BCC Minutes 09/21/2004 R
September 21, 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, September 21, 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
Tom Henning
Fred W. Coyle
Jim Coletta
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 ÇOUNTY COMMISSIONERS
tII'
"-.
<:-...
-~~.~:
AGENDA
September 21, 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
THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS
DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT
ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH
EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR
TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC
PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
1
September 21,2004
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MÄDE, 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 IMPAIRED ARE A V AILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1 :00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as
amended. (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members
for summary agenda.)
B. July 26, 2004 - Value Adjustment Board Minutes
C. July 27, 2004 - BCC Regular Meeting Minutes
D. August 11, 2004 - BCC/Emergency Meeting-Hurricane Charley Briefing
E. August 12,2004 - BCC/Emergency A.M. Meeting-Hurricane Charley
Briefing
F. August 12,2004 - BCC/Emergency P.M. Meeting-Hurricane Charley
Briefing
2
September 21, 2004
G. August 14,2004 - BCC/Emergency Meeting-Hurricane Charley Briefing
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EM'PLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. 20 Year Attendees
1) Judi Bodine, County Manager Administration
B. 25 Year Attendees
1) Robert Lester, Parks and Recreation
C. 30 Year Attendees
1) Curtis Anderson Sr., Transportation Road Maintenance
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation to designate the week of September 20-24, 2004 as Industry
Appreciation Week. To be accepted by Tammy Nemecek, Executive
Director of the Economic Development Council.
B. Proclamation to designate the month of September 2004 as Childhood
Cancer& Blood Disorder Awareness Month. To be accepted by Klair
Snellbaker, Executive Director of Candlelighters of Southwest Florida.
C. Proclamation to recognize Tim Rudzitis for his kind and generous deed
of donating bone marrow. To be accepted by Tim Rudzitis.
D. Proclamation to recognize Ms. Laurie Andrea, A Citizen Volunteer, Mr.
John Martin, Costco Store Manager, and Major Terry Woods on behalf
of the Hendry County Sheriffs Office for their humanitarian efforts for
the disaster victims of Hurricane Charley.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Al Madsen, Coastal Inspector as
"Employee of the Month" for August 2004.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition Request by James Ciolino to discuss beach access on
Marco Island.
3
September 21, 2004
--,----"'--'..----'.--
B. Public Petition Request by Connie Stegall-Fullmer, President, Goodland
Preservation Coalition~' Inc., to discuss interlocal agreement between
Marco City and Collier County.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2003-AR-3648:
Stuart Kaye, of Kaye Homes, Inc., requesting Conditional Use #9 in the
"E" Estates zoning district, per LDC Sections 2.2.3.3.9., and 2.6.33.4. to
continue the existing land use as a model home and sales center for five
years on 2.57± acres located at 910 Oakes Boulevard, further described
as the south 165 feet of Tract 28, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 96, in
Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida.
B. This item beinf! continued indefinitely. CU-2003-AR-4978, Pamela
Stewart, Esquire, representing Julio Del Risco, requesting Conditional
Use 6 of the RMF-12 zoning district for a Congregate Care Facility. The
property is located at 4470 Golden Gate Parkway, further described as
Lot 16 and the west half of Lot 17, Golden Gate Unit 3, Block 81. The
property is in Section 27, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of .34+ acres.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. This item
continued from the June 22, 2004 BCC Meeting. PUDZ-03-AR-3561,
Hiwasse, Inc., represented by Robert Duane of Hole Montes, Inc.,
requesting a rezone from Rural Agricultural (A) to Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to be known as the Hiwasse PUD to allow for a
professional office, or indoor self storage, or a combination thereof for
property located on the west side of Livingston Road, and approximately
one-quarter mile south of Pine Ridge Road (CR-896) in Section 13,
Township 49S, Range 25E.
B. Adopt a Property Maintenance Code for the both residential and non-
residential properties within the unincorporated area of Collier County,
4
September 21,2004
Florida; providing for minimum housing and building maintenance
standards; providing for rental unit registration and inspection; providing
for the minimal maintènance of vacant and boarded up properties,
including limitations on the amount of time a vacant property can be
boarded; providing a method for designating hazardous buildings and
standards for the repair or demolition of hazardous buildings; and
repealing ordinances 76-70, 89-06, 96-76 and 99-58.
C. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition: DRI-03-AR-
4777, C. Laurence Keesey, representing Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay
Trust and WCI Communities, Inc, requesting an amendment to the Pelican
Bay Development of Regional Impact (DRI), to relocate 121,000 square feet
of approved, but not yet constructed and uncommitted commercial use from
the North Commercial Area to the South Commercial Area, reduce the
approved maximum number residential dwellings by 800 units to a new
maximum of 7,800 residential dwelling units for property located at the
northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail (US-41) and
Seagate Drive in Sections 32 and 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
and Sections 4, 5, 8, and 9, Township 49 South, Range 25 East Collier
County, Florida. (Companion Item: PUDA-03-AR-4008)
D. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. PUDA-03-AR-
4008, C. Laurence Keesey, representing Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay
Trust and WCI Communities, Inc, requesting a rezone from Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the
purpose of revising the PUD document to relocate 121,000 square feet of
approved, but not yet constructed and uncommitted commercial use from
the North Commercial Area to the South Commercial Area, reduce the
approved maximum number residential dwellings by 800 units to a new
maximum of 7,800 residential dwelling units within the Pelican Bay
PUD located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami
Trail (US-41) and Seagate Drive in Sections 32 and 33, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, and Sections 4, 5, 8, and 9, Township 49 South,
Range 25 East Collier County, Florida. (Companion Item: DOA-03-
AR-4777)
E. Recommendation to adopt a resolution designating Stewardship Sending
5
September 21, 2004
Area 5 (SSA 5) within the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay District
(RLSA) including an SSA Credit Agreement and Perpetual Stewardship
Easement in response to an application by Barron Collier Investments,
Ltd.
F. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. This item
continued from the June 22, 2004 BCC Meeting. PUDZ-2002-AR-
3411 Carl M. Nagel, managing partner ofCDN 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 Agricultural (A) to
Planned Unit Development (PUD) 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 42 feet in
height on 37.5± 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.
G. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. PUDZ-A-2004-AR-
5211, Naples Golf Development, LLC, Naples South, LLC; and Naples
Golf Club South LLC, represented by Robert Duane, AICP, of Hole
Montes, Inc, requesting a rezone from "PUD" Planned Unit
Development known as Boyne South PUD to "PUD" Planned Unit
Development to be known as Boyne South PUD by revising the PUD
document and Master Plan to change the permitted use of Tract B from
Commercial/Motel to allow for 34 multi-family units and eliminate the
64 motel units; increase the number of dwelling units from 154 to 171
dwelling units; change the permitted use of the existing Tract "D" from
multi-family to single family; provide for a new access point east of the
existing access road; reduce the size of the golf course tract from 152
acres to 148 acres; and increase the size of the residential area from 54
acres to 58 acres. The property is located on the south side of US 41, five
miles east of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Section 20, Township 51
South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 242.35±
acres.
H. An emergency ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of
6
September 21, 2004
Collier County, Florida, extending the effective date of Ordinance 2004-
41, which re-codified the Collier county Land Development Code, to
October 18, 2004, due'to unforeseen circumstances and providing for an
effective date.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local
Redevelopment Advisory Board.
B. Appointment of member to the Collier County Coastal Advisory
Committee.
C. Appointment of members to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone
Development Agency.
D. Appointment of member to the Contractors' Licensing Board.
E. Appointment of member to the Emergency Medical Services Advisory
Council.
F. Discussion regarding Florida Association of Counties (F AC) Select
Medicaid Reform Workgroup (Commissioner Coletta).
G. Discussion regarding the possibility of sending a Commissioner to
accompany the Economical Development Council (EDC) to Poland as a
County ambassador in support of their effort to entice business to the
Immokalee Trade Port as part of the Economic Stimulus Program.
H. Board consideration and direction relating to post disaster replacement
and repair of dune walkovers during sea turtle nesting season.
(Commissioner Halas)
I. Commissioner Henning's request for Board approval for payment to
attend function serving a valid Public Purpose. EDC Excellence in
Industry Awards, Cocktail Reception, September 23, 2004 at Naples
Philharmonic Center. Fiscal impact $100.00 to be paid from
Commissioner's travel budget.
7
September 21, 2004
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. A request for direction: from the Board of County Commissioners
regarding procedures for a forthcoming amendment to the Cocohatchee
Bay PUD. The amendment is for the purpose of making changes to the
Bald Eagle Management Plan. (Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development and Environmental Services)
B. "Approval of this Agreement by the County Manager is subject to formal
ratification by the Board of County Commissioners. If the decision by
the County Manager is not ratified by that Board, this Agreement shall
be enforceable against Collier County only to the extent authorized by
law in the absence of such ratification by that Board." Recommendation
to ratify Emergency Purchase Orders issued by the Public Utilities
Division for the collection, transportation and processing of Hurricane
Charley related biomass, for the rental of emergency equipment used by
the Wastewater Department for hurricane activities and for the approval
of related budget amendments in the estimated amount of$I,937,500.
C. Staff update to the Board of County Commissioners on the status of
requests for exemptions and variances to the Land Development Code
for Center Point Community Church, Carson Lakes Phase II and Naser
Medical Office continued from the July 27,2004 Board of County
Commissioners meeting. (Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development)
D. This item continued from the July 27, 2004 BCC Meetin2.
Recommendation to review a proposal from Southwest Heritage, Inc., to
lease the Naples Depot as a branch facility of the Collier County
Museum.
E. Recommendation to Approve Three (3) Tourist Development Category
"C-2" Grant Applications and Three (3) Tourism Agreements for Naples
Botanical Garden $217,650; The Conservancy of SW Florida $100,000;
City of Naples $50,000; Totaling $367,650 for FY 05, and Direct Staff to
Prepare Amendment to Ordinance 92-60 as Amended to Include
Municipally-Owned Museums for C-2 Grants.
F. Recommendation to approve Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) of
8
September 21, 2004
$53,802,645 for Contract No. 013189, Article #1, Exhibit J to Kraft
Construction Company, Inc. for the construction of North Naples
Regional Park, Project' 80602.
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Discussion in regards to the City of Naples invoking the Governmental
Conflict Resolution regarding the Golden Gate Parkway/Airport Road
overpass.
B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
budget amendment request for purposes of funding the previously
approved settlement of the Aquaport cases.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. Request approval of a budget amendment transferring funds from general
fund reserves to the Sheriffs Office budget. (Total $2,500,000.00)
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
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 for recording the final plat of
"Veronawalk Phase 2A", and approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
9
September 21, 2004
... "-.<~,.----~-~-~-----
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water utility facilities
for Hibiscus Poii1te at Carlton Lakes.
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Carlton Lakes Boulevard.
4) Recommendation to approve a $120,000 change order to amend the
existing contract with Tomasello Consulting Engineers, Inc. for
expansion of the limits of the County's FEMA-related Base Flood
Elevation study.
5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Cocohatchee Nature Center.
6) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Olympia Park.
7) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for The Club Estates.
8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water utility facilities
for Regency Reserve at The Vineyards.
9) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Ibis Cove Phase 2A.
10) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Pine Air
Lakes Unit Five", approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
11) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of sewer utili ty facilities
for Banyan Woods Multi-Family.
12) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of sewer utility facilities
for Banyan Woods Single Family (Subdivision).
13) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of
"Pebblebrooke Lakes Phase IV", and approval of the standard form
10
September 21, 2004
- - ,.-.--'""
.....,.,.-,..--"",.,,"
"....~._----_.._..~.~._..._.
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
14) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Ibis Cove Phase 2B.
15) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private),
drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Club
Estates". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained; the water and sewer improvements will be maintained by
Collier County.
16) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of
"Mandalay", approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
17) Recommendation to approve Modification # I to the Residential
Construction Mitigation Program State Funded Grant Agreement.
18) Recommendation to approve a resolution certifying that projects
completed by Immokalee Non-Profit Housing Inc. are consistent with
local plans and regulations.
19) Recommendation to approve Collier County's Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and HOME Investment
Partnerships (HOME) program year 2003-2004 Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) as required by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and
authorize the Board of County Commissioners Chairman to certify the
CAPER for submission to HUD. .
20) Recommendation to authorize the County Manager or the Community
Development and Environmental Services (CDES) Division
Administrator to accept the Fiscal Year 2003 United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development Supportive Housing
Grant Agreement, Project # FL 14B30-600 1, execute all Grant Sub-
recipient agreement (s), provide an effective date and approve all
necessary budget amendments.
11
September 21, 2004
---,,,---'-
~_._._-'_.~'
21) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Grand
Lely Drive and Le1y Cultural Parkway", approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
22) Recommendation to approve seven Satisfactions of Liens for Code
Enforcement Board Case Nos.: 2001-079,2002-001,2004-003,2003-
005,2003-006,2001-001 and 2004-020.
23) Recommendation to approve Lien Resolutions for the following Code
Enforcement Case Numbers: 2003120886/Reece Est., Annie Earl,
2004030081/ Jules, Josue & Tercilia, 2004030533/ Anderson, Bobbie
& Randolph, 2004010483/ Montes, Lillian, 2004011198/ Reece Est.,
Annie Earl, 2004030804/ Dominguez, Et AI. John R, 2004030990/
Miranda, Guido, 2004041022/ Munoz, Margarita, 2004030055/
Trevino, Francisco, 2004050829/ Faccone, Joseph, 2004050826/
Cavataio, Salvatore & Antoinette, 2004050746/ Fenton, Bonnie,
2004051406/ Pretschold, E.H. & Catherine L, 2004050506/ Galloway,
Barbara, 2004050796/ Tausch, Valarie S., 2004010906/ Lewis Tr.
Evelyn G., 2004050825/ Tremblay, Claudette and 2004051063/ Jules,
Josue & Tercilia.
24) Recommendation to approve an agreement between Collier County
and the Economic Development Council of Collier County (EDC) for
continuation of the Economic Diversification Program and provide a
contribution to the EDC of up to $400,000 for fiscal year 2004-2005.
25) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign a Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' grant proposal for
$12,855 (of which $6,355 will be reimbursable) to fund a native tree
planting demonstration project on the Conservation Collier Visnich'
property, and to sign a resolution authorizing the Community
Development and Environmental Services Division Administrator to
enter into an Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) Grant
Memorandum of Agreement and an U&CF Grant Maintenance
Memorandum of Agreement between Collier County and the Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services upon receipt of the
grant award.
12
September 21, 2004
26) Recommendation to approve an Interim Management Plan for the
Visnich propertÿ under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Program. '
27) Recommendation to execute the annual Certification for
Implementation of Regulatory Reform Activities.
28) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accept the
Quarterly Report on the activities related to the Job Creation
Investment Program and the Advanced Broadband Infrastructure
Investment Program.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve County Wide Sidewalk Project Change
Orders for #1 East Naples Area in the amount of$20,883.16 and
Change Order for the #4 Immokalee Area in the amount of
$16,979.00 to Cougar Contracting Specialities, Inc.
2) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to recognize grant
revenue received from the Florida Communities Trust, Florida
Forever Grant in the amount of$1,007,700 and appropriate within the
Lely Mitigation and Livingston Greenways Projects.
3) Recommendation to approve a Work Order # PBS - 02 - 38 for the
installation of School Bus Shelters in Golden Gate Estates to
Professional Building Systems, in the amount of $111,160 with
Contingency.
4) Recommendation to approve a Developer Contribution Agreement
related to the acquisition of right-of-way required for the construction
of improvements to Rattlesnake Hammock Road between Polly
Avenue and Collier Boulevard consistent with the Development
Commitments of the Mandalay PUD - Project No. 60169 - (Fiscal
Impact: $680.00)
5) Recommend to approve a landscape installation and maintenance
agreement between Calusa Bay Master Homeowners Association and
Collier County for landscaping within the right-of-way on Goodlette-
13
September 21, 2004
Frank Road.
6) Recommend to award bid #04-3654R, Livingston Road (Pine Ridge
Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road) median landscape improvement
construction project to Vila and Son Landscaping, Inc. in the amount
of $679,395.20.
7) Recommend Board's approval of Adopt-A-Road Agreements (5) for
the following: Royal Palm Academy, Metlife Financial Services,
Men's Brotherhood of Mayflower United Church of Christ, Paradise
Coast Pilot Club and T.G.I. Friday's.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve the transfer of funds from the previous
South County Regional Water Treatment Plant construction contract
to the new construction contract in the amount of $3, 192,049.66
within the same Water Impact Fee Fund.
2) Recommendation to award a Sole Source Purchase Order for Return
Activated Sludge Pumps and Waste Activated Sludge Pumps for the
North County Water Reclamation Facility to the Ellis K. Phelps
Company in the estimated amount of$75,637.00.
3) 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 $130.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
4) Recommendation to approve work Order HS- FT -04-04 under 00-3119
- Fixed Term Professional Utilities Engineering Services to Hazen .
and Sawyer in the amount of $285,31 0 for Engineering Service for the
design of Lime Softening Fourth Reactor, Project 71001.
5) Recommendation to approve partial transfer of funding source for the
Lime Softening Fourth Reactor in the amount of$136,000 for the
design and permitting from Water User Fees Project 710011 to Water
Impact Fees Project 710012.
14
September 21, 2004
6) Recommendation to award Bid #04-3695 - "Annual Contract for
Sodium Hypochlorite Solution" to Allied Universal Corp. in the
estimated annual amount of $500,000.00.
7) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution and approve a Declaration of
Easement for additional well site easements within property acquired
for a future park at an estimated cost not to exceed $28,454, Project
710111.
8) Recommendation to approve a Purchase Agreement and accept
additional well site easements from Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc., at a
cost not to exceed $6,150, Project 710 Ill.
9) Recommendation to Grant a Conservation Easement to the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection for the Livingston Road
Aquifer Storage & Recovery site at a cost not to exceed $50.00,
Project 74030.
10) Recommendation to approve purchase orders for the Loan
Procurement Services from the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) to Angie Brewer and Associates (ABA) in excess
of $25,000 under Sarasota County Contract 2003-040 for Goodlette
Frank Road Force Main Project 72002, Pump Station 103 Project
73945 and for Goodlette Frank Road Reclaimed Water Main Project
74077. (Total $60,671)
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Request for the Board of County Commissioners to Approve the
Acceptance of Donated Funds to offset the "Independence Day"
Expenses Approved by the Board on March 9,2004.
2) Recommendation to approve the Library's State Aid Application and
accept the Long Range Plan, including the Current Year Action Plan
and Technology Plan. (FY05 Grant Revenue of $320,000.)
3) Recommendation to Continue Grant Agreement in the Amount of
$10,000 Between the University Extension Department, Collier
County Board of Commissioners, and the Empowerment Alliance of
15
September 21,2004
Southwest Florida for the Purpose of Providing Homeowner
Educational Programming in Immokalee.
4) Recommendation to recognize additional revenue in the amount of
$2,569 and sign the budget amendment to increase the Retired Senior
Volunteer Program (RSVP) budget.
5) Recommendation to approve the Black Affairs Advisory Board to
hold a voter registration rally in Anthony Park on September 25,
2004.
6) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Landscape Services
with TECH of Collier County (Estimated Budget of$33,800).
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the Advisory Committees Outstanding
Members Service Award Program.
2) Approve a Budget Amendment to appropriate Building Maintenance
Special Service revenues totaling $90,000 and Security Special
Service revenues totaling $13,500 for reimbursement of personal and
operating expenses in Fiscal Year 2004.
3) Recommendation to approve additions to and deletions from the 2004
Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan made from August 2, 2004
through September 3,2004.
4) Recommendation to approve the award of Bid #04-3709 in the
amount of $942,430.00 for a Construction Contract with Brooks &
Freund, LLC for the construction of Emergency Medical Services
(EMS) facility No. 19.
5) Recommendation to approve the award of Bid #04-3694 in the
amount of$233,839.00 for a Construction Contract with Surety
Construction Company, Inc. for the remodeling of the Collier County
Clerk's MIS office located on the 5th floor of Building F.
6) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to increase
16
September 21, 2004
appropriations for personnel and operating costs in Fleet Management
Fund 521 in the 'amount of$155,800 ($25,000 for personnel costs and
$130,800 for fuèl costs).
7) Recommendation to award a contract for Architectural Services in the
amount of $670,000.00 to Victor J. Latavish Architect, PA for the
design of the new Sheriffs Special Operations Facility, Contract # 03-
3550.
8) Recommendation to Approve Contracts for RFP 04-3614 "Fixed
Term Landscape Architectural Services." (Dollar amount of contract
estimated at $600,000 annually)
9) Report and ratify Property, Casualty, Workers' Compensation and
Subrogation Claims settled by the Risk Management Director during
the period April I, 2004 through June 30, 2004 pursuant to Resolution
# 2004-15.
10) Recommendation to approve the award of Bid #04-3658 in the
amount of $376,000.00 for a Construction Contract with EHC, Inc. for
the remodeling of the Collier County Medical Examiner's Facility.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Summary of Consent and Emergency Agenda Items approved by the
County Manager during the Board's scheduled recess. Per Resolution
Number 2000-149, "Approval of this Agreement by the County
Manager is subject to formal ratification by the Board of County
Commissioners. If the decision by the County Manager is not ratified
by that Board, this Agreement shall be enforceable against Collier
County only to the extent authorized by law in the absence of such .
ratification of that Board."
2) Approve a Budget Amendment for the Ochopee Fire Control District
Transferring Funds from Reserves for Contingencies to Regular
Salaries in the amount of $65,000.
3) Recommendation to Affirm the Letter of No Objection Relative to the
Annexation of Horr's Island (Key Marco) into the City of Marco
17
September 21, 2004
Island.
4) Recommendation to Approve an Interlocal Agreement for the
Provision of Beach Renourishment, Maintenance and Stabilization
Services in the Hideaway Beach Section of Marco Island.
5) Approve an Agreement between Collier County and Dr. Marta U.
Coburn, M.D. Florida District Twenty Medical Examiner dba District
Twenty Medical Examiner, Inc. to provide Medical Examiner
Services for Fiscal Year 2005 at a cost of $804,400.
6) Request the Board of County Commissioners approve a budget
amendment recognizing and appropriating a $11,765.00 donation
from the American Heart Association in the Emergency Medical
Services Find (490).
7) Approve an Agreement between Collier County and Naples
Community Hospital for use of the Medical Examiner Facility to
Conduct Autopsies.
8) Recommendation to Approve Tourism Agreements Between Collier
County and Equinox Documentaries Inc for Television Program
Production.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y
TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Approve a budget amendment for $18,800 to increase budgeted
revenues and budgeted expenses for the sale and purchase of aviation
fuel at Marco Island Executive Airport.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Jim Coletta's request to represent the County at the
NAACP Annual Freedom Fund Banquet and Silent Auction on
October 16,2004 as a valid public purpose.
2) For the Board of County Commissioners to declare a valid public
purpose for Commissioner Henning to attend the RSVP 2004 Summer
18
September 21, 2004
..""_..n~__'''-'''''___·· -.
Recognition Luncheon on August 26, 2004. $25.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Henning's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Halas' request for Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended
RSVP of Collier County's 2004 Summer Recognition Luncheon on
August 26,2004 at the Naples Bath & Tennis Club; $25.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
4) Commissioner Coletta requests reimbursement of $15 .00 as a valid
public purpose for attending the "Leadership Collier Kick Off' in
honor of the class of 2005 on September 8, 2004.
5) Commissioner Fiala's request for Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the
Leadership Collier Kick Off on September 8,2004 at the Naples
Beach Hotel & Golf Club; $15.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Fiala's travel budget.
6) Commissioner Fiala's request for Board approval for reimbursement
to attend a function serving as a valid public purpose. Attend
NAACP's 22nd Annual Freedom Fund Banquet & Silent Auction on
Saturday, October 16,2004, at the Elks Club on Radio Road; $55.00
to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
7) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement to
attend a function serving a valid public purpose. Attending the United
Way of Collier County 2004 Campaign Kickoff Breakfast on
September 29,2004. $20.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's
travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Request approval of a budget amendment transferring funds to the
Sheriffs Office for payment of county impact fees for the sprung
19
September 21, 2004
structures (tents) to be erected at the Immokalee Jail Center. (Total
$35,590.44) .
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, 330 I East
Tamiami Trail, Naples.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners Authorize the
Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents, Richard McPhillips
and Denise McPhillips, for Parcels 129 and 729 in the Amount of
$10,000.00 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Terry L. Lichliter,
et aI., Case No. 03-2273-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project #60027).
2) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners Approve an
Agreed Order and Authorize Payment of Business Damage Expert
Fees for Parcel 112 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Norma E.
Banas, et. aI., Case No. 02-5137-CA (Immokalee Road Project
#60018).
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve
the Stipulated Final Judgment Relative to the Acquisition of Parcel
118 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Jack E. Green, et aI.,
Golden Gate Parkway, Project #60027.
4) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners Approve the
Mediated Settlement Agreement and a Stipulated Final Judgment to
be Drafted Incorporating the Same Terms and Conditions as the
Mediated Settlement Agreement Relative to the Acquisition of Parcel
180 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Big Corkscrew Island
Fire District, et aI., Case No. 02-2218-CA (Immokalee Road Project
#60018).
5) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners Authorize the
20
September 21, 2004
Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents, John J Yaklich and
Carol A. Yaklich, for Parcels 122, 822 and 922 in the Amount of
$36,595.20 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. John J. Yaklich, et
aI., Case No. 03-2259-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project #60027).
6) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners Authorize the
Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents, Terry L. Lichliter
and Deborah Lichliter, for Parcels 128 and 728 in the Amount of
$23,000.00 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Terry L. Lichliter,
et aI., Case No. 03-2273-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project #60027).
7) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners Authorize the
Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents, William E. Bell and
Linda M. Bell, for Parcels 117 and 717 in the Amount of$30,000.00
in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Jack E. Green, et aI., Case No.
03-2227-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project #60027).
8) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners Authorize the
Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondent, Rose Somogyi, for
Parcels 123 and 823 in the Amount of $23,000.00 in the Lawsuit
Styled Collier County v. John 1. Yaklich, et aI., Case No. 03-2259-CA
(Golden Gate Parkway Project #60027).
9) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners Authorize the
Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents, Elhanon Combs and
Sandra S. Combs, for Parcels 720, 820A, 820B and 920 in the
Amount of $80,000.00 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v.
Elhanon Combs, et aI., Case No. 03-2352-CA (Golden Gate Parkway
Project #60027).
10) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondent, Francisco Lemus, for Parcel No.1 in the amount of
$169,950.00 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Francisco
Lemus, et aI., Case No. 03-2788-CA, 13th Street SW Project No.
69068
11) Recommendation to authorize the making of an. Offer of Judgment to
Respondents, Charles R., Helen J. and Betty J. Wilson, for Parcel No.
142 in the amount of$25,185.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County
21
September 21, 2004
...__...__.....-..___.._ '''Hi''- __·'-0_
v. Charles R. Wilson, et aI., Case No. 02-5164-CA, Immokalee Rd.
Project 60018. '.
12) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondents, Lewis R. and Margaret Jean King, for Parcel No. 164 in
the amount of$18,120.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Juan
Ramirez, et aI., Case No. 02-5166-CA (Immokalee Road Project No.
60018).
13) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondents, Roger A. and Coleen Sharpe, for Parcel No. 141 in the
amount of $13,200.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Edward
Stanley Sanditen, et aI., Case No. 02-5165-CA (Immokalee Road
Project No. 60018).
14) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondent, Roy David Hilberg, for Parcel No. 140A in the amount
of $6,900.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Edward Stanley
Sanditen, et aI., Case No. 02-5165-CA (Immokalee Road Project No.
60018).
15) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondent, Roy David Hilberg, for Parcel No. 140B in the amount of
$53,130.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Edward Stanley
Sanditen, et aI.
16) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondent, Mary E. Iannetta, for Parcel No. 167B in the amount of
$28,520.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Andy R. Morgan, et
al.
17) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondents, James L. and Esther E. Swigert, for Parcel No. 143 in
the amount of$15,240.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Charles R. Wilson, et aI., Case No. 02-5164-CA (Immokalee Road
Project No. 60018).
18) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondent, Louise V. Taylor, as Trustee of the Louise V. Taylor
22
September 21, 2004
Living Trust u/a/d 9/16/87, for Parcel No. 156 in the amount of
$91,500.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Andy R. Morgan, et
aI., Case No. 02:"5l69-CA (Immokalee Road Project No. 60018).
19) Recommendation to approve Special Magistrate Agreements for
Value Adjustment Board Hearings for Tax Year 2004.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
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. SE-04-AR-5494, a resolution amending Resolution Number 96-377, the
Taylor Properties Conditional Use to correct a scrivener's error resulting
from the unintentional inclusion of an incorrect legal description in the
adopted Resolution for the property located on the south side of Davis
Boulevard (S.R. 84) in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida.
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. This item continued
from the July 27,2004 BCC Meeting. PUDZ-2003-AR-5087, Stephen G.
Sposato, AICP of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., representing Collier
County Board of County Commissioners, requesting a rezone from Public
(P) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be known as the Collier
County Government Complex PUD. The project will consist of a
maximum of996,799 square feet of building area for permitted and
accessory government center uses. The project is located at 3301
Tamiami Trail East. The project is in Section 12, Township 50 South,
23
September 21, 2004
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 55± acre's.
C. Recommendation to adopt resolutions approving the preliminary
assessment as the final assessment rolls and adopting same as the non-ad
valorem assessment rolls for purposes of utilizing the uniform method of
collection pursuant to Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes, for Solid Waste
Districts No.1 and No.2, Municipal Service Benefit Units Special
Assessment levied against certain residential properties within the
unincorporated area of Collier County pursuant to Collier County
Ordinance 90-30, as amended. Revenues are anticipated to be
$12,372,800.
D. PUDEX-2004-AR-5897 Teryl Brzeski, Trustee of the Garret F.X.
Revocable Trust, property owner, represented by J. Gary Butler, of Butler
Engineering, INC., requesting a two-year extension of the Magnolia Pond
Planned Unit Development (PUD), pursuant to LDC Section 2.7.3.4.6, for
a 42.05+ acre tract located on Magnolia Drive ~ mile west of Collier
Boulevard between I-75 and the Golden Gate Canal, in Section 34,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East Collier County, Florida.
E. Recommendation to Approve Amending Ordinance Number 92-18, as
Amended, Relating to the Tourist Development Council, to Delete the
Non- Voting Member with Professional Experience in the Promotion
and Marketing of Special Events.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
24
September 21, 2004
"~..------
September 21, 2004
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seat.
Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. The Board of
County Commissioners meeting for September 21 st is now called to
order.
Would you please stand.
And who will be saying our invocation?
MR. MUDD: For a while there I thought the guy with the black
suit was going to do it, but I guess not.
Let us pray. Oh, heavenly Father, we ask your blessing on these
proceedings and all who are gathered here. We ask that -- a special
blessing on this Board of County Commissioners, guide them in their
deliberations, grant them the wisdom and vision to meet the trials of
this day and the days to come.
Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and
its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater good of all citizens
and be acceptable in your sight.
Your will be done, amen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And before you're seated, please, let's say
the Pledge of Allegiance together.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you all for being here today. And
I'd like to recognize a special guest of ours, Terri DiSciullo, who's the
chairman of the Marco Island City Council.
Terri, raise your hand. Welcome. And we appreciate you
coming today.
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
Page 2
September 21, 2004
And now --let's see. Do we have anything from our county
attorney?
MR. PETTIT: No, Madam Chairman. I believe we -- let me
correct that. We do have some agenda changes, but I'll let the county
manager deal with those.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Okay, fine.
And Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, Commissioners. Agenda changes,
Board of County Commissioners meeting, September 21 st, 2004.
This meeting was continued from the September 14th, 2004,
BCC meeting because of Hurricane Ivan at the time.
Item 8A continued to October 12,2004, BCC meeting. It's
PUDZ-03-AR-3561, Hiwasse, Inc., represented by Robert Duane of
Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a rezone from rural agricultural A to
planned unit development PUD to be known as the Hiwasse PUD to
allow for a professional office or indoor self storage, or a combination
thereof, for property located on the west side of Livingston Road at
approximately one quarter mile south of Pine Ridge Road, which is
County Road 896; in Section 13, Township 49 south, range 25 east,
and the continuation was at the petitioner's request.
The next item is item 8F, continued indefinitely. It's
PUDZ-2002-AR-3411. Carl M. Nagel, managing partner of CDN
Properties, LLC, and Thomas Craig, Craig Construction and
Restoration, Inc., represented by Robert 1. Mulhere, AICP, ofRW A,
Inc., and Bruce Anderson of Roetzel and Andress, requesting a rezone
from agricultural A to planned unit development PUD for a proj ect to
be known as Nagel-Craig Business Park PUD to allow a maximum of
417,000 square feet of business park land uses and buildings not to
exceed 42 feet in height on 37.5 plus or minus acres of property
located on the west side of Collier Boulevard, approximately one
quarter mile north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Section 34, Township
48 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. And that
Page 3
----.- ..-....-........-.-.......--.
September 21, 2004
continuation is also at the petitioner's request.
The next item is to add item 8H, and that's an emergency
ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, extending the effective date of ordinance 2004-41, which
recodified the Collier County Land Development Code to October
18th, 2004, due to unforeseen circumstances and providing for an
effective date, and that's at staffs request.
Next item is item 9F, and that's a withdrawal, and that was a
discussion regarding Florida Association of Counties, F AC, Select
Medicaid Reform Work Group, and that was at Commissioner
Coletta's request.
The next is to add on item 9E (sic), which is commissioner
request for board approval for payment to attend function serving a
valid public purpose, and that was at Commissioner Henning's request.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's 91.
MR. MUDD: 91. Oh, I'm sorry, excuse me, 91.
Next item is withdraw item 12A, and that's a discussion in
regards to the City of Naples invoking the governmental conflict
resolution regarding the Golden Gate Parkway/Airport Road overpass,
and that's at staffs request.
The next item is to add -- is an add-on item 12B, which is a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
budget amendment request for purposes of funding the previously
approved settlement of the Aquaport cases, and that's at staffs request.
And the last item is item 16F 1. This item should have a note
before all the executive summaries from the summer recess, and it
didn't have it, and staffs mistaken, and my apologies, and it should
state, summary of consent and emergency agenda items approved by
the county manager during the board's scheduled recess.
Per resolution number 2000-149, approval of this agreement by
the county manager is subj ect to formal ratification by the Board of
County Commissioners. If the decision by the county manager is not
Page 4
".- ~._-,....,.,~--_.;.~----,"....,......_.,.~-
September 21, 2004
ratified by that -- by this board, this agreement shall be enforceable
against Collier County only to the extent authorized by law in the
absence of such ratification of that board, and that's at staffs request.
That's all I have, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Commissioners, do you have any additions or anything to say
about the agenda, the consent agenda, and do you have any ex parte to
declare on the consent agenda?
Start with you, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have any changes or
additions to the correction. And as far as the ex parte of the summary
agenda, I've had meetings in regards to 17B -- let's see if I have
anything else on here -- and that's it as far as disclosure, and it's all
listed right here in the packet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have no additions, no changes, and the only declaration I have
to make in the summary agenda would be 17B, and it has to do with
some files that I received concerning the Planning Commission
meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I have no
changes to today's agenda and no ex parte under the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no further changes to the
agenda. With respect to item 17B of the summary agenda, I have had
no specific conversations except the Board of County Commissioners
has been part of discussions with respect to the construction of the
Collier County government complex PUD, and, of course, all of those
Page 5
September 21, 2004
discussions would be relevant to reveal with the staff and any
approvals that we've made in the past.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
And I have no changes or additions to the agenda. And on 17B,
I've talked with staff numerous times, asked them questions, just
trying to research the subject a little bit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
we approve today's agenda as amended, today's regular agenda,
consent and summary.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas, to approve
the amended agenda and -- 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.)
Page 6
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
September 21, 2004
(This meeting was continued from the September 14, 2004 BCC meeting a/c
Hurricane Ivan)
Item 8A continued to October 12. 2004 BCC meetina. PUDZ-03-AR-3561, Hiwasse,
Inc., represented by Robert Duane of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a rezone from
Rural Agricultural (A) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be known as the
Hiwasse PUD to allow for a professional office, or indoor self storage, or a
combination thereof for property located on the west side of Livingston Road, and
approximately one-quarter mile south of Pine Ridge Road (CR-896) in Section 13,
Township 49S, Range 25E. (Petitioner request.)
Item 8F continued indefinitelv: 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 Agricultural (A)
to Planned Unit Development (PUD) 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 42 feet in height on 37.5+/- acres of property
located on the west side of Collier Boulevard approximately 114 mile north of
Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida. (Petitioner request.)
Add Item 8H: An emergency Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, extending the effective date of Ordinance 2004-41, which
recodified the Collier County Land Development Code to October 18, 2004, due to
unforeseen circumstances; and providing for an effective date. (Staff request.)
Item 9F Withdrawn: Discussion regarding Florida Association of Counties (FAC)
Select Medicaid Reform Workgroup. (Commissioner Coletta request.)
Add On Item 91: Commissioner request for Board approval for payment to attend
function serving a valid public purpose. (Commissioner Henning.)
Withdraw Item 12A: Discussion in regards to the City of Naples invoking the
Governmental Conflict Resolution regarding the Golden Gate Parkway/Airport
Road overpass. (Staff request.)
Add On Item 12B: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve a budget amendment request for purposes of funding the previously
approved settlement of the Aquaport cases. (Staff request.)
Item 16F1: This item should have noted the followina: Summary of Consent and
Emergency Agenda Items approved by the County Manager during the Board's
scheduled recess. Per Resolution Number 2000-149, "Approval of this Agreement
by the County Manager is subject to formal ratification by the Board of County
Commissioners. If the decision by the County Manager is not ratified by that
Board, this Agreement shall be enforceable against Collier County only to the
extent authorized by law in the absence of such ratification of that Board." (Staff
request.)
1
-~-_.-
September 21, 2004
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F and #2G
MINUTES OF THE JULY 26, 2004 VALUE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD MEETING, JULY 27, 2004 BCC REGULAR MEETING,
AUGUST 11, 2004 BCC/EMERGENCY MEETING-HURRICANE
CHARLEY BRIEFING, AUGUST 12, 2004 BCC/EMERGENCY
A.M. MEETING-HURRICANE CHARLEY BRIEFING, AUGUST
12,2004 BCC/EMERGENCY P.M. MEETING-HURRICANE
CHARLEY BRIEFING AND AUGUST 14, 2004
BCC/EMERGENCY MEETING-HURRICANE CHARLEY
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
that we approve July 26th, '04, Value Adjustment Board minutes; July
27th, '04, BCC regular meeting minutes; August 11 th, '04, BCC
emergency meeting; August 12th, '04, emergency meeting; August
12th, '04, emergency meeting; August 14th emergency meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And -- I have a motion on the floor to
accept all of the minutes just mentioned, and -- 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.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we move on to service awards, and
-- let's see.
Page 7
,--.---.,,,--
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we going to step down?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think so. Do we have them up here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't see any awards.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Me neither.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Ma'am, if we can -- what we'll do is we'll
continue this, and we'll do it right after lunch.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Ifwe could do that. For some strange reason we're
missing service awards, okay. Because I'm looking over there and the
table's blank, too, and I was ready to get Judy so we could say what a
good job she did for 20 years. Looks like we hired her when she was
SIX.
But we'll do that at one o'clock. I'm sorry, ma'am.
And if we could move to 4, proclamation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We certainly can.
Item #4 B
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE THE MONTH OF
SEPTEMBER 2004 AS CHILDHOOD CANCER & BLOOD
And the first proclamation will be read by Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And this proclamation will be
accepted by Tammie Nemecek from the Economic Development
Council.
Tammie, where are you? Tammie was in the back of the room.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Maybe she's in the hall.
MR. MUDD: Can we -- can we hold on A and move to B?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, we'll move on to the next one. This
is going quickly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we go to lunch now?
Page 8
September 21, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, would you read
the next one, please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The next one is a
proclamation to designate the month of September, 2004, as
Childhood Cancer and Blood Disorder Awareness Month, to be
accepted by Ms. Shellbaker (sic), the executive director of
Candlelighters of Southwest Florida.
Ms. Shellbaker, are you in the audience?
(N 0 response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I really think it would be
appropriate for me to read the proclamation. I can't recall a time when
we haven't done so, but I thank you very much for your support on
this proclamation early on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion to approve and a
second. We'll read it now and then we'll vote on it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whereas, Florida's greatest--
Florida's greatest resource and most cherished treasures are our--
indeed, our youth, who truly have so much to offer. Included in this
population are those children with special needs who suffer from
childhood cancer and blood-related diseases; and,
Whereas, while the research and treatment of today has extended
the lives of many a positive -- and made a positive impact upon the
life experience of many of these children, and while a number of
long-term survivors is steadily increasing is essential, we work
together as a people and as a state to assure that this trend continues on
the upscale; and,
Whereas, dedicated organizations such as candlelighters remain
deeply committed to expanding the resources and education available
to families whose children have cancer or blood-related diseases; and,
Whereas, Florida, proud home to some of the finest medical
Page 9
..._~--
September 21, 2004
institutions in the world whose professional staff is presently at the
forefront in cancer research and other advances, is pleased to join in
recognizing and applauding the valuable role which families of
childhood cancer and blood disorder patients play in helping our
medical community to reach great heights in the name of caring.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that September, 2004, be
designated as Childhood Cancer and Blood Disorder Awareness
Month throughout Collier County and do recommend this observance
to all our citizens.
Done and ordered this 14th day of September, 2004, Donna
Fiala, chairperson.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we 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.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's unanimous as well.
We're going to go back to 4A.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This proclamation will be accepted
Page 10
-----.,'''. ~._..._--~-
. --"-_._-_..~"..,~,..~--
September 21, 2004
by Tammie Nemecek, the executive director of the Economic
Development Council of Collier County.
