It's being advertised right now, I
believe; am I correct, Mr. Pettit?
MR. PETTIT: Yes, you're correct.
MR. MUDD: And we'll have it for the board on the 29th so that
you can -- so it can be advertised correctly. It's going to be a little
shorter than normal and that's because of the emergency issue. This
way we'll have the ordinance done, it can be effective on 1 July and,
therefore, we can bring those cases to the special master by this
amendment to the ordinance.
There is an additional item -- while I'm talking about this one,
there is an additional item that we will bring to the board on the 29th
when you open up that special session, and this has to do with the
Santa Barbara Boulevard force main contract 04-3435 and project
731321. And basically it's a justification for a settlement agreement
with Mitchell and Stark.
Now, we have met with the clerk's office in concert, in
communication with Mr. Mitchell on this particular item and with all
our staff. We have a -- we have some extenuating circumstances
where permits were not available when we awarded this contract to
Mitchell and Stark. There's been six to seven months that have
passed, and we have a negotiated agreement and we'd like to bring
that back to the board on --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're on a different subject now?
MR. MUDD: On the 29th. We're talking about both items.
Page 338
> ----.--... ~--
June 22, 2004
There'll be two items on the 29th, sir, and I just wanted to make --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, but the first one was false alarm,
you've put it on the 29th, it's going to be advertised, we've put that to
bed, we're on to another subject.
MR. MUDD: No, I've got to get your -- I've got to get your
agreement in order to do the 29th meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But you were on another subject already,
right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir -- yes, ma'am, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, okay. So shall we take care of this
one first?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need some Ritalin here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to bring my bivouac gear
next time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to put this on the 29th
meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, it's right here. I'll second
that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion to put the false
alarm issue on the 29th after it's properly advertised by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion?
MR. PETTIT: Chairman Fiala?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. PETTIT: I think on the 29th you will be asked to first
declare an emergency to adopt this ordinance, because as I understand
it, we're going to be undercutting the advertising time period. And in
order to have it become a -- in order to attempt to have it become
effective I believe, July 1.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And is -- are all commissioners in
agreement with that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the budget --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 29th of June.
Page 339
----- ---
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: June.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Next week when we get back.
MR. MUDD: It's the budget workshop, but we will do it first
item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: For the false alarm.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're declaring this an emergency
just to get it squeezed in here?
MR. MUDD: No, you're basically declaring the emergency
because of the advertisement constraints that you have for the
ordinance. Now, if the commissioners don't feel--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't feel comfortable with that.
That's not an emergency. You know, a failure of prior planning on
your part is not an emergency on mine.
MR. MUDD: On whose part, sir?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: On your part.
MR. MUDD: Sir, this is a request by the Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, on the Sheriffs part. It is
not an emergency on my part.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to withdraw my
motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You withdraw your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I withdraw my second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, The motion is withdrawn, the
second is withdrawn.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When can we bring this up then?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: July.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: July 27th.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got nothing else to do that
Page 340
--
June 22, 2004
day.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the other emergency?
MR. MUDD: It's a renegotiation on the Santa Barbara Boulevard
force main. It's a contract and we just got the negotiated agreement
done. In order to get that done, we want to bring a settlement
agreement to the board on the 29th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is an emergency.
MR. MUDD: And the prices are going up and we need to get it
put in.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You sure that's an emergency?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is. So I'll make that motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You would make the motion --
MR. PETTIT: You're moving to hear the item on the 29th --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. PETTIT: -- on the force main settlement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Hear the item on the force -- the Santa
Barbara force main on the 29th, right?
MR. PETTIT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll give you a second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I was going to second it. Okay,
Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
Page 341
-~-"- >~., '~~~"'.__'~-~~,.-"...'-
June 22, 2004
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oops -- sorry about that.
MR. MUDD: So there will be a special meeting of the Board of
County Commissioners on the 29th of June, okay, for one item, the
Santa Barbara force main.
MS. FILSON: Is that special meeting going to begin, Mr. Mudd,
at --
MR. MUDD: 9:00.
MS. FILSON: -- 9:00?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
Commissioner, that gets us through -- gets us through 12. We've
already done 13. We've already done 14. And that brings us to staff
and commissioner general correspondence.
Item #15
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do we have any correspondence
from the -- or rather any comments from the County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: No, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Connie, are you here for
something?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. And she's going to -- and we're going
to talk about it when I get done with my --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Fine and dandy.
MR. MUDD: She's not going to say anything, but she's there if
you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I've seen her sitting there with her
cute little outfit.
County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, yes, I have some comments, at least some
Page 342
...--"-. ~..-_._--
June 22, 2004
business that we need to talk about.
First item, and maybe I can get Ms. Fulmer out of here before I
get to the second item, because the second item will probably take
more discussion.
We've been advised that the Moran Marina, which is at the foot
of a bridge going into Marco just before -- or just after -- just before
you get to the cutoff going to Goodland, that that particular property is
up for plans based on the developer going to the City of Marco. And
county staff has reviewed that particular item. Again, it's a City of
Marco item, okay, it is not a Collier County item. It used to be, but --
prior to annexation, but it is entirely in their particular purview as far
as their codes are concerned.
The one item that bothers us from the staff perspective is the fact
that the developer is using 18 parking spaces that belong to Collier
County that we lease to him underneath the bridge so that he used that
for his parking spaces. N ow because this lease that we have has a
continuation clause that every 10 years it can be renewed, unless
somebody objects to it, that they're -- they're basically -- the Goodland
Bridge, sir. They're basically saying that because this is a long-term
lease that they can use our parking spaces to help them increase their
density in their planned development.
Commissioner, that doesn't happen in Collier County, but it could
happen in Marco Island, and I believe it's about ready to transpire on
Friday.
What I would ask the board's permission to do is to send a letter
to the developer -- excuse me, to Moran Marina to let them know that
in 2007, Collier County plans to terminate the lease, and that's the
expiration of this lease term, it's 10 years at a piece. And we are going
to take a look at that public parking for boat access parking, kayak
access parking, and put it in the public domain, and so that they cannot
use our particular parking spaces to increase the density for their new
development. And I'm going to need your permission to send that
Page 343
..<-,-,--- '-'-
June 22, 2004
letter, because the board approved that lease.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I will make that motion. I will make a
motion for you to send this letter and outline what our plans are for
that property. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll give you a second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second from Commissioner Halas and
Commissioner Coletta. Okay, discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The discussion is why can't we
terminate the lease right now?