Whereas, industry in Collier County is vital to the community's
economic health; and,
Whereas, Collier County's existing industries are the key to a
prosperous future; and,
Whereas, Collier County's industries help sustain our quality of
life, exemplify high standards of excellence and a positive, responsive
(sic) approach to economic diversification and community
enhancement; and,
Whereas, public knowledge of the contributions made by
industry is essential to maintenance of good community industry
relationships.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of September
20th through 24th, 2004, be designated as Industry Appreciation Week
and urge all residents to solute our industries and their employees for
their distribution to our community.
Done and ordered this 21 st day of September 2004, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Donna Fiala,
Chairman.
Tammie, I present this to you and I ask the board to accept this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I second that.
We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle, a second
by Commissioner Henning.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 11
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. NEMECEK: Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioners. And I would like to take a moment
to express my sincere gratitude to the Board of County
Commissioners for your leadership over these past seven years with
our public/private partnership. I think we've shown great successes,
and we can't do that without the private sector as well, and that's the
purpose of Industry Association Week.
It is set by the governor every year, and the entire State of
Florida takes this week, and we set it aside and we take an opportunity
to say thank you to our local industry that do provide jobs for our
citizens, high-wage opportunities, and upper mobility for the residents
of Collier County.
Weare celebrating this week on Thursday evening at the
Philharmonic Center for the Arts. The award ceremony starts at 5 :30,
with a cocktail reception, with the awards taking place at 6:30.
We will also install the EDC's board of directors as well as honor
this year's 2004 volunteer of the year.
And I encourage all citizens to come to the event. It is open to
the general public. It is going to be a spectacular evening. We are
also taking an opportunity at the beginning of the program to
recognize the volunteers in the recovery efforts from these recent
hurricanes.
So I think that with the community really pulling together and the
demonstration from the community, not only from the local
businesses, but the general public to assist those hurricane victims,
that it's an appropriate moment to do that.
So, again, thank you so much for this opportunity, and we look
Page 12
September 21, 2004
forward to seeing everybody at the Philharmonic this Thursday,
September 23rd, starting at 5:30 and concluding around 8:30, 9:00.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, Tammie. Thanks
for all your hard work in our community.
MS. NEMECEK: Thank you.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE TIM RUDZITIS FOR HIS
KIND AND GENEROUS DEED OF DONATING BONE MARROW
~
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now we have a proclamation to be
read by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. May I have Tim
Rudzitis please come forward. Oh, brought your family, too. Great.
Whereas, there are currently 4.5 million adult volunteer bone
marrow donors registered with the National Bone Marrow Donor's
Program; and,
Whereas, hundreds of thousands of Leukemia patients are
waiting on a bone marrow transplant as their last hope of survival;
and,
Whereas, a sibling of a patient in need of bone marrow only has
25 percent chance of matching the patient's tissue type, making it
difficult for many physicians to successfully provide bone marrow
options for dying leukemia patients;
Whereas, Emergency Medical Services Warehouse Specialist
Tim Rudzitis registered as bone marrow donor 10 years ago while
serving in the United States Navy; and,
Whereas, Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington,
D.C., contacted Tim, May of 2004, and asked him to donate bone
Page 13
September 21, 2004
marrow to a 70-year-old man as a potential last chance for this patient;
and,
Whereas, Tim accepted the great responsibility and stress of
undergoing a surgical operation to extract bone marrow from his
body; and,
Whereas, since the surgery, bone marrow donor coordinator has
informed Tim that the receiving patient's body has accepted the
marrow and is believed to be in good -- extending the patient's life by
10 to 15 years;
Whereas, Tim has stated that he believes donating bone marrow
is his greatest accomplishment outside of his family.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners
of Collier County that Tim Rudzitis is recognized for his --
outstanding member of the community. And I just want to say, on
behalf of the Board of Commissioners, we are very proud of you. I'm
sure your family's very proud.
Done in this order, this day --
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- September, 2004, Board of
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, signed by our chairperson,
Donna Fiala.
I make a motion that we move this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
Page 14
September 21, 2004
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. That was very nice.
What's your daughter's name? How old is she?
MR. RUDZITIS: She'll be three in two weeks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She's beautiful.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you like to say a few words?
MR. RUDZITIS: Yes. I'd like to thank everyone for recognizing
me. This is a great opportunity. And not only that, to let the
community know that bone marrow transplants are needed, and you
can do this at -- when you give blood, just let them know that you're
interested, and it's an extra couple tubes of blood that they take, and it
could help save someone's life.
And I'd like to thank my personal physician at home. She has no
official training other than a doctor kit Santa brought for her, but --
and my family, of course, too, for supporting me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. RUDZITIS: And Director Page, too, for helping make this
a success, too.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE MS. LAURIE ANDREA, A
CITIZEN VOLUNTEER, MR. JOHN MARTIN, COSTCO STORE
MANAGER, AND MAJOR TERRY WOODS ON BEHALF OF
THE HENDRY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR THEIR
HUMANITARIAN EFFORTS FOR THE DISASTER VICTIMS OF
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, will you read the
Page 15
September 21, 2004
next proclamation, please.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. It does my heart good to
recognize the following people, and if they would please stand here
also. There is only going to be three recipients of this, but my heart
goes out to everybody that was involved in this effort, and the
following would be Sergeant Barbara Brown, Robert Fiedler, and, of
course, Major Woods of Hendry County, and then Jerry Olgerson
(phonetic), Gary Shanbarger, who is the director of the Marine Corps
league, and Vinny Martino, who's a retired police officer from the
State of New York and New York City. They will be here with Laurie
Andrea.
So I want to, again, thank everybody, many, many people who
donated food supplies and money and were so generous to work in the
heat of the day to pack pallets and hours upon hours to get food
supplies to our neighbors to the north.
And if everybody would just please come forward here.
And the proclamation reads:
Whereas, on August 13th, 2004, Hurricane Charley made a
landfall as a category four storm, affecting much of Southwest
Florida; and,
Whereas, Hurricane Charley has been noted as one of the most
destructive natural disasters in the history of the United States of
America; and,
Whereas, two of the areas hardest hit with the least resources
were DeSoto and Hardee counties, leaving thousands without homes
and life's most precious basic necessities; and,
Whereas, Ms. Laura Andrea, Collier County resident, quickly
recognized the great need in Hardee and DeSoto counties and worked
with the help of Major Terry Woods on behalf of the Hendry County
Sheriffs Office, and Mr. John Martin, Costco store manager, to
organize volunteers and trucks to move donated supplies to Arcadia
and Wauchula, and to provide disaster relief supplies to the victims of
Page 16
September 21, 2004
Hurricane Charley; and,
Whereas, in the first 12 days after the storm, they worked
together with many companies and citizen volunteers to pack and
deliver 10 semi trucks filled with approximately $500,000 of donated
relief and supplies; and,
Whereas, Ms. Andrea, Major Woods, and Mr. Martin have
accomplished a Herculean task in a very efficient and focused manner
and have donated their time, effort, and money to help our neighbors
in need.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Ms. Laurie Andrea,
citizen volunteer, Major Terry Woods, Hendry County Sheriffs
Office, and Mr. John Martin, Costco store manager, be recognized for
their selfless, thoughtful, and humanitarian efforts to help those in
desperate need in the aftermath of Hurricane Charley.
Done in this order, the 21 st day of September, 2004, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Donna Fiala,
chairperson.
And I move that we vote positively on this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Page 1 7
--~-
-~,~....-.. .
September 21, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nice to see you again. Thank you for all
your hard work.
Now, before you leave, we want to take your picture up here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've just been informed by Major
Woods that they ended up with 25 loads that went to both Wauchula
and Arcadia, so hats off to these volunteers and the people that got
involved in this effort.
Thank you again very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Anybody want to say
anything?
There's a microphone over there.
MS. ANDREA: I just want to say thank you to all the many
volunteers. We had 50 to 70 volunteers that turned out day after day
after day to help with this effort. It was truly amazing. And it was also
amazing to see the donations continue.
We continued with the effort for almost two weeks and loaded 10
semi trucks, which was really phenomenal. I was quite nervous about
the first one when they brought it down here, and it was amazing to
see the tenth go out.
So another really interesting fact was the last truck that we
loaded, they actually held because we knew Hurricane Frances was
coming, and it was -- I was called on Monday morning right after that
storm and advised by Major Woods that they took that truck into
G lades County and serviced some of the needs from the second
hurricane as well.
So it was really phenomenal to know that we had resources and
these guys were able to get resources in there immediately when they
were needed. It was a tremendous effort that they really let us be
involved with, and I thank them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
MR. SHANBARGER: I think the real people that need to be
Page 18
September 21, 2004
thanked are the citizens of Collier County who provided all this
money for all these things that went up into DeSoto and Hardee
counties.
The outpouring of generosity was just overwhelming. People
who -- some people looked like they couldn't afford to give us one or
two things. People would come out with a large basket out of Costco,
and we'd say, well, what do you want us to take out of there, a
six-pack of beans? They'd say, no, take the whole cart. And other
people -- one guy donated $6,000 and bought a whole pallet full of
food. So the generosity of the people of Collier County and Naples
was great, and I want to thank them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. FIELDER: I just wanted to thank the commissioners,
especially Frank Halas and Jim Coletta, who I worked side by side in
collecting the donations, and they worked very hard out there. And I
just want to thank them and all of you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for recognizing them. That's
wonderful. Thank you.
And thank you, guys.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Major Woods, have you got a few
words you'd like to say?
MAJOR WOODS: Well, we started this -- Laurie went up with
us on the first load, and she asked, is there some way that they could
help? And, of course, I said yes.
And it was amazing the way Laurie pulled everybody together,
and you commissioners came out and helped also.
I had a good time doing it actually. The food was good. But our
-- my guys, Barbara and Robert, they've been right beside me the
whole way, doing -- putting this together. And what I did is I
borrowed a couple guys' trucks, and they donated their tractor and
trailers and hauled this stuff for us, and that was in their own time
Page 19
September 21, 2004
also.
But I just -- all I could say is just thank you people for letting us
get involved and help you-all also.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MARTIN: I would just like to reiterate some of the
gratitude that I have for the community that we live in and the
generosity that was exhibited, not only just in the donations that
occurred and how the people donated, but also the people that helped,
like the commissioners that were there, you know, in a very hot
environment, loading, packing, and getting things done, and how
Laurie kind of put things together and Major Woods in terms of
getting the trucks down there. It was nice to see that happening.
It was very -- also gratifying to see the response we got from our
members afterwards, you know, and how happy they were that they
had the opportunity to, a vehicle of donating merchandise to people
that needed it right away.
And so, it was just a wonderful experience overall.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Item #5A
RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE AL MADSEN, COASTAL
INSPECTOR AS "EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH" FOR AUGUST
200~
And now I have the privilege of presenting an award to our
coastal inspector, Al Madsen, for being the Employee of the Month.
AI, are you here? How did I miss you? It's good to see you
agaIn.
Page 20
,<----~ ,. ,_.~ -.....-..--,.-
September 21,2004
MR. MADSEN: Thank you. It's nice to see you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: This is going to be embarrassing, but
you're going to have to turn around so everybody can see who does
this wonderful stuff, okay?
Al is a long-term Collier County employee. He has been
employed since 1980 in positions of increasing responsibility. Al has
and maintains a nothing-is-impossible attitude. He always has a smile
on his face and finds ways to accomplish any responsibility given to
him.
As the county's coastal inspector, Al coordinates exceptionally
well with the myriad of county and city agencies he deals with. Most
importantly, Al has daily contact with the public, and is an outstanding
county representative.
The county has received many letters from customers
commending him on his attitude and the professional way he deals
with the public.
Al has worked diligently to coordinate with appropriate county
officials and with the cities of Naples and Marco Island to ensure
situations dealing with the beach are handled in an appropriate and
satisfactory manner.
During the past year, there were higher than usual incidences of
red tide, and consequently there were more dead fish washing ashore
throughout the county. To make it easier for municipal and
contractors to respond to clean-up requirements, Al devoted a rapport
with the -- or Al developed a rapport with the Collier County Sheriffs
Office, and consequently trustees and community service workers
were made available to help clean the beach.
Al is always there when extra help is needed, and I can verify
that. His drive, dedication, good humor and commitment are well
known and commendable.
And AI, we're so proud to name you the Employee of the Month
for Collier County.
Page 21
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
And, AI, this is -- oh, go ahead.
This is just a little note from me and -- representing all of the
commissioners of congratulations, a little check from our county, and
a plaque, a much deserved plaque. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And if you turn around, we'll take a
picture. Thank you.
Do you want to say a couple words, AI?
MR. MADSEN: Yes, please.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MADSEN: I just want to say thank you very much to the
board and the county manager, my supervisor, Ron Hovell, the entire
department that backs me when we try and do a good job on the
beach, and my wife who, pray tell, raids ( sic) the hours.
Thank you very much. This is a great honor, and I appreciate it
very much.
(Applause.)
Item #6A
REQUEST BY JAMES CIOLINO TO DISCUSS BEACH ACCESS
ON MARCO ISLAND - TO BE PLACED ON THE OCTOBER 26,
2004 BCC AGENDA WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S
RECCOMMENIlAIIillšS
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now we're on to the public petitions
portion of our agenda, and our first petition request is by James
Ciolino to discuss beach access.
And he has 10 minutes; is that correct, sir?
Page 22
September 21, 2004
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
MR. CIOLINO: Good morning. I want to thank you for this
opportunity to discuss beach access on Marco Island, which it was
brought to my attention that this has been an ongoing problem for the
people of Marco Island for the past 14 years.
If you read my report, you had all that information, I believe, that
you see that these pathways -- that I have found information that these
pathways were fenced off illegally 14 years ago. And the reason I say
that they were fenced off illegally is because there was no record -- I
checked with the county set of building. There was no record of
anybody filing a quitclaim deed with the county.
And before you can fence off a pathway -- which was brought to
my attention by people who know more about the law than I do -- that
you have to get permission from a judge. And the only way a judge
will give you permission to fence off these pathways is, you have to
prove that these pathways were abandoned.
These pathways were in operation for over 20 years before they
were fenced off illegally. When Deltona Developing Corporation first
put up those low rises along Collier Boulevard and Seaview Court, he
granted those people permission to walk across that property to get
onto the beach, because Deltona knew that it's illegal to privatize a
public beach.
And those people that bought those low rises used those
pathways for well over 20 years. And in Marjorie Walker's petition --
I believe you have the information on that -- where she proved back in
1990 that these were all prescriptive easements because people have
used them for well over 20 years.
And if you have the newspaper article that I sent to you that the
county commissioner who is our state senator right now, Burt
Saunders, he said that he agreed that these pathways should be
re-opened, and all the county commissioners back then also agreed.
Page 23
September 21, 2004
But for some reason, the county commissioners, it was 4-3, I
believe it was, that voted in favor of not re-opening these pathways,
which was wrong, it was illegal.
Like I say, again, that it was brought to my attention by people
who know more about the law than I do, that the best way to solve this
problem would be to ask Mr. Thomas Palmer, the assistant county
attorney, which I've been working with for the past two years about
this -- he was the one who sent me that county ordinance, 76-20,
which pertained to 10 100- foot wide beach parking lots that the county
wanted to put on Marco Island back in 1976.
It was brought to my attention that the county made up this
fictitious story that Tigertail Beach and the property known as the
resident beach parking lot was donated to take the place of that county
ordinance, which is not true, for the simple reason that there are laws
that prohibit anybody from donating a piece of property twice.
Tigertail Beach was donated 1968 to be used as a public park and
a public beach, and the resident beach parking lot was donated by
Deltona to be used as a resident beach parking lot for all the property
owners on Marco Island and Marco Shores. So there are laws against
donating a piece of property twice.
So it was also brought to my attention that the best way to solve
this problem would to be ask Mr. Thomas Palmer, the assistant county
attorney, to file a Writ of Mandamus which would order the people of
Marco Island, the City of Marco Island, to re-open these pathways.
They would get a court order to do this, and to back it up with a
declaratory judgment that would clarify all the laws pertaining to
beach access points and about the fact that all public beaches are open
to the public and that the beaches on Marco Island are not private
beaches, even though the civic association and the condominium
association believe that this is a private beach.
And there were many meetings where people have said that this
is their beach, they own this beach because they paid the Army Corps
Page 24
....,...-----"""--
September 21, 2004
of Engineers to dredge up the sand that replenished this beach back in
1990, and it cost about $5 million to do this.
All the property owners along the beach were assessed a mills tax
of 81 cents per thousand dollars of value, and because of that, Frank
Blanchard, who was the president of the Marco Island Resident Beach
Association, told those people that they own that beach, which is not
true.
I checked with the tax appraisal office in Collier County, and I
asked them if those people had any claim to that beach, and they said
absolutely not, that their property line does not extend any further than
it did before that beach was renourished.
And if you go from South Seas Tower Four all the way down to
the Gulf View Condominium, is right next to the resident beach
parking lot, there was a seawall back in 1990. There was no beach,
none whatsoever.
And their property line extends to where that sealine was. They
dredged up all this sand. There was about -- they extended the beach
about 400 feet, and now the people are saying that they own this
beach, which is not true. The only people that own this beach is the
State of Florida.
And I say that these pathways were fenced off illegally. There
was absolutely no evidence of anybody filing this quitclaim deed,
Q-U-I-T, claim, or getting permission from a judge. And that's why
I'm here. I would like for you to ask Mr. Thomas Palmer to file this
Writ of Mandamus and this declaratory judgment with the county civil
courts so that we could put an end to this problem that has been
ongoing for the past 14 years.
If you have any questions, I would like to answer them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sir, we don't usually discuss these. We
ask the commissioners if they would like to put this on a regular
agenda to discuss or not, and so that is the question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would think that we should bring
Page 25
September 21, 2004
this back for discussion, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think so, too.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we just give the
county attorney direction to report to us either on a future agenda or a
written memo?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So then you would like to bring it
back with the county attorney's recommendations in written memo; is
that it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, either write us a
memo or bring it back for discussion under a regular item under our
general today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would like also that the county
attorney could look at other areas in Collier County to see if we have
other problems that concern beach access where they've been fenced
off illegally.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may suggest, I really think
it's an item that needs to come back. If it has no merits at that time, we
can dismiss it quite readily.
But I'll tell you, I was very impressed with the report that you put
together and the detail that you've got into it.
MR. CIOLINO: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If it is correct from beginning to
end, I think we've got an excellent case to be able to pursue it.
MR. CIOLINO: Most of that information, like I say, was given
to me by people who lived on Marco Island for over 30 years. And I
have contacted several attorneys and I have contacted a friend of mine
who's a retired judge in New York City, and we've gone over all this
information.
I have documents when the Tigertail Beach was donated to
Collier County in 1968, and that's why I say that this was a fictitious
Page 26
~__",_~"'''_N'" ",
September 21, 2004
story that the county made up because it was donated in 1968, and
county ordinance 76-20 didn't come out till 1976, and they didn't start
talking about this until 1980. So that's the reason why they say that,
you know, it's illegal.
And I got this information also from Mr. Thomas Palmer, the
assistant county attorney, and Mr. Ralph Sluis, who is a paralegal for
the local state attorney's office, and they both say the same thing, that
you cannot donate a piece of property twice.
Once it's donated, that's it. It's carved in stone. And if you do --
if you do donate that property for another reason because of the
reverter clause, there's a very good opportunity, very good chance that
the property could revert back to Deltona Corporation.
And the same thing goes with the resident beach parking lot, as
much as I would like to see that property turned over to the City of
Marco Island and taken away from the civic association, because there
is evidence in that report that the civic association has been involved
in four separate situations pertaining to parking lots and beach access,
and every one of them is illegal.
The last one was with Mr. Glenn Tucker -- the city council
member, Glenn Tucker, when he tried to take that pathway from Mass
Mutual and turned that over to the civic association.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, sir.
MR. CIOLINO: And our city chair, Terri DiSciullo, asked the
city attorney to find out if it was illegal, and he said it is illegal. He
said, you can't do that. So here you go again. It's the same thing over
and over and over again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're going to bring it back,
and we'll be able to address it fully.
MR. CIOLINO: I appreciate that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. We can't discuss this now.
MR. CIOLINO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I hate to -- I hate to --
Page 27
September 21, 2004
MR. CIOLINO: Well, if you talk to Mr. Thomas Palmer --like I
say, I've been working with him for --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We'll be asking for some memos from
him to bring --
MR. CIOLINO: And Mr. Ralph Sluis also, your local state
attorney's office. He was a very good help.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So, Commissioners, do you want
to bring this back on --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- regular agenda?
Okay. That's two nods. I'll make it a third nod; four, five. Okay.
We'll bring this back --
MR. MUDD: Michael, when do you think --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- for regular agenda, and we'll --
MR. MUDD: Mike Pettit, when do you think you'll be able to do
this?
MR. PETTIT: I'm going to ask to bring it back the second
meeting in October.
MR. MUDD: Okay, the 26th.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 26th of October. Okay. That will give us
some time to prepare, too. And maybe you research some of the
things Mr. Ciolino has given to us so that we have everything factually
in place and can look at that, as well as the suggestion from
Commissioners Halas and Coletta that you look at other areas as well.
Being that we're talking about beach access, we might as well discuss
them all.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One last thing. I'd like to see
that the city council of Marco Island's kept apprised of where we're
going with this and that they have all the information in front of them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you so much. All
right. Thank you, Mr. Ciolino.
MR. CIOLINO: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Page 28
September 21, 2004
Item #6B
REQUEST BY CONNIE STEGALL-FULLMER, PRESIDENT,
GOODLAND PRESERVATION COALITION, INC., TO DISCUSS
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN MARCO CITY AND
COLLIER COUNTY - REGARDING COLLIER COUNTY'S
OWNERSHIP OF COUNTY ROAD 92A- TO BE BROUGHT
B A CKEOR-DIS.CI IS S ION
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Our next public petition was to be
presented by Connie Stegall, but she is not here, so she has someone
in her place to speak. Now, I also have speaker items. We don't ever
have speakers on a public petition, but the person -- so I have to tell
you that we can't accept speakers. I'm so sorry. But we -- the person
who wanted to present, please come up. You have 10 minutes.
MR. MUDD: That was going to be Mike Barbush.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. He's here.
You know if I could I would let you.
MR. BARBUSH: Oh, that's fine.
Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Mike Barbush,
690 Palm Avenue West in Goodland.
Before I begin discussing the agenda item in front of us, let me
thank you for the countless hours that you spent during the three
hurricanes. The EOC, the staff, Mr. Mudd, the sheriffs department,
and the Marco Island Fire Department did an excellent job. Thank
you very much.
I rise to speak today to request a hearing to amend the Marco
Island/Collier County interlocal agreement pertaining to ownership of
County Road 92A, the curved road from County Road 92 to
Goodland.
On October 1 st, 2002, the county and the city entered into an
Page 29
September 21, 2004
agreement whereby Marco received one million dollars a year for 15
years for capital improvements, including upkeep of County Road 92
and County Road 92A.
Due to public opposition regarding the transfer of ownership of
County Road 92A, the county commission delayed transfer of
ownership for two years to October 1 st, 2004. With that date looming,
I believe it would be in the best interest of the county and the residents
of Goodland that the commission extend the transfer of ownership of
County Road 92A for another two years.
As immediate past president of the Goodland Civic Association, I
was involved in the effort to retain the county ownership of County
Road 92A. I was also involved with the City of Marco Island in
installing a bike path from County Road 92, the length of County
Road 92A into Goodland.
The request for the owner -- for the extension of the ownership
has nothing to do with the maintenance of County Road 92A, as the
city has done a fine job.
The city council approved the construction of the bike path in a
cooperative effort with the Goodland Civic Association. A grant from
the Metropolitan Planning Organization, along with nearly $30,000 of
Marco Island's money, funded the project.
Countless hours were spent by Marco staff, in particular,
Vladrizoo (phonetic), meeting with Goodland residents to finalize the
design.
Marco contracted and supervised the path construction, and we
are very pleased with the path. It was heavily used during last tourist
season.
City Manager Bill Moss and his staff have done an excellent job,
and we have a great working relationship with the city. Having said
that, we do not vote for the city council on Marco Island. You are our
representatives.
County Road 92A is our only way in and out of Goodland, and
Page 30
September 21, 2004
the residents of Goodland have a vested interest in how the road is
used.
I would prefer that the ownership of County Road 92A stay with
the county. There are several interlocal agreements all around the
county, and this one is unique.
The City of Marco has done right by us, but we are not residents
of Marco Island. Future city councils may not be so understanding of
our needs in Goodland. You are our representatives.
I am confident the city and county officials and the managers can
craft an agreement acceptable to the city and the county.
In conclusion, I petition you to place the amendment for the
interlocal agreement between the City of Marco Island and the county
regarding ownership of County Road 92A on the next meeting agenda.
This commission has also been receptive to the good people of
Goodland, and I ask for your support in this petition.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners, I'd like to bring this back
for discussion. Do I have five nods?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I can -- if I can add one little
piece of information just to correct the record.
I received a letter from Bill Moss from the City of Marco -- he's
the city manager there -- that basically says that the agreement was
formed on July 30th, 2002. And then he -- and he puts some
information to correct the record.
And when we bring this back, or I bring this back with an
agreement, we'll put this letter and make sure it's part of the record,
okay? And just to shorten the meeting, because it's a rather long
meeting today.
It's basically said it's already -- it's already the city's, but they
would get into an agreement with us to make sure that the county
maintains it for another two years. And I've talked to Bill off to the
side. We've got to work that through.
So let us come back. Let the county manager come back with an
Page 31
September 21, 2004
agreement that states such, that's amiable to all, both parties, and that
we can get that on the record instead of having to go through another
discussion --
MR. BARBUSH: I spoke with Bill yesterday, and he recognizes
the fact that the date is October 1 st, 2004.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
MR. BARBUSH: So you can confer with him and correct that, if
you will.
MR. MUDD: And I will-- and I will move as fast as I can to get
this back to the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir. And thank you for
bringing this to our attention.
MR. BARBUSH: Thank you. Appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I appreciate it. And thank you
Goodlanders for being here today. It's a long drive.
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION 2004-285 - CU-2003-AR-3648; STUART KA YE,
OF KA YE HOMES, INC., REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE #9
IN THE "E" ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT, PER LDC SECTIONS
2.2.3.3.9, AND 2.6.3.3.4. TO CONTINUE THE EXISTING LAND
USE AS A MODEL HOME AND SALES CENTER FOR FIVE
YEARS ON 2.57+ ACRES LOCATED AT 910 OAKES
BOULEVARD, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS THE SOUTH 165
FEET OF TRACT 28, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 96, IN
SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
Okay. Now we move on to item 7 A. And for this item, which
concerns Stuart Kaye of Kaye Homes, anybody who will be
presenting on this subject, please stand. We'll need to have you sworn
Page 32
September 21, 2004
In.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioners, do you
declare any ex parte on this?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll start off, and I have no
disclosures on this agenda item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: On agenda item 7 A, I received
some e-mails, and they are within my files here for anyone who
wishes to see them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have no disclosures for item 7A.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no disclosures for item 7 A.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good.
So who will be presenting on this particular item?
MS. KOSMERL: I'm sorry. I'm not really presenting. I'm here
for questions, representing Stuart Kaye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do we have staff?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question.
Ma'am?
MS. KOSMERL: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning.
Commissioner Tom Henning.
Your name?
MS. KOSMERL: I'm Elizabeth Kosmerl. I'm a vice-president
with Kaye Homes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Are you okay with the
petition as presented to us --
MS. KOSMERL: Yes, we are.
Page 33
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and recommendation by the
Planning Commission?
MS. KOSMERL: No. We're in agreement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're in agreement?
MS. KOSMERL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Let me just stop you there for a
second and say that we have no speakers on this item.
MS. McPHERSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And so I will close the public hearing.
And saying that, we have a commissioner -- Commissioner
Henning has made a motion to approve, Commissioner Coyle has
seconded that motion.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying 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: Thank you. That passes unanimously.
That was easy.
Okay. Now we go on to item 8A, and we will be--
MR. MUDD: No, that's cont -- ma'am, that's continued.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry, 8 -- 8C.