MR. MUDD: Well, you can, but you'd normally want to have a
reason why you want to terminate, why you want --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if he's going to use our
property for density, that's enough.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it has to be a long-term lease for
them to order to use it for density. So this letter that we provide that
says our intention is to terminate in 2007 is enough to stop that --
those parking spaces from being used in their density calculations, sir.
And I believe at this particular juncture it leaves us on good stead,
and then we can take a look and make sure he is within the specificity
of the current lease.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta and then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I am for this. And I think it's
the most proper thing to do. I received a letter on it the other day and
it just didn't make any sense how this was corning down.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you're for the motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm for the motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- the three years to 2007 is
not a long-term lease.
Page 344
--~ ..----
June 22, 2004
MR. MUDD: No, sir, what it would --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The action is proper what you're
recommending, I feel. But I just want to say that it wasn't long ago
that Marco Island amended their Growth Management Plan to move
density around to add into this property, move it off the island into this
property. I just want you to be aware of that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Like a TDR type of a program or
something?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They had lands that they -- that
the -- I think the city owns. And they carne before the Regional
Planning Council and they transferred that over there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I see.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have a motion on the floor
and a second. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we have a speaker on this?
MR. MUDD: You don't have speakers during communication.
If you have questions for Ms. Fulmer, she's here to -- she knows more
about this particular item than just about anybody.
I will tell you that she's not in favor of the development, so you're
going to understand there's going to be a little bit of a bias there when
you ask the questions, so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: The next item I have, Commissioner -- thanks,
Torn.
Page 345
--~ .---
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How sufficient.
MR. MUDD: The next item I have, Commissioner, is a letter
that Chairman Fiala received from the City of Naples. And we
probably need to corne to some agreement or disagreement.
First of all, as you remember, the last meeting, you asked the
Chairman to send a letter to the City of Naples asking for a workshop
on the Naples Bay speed zone. The Chairman did send that letter.
There was two letters that were received from the Mayor, one was: I
received your letter, I'll bring it up at the next meeting.
The next correspondence is the letter that I'm about ready to talk
about. And this is addressed to Chairman Fiala, and it basically says
in the first paragraph that: Yes, that the City of Naples agreed to a
joint workshop on Monday, October 4th, 2004 at 1 :30 in the council
chambers to discuss the Naples Bay speed zone.
And then the second paragraph is the one that we need to discuss.
And it -- on an unrelated matter but one that is equally important, at
our council meeting yesterday -- and this was dated June 17th --
council respectfully asked that I write a letter on behalf of council to
ask that the Board of County Commissioners please delay the letting
of the contract on the proposed overpass until the first Board of
County Commissioners meeting in October.
The reason that we are asking for this delay is because council
has authorized our city manager and myself to retain the services of an
independent expert to look at all the data that is available with regard
to the overpass. We have already begun this process, and it is my
hope that whatever the expert's findings are, we and council will abide
by them. Of course, there is no guarantee that this will happen, just as
there is no guarantee that the vote for slower speeds on Naples Bay
will change -- excuse me -- yeah, that the vote for slower speeds on
Naples Bay will change after our joint city/county workshop.
However, it is my feeling that positive things happen when people
agree to work together. I wish everyone a happy, healthy summer, a
Page 346
'""_._-
June 22, 2004
great vacation, and look forward to hearing from you regarding these
issues. Signed Bill Barnett, Mayor of City of Naples.
And I -- Chairman's going to ask, hopefully, how we're going to
respond to that particular paragraph.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I need your direction, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I had a funny feeling you'd -- is
Commissioner Coletta there?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I make a motion that you
respond to it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would graciously thank them
for setting the date for the workshop for the speed zone and just
mention the fact that we understand that he made a request for another
delay to the -- his letting of the contract for the overpass; however,
we're past that point of return. And in as polite a way as possible.
And to wish them a happy summer.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I think we've already went
out to make bids on this to get that addressed, because we realize that
there is a shortage of building material and we want to make sure that
we get into the queue here. And we've already made about five studies
and I think we've about studied this thing to death.
That's their option, if they want to go out and get another
opinion, but I feel comfortable where we are right now and I think we
ought to continue at, my favorite saying is, combat speed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When do we go out for -- when do
we issue the RFP?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They're already out, aren't they?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, it isn't.
Page 347
~'-
June 22, 2004
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we issued -- we issued the -- we
went to the Board of County Commissioners to authorize staff to let
the project for bids on April 13th. And we have already had two
pre-bid meetings. And the bid opening is scheduled for July 7th -- no,
the bid opening is July 7th. We've had more than a dozen contractors
have shown interest in this particular case. So I believe there's a
dozen contractors out there trying to figure out how they're going to
build this thing and figure out how they finance it to corne in with a
bid.
Once the bids are open, bid prices are held for a period of 120
calendar days. But right now staff, based on the bid opening, just so
that you don't get into bid wars and everybody trying to undercut
themselves, we plan to bring the construction contract award to the
Board of County Commissioners on the 27th of July.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're going to award the
contract on the 27th of July?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We went out for bids.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or we can continue it at that
time.
MR. MUDD: Or you can continue it at that time, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I like Commissioner Coletta's
suggestion.
MR. MUDD: But I will tell you, you continue, you soften -- you
soften the county up for legal challenge as far as -- see, you can't shop.
You can't bid shop. You can't go out and shop for bids and not
award. That's illegal, and people will file against you, and the county
has a big liability. So you've got to be careful. Once you open up
those bids, you've got to be careful what you're going to do. And you
can never -- once you go out for bid, your intent is to award a contract.