Item #8B
Page 34
September 21, 2004
ORDINANCE 2004-58 - ADOPTING A PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE CODE FOR THE BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND
NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
PROVIDING FOR MINIMUM HOUSING AND BUILDING
MAINTENANCE STANDARDS; PROVIDING FOR RENTAL
UNIT REGISTRATION AND INSPECTION; PROVIDING FOR
THE MINIMAL MAINTENANCE OF VACANT AND BOARDED
UP PROPERTIES, INCLUDING LIMITATIONS ON THE
AMOUNT OF TIME A VACANT PROPERTY CAN BE
BOARDED; PROVIDING A METHOD FOR DESIGNATING
HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS AND STANDARDS FOR THE
REPAIR OR DEMOLITION OF HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS; AND
REPEALING ORDINANCES 76-70, 89-06, 96-76 AND 99-58 -
AllillIED
MR. MUDD: This would brings us to 8B, and that's to adopt a
property maintenance code for both residential and nonresidential
properties with the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida,
providing for minimal housing and building maintenance standards;
providing for rental unit registration and inspection; providing for the
minimum maintenance of vacant and boarded up properties, including
limitations on the amount of time a vacant property can be boarded;
providing a method for designating hazardous buildings and standards
for the repair or demolition of hazardous buildings; and repealing
ordinance 76-70, 89-06, 96-76, and 99-58.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that for discussion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Madam Chairman, you have one speaker on this
item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Would you call that speaker. You
Page 35
September 21, 2004
know, this is -- what is this item again, 8B?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 8B.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have to swear everybody in who's
going to be speaking on this.
MR. PETTIT: No, no. This is a --
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: No.
MS. McPHERSON: The speaker is Peter Lilienthal.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. LILIENTHAL: I just wish to -- pardon me.
Peter Lilienthal here in my capacity as vice-president of the
Golden Gate Civic Association presenting that the civic board has
voted to support this measure. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. So we have a motion to
approve and a second.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, there's a power point presentation, if the
board wants to see it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to see it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Jim, let me stop you for a minute.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've read it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have 7B? Are we supposed to be
on 7B?
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. 7B, this item being continued
indefinitely.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: That's a conditional use.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry.
MS. ARNOLD: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director.
The presentation before you is just kind of going to walk you
Page 36
September 21, 2004
through what the proposed ordinance is intended to enforce and to
implement.
The purpose of this ordinance is to revise. We currently have an
existing minimum housing code ordinance that addresses all the
minimum standards for a residential structure, and we are updating
those to reflect new codes, new building codes, new fire codes, and
health codes within the county, and also to reflect any new changes
for the regulations for residential structures.
We are also, for the first time, requiring inspections, requiring
inspections for rental properties. We're establishing for the first time
minimum standards for nonresidential properties, commercial and
industrial properties.
We're also establishing a boarding certificate process, boarding
up buildings, and incorporating into this ordinance the unsafe
structures ordinance, so we're kind of consolidating many ordinances
together to get one ordinance addressing all of the -- things addressing
properties or structures in the county.
Within the minimum housing code update, we established, as I
noted, revised the ordinance to make it updated with the current
standards. We reviewed over 45 ordinances from other local
jurisdictions, and we coordinated with the building review and
permitting as well as the fire review departments to get their inputs to
make sure that what we were incorporating in this ordinance wasn't in
conflict with those ordinances or their codes.
As I noted, we are requiring rental property inspections.
Currently the only way that we are able to inspect, especially the
internal of a residential property, is with a request from, more than
likely, an upset tenant that hasn't gotten the cooperation from their
landlord.
This ordinance is going to allow us to do internal inspection for
rental properties to make sure that we don't get to the point where the
upkeep has been ignored for so long that it's cost -- very costly as well
Page 37
September 21, 2004
as, it's so far gone that the health concerns are one that we don't want
to get to, so we're trying to be proactive in this particular ordinance
and require internal inspections for rental properties where we see
violations.
I just want to note that this particular ordinance had gone through
many meetings with the Development Services Advisory Committee.
They -- I wanted to note for the record that they did not support this
portion of the ordinance and the fee associated with those inspections.
But that's -- although they had many inputs, most of the
recommendations they did give were incorporated in the ordinance
that's being presented to you with the exception of the exemption of
the fees.
With our internal inspections, there is a process just like we
currently have of notification, trying to coordinate with the property
owner to get consent to go into the property. If there's refusal of that
permission to inspect, we have the ability to go to the warrant process,
and that's through the court system. And that would be only pursued
in those cases where we really think that there's a serious health safety
concern.
As I noted, the purpose is to prevent neglect. We want to also
prevent illegal conversions. A lot of times the properties are
converted internally, and the only way that you can verify that is to do
an internal inspection. So a single-family home is converted to a
duplex and sometimes triplex, and so we're trying to avoid those
things so that there's not negative impact on the surrounding areas as
well.
Nonresidential maintenance standards, for the first time we are
doing -- we've established standards for commercial, non -- industrial
properties to require their continual maintenance. Prior to this
ordinance, there's no ordinance that addresses those things.
The third thing that we're trying to ask for with this ordinance is
to establish a process that we would minimize the amount of time that
Page 38
September 21, 2004
a building is boarded up. You all, I'm sure, have driven by buildings
that have been boarded up, not counting the ones that are being
protected right now for the hurricane, that have been boarded up for
years, and it just kind of creates decline in a particular area.
This process would allow for a review at no cost initially and
they would identify a plan where they would show us how they're
going to restore that property back to an occupiable state.
Six months is the initial certificate. They are allowed an
extension for an additional six months. Any extension beyond that
would have to go through the special master process.
This here is showing that there is a process in the boarding
requirements. Of course, they're waived for emergency situations like
the hurricanes.
We have gotten a lot of calls with the properties being boarded
up for the hurricanes to ask how long properties were allowed to kind
of stay that way, and there are provisions in the ordinance to allow for
at least a 60-day period for people to board up their houses.
The final thing that is being proposed with this particular
ordinance is the unsafe structures ordinance. We have an ordinance
that establishes how to recognize or evaluate a property to determine
the structural stability of it. There's various people, including the
building official, and if need be, we can hire somebody with an
engineering background to make a determination as to whether or not
a building is structurally sound.
We haven't made lots of modifications in that particular
ordinance, but what we're doing is incorporating it into this particular
ordinance so we have one ordinance that addresses all structural
conditions for the county.
And that's the end of my slide presentation. If you-all have any
questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, I have a question, and then
Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Coletta as well.h
Page 39
September 21, 2004
My first thing is, finally, boy, we've needed this ordinance for a
long time, and I'm just delighted that you've put this together for us.
It's long awaited.
I wanted to ask you about, you mentioned buildings that have
been boarded up for years, and we know many of them, because we
pass them by and they're very unsightly. Do they have to conform,
even though, you know, it can be documented that they've been
boarded up for many years, do they have to wait the entire period of
time for -- I understand that there's like the six months and so forth,
but is there any teeth that we have to --
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think this process is kind of the teeth that
we've never had. At least now there's going to be a process that says,
property owner, please submit to us your plans, your intentions, to
bring your property back into compliance with the code or to give the
appearance that it's something that is occupiable. And the plan has to
identify, you know, time frames for restoring the property.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What about like, for instance, if the
parking lot is all torn up or there's weeds growing all over. Do they --
do they have six months also to put a plan together on how they're
going to mow their lawn or --
MS. ARNOLD: No. Actually that -- well, that's a continual
thing. The part -- the nonresidential maintenance portion of the
ordinance addresses all of those conditions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I think this is long overdue.
I'm very concerned about a lot of commercial property that we
presently have here in Collier County. I can't believe that you can
have two to three drugstores on every four corners and that they're all
going to be a viable business, and I'm concerned that there's going to
be a buy-out or whatever in regards to these drugstores, and so there's
going to be a lot of these that, I think they're going to be empty, and I
Page 40
September 21, 2004
think we need to address them.
Also, we know that there's Wal-- you know, Super Wal-Marts
and Super Targets that are coming onboard, and I think we need some
teeth in the legislation also so that the other smaller W ai-Marts that
happen to close up, that they have to abide by all the codes.
I'm sure that in the future we're going to have commercial
buildings that may end up being boarded up, and I hope that we have
__ this ordinance is going to be strong enough to take care of the items
that we -- that I read in the agenda today, because I think it's needed,
and I also think that a lot of the items that were in there in regards to
rental properties needs to be addressed.
When you go to some areas of this county and you see how
people are living, I have some great concerns for the safety and health
and welfare of those people, and I'm glad that we've finally got some
ordinance here that has some teeth in it and that we can go in there and
make sure that the landlord brings that property up to -- so that it's
habitable. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Michelle, where do we get
this particular ordinance? We pick it up from another county? Has
this been a tried-true ordinance where it's -- already went through the
test of time?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. We've -- it's kind of a conglomeration of
lots of different counties. The rental inspection portion of it actually
discussed, when I was at a conference to see whether or not those
types of things were working, and it's working in a municipality here
in Florida. There are some portions of it that we took from the City of
Naples. You know, it's just many different --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I understand. It's not good
to come up with original ideas. You want something that's been out
there that stood the test of time. And the county attorney, of course --
MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely.
Page 41
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- has reviewed the whole thing
for legal sufficiency. I think it's a great idea in theory, and I just
wonder when we get down to it, Immokalee has got a -- some
untolerable conditions there, and we've tried several times through
code enforcement and different programs to go in there and clean up
the dilapidated housing. If this is the ticket to be able to do it, will we
really go to Immokalee and check these places out before migrant
labors come in? Are we going to be able to have the sufficient staff to
be able to do it? Or is this something that's going to be left to one
side?
MS. ARNOLD: This is affecting the entire county, Immokalee
including -- included. And a part of the request is the adoption of the
ordinance, but there's also two staff members that are being requested
with this particular proposal, and it is the intent for us to go out to
lmmokalee.
And as you mentioned, we do need to be systematic in our
approach so that we're not impacting the residents more. So if we can
go into Immokalee when the migrants are not there and do inspections,
that's the most optimal way to attack that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And I'll be following the
progress of this as we go forward.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much,
Michelle.
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sure you're going to have a deluge of
requests, everybody wanting you to take a look at some of these nasty
buildings right away.
Thank you again for putting all of this together. This is
something that I've been wanting for a couple years, and Michelle's
worked closely with me on this, and I truly appreciate it.
I have a motion on the floor from Commissioner Henning to
Page 42
_ ~____""w."
September 21, 2004
approve, and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I correct the motion
maker?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe it was Commissioner
Halas who made the motion. I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, was it? I'm so sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Forget that phone call.
Commissioner Halas made the motion, and Commissioner
Henning seconded it.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Glad you corrected that.
Item #8C
RESOLUTION 2004-286 / DEVELOPMENT ORDER 2004-01 -
PETITION DRI-03-AR-4777, C. LAURENCE KEESEY,
REPRESENTING WATERSIDE SHOPS AT PELICAN BAY
TRUST AND WCI COMMUNITIES, INC., REQUESTING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE PELICAN BAY DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI), TO RELOCATE 121,000 SQUARE
Page 43
September 21, 2004
FEET OF APPROVED, BUT NOT YET CONSTRUCTED AND
UNCOMMITTED COMMERCIAL USE FROM THE NORTH
COMMERCIAL AREA TO THE SOUTH COMMERCIAL AREA,
REDUCE THE APPROVED MAXIMUM NUMBER
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BU 800 UNITS TO A NEW
MAXIMUM OF 7,800 DWELLING UNITS FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE
INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL (US-41) AND SEAGATE
DRIVE IN SECTIONS 32 AND 33, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, AND SECTIONS 4, 5, 8 AND 9, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA -
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2004-59 - PUDA-03-AR-4008, C. LAURENCE
KEESEY, REPRESENTING WATERSIDE SHOPS AT PELICAN
BAY TRUST AND WCI COMMUNITIES, INC., REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR THE PURPOSE
OF REVISING THE PUD DOCUMENT TO RELOCATE 121,000
SQUARE FEET OF APPROVED, BUT NOT YET CONSTRUCTED
AND UNCOMMITTED COMMERCIAL USE FROM THE NORTH
COMMERCIAL AREA TO THE SOUTH COMMERCIAL AREA,
REDUCE THE APPROVED MAXIMUM NUMBER
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING BY 800 UNITS TO A NEW
MAXIMUM OF 7,800 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
WITHIN THE PELICAN BAY PUD LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF
TAMIAMI TRAIL (US-41) AND SEAGATE DRIVE IN SECTIONS
32 AND 33, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, AND
SECTIONS 4, 5, 8 AND 9, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25
Page 44
"--<~
"-"-''''''""'~"- ......_-_._-~.,._.-
September 21, 2004
EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA -ADOPTED WITH
SIœI.lLAIlONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner that brings us to item 8C, and I'd
like to make sure that we do 8C and 8D at the same time as far as
hearing them, and then we'll vote on those particular items separately
by doing 8C first and then 8D. If I may read them.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by the commission members. It's petition
DRI-03-AR-4777 for C. Laurence Keesey, representing Waterside
Shops at Pelican Bay Trust and WCI Communities, Inc., requesting an
amendment to the Pelican Bay Development of Regional Impact, DRI,
to relocate 121,000 square feet of approved, but not yet constructed
and uncommitted commercial, use from the north commercial area to
the south commercial area, reduce the approved maximum number
residential dwellings by 800 units to a new maximum of 7,800
residential dwelling units for property located at the northwest
quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail, U.S. 41, and Seagate
Drive, in Section 32 and 33, Township 48 south, Range 25 east, and
Sections 4, 5, 8, and 9, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier
County, Florida, companion item to the PUDA-03-AR-4008, which
I'm about ready to read that.
And that item is 8D, and that also requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members. It's PUDA-03-AR-4008, C. Laurence Keesey, representing
Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay Trust and WCI Communities, Inc.,
requesting a rezone from planned unit development (PUD) to planned
unit development (PUD) for the purpose of revising the PUD
document to relocate 121,000 square feet of approved but not yet
constructed and uncommitted commercial use from the north
commercial area to the south commercial area, reduce the approved
maximum number residential dwellings by 800 units to a new
Page 45
September 21, 2004
maximum of 7,800 residential dwelling units within the Pelican PUD
located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection, and I've already
said that once before, so I won't repeat it again. We all know where
it's located.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir. Let me tell you before we
begin presenting here that at 10:30 we're going to take a break so that
our court reporter gets a few minutes to rest her fingers, just so that
you know that's coming.