And I'll just give you that piece, so -- and you've got to keep that in
your mind. If things change and it's beyond -- it's beyond your
control, that's one thing, but be careful when you don't -- when you go
Page 348
,-~,~,. ~.-
June 22, 2004
out for bid and you don't award and you have good reasons for not
awarding the bid. Because people will corne back for you and file suit
for all --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: -- and file suit to try to get back all their costs for
preparing the bid and whatnot.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then can I suggest that you -- in
the response you make the Mayor aware of the fact that these bids are
going to be opened in just a couple of weeks and that the legal issues
are such that it would be unwise for the county to hold onto them and
not open them for a period of three months. If that in fact is the case.
I mean, if there is a legal exposure there and if it is not a prudent
course of action for the county, then I think we should tell the Mayor
that, rather than just refusing to extend it.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we should give a rationale
as to why we cannot not do that.
MR. MUDD: And just on the public regard, just to kind of let
everybody know and refresh everybody's memory on this particular
item, we have had three workshops, joint workshops with the city on
this particular item. We have delayed the award of this contract some
nine months because of questions and concerns that the City of Naples
had. And we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in -- with five
different consultants to address every one of those.
And one of -- one of those consultants they asked us to take a
look at, and that was Parsons-Brinkerhoff, to look at unconventional
intersection designs. And I believe that there is one person on their
short list of four that is the compatriot of the person on
Parsons-Brinkerhoffs staff, because they have done joint articles
together in transportation publications that address unconventional
designs.
Page 349
June 22, 2004
So I believe that the board has in the past been very open for
discussion on this particular item and has spent a lot of money trying
to answer every question that the City of Naples has had. And I'll just
give you that as just a reminder of the past, so that you know.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I just wish they could answer
the questions that I have, because much of it is predicting what we're
going to have and predicting what kind of traffic will corne in and
predicting what the growth will be. And to me that isn't something I
can deal with, because there's no facts in there. I'm still having a
problem with that.
Anyway, you have another subject, sir? You're going to answer
this letter, right, for me or write it out for me?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I will help you with the draft. But I
believe what the board is basically telling me to draft is thank you
very much for opening up a workshop to talk about the Naples speed
zone. At this particular time, I have to tell you where the bid award is
in the process we have, and we do have some liability, some legal
liability as these --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, but that was never mentioned.
When you said we needed to go out to bid now, we need to do -- but
nobody ever said we'd have legal liability for going out to bid.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's the delay in awarding that is
likely to cause the --
MR. MUDD: Going out for bid's one thing. But we asked the
board, do you want us to go out for a construction bid on the overpass,
and Norman carne, Norman --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Because they said they had to do it now
in order to keep it on track --
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- in case, right? They never said that
there would be legal liability after getting the bids if we opened them
and then didn't move forward with it.
Page 350
--". .~--
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nobody asked us to delay the
decision until now. And that's the answer--
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, Norman carne out and asked the board
specifically, because of the controversy as far as the overpass was
concerned, if the board wanted to move forward to construction, i.e.,
he asked if the board wanted to go out to bid and ask people to bid on
the construction of the contract.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, we remember that.
MR. MUDD: And he did tell you about the timetable.
Commissioner, I will tell you right now, part of that project for
the overpass is to move the raw water main for the City of Naples,
okay? That is -- that is one of the first things you do. You do not
want to move that force main, which supplies three-quarters of the
water to the City of Naples, during high season, okay? I will tell you
that is a non-start before we even go there. And if you don't award
this summer --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I realize. Don't intimidate me anymore.
Let's move on to the next subject.
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am, you asked me -- you made it --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You sure -- you bet your life I did. But
anyway, let's move on to the next one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think that was his intent.
But I think that --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I felt like it was.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do that.
What Norman did say is in order to keep this project on track, we
would have to go out to bid this summer. One of the reasons that he
said that is a critical component of the construction is the movement of
that water main. If you can't get it done before high season, you delay
the project almost a year, okay? And it will not corne on line when
the interchange for I - 75 comes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just hook it into the sewer force
Page 351
__ø___,_ -_.~._--
June 22, 2004
maIn.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, my observation
is you have a consensus of the Board of Commissioners to write a
letter --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: To write the letter.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and explain the details of it
and say have a nice summer.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're right.
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, ma'am. And I'm sorry, I didn't
mean to corne across --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. That's all right.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you have any comments as we close
this meeting?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm going to Tallahassee
on Thursday. The Governor and Cabinet have it on their agenda, the
Orangetree transmission line. They are discussing, and I'm just going
to bring the county commission's position on this issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, that's great. Great.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Thursday there is employee
service awards, and I'm asking for volunteers to take my place, if
anybody has any openings.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to FAC.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll be in St. Louis.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I do it by phone?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I do it by phone?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thanks. Thanks, guys.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry, I can't even -- I'd be here if I
could.
Page 352
__N' .~-
June 22, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know you would. You're great
about that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry I won't be.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would, but I'm going to be
leaving bright and early about -- well, depends upon how much sleep I
get, but I hope to leave my home by 5:00 to I can get over to the other
side of the coast by 8:00.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you can corne back over.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. And I'll be there for three
days, or two days.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I had the timer today, and I would
like to announce that the winner of the Board of County
Commissioners pontification award today is none other than County
Manager Jim Mudd.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that applause in the
background?
MS. FILSON: I think that's Commissioner Coletta's phone acting
up.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I was going to say Commissioner Coletta,
do you have anything to add but looks -- oh, there he goes.
Commissioner Coletta, you have anything to add?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, not to that, but I've got my
own comment. Now the phone's starting to act up. I hope I make it.
I just wanted to know if there's a possibility we can get that
referendum on the ballot. It's (telephonic interference) starting to get
the citizens to vote on --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Get the referendum on the ballot for
what?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The charter committee. To
form the charter committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can't.
Page 353
.^......_.,~....-".._-_..._-
June 22, 2004
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
MR. PETTIT: This is Mike Pettit.
I don't believe that's possible, based on the decision we rendered
and the time frame we have now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, well, I thank you,
Michael.
And the other only other comment I've got is I know it's been
difficult with me working this far away, and I do appreciate you
giving me this opportunity to participate.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I hope your father-in-law is doing better.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's making a big difference with
us being here with him.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great, great. Well, take good care.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's been a fruitful day. I think we
accomplished a lot. And I just want to say that it's a pleasure working
with my fellow commissioners, but maybe not quite this late at night.
Thank you all.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. It's been a long day. We've
made a lot of decisions today, a lot of really tough decisions.
Before we close this meeting, I want to say to Commissioner
Henning that I hope his mother continues to get well. I know this has
been a tough time for him, and I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- that's a really tough thing.
I also want to express my deepest sympathy to Rhona Saunders
on the death of her husband, Terry Miller.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, Terry died.
Page 354
June 22, 2004
And so anyway, I just -- Rhona, if you happen to be watching,
my heart is out there with you.
And folks, with that, meeting is adjourned.
* * * * * Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Halas and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and! or adopted: * * * * *
Item #16Al
CHANGE ORDER TO HARTMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONTRACT #03-3456, AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $9,000
TO COMPLETE ITS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RATE
REVIEW OF THE ORANGETREE UTILITY RATE
ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND W ASTEW A TER
AllIHORlTY
Item #16A2
THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONFIRM
THEIR DIRECTION REGARDING PURCHASE
AUTHORIZATION FOR CONSERVATION COLLIER
PROPERTIES WITHIN NORTH GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT
Item #16A3
AN AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND
PURCHASE FOR 3.64 ACRES FROM GEORGE & VIRGINIA C.
VISNICH, UNDER THE CONSER V ATION COLLIER LAND
ACQ~OGRAM
Page 355
-----
June 22, 2004
Item #16A4
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF 3.02 ACRES
WITH ROBERT W. ERICKSON & KATHLEEN K. ERICKSON,
UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
Item #16A5
FOUR (4) AGREEMENTS FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH
THE FOLLOWING: CHRISTOPHER 1. & CAROLYN SUE
ALLEN, TIMOTHY G HAINS, CHERYL R. KRAUS, AND
LIVINGSTON INDUSTRIAL PARTNERS, L.L.C., FOR 77.31
ACRES (KNOWN AS THE AMERICAN BUSINESS PARK)
UNDER THE CONSERV A TION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
Item # 16A6
AN ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT FOR EASEMENT FOR
FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE 2A GOLF COURSE WATER AND
SEWER..F A CILIIIRS
Item #16A7
AN ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT FOR EASEMENT FOR
FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE 2A, UNIT 1 WATER AND SEWER
FACILIIIRS
Page 356
-,..,--
June 22, 2004
Item # 16A8
AN ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT FOR EASEMENT FOR
FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE 3, UNIT 1, WATER AND SEWER
FAClUIIRS
Item #16A9- Continued Indefinitely
AN ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT FOR EASEMENT FOR
FIDDLER'S CREEK TEMPORARY IRRIGATION METERS
WATERY AClUIIRS
Item #16AI0
AN APPLICATION BY SKYTRUCK LLC FOR PARTICIPATION
IN THE ADV ANCED BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT PROGRAM- AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16All
AN APPLICATION FOR PARTICIPATION WITH RADIOLOGY
REGIONAL CENTER IN THE ADV ANCED BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM- AS DETAILED
Item #16A12
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT
CASE NO. 1999-052, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
VS. SHADOW COURT FUELS, INC.-AS DETAILED IN THE
Page 357
---,-
June 22, 2004
Item #16A13
AN ORIGINAL GRANT OF REPLACEMENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT BETWEEN IMPERIAL GOLF CLUB, INC.,
IMPERIAL CASTLEWOOD, LLC AND COLLIER COUNTY,
Item #16A14
RESOLUTION 2004-206: A $2.5 MILLION COMMERCIAL
PAPER LOAN TO PAY FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN
REPLACING COLLIER COUNTY'S COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION'S COMPUTER SOFTWARE SYSTEM, AND THE
ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT WHICH FULLY FUNDS
Item #16A15
RATIFY A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND MS TEP EMBASSY, L.P., THE SUCCESSOR
DEVELOPER OF THE GLEN EAGLE PUD, TO RESOLVE CODE
ENFORCEMENT CASE #2002060715, PERTAINING TO A
VIOLATION FOR REMOVING NATIVE VEGETATION FROM
UPLAND RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE (UROS)
Item # 16A 16- Moved to Item # 16G 1
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA) APPROV AL OF THE 2003 ANNUAL REPORT
Page 358
-.^--
June 22, 2004
OF THE CRA, STAFF TO FILE THE ANNUAL REPORT WITH
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND PUBLISH
Item #16A17-Moved to Item #16G2
CLARIFY THE OPERATIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) FOR THE
BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
(AREA), SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZING THAT THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE AREA REPORTS DIRECTLY
TO THE CRA, AND IS NOT A COLLIER COUNTY EMPLOYEE
UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF THE COUNTY
Item #16B1
RESOLUTION 2004-207: ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING"
ZONE ALONG THE SOUTHERN RIGHT-OF-WAY OF CALUSA
A VENUE FOR THE SECTION FROM AIRPORT ROAD TO 238
FEET WEST OF AIRPORT ROAD AND ALONG THE
NORTHERN RIGHT-OF-WAY SECTION FROM THE
PROPERTY LINE LOCATED 104 FEET WEST OF AIRPORT
ROAD TO 238 FEET WEST OF AIRPORT ROAD AT A COST OF
$600
Item #16B2
A PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE A 1.14 ACRE
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, A PORTION OF WHICH IS
Page 359
-----
June 22, 2004
REQUIRED FOR THE WIDENING OF V ANDERBIL T BEACH
Item #16B3
RESOLUTION 2004-208: AUTHORIZING THE SPEED LIMIT
CHANGE FROM THIRTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR (35 MPH)
TO FORTY MILES PER HOUR (40 MPH) ON WOODS EDGE
PARKWAY, FROM US 41 TO VANDERBILT BEACH DRIVE,
FOR A DISTANCE OF 1.0 MILE, AT AN APPROXIMATE COST
0E.$400
Item # 16B4
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING PRIOR YEAR
REVENUE, ADDITIONAL CURRENT YEAR REVENUE, AND