So with that, will everybody who will be commenting during this
item please stand and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any ex parte to declare,
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I do. I have quite a multitude
here. I have meetings with petitioner, I've had correspondence also
with the petitioner and with people in the surrounding community and
also Pelican Bay, multitude of phone calls and e-mail, and it's all here
at your disposal in case somebody would like to look at all the
records. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Somebody's been very busy.
Like Commissioner Halas, I've also received numerous e-mails,
correspondence, I've had numerous meetings with both factions of
this, and, of course, met with staff numerous times on it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As a member of the South
Florida Regional Planning Council, it did come before the council. I
need to declare that.
I did not meet with anybody, petitioner or residents on this item,
but I did receive a lot of e-mail correspondence, and they're here if
anybody would like to review.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have had meetings, telephone
Page 46
September 21, 2004
conversations, I've receive the e-mails and other correspondence from
the petitioner and people who support the project, as well as people
who are opposed to the project, including representatives of the
Naples City Council, and all of those communications are in my ex
parte files if anyone wishes to see them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if I also may add -- and I
thank you, Commissioner Henning, for bringing it up. I also attended
the Southwest Regional Planning Council meetings when this was
brought forward.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I, too, have -- I have met with
people on both sides of this issue. I have received much
correspondence, e-mails, and telephone calls, and they're all written in
my file, which will be on display if anybody wants to see it.
Thank you very much. And with that, Mr. Keesey?
MR. KEESEY: Thank you. For the record, my name is Larry
Keesey. I'm here representing the joint applicants on these agenda
items, which are the Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay Trust and WCI
Communities, Inc. These are the joint applicants for amendments to
the Pelican Bay DRI, and, of course, the separate agenda item for the
amendments to the PUD.
WCI Communities owns the development rights that are issued
here within Pelican Bay. They, of course, are the successor in interest
to the original developer and they own the development rights.
Waterside Shops owns approximately 28.3 acres in the
southeastern quadrant of Pelican Bay, which has, of course, already
been developed as the Waterside Shops.
Previously at the Planning Commission an issue was raised by
opponents regarding the development rights and who owns the
development rights. We've addressed that issue, but I wanted you to
know with me today Ron Weaver of the law finn in Tampa, of Steams
Page 47
September 21, 2004
and Weaver, is WCI's co-counsel with me for, specifically, the
development rights, and if you have questions or if that issue is raised
again today, Mr. Weaver would like to respond to that regarding the
development rights.
Also with me today is Steve Lung of David Plummer and
Associates. Tom Carnes is also here with the property -- the partner
that manages the property, which is the Forbes Company out of
Michigan.
I would like to give you just a little bit of background about
Pelican Bay before we get into probably the most important issue, the
issue you're probably all aware of, which is the traffic. But I think a
little background on this is appropriate.
This is not a new development that you're commonly familiar
with where we're coming before you asking for something to be
approved and you will be adding development to Collier County. The
development we're dealing with here today is within Pelican Bay; it
has already been approved.
If you will, really the issue here for you is whether you want the
development -- where you want it to occur, whether in the north side
of Pelican Bay or the south, and we'll get into that in a bit.
The, original Pelican Bay approval occurred by Collier County
in 1977. It was approved as a DR!, development of regional impact,
pursuant to chapter 380, Florida statutes at that time, and it was also
zoned as a PUD at that time.
Since then there have been several changes; some minor, some
major. The first change that's pretty significant was in 1987, 10 years
after the original approval, that was to add the Philharmonic Center as
a new use within Pelican Bay. That was not previously approved
before 1987.
And then two years after that, in 1989, there was a major change
to the development, and that approval went through the substantial
deviation process for DRIs, and that substantial deviation process
Page 48
September 21, 2004
resulted in a development order that we're operating under today.
That development order and that PUD approval of that
substantial deviation in 1989 approved within Pelican Bay a total
number of residential units of 8,600 residential units. It also approved
1,095,000 square feet of commercial use. And when I refer to
commercial use here today, I'm going to be including within that both
office and retail, which make up the commercial use.
At that time the developer requested and the county approved a
division of the maximum amounts of commercial use that could be
assigned within Pelican Bay. The development order and PUD, as
they stand today, were approved to allow 454,000 square feet of
commercial use in the north. The north area's also known as the
Marketplace, for your convenience. That's part of the commercial, the
only other part other than Waterside. That's up at north at the
Vanderbilt Beach Road section with 41.
In the south, which is basically for retail purposes, the Waterside
Shops, there is a lot of other office development. They're not part of
Waterside Shops. But the south commercial area was approved for
640,400. And if you add the north and the south, you come up with
the 1,095,000 square feet that I referred to as being approved in 1989.
Today Pelican Bay is very substantially completed. As I
indicated WCI still owns some development rights. It has minor
ownings of property in the north, but primarily they own the
development rights, the remaining units that have not been built.
There's 1,625 residential units that have not been committed or built
within the project.
And also there's a 162,500 square feet of commercial that has not
been developed just in the north. There's some additional in the south,
but the 162,000 square feet in the north has been approved and not yet
built, and that's really the subject of what we're talking about here
today.
The Waterside Shops opened about 12 years ago. It's been a very
Page 49
September 21, 2004
successful commercial retail development, as you may know. I think
it's safe to say that the Waterside Shops really is unique in Collier
County. It truly is an amenity. It's the type of destination shopping
place that we -- we don't have very many of them. It is unique.
Obviously by definition it means it's one of a kind. And I think that's
an accurate statement about the Waterside Shops.
Many of the stores there -- or not many, but there's some there
that -- well, many of them actually are located nowhere else in this
part of Florida. They're not just the usual retail merchant.
Waterside Shops has been very, very successful; however, about
two years ago, you'll recall, that the Jacobson's chain of department
stores, which is one of the two anchors that were in the Waterside
shops, and Jacobson's chain went bankrupt. And although the
Waterside Shops' Jacobson's was probably one of the top stores in that
chain, it also was closed down because of that bankruptcy.
And so the Waterside Shops has been without an anchor store,
one of its two anchor stores, during that length of time, and there also
are a few other stores that are vacant for other reasons. If you've been
by there recently, you realize that's true.
And I think it's safe to say we're sort of at a crossroads here. And
the reason we're here is to ask for your help in trying to make sure and
ensure that the Waterside Shops remains a very viable and competitive
retail experience and maintains the same quality that we know that it's
had to date.
So we do need your help and we do ask for your help in
approving this recommend -- or this proposal.
Well over a year ago, Waterside Shops, in an effort to get itself
moving forward to grow, it realized it needed to grow in order to stay
the same type of shopping center it's been. It got together and
requested WCI to sell development rights. And in order to do that, we
had to have those rights shifted from the north to the south, and hence
we -- they agreed to jointly apply to you for an approval of that shift
Page 50
September 21, 2004
in 121 -- actually at the time we were asking for 170,000 square feet
of shopping space to be moved from the north to the south. That
application was filed in April of 2003.
Toward the end of last year, a new managing partner came
onboard. That would be the Forbes Company out of Michigan, which
is a mall developer, very upscale mall developer. They develop things
like the Millennium Mall and the mall in Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida, which are very attractive, very high-end malls. They're used
to that type of development.
The Forbes Company, upon becoming a managing partner,
realizing that there was an application filed for 170,000 square feet for
Pelican Bay, opted to put this -- to continue the matter while they
reviewed the property, reviewed what they really thought was needed
for the Waterside Shops, what they wanted to do as the new managing
partner.
And, therefore, the property was taken off of the county's agenda
for a couple months while they made that review, and then earlier this
year it was placed back on with a revised application, which reduced
the amount we were requesting to be shifted from north to south, from
170,000 square feet 121,000 square feet.
And within that 121,000 square feet, what we're really talking
about is 85,000 square feet of retail use, that is the Waterside Shops,
and 36,000 square feet of office. So that's the breakdown that totals
121,000 square feet of commercial.
Along with the application to make that shift -- and, again, this is
__ represents no increase whatsoever in the amount already approved
today for the -- for Pelican Bay. The 1,095,000 figure will remain the
same whether you approve or disapprove of this. It's just a matter of
where it's located.
And, of course, if it's located in the north, it will be developed
similar to the Marketplace. It will not have to come back for any kind
of review by the county because it's already approved up there, and
Page 51
September 21, 2004
then there would be no opportunity for the county to really require any
kind of traffic impact mitigation with additional development in the
north because it's already approved. It's already been mitigated.
However, because we are trying to shift it to the south, we do
have the opportunity to review and reassess the traffic, and we will get
to that shortly.
But the application is very straightforward. The 121,000 of
already approved use shifted to the south. Also with that is
accompanied a request to decrease and lower the number of approved
residential units by 800. The current approved number is 8,600. If
you approve this, it would be reduced by 800, to a total of 7,800
within the total of -- within all of Pelican Bay.
Now I want to address the traffic issue. And I know there's been a
lot of -- you obviously have folders full of things that you've heard
about traffic, and I regret that I think a lot of what you've heard is
probably either misinformed or intentionally misstates the facts. I
don't know which, but it's not accurate.
So I want to start first with some facts about the traffic, and then I
will deal and respond very briefly to some of the statements I know
I've either read in the paper or have heard from other people.
Initially I'd like to point out that we have done a traffic study.
We've done one for the notice of proposed change, the minor
deviation connected to the DRI, and we've also done another traffic
study at the request of county staff for the entire situation with all of
the intersection analysis, and we've also done a synchro study that
depicts all of this in graphic detail, almost like a movie, with all the
trips moving and how they actually work.
So we have done the professional traffic study; David Plummer
and Associates has done that. And as part of any traffics analysis for a
DRI that's been approved and then proposes changes, there's a
standard methodology, a standard approach to analyzing the traffic
impacts, and that is to take the approved development, in other words,
Page 52
September 21,2004
Pelican Bay as it's approved right now today and look at the traffic
generated by that approval and then compare that to the traffic that is
approved if we make these changes.
So you're comparing apples to apples. In other words, the project
as approved and then the proj ect as it would be changed.
And if you do that analysis, you find out very quickly that the
impacts of these proposed changes on roadways and intersections is
reduced. It's not increased. The reduction in the total number of trips,
both peak hour and total, is a reduction of 1.38 percent of the traffic
generated by Pelican Bay as approved today. So that's the first thing
to keep in mind.
This does not increase traffic, nor would you expect it to. I
mean, the retail use is not being increased. It's being shifted. And
sure, there will be some impact or some differences in which
intersections are affected. A little more impact will be felt at the Pine
Ridge intersection with 41, a little less will be felt up north where
Vanderbilt Beach is. But the net effect of these changes is to reduce
the total traffic generated by Pelican Bay.
The second fact is that the level of service on every road
analyzed and on every intersection analyzed is not reduced by these
changes. If the level of service at an intersection, for instance, is
operating at C or D or E today, that will not be lowered at all with
these changes. So you will not be reducing the level of service by
approving these changes.
The third fact is that this proposed commercial construction now
will be subject to impact fees, and we will have to pay a total of $1.1
million in impact fees if we build out the improvements and expansion
that we're requesting today. And that 1.1 million does not include the
turn lanes that I will be addressing in a few minutes.
The fourth fact I'd like to address with you is the parking issue.
At the time of the expansion -- the first phase of that expansion would
be a second floor on the Saks Fifth Avenue. And in order to do that,
Page 53
.------
.' _._----..._-~'_._'
September 21, 2004
we would -- we have on the plan, we show two parking structures that
would be located on site within the Waterside Shops' property. One of
those would definitely be done at the time of any expansion, that is the
Saks Fifth Avenue second level, and another parking structure would
be required in order to fulfill the rest of the expansion that you're
requested to be approved (sic).
These parking structures would, of course, comply with code.
The exact number would be determined by how many square feet and
what the code requires for that. But from the plan it shows a
minimum of 380 additional parking spaces would be added with the
two structures.
The last fact 1'd like to address with you is the fact that in several
years -- I mean, before this expansion could even be implemented, the
traffic situation on a lot of these roads, particularly 41, will be vastly
improved, and the traffic study takes into account the fact that you
have coming online very quickly the expansion of Goodlette- Frank --
I'm sorry -- of Livingston. That's about finished.
It will take a little longer for Goodlette- Frank, but
Goodlette-Frank also is another north/south corridor that's being
worked on, improved, so that within two years that also will be online
and will help in reducing congestion that may exist on 41 today.
Now, I want to address very briefly what we have agreed to do,
and this is not -- I want to emphasize, this is a situation where --
ordinarily when you're requested to do something it's because of the
impacts that you have. And again, we are not adding -- these changes
will reduce, actually, a minor amount, but still a reduction of the
traffic load created by Pelican Bay. Again 1.38 percent it will be
reduced.
But the county asked us to help with a -- and recommended a
turn lane on U.S. 41 at Seagate. As you know, there's already two dual
left turn lanes, one coming west on Pine Ridge and one coming south
on 41, dual turn lanes.
Page 54
September 21, 2004
The county's requested us to take out the median and construct or
pay them to construct a turn lane on 41 at Seagate, and we have
agreed to do that. The cost of that is estimated to be about $132,000.
Again, this would be in addition to impact fees.
Recently I met with Commissioner Halas, and he suggested that
it might be appropriate to also add a second dual turn lane or second
lane, actually, at the left turn at Seagate heading north, when the lines
stack up on Seagate, turn north onto 41, and that would mean all four
of those turns, those left turn movements, would have that.
I agreed that if the county staff -- it's not in the PUD that we
drafted. The first turn lane is, but the second turn lane I said, if that --
if county staff agrees that that is needed, even though we're not really
adding to that need, but we would commit to do the second turn lane,
if that's needed.
And I understand Don Scott is supposed to be here to address his
review of that, and I've stated that we would pay for this as well,
which would mean that the two turn lanes, if we are, in fact, required
to do the second one, the total for that would be an additional
$303,000 that we would pay, or build. I mean, that's the value of the
turn lane. We would either construct it, or if the county asked for that
money so that it can do it, we would pay the county that amount.
We've agreed with Don Scott, his request, to put that in as a condition.
So that's the second turn lane.
The City of Naples let it be known that they wanted to talk to us.