INSURANCE COMPANY REFUNDS FOR FUNDS RECOVERED
FROM VEHICLE ACCIDENTS WHERE COUNTY TRAFFIC
Item #16B5
RESOLUTION 2004-209: PROVIDING FOR THE ACCEPTANCE
OF CONVEY ANCES MADE BY DEVELOPERS AND/OR
OWNERS IN COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT
COMMITMENT REQUIREMENTS, ORDINANCES AND
AGREEMENTS OR AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF A CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, STIPULATIONS REQUIRED AS A PRE-CONDITION FOR
THE APPROV AL OF CONDITIONAL USES, AND SITE
Page 360
-,,_.-
June 22, 2004
Item #16B6
RESOLUTION 2004-210: A LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM (LAP)
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT), WHICH IMPLEMENTS UP TO
$116,000 FOR TRAFFIC COUNT STATIONS, WITH
Item #16B7
RESOLUTION 2004-211: A LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM (LAP)
AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $262,500 FOR THE
PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF A PREFABRICATED
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE WITHIN THE C.R.951 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Item #16B8
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM
STREET LIGHTING PROJECT NO. 60007 TO MULTI-PROJECT
TRANSPORTATION DESIGN/TRAFFIC SIGNALS PROJECT
NO. 60172 FOR EXPENDITURES THAT WILL BE INCURRED
UNDER LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM (LAP) AGREEMENTS
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION-
Item #16B9
RESOLUTION 2004-212: A LAP AGREEMENT WITH THE
STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN THE
AMOUNT OF $195,706 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
Page 361
--_..,,-,---
June 22, 2004
SIDEW ALK SEGMENTS CONNECTING THE SIDEWALKS AT
S.R. 29 AND WITH V ARIOUS STREETS BETWEEN FIRST
Item #16BI0
A DRAINAGE AND LIMITED ACCESS EASEMENT
AGREEMENT WITH TERRACINA, LLC FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ALLOWING COUNTY STORMWATER STAFF TO HAVE
ACCESS TO THE CANAL FROM THE TERRACINA PROPERTY
IN ORDER TO PERFORM PERIODIC MAINTENANCE WITHIN
Item #16B 11
AWARD BID #04-3615 "PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF
ORGANIC AND INORGANIC MULCH" TO GIANT MULCH,
INC., AND FORESTRY RESOURCES, INC., AT AN ESTIMATED
YEAR!.Y COSL.OE.$550,OOO
Item #16B 12
RESOLUTION 2004-213: A HIGHWAY LANDSCAPING
INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT)
FOR LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN
THE UNPAVED AREAS WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF S.R.
Item #16B13
RESOLUTION 2004-214: TO ESTABLISH A "NO PARKING, NO
Page 362
~--
June 22, 2004
STOPPING, NO STANDING" ZONE ALONG THE NORTH SIDE
OF BLUEBILL A VENUE, FROM V ANDERBIL T DRIVE TO
Item #16B14
AN INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, HENDRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
FOR CONTINUED USE OF INMATE LABOR IN ROAD
MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES-AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16B15
AMENDMENT NO.6 TO CONTRACT NO. 91-1763 FOR
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES WITH
WILSONMILLER, INC., FOR MODIFICATION OF THE
GORDON RIVER EXTENSION BASIN STUDY (PROJECT NO.
51005) TO INCORPORATE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD EXPANSION, FISCAL
IMP ACLlNCLlIDES....$ ~2,h49 ~9
Item #16B16
WAIVE THE FORMAL BID PROCESS AND APPROVE A
CONTRACT BETWEEN GRAY-CALHOUN AND ASSOCIATES
AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR POST -DESIGN ENGINEERING
SERVICES RELATED TO DESIGN AND PLANS CHANGES
FOR THE ADV ANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
(ATMS) PHASE II PROJECT. COSTS TO THE COUNTY WILL
BE REIMBURSED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
Page 363
-----
June 22, 2004
IRANSEOR.IAIlON
Item #16B 17
A DONATION AGREEMENT TO ACCEPT AN EASEMENT
CONVEY ANCE AND TO APPROVE A LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE
EXISTING SIDEW ALK ALONG V ANDERBIL T DRIVE AND
Item #16B18
RECONVEY ANCE OF A 60-FOOT WIDE TRACT REAL
PROPERTY, PER SECTION 255.22 FLORIDA STATUTES- AS
Item #16B19
TWO DONATION AGREEMENTS AND ACCEPT THE
CONVEYANCE OF TWO TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENTS WHICH ARE REQUIRED FOR THE
REPLACEMENT OF A DISINTEGRATING DRAINAGE PIPE
UNDER BLOCK 89, GOLDEN GATE UNIT NO.3 TO
ALLEVIATE FLOODING (PROJECT NO. 60016)- AS DETAILED
Item #16B20- Withdrawn
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-56, WHICH
ESTABLISHED AN AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO
PROVIDE INPUT AND GUIDANCE IN THE AESTHETIC
APPEARANCE OF THE I-75/GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
Page 364
-----
June 22, 2004
INTERCHANGE BY EXTENDING THE LIFE OF THE
COMMITTEE UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF THE
INIERCHAN.GF
Item #16B21
CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 97-2715-A07 WITH AGNOLI,
BARBER AND BRUNDAGE, INC., FOR THE LEL Y AREA
STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT NO.
Item #16B22
SUPPLEMENTAL WORK ORDER NO.3 FOR THE FOREST
LAKES MSTU TO WILSONMILLER INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
Item #16C1
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF A 5.71-
ACRE PARCEL, IN ADVANCE OF ANTICIPATED REAL
ESTATE REQUIREMENTS, TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE
NEEDS FOR WATER SUPPLY AND WATER
TRANSMISSION/STORAGE FACILITIES, AT A TOTAL COST
Item #16C2
RESOLUTION 2004-215/CWS 2004-02: AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION BY GIFT OR PURCHASE FOR NON-
EXCLUSIVE, PERPETUAL UTILITY AND ACCESS INTERESTS
BY EASEMENT FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND
Page 365
~--
June 22, 2004
IMPROVEMENT OF THE EXISTING NORTH HAWTHORN
WELLFIELD WATER SUPPLY TRANSMISSION MAINS
ALONG THE CYPRESS CANAL IN PROXIMITY TO WELLS RO
12N THROUGH RO 15N (PROJECT NUMBER 700751) AT AN
Item # 16C3
SATISFACTION OF A NOTICE OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR A
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE W/WILLIAM D.