They were concerned about specifically southern streets below
Waterside Shops, Crayton, West, and the collector streets along there.
And they wanted to do a study that would assess and evaluate
whether there is any traffic calming measures that are needed on some
of those roadways. The county -- the city has had problems with
speeding and complaints from citizens about speeding on some of
those roads.
We did meet with Tamela Wiseman, and we had a meeting with
Page 55
September 21, 2004
her and the city staff. She said she was going to be here, and I hope
she is, to address the results of that meeting.
But the results of the meeting are -- were recorded by Nate
Forbes, the president, CEO, of the Forbes Company, which is the
managing partner. He sent a letter dated September 13th to the mayor,
Mayor Barnett, and to Chairman Fiala, and with a copy to all of you --
and I trust you've all received that.
And in that letter, the Forbes Company has committed to the city
and to you that they will fund, totally fund the study, the traffic study
that the city requested that we do regarding the classification of those
streets south of Waterside, and also the traffic-calming measures that
might -- might be needed.
If the study shows that certain traffic-calming measures are
needed, we further agreed that we would pay our fair share of the
implementation costs of those, and that's recorded in the letter.
So I think you can see that the Waterside Shops, and specifically
the Forbes Company, has really gone out of its way to be a good
neighbor. Again, we're reducing traffic, but we're agreeing -- I think
it's a win-win for everyone, and particularly for the city and county
that we're not increasing traffic by these changes, but we are giving
you some very significant improvements to turn lanes in allowing the
city to conduct the study. So I think we've -- we've done a good job of
meeting and being receptive to the requests and the concerns of the
city and the county on this issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Mr. Keesey, we're about ready--
MR. KEESEY: Oh, for your little --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- take a break, and usually we only allow
somebody 10 minutes, so --
MR. KEESEY: I understand. I only have a couple more
minutes, but we can break now. The only thing I wanted to address
was some of the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, you can just finish, but ifyou'll--
Page 56
September 21, 2004
MR. KEESEY: It will take me literally four minutes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right.
MR. KEESEY: And I hope you'll time me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I will.
MR. KEESEY: I know.
I did want to just briefly address some of the rumors that we've
heard. I know you've all shown stacks. It's amazing to me that so
much has been created about this -- in opposition to this.
And one of the things that I've seen that's come across my desk is
this final alert put out by someone called the Crayton Road
Association, and it essentially says that this expansion will, and I
quote, which will put a minimum of 4 to 5,000 additional cars on the
Seagate Drive, Crayton Road, and West Boulevard.
And I really don't know where those numbers came from. I hope
if these people are here today to oppose this and if they start talking
about those numbers, you'll at least ask them, where did these numbers
come from. Our traffic experts do not know how they came up with
such numbers.
The studies show the following, and this is what the facts are:
This expansion would add on Crayton Road, at peak hour, it will add
approximately 100 cars. That's going both ways, total of 100; 50 one
way, 50 the other, whatever and during that -- that's less than -- well,
100 cars is less than two per minute, so it's hardly a major impact to
Crayton Road.
On West Boulevard, it's even less. The expansion will add 25
cars during the peak hour. That's less than one car every two minutes,
and they're going both ways. So I don't know how these numbers are
generated.
On Crayton (sic) during the peak hour it's about 140 trips. Now,
usually your peak hour is about 10 percent, at least 10 percent of the
total during that day, so you can figure out that there's nowhere near
the thousands we're talking about here.
Page 57
September 21, 2004
During the peak hour we're talking, at most, on Crayton, (sic)
140, on West, 125 trips during peak hour, and on Cray -- I'm sorry. I
meant Seagate. Seagate is the one that has 140; I misspoke.
Crayton has 100, Seagate has 140. Those are the three that were
mentioned in this little article here.
People have also alleged that our traffic study was only based on
10 months. That's not true. The study was based on a 12-month
traffic study. It was 12 months, peak hour, peak season, everything.
So that is not accurate.
Finally -- this is the last point. I know you're in a hurry. People
have said that the roads -- or the impacts of Waterside will affect
Seagate Elementary, that school children won't be able to be picked up
and dropped off, people trying to drop kids off in the morning, it will
be dangerous.
I just want to point out one thing. The Waterside Shops is not
open until 10 o'clock in the morning. It has always opened at 10
o'clock in the morning. It has no intent or desire to open any earlier.
The slowest time of the day for that retail use is between 10 and 12.
So there's no way that our customers or our employees have any
effect whatsoever on people dropping off school children. It just can't
be. It can't happen.
And during the peak season, when that is the peak time you're
worried about, Waterside Shops is open till like eight o'clock. So
we're not contributing our employees to, you know, the rush home in
the evening at 5 o'clock.
And with that, I just would include by saying, these changes are
classified as a minor or nonsubstantial deviation. Your staff has
recommended approval. We're consistent with everything. The
Planning Commission recommended approval, and we request your
help.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Keesey.
And now we will call a 10- minute break. Thank you.
Page 58
September 21,2004
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Our
commissioners are streaming on up here.
MR. KEESEY: My presentation was over, but I did want to give
anyone the opportunity to ask any questions they might have, if you
have any, and I did want to reserve --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right now we -- yeah.
MR. KEESEY: -- a little time to respond to some of the
comments that might be made by the public.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What I'm going to do -- because we have
nine speakers or --
MS. McPHERSON: Madam Chairman, there are two extra
speakers that came in late. I don't know if these two people were
sworn and if you want to accept them or not. They came in as we
were on break.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We'll swear them in, yes.
And so what we're going to do, Larry, is, I'm going to ask all the
commissioners to hold their questions.
MR. KEESEY: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- until all the presentations are finished
and until the speakers have presented, and we'll give each speaker --
my policy is, 10 and over, three minutes per speaker. Okay. So that's
where we'll be.
And so now we will go on for staff report.
MR. BELLOWS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Ray Bellows with the Department of Zoning, Land
Development Review.
Mr. Keesey has done an outstanding job of presenting the project
and the proposed amendment. I'd just like to add a few things to the
Page 59
September 21, 2004
record, one is that staff did a compatibility analysis, and I've put on
the visualizer the site plan, conceptual plan for Waterside shops.
You can see the proposed addition to the old Jacobson's building.
Right there (indicating). There will also be the addition to the Saks
Fifth Avenue and the parking structures.
The comprehensive planning department reviewed this project
and found it consistent with the future land use element. The
transportation department reviewed this project and found it consistent
with the transportation element.
The -- Mr. Keesey did mention that there were some concerns
about traffic resulting from the reallocation of square footage to the
south commercial area. Even though it doesn't affect the
transportation element, the project would still be found consistent.
The additional traffic solely entering and exiting the Waterside
Shops would impact the south roads, Pine Ridge Road, and, therefore,
staff had recommended the turn lane from on U. S. 41.
Concerns were also raised by the city. The county staff worked
with the staff along with the petitioner, and they came up with the
agreement that Mr. Keesey discussed about participating with
traffic-calming studies.
The -- I have transportation department here to talk about the
proposed second turn lane off of Seagate Drive, and I'd turn it over to
Don right now.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. I would
probably word it a little bit differently in the sense that, yes, there's a
reduction in traffic overall in the entire project by one percent, but you
are impacting one area more than you were before.
Of course, adding any development's going to add some trips to
the area, so what we tried to look at is some mitigation in that area.
The northbound left turn lane was quite an improvement from level of
service F to E for the intersection, about a 12 second delay reduction.
When the eastbound left turn lane was raised, we looked at thatp
Page 60
September 21, 2004
also. That's another five second delay reduction, which is -- any time
you can improve that intersection more than that -- it gives, even from
the City of Naples' aspect, that allows more vehicles to go through and
more people looking at it from an aspect of, okay, I don't need to get
on an alternative road. 1'11 go through the intersection. You can make
it operate better.
We did come up with a cost for both of them. If both of them are
done together, we save some costs. If they're not separate, it's
$330,000. And the one other thing that was raised by the Planning
Commission was participation by the applicant in the Scoot, which
we're trying to do through the whole corridor of Pine Ridge and the
intersections of Sea gate and West, u.s. 41 and Pine Ridge and--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Don, would you tell people what Scoot
means, please.
MR. SCOTT: Scoot is an interconnection system, essentially,
that -- you have a series of loops within the road, and it continually
changes the traffic timing based on the actual traffic leaving an
intersection before it even arrives at the next intersection. So it's
always changing. It's a, you know, an enter (sic) process to keep
changing to meet the demands of changing traffic over time, instead of
like a precanned certain number of timings for the intersection.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. SCOTT: And then also the Goodlette and Pine Ridge, we're
talking about three intersections from that. And we thought that was a
fairly good mitigation standpoint. They did meet with the city, and I
think they'll probably comment on what came out of that. But that's
where we stand from our aspect.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Do we have any other staff
members?
MR. BELLOWS: No other staff members. And the last thing I'd
like to put on the record, the Planning Commissioner recommended
approval by a 5-2 vote. That's all I have.
Page 61
September 21, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
Let's call the speakers, please.
MS. McPHERSON: The first speaker will be Doug Nelson, and
he'll be followed by S.C. Ritas.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would the second person please come up
so that we can keep them moving quickly, please.
MR. NELSON: Good morning. My name is Doug Nelson. I'm
certified county court mediator, former building, past president of the
Collier Building Industry Association, I'm a licensed real estate
salesman for over 21 years.
And for history, I drove my brother to work when he was
surveying some swamps that later became Pelican Bay, so I've
watched this development for well over 30 years.
I love Waterside. I'm going to deviate from my normal thing and
read because I've only got three minutes. I usually just stand up here
and talk.
I love Waterside. I go there mostly during the off season because
I can get a parking space. Since the PUD amendment signs went up,
I've talked to over 100 people about this petition. With few
exceptions, people's opinions are always the same. This proposed
expansion is bad planning.
Here's why I'm here today. Land use attorneys who question this
moving of density units from the north to the south within a built out
PUD won't go on record because the current case law on this
particular thing is somewhat vague. Most earn their living helping big
developers, not fighting them.
Planners, engineers, and the like, all seek the employment of
developers. Why would they speak out against WCI?
Many real estate professionals are waiting to see if our
government is planning growth, or are we just allowing growth?
And as I found from speaking, most people who have not sought
the true story simply don't know, don't understand what could happen
Page 62
-'''.--
September 21, 2004
if this expansion is allowed, and I'm speaking specifically to the
transfer of those density units from the north side of that center to the
south side of the -- from the north side of the PUD to the south side of
PUD.
Homeowner associations are in a panic. They're requesting
studies and assurance from the city and from the county simply
because they don't know what to do. I've spoken to numerous
homeowner associations. It's unanimous; every association I've ever
spoken to, they have a unanimous proclamation. They're against this
moving density.
Traffic calming won't solve bad planning. Bad planning is when
government allows growth that shouldn't be allowed.
City government is asking politely but hesitant to push for fear of
yet another lawsuit with the county. The city doesn't have the
authority to request denial for this petition, so they ask for traffic
assurances, which is really their best option.
I want to make a quick note to note that the 160,000 square feet
of units, square footage that we're generating from the north to the
south is on paper. It's not built. There's a very small likelihood it will
ever be built. So when you do a traffic study and you say, 160,000
square feet is going to generate so much traffic, that's true. But it isn't
generating that traffic now because it doesn't exist. It's highly likely
that it will never exist.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank, sir.
Next speaker?
MS. McPHERSON: The next speaker is S.C. Ritas, followed by
Gary Lind.
MS. RITAS: Hello. I'm Susan Cockans Ritas. I am one of the
residents in the area south of the Waterside Shops.
Like Doug Nelson, I love Waterside. I've shopped there
numerous times over the years. But as a resident, I have looked over
very carefully the county staff reports. The initial one when the -- it
Page 63
",,~_~_W^··
_.-.-_....
September 21,2004
was a request for 170,000 square feet change, and the current one,
which is a reduction to 120,000 square foot swap.
I've read those carefully, and I have a couple serious concerns
about the county staff report. The first has to do with the
characterization of the area south of Waterside Shops. It's
characterized in your report as commercial. I beg to differ. There's
residential areas south of that, there is Seagate Elementary School, and
there is St. Williams Church, which by the way, generates about 8,000
cars on a Sunday when Waterside, I'm sure, will be open. It is not a
commercial area. It is a residential area.
Secondly, the county staff report looks at the impact within the
PUD. Yes, you're going to reduce traffic within the PUD, but we're
not reducing traffic outside the PUD. And the intersection at U. S. 41
and Pine Ridge is already difficult. It's going to become much more
difficult.
Has this county staff report looked at also the fact that just a mile
from the intersection of Pine Ridge and 41 there are yet to come
online commercial developments? I mean, it's kind of -- for those of
us who live and travel in the area on a regular basis, it's kind of hard to
imagine what Mr. Keesey said, which is that we're not going to have
any traffic impact.
And by the way, some of the statistics that have been floating
around come from the report itself, which talks about the trip
attraction initially of 5,200 cars a day with the expanded Waterside.
Now, that will be reduced to something like 4,000 cars a day.
We need two new large parking structures in Waterside. Clearly,
we're going to be dealing with traffic.
But traffic is not simply the issue. The other issue is, we have
commercial density that's at its maximum now. Is it fair to switch
that? Is it fair to other commercial property owners who have not
developed their property yet, whether it be in the north Pelican Bay or
whether it be in Goodlette -- at Goodlette- Frank and Pine Ridge, or
Page 64
~-'"-'""'-"^~
September 21, 2004
whether it be a little further in that vicinity?
It seems to me that if we're going to allow this kind of density
switch, it should only be allowed once the commercial developments
within the area get developed. Right now maybe we can handle,
maybe we can handle, some of that increased traffic that will come. A
year from now, two years from now, no.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
MS. McPHERSON: The next speaker Gary Lind, followed by
Art Ritas.
MR. LIND: Good morning. My name is Gary Lind, and I reside
at my home at 4851 West Boulevard since 1986. I come here today as
a concerned citizen and not as a paid lobbyist, representing an
out-of-state absentee landlord.
This is the first time in 18 years that I've attended a county
commission meeting, and it's certainly the first time I've spoken before
this county commission board.
I have spent countless hours in this very room though as a
member of the Collier County Housing Finance Authority, and