COLLINS.Æ
Item #16C4
SATISFACTION FOR A CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER
IMP ACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENT W/ ARMANDO
ELORESr1R
Item #16C5
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST
REAL PROPERTY FOR ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE- AS
Item # 16C6
WORK ORDER UC-019 IN THE AMOUNT OF $677,700 WITH
DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC., FOR THE GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT,
c..oNIRACT #04-1515 (~O. 700(7)
Page 366
-----
June 22, 2004
Item #16C7
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM
RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES TO THE NORTH COUNTY
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY, REUSE, COLLECTIONS
AND THE W ASTEW ATER LABORATORY IN THE AMOUNT
Item #16C8
THE SELECTION COMMITTEE'S DECISION AWARDING A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO HAZEN AND
SAWYER, P.C. FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT 12 MILLION GALLON PER DAY
RESERVE OSMOSIS EXPANSION, RFP 04-3589 (PROJECT NO.
700971) IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,990,500- AS DETAILED IN
Item # 16C9
AWARD BID NO. 04-3671 TO MITCHELL & STARK
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., FOR THE NORTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT ACID TANK
REPLACEMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $199,000 (PROJECT NO.
70094] )
Item #16C10
REJECT BID NO. 04-3666 FROM GULF COAST
CONSTRUCTION OF NAPLES, INC., AND AUTHORIZATION
TO RE-ADVERTISE FOR BIDS, TO PERFORM RENOVATIONS
AT THE PUBLIC UTILITIES OPERATIONS CENTER (PROJECT
Page 367
-.-.--
June 22, 2004
NO 700:'59 & 71072)
Item #16C11
AMEND WORK ORDER CDM-FT-04-07 FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES RELATED TO ADDING ONE NEW PUBLIC WATER
SUPPL Y WELL (WELL 34) TO THE TAMIAMI WELLFIELD AT
A COST NOT TO EXCEED $214,162 (PROJECT NO. 70158)- AS
Item #16C12
FUNDING AND WORK ORDER HS-FT-04-03, NCRWTP NEW
MID HAWTHORN WELLFIELD, FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR EIGHT (8) ADDITIONAL WATER SUPPLY
WELLS SERVING THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT ON SITES THAT ARE ON, OR
ADJACENT TO EXISTING WELL SITES, AT A COST NOT TO
Item #16C13
WORK ORDER (CONTRACT NO. 00-3119) FOR FIXED TERM
PROFESSIONAL UTILITY ENGINEERING SERVICES, WITH
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE TO DESIGN, PERMIT, AND
OBSERVE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RECLAIMED WATER
BOOSTER PUMP STATION ON LIVINGSTON ROAD (PROJECT
Item #16D1
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $204,523 TO
Page 368
-".._--
June 22, 2004
ENSURE CONTINUOUS FUNDING OF THE COMMUNITY
Item #16D2
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $559 TO
ENSURE CONTINUOUS FUNDING OF THE ALZHEIMER'S
Item #16D3
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,074 TO
ENSURE CONTINUOUS FUNDING OF THE HOME CARE FOR
IHE.ELDERJ ,v GRANT
Item #16D4
RECOGNIZE AND BUDGET AN ADDITIONAL $133,135,
AUTHORIZED BY THE STATE AID TO LIBRARY PROGRAM,
Item #16D5
AMENDMENT TO THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT GRANT
CONTRACT AND THE REQUIRED BUDGET AMENDMENT IN
THE AMOUNT OF $6,877 BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA
AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.,
D/B/A/ SENIOR SOLUTIONS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA TO
Item #16D6
Page 369
"··~__'H___
June 22, 2004
THE ASSISTED LIVING FOR THE FRAIL ELDERLY
MEDICAID WAIVER CASE MANAGEMENT REFERRAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA AGENCY ON
AGING, INC., D/B/A! SENIOR SOLUTIONS OF SOUTHWEST
Item #16D7
THE HOME AND COMMUNITY BASED WAIVER CASE
MANAGEMENT REFERRAL AGREEMENT AND BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING, INC., D/B/A! SENIOR
SOLUTIONS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, AND ALLOWS FOR
CONTINUED DELIVERY OF HOME AND COMMUNITY
R A SEIl.SERYICFS
Item #16D8
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $7,500 TO INITIATE THE
GRANT AWARDED TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC
LIBRARY FOR A SUMMER LIBRARY READING
PARTNERSHIP PROJECT, FROM THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LIBRARY AND
Item # 16D9
A VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR POSITION AT DOMESTIC
ANIMAL SERVICES (DAS)- AS DETAILED IN THE
Page 370
."--
June 22, 2004
Item #16D10
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,080, AND
TO ENTER INTO A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE
HUNGER AND HOMELESS COALITION TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE INFORMATION NETWORK FOR THE COMMUNITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY (INCCC). THIS AGREEMENT PROVIDES
FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF COMPUTER HARDW ARE
AND SOETW ARE COSTS
Item #16E1
COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN A PROGRAM TO ENHANCE
THE PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SYSTEM COVERAGE IN
PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES AND TO ASSIST WITH
FUNDING, NOT TO EXCEED $150,000- AS DETAILED IN THE
Item # 16E2
DECLARE CERTAIN COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY AS
SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZE A SALE OF THE SURPLUS ON
JUL Y 10,2004 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARY
Item #16F1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE TOURISM AGREEMENT WITH
THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE PERMIT -COMPLIANCE,
MARINE TURTLE MONITORING FOR THE GORDON PASS
DREDGING (PROJECT NO. 90548)- AS DETAILED IN THE
Page 371
June 22, 2004
Item # 16F2
BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 04-305 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$14,300, TO REPLACE AN EXISTING CONTROL PANEL AT
Item # 16F3
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO MOVE VARIOUS CAPITAL
PROJECTS TO THE NEW GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL
FACILITIES IMPACT FEE FUND- AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16G 1- Moved from #16A16
Item # 16G2- Moved from # 16A 1 7
Item #16Hl
REQUEST PAYMENT FOR COMMISSIONER HALAS TO
ATTEND THE COPELAND CIVIC ASSOCIATION'S FIRST
YEAR ANNIVERSARY DINNER ON JUNE 28, 2004 FOR A
COST OF $16.00 TO BE PAID FROM THE COMMISSIONER'S
IR A VEL.Bl.IDGET
Item #16H2
REQUEST PAYMENT FOR COMMISSIONER FIALA TO
ATTEND THE EDC TRUSTEE POST-LEGISLATIVE
DELEGA TION LUNCHEON ON TUESDA Y, JUNE 15, 2004 AT
Page 372
~~'>'-
June 22, 2004
THE HILTON NAPLES & TOWERS FOR A COST OF $25.00 TO
Item #16Il
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE-FILED AND/OR
REEERRED-
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 373
--
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
June 22, 2004
1. FOR BOARD ACTION: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for
the period:
1. Disbursements for May 1,2004 through May 7, 2004
2. Disbursements for May 8, 2004 through May 14, 2004
3. Disbursements for May 15, 2004 through May 21, 2004
4. Disbursements for May 22, 2004 through May 28, 2004
B. Districts:
1. LeI v Community Development District
Minutes of February 18,2004; Minutes of March 17,2004; Minutes of
April 14, 2004; Minutes of May 19,2004.
2. Kev Marco Community Development District - Minutes of December 9,
2003; Agenda for December 9,2003
3. Cow Slough Water Control District - Proposed Budget for FY 2004-2004;
Schedule of Meetings for FY 04-05.
4. Naples Heritage Communitv Development District - Agenda for February
2, 2004; Minutes of February 2, 2004; March 8, 2004 ; Unaudited
Financial Statements for December 31, 2003 and January 31, 2004;
District Map; and Management Letter.
5. Fiddler's Creek Community Development District - Minutes of Meeting
February 25, 2004 and March 3, 2004, March 24, 2004; Unaudit Financial
Statements for January 31, 2004; February 29, 2004; Annual Financial
Report; Management Letter and Description of Outstanding Bonds.
6. Mediterra South Community Development District - Minutes of Meetings
February 25, 2004; Audit Report; Annual Financial Reports; Management
Letter; and Description of Outstanding Bonds. Minutes of December 3,
2003 and Description of Outstanding Bonds; Agenda for December 3,
2003 February 25,2004; Financial Statements Unaudited for January 31,
2004.
H:Data/Format
,,-.,---,"
-..------.,...........,...---. ,
7. Fiddler's Creek Community Development District - Minutes of December
5,2003; Agenda for December 5,2003; Certificate of Liability Insurance.
8. Kev Marco Community Development District - Mim:ltøs gf D~eemBer ~ cµ'¿h~<:
2003 and March 31, 2004; Audit Report; Annual Financial Report; ~
Management Letter.
9. Heritage Greens Communitv Development District - Minutes of
December 8,2003, November 10,2003; Agenda for November 10,2003;
Financial Statements unaudited for September 30, 2003 and October 31,
2003.
10. South Florida Water Management District - Annual Financial Reports; ,
Audit Report; District Map; Management Letter; De.eriplioB of &-- tJkd. ratE
Outstanding Dônds; Public Facilities Report and ßudgct Rcpofl... ~ eCe l
11. Fiddler's Creek Communitv Development District II - Minutes of October
1:)\0 ~ <: 22, 2003, JURe 25, 2004, Annual Financial Reports; Description of
~<:e...\ \.Ie. - ulitstanlng bonds; District Map; and Description of Outstanding Bonds;
Agenda for January 28, 2004. Minutes of January 28, 2004 and February
24,2004; Audit Report; Annual Financial Report; Management Letter;
Description of Outstanding Bonds; Agenda for February 25,2004;
General Purpose Financial Statements and Reports of Independent
Certified Public Accountants for September 30, 2003.
12. Port of the Islands Communitv Improvement District - Minutes of
Meeting March 19, 2004; Agenda for March 19, 2004; General Funds
Statements for January 31,2004. Minutes of February 20,2004; Agenda
for February 20,2004. Minutes of April 16,2004; Description of
Outstanding Bonds; Agenda for April 16, 2004; Agreement for Legal
Services.
13. Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District - Annual Financial Report;
Audit Report; Management Letter; Rebuttal to Management Letter; Public
Facilities Report; General Purpose Financial Statements for September
30, 2003.
14. Collier Soil & Water Conservation District - Annual Financial Report;
Audit Report; Management Letter and Rebuttal to Management Letter
C. Minutes:
1. Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for May 20, 2004, June 3,
2004; Minutes of April 15, 2004.
2. Collier Countv Contractor's Licensing Board - Agenda for May 19,2004.
H:DatalFormat
~ --------."""
3. Development Services Advisorv Committee - Minutes of April 7, 2004
and May 5, 2004. Agenda for May 5, 2004.
a) Agenda for Budget Sub-Committee Operations for May 19,2004;
Minutes of May 19,2004.
4. Park and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for May 19,2004; Minutes
of April 21, 2004.
5. Historical and Archaeological Preservation Board - Agenda for May 19,
2004; Minutes of April 21, 2004.
6. Comer Countv Citizens Corps Advisorv Committee - Agenda for March
17,2004 and April 21, 2004; Minutes of March 17,2004; Minutes of
April 21, 2004.
7. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. - Special Agenda and
Minutes for May 5, 2004.
8. Lely Golf Estates Beautification M.ST.V. - Agenda for May 20, 2004;
Agenda for June 17, 2004; Minutes of April 15, 2004; Minutes of May 20,
2004
9. Pelican Bay Services Division - Agenda for June 2, 2004; Minutes of
April 21, 2004; Minutes of May 5, 2004; FY 2005 Proposed Budget.
a) Clam Bay Sub -Committee - Minutes of April 28, 2004.
b) Budget Sub-Committee - Agenda for May 19, 2004; Minutes of
May 19,2004; April 21, 2004.
10. Collier Countv Library Advisory Board - Agenda for May 26, 2004;
Minutes of May 19, 2004.
11. Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee - Minutes of March 22,
2004.
12. Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Agenda for February
26, 2004.
13. Communitv Character/Smart Growth Committee - Agenda for April 28,
2004; Minutes of April 28, 2004
14. lmmokalee Beautification M.ST.U. Advisory Board - Agenda for
August, 2004Minutes of May 19,2004.
15. Bavshore Beautification M.S.T.V. - Agenda for June 9, 2004; Minutes of
May 12, 2004.
16. Radio Road Beautification M.ST.V. Agenda for June 15,2004; Minutes
of May 18, 2004.
H:Data/F ormat
_._--- __.._.__ ~_w... __^
17. Ochopee Fire Control District Advisorv Meeting - Minutes of February
17,2004.
18. Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. - Agenda for June 3,2004; Minutes of May 6,
2004.
19. Coastal Advisorv Committee - Minutes of April 8, 2004.
D. Other:
1) Don Hunter, Collier County Sheriff - Certification of Proposed Budget for FY
2005.
2) Guy L. Carlton, Collier County Tax Collector - Copy of the FY 2003-2004
Budget.
H:DataIFormat
-.-......-......--
- -~,---_."_."'"-
June 22, 2004
Item #16J1
THE STATE REVENUE SHARING APPLICATION FOR FY
Item # 16J2
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE PURCHASES OF
GOODS AND SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED
REPORT OF OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A VALID
PUBLIC PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF
COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID PURCHASES FROM MA Y
29,200~, 2004
Item # 16K1
AN AGREED ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES AS TO
PARCEL 102 IN THE LA WSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
TREE PLATEAU CO., INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 03-0519-CA,
IMMOKALEE ROAD (PROJECT 60018) FOR A TOTAL COST
OF $3,013 TO BE PAID TO THE FOLEY & LARDNER TRUST
ACCOl.INT
Item # 16K2
RESOLUTION 2004-216: AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER
COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO
ISSUE REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED TO FINANCE HEALTH
CARE FACILITIES FOR NCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEM FOR
CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION, AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE
Page 374
-"_._.-
June 22, 2004
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2004-217: A VROW2003-AR4854 TO DISCLAIM,
RENOUNCE, AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE
PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE 25 FOOT WIDE ALLEY AS
SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF "ROCK CREEK PINES NO.2", AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 86, PUBLIC RECORDS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 11,
TO~50S0~,2hRAST
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2004-218: A VPLAT2004-AR5927 TO DISCLAIM,
RENOUNCE, AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE
PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE 20 FOOT WIDE
LAKE MAINTENANCE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT
LOCATED ON LOTS 1 THROUGH 158, TRACT F AND TRACT
X, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "STRATFORD PLACE" AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 40, PAGES 15 THROUGH 21,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
LOCATED IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26
FAST
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2004-219: PUDEX-2004-AR-5752, NAPLES
RESERVE GOLF CLUB, INC., REPRESENTED BY ROBERT
DUANE, AICP, OF HOLE MONTES, INC., REQUESTING (2)
TWO-YEAR EXTENSIONS OF THE NAPLES RESERVE GOLF
CLUB PUD PURSUANT TO LDC SECTION 2.7.3.4.6, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED 1.3+/- MILES EAST OF COUNTY ROAD
951 AND APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE NORTH OF US
Page 375
June 22, 2004
HIGHWAY 41, IN SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF
hRR+/- ACRES
Item #17D
ORDINANCE 2004-38: SE-04-AR-5334, AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING ORDINANCE 03-29, THE NAPLES BOTANICAL
GARDEN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO
CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR RESULTING FROM THE
UNINTENTIONAL OMISSION OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING
MAP NUMBER 0523S IN THE TITLE OF THE TRANSMITTAL
COPY OF THE ADOPTED ORDINANCE TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
THE INTERSECTION OF BA YSHORE DRIVE AND
IHOM ASSO~DRIY:F
Item #17E
A CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH
STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.- AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #17F
ORDINANCE 2004-39: PUDZ-2002-AR-2887, ANN & EDWARD
OLESKY REPRESENTED BY JOE MCHARRIS, OF MCHARRIS
PLANNING & DESIGN, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM
PUBLIC USE "P" TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT "PUD"
FOR A MIXTURE OF COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL, AND
MARINE USES INCLUDING RECREATIONAL VEHICLE
LODGING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6100 TRAFFORD
Page 376
June 22, 2004
ROAD, IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 5.3+/-
ACRF,S
Item #17G
RESOLUTION 2004-220: CU-2003-AR-4997, R.J. WARD, P.E., OF
SPECTRUM ENGINEERING, INC., REPRESENTING BISHOP
JOHN J. NEVINS AND THE CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF
VENICE REQUESTS CONDITIONAL USES 2 AND 3 OF THE
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) ZONING DISTRICT
FOR A CHURCH, SCHOOL, GYMNASIUM, AND ACCESSORY
USES PER LDC 2.2.4.3, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2760
52ND TERRACE S.W., GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6, BLOCKS 204
AND 205, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA- CONSISTING OF
6 2+/- ACRES
Item #17H
ORDINANCE 2004-40: PUDZ-A-2003-AR-4788, ROBERT A.
SOUDAN, SR., REPRESENTED BY D. WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP,
OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A., REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY (RSF-4) TO PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) KNOWN AS GOODLETTE CORNERS
PUD FOR THE ADDITION OF A 0.32 ACRE PARCEL LYING
IMMEDIATEL Y WEST OF THE CURRENT PUD FOR
COMMERCIAL LAND USES CONSISTING OF OFFICE,
SERVICE AND LOW TO MODERATE INTENSITY RETAIL,
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1191 PINE RIDGE COURT,
+-
*****
Page 377
June 22, 2004
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:30 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD (S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
¢rr~ dA~
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
A TTEST:'¡\î~ ;"~4"""
DWIGI:I-1;~~]3'Ii~ÇK, CLERK
'::" ,-"¡ "" )""" (.>¥!. .
, _, J<ì.:~ ...' . ~" .". I ,~ 1 _
b ~"\.. '~'t: r
t. "" ~, ....~. " ~; ~ (
. ...
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS AND CHERIE
NOTTINGHAM
Page 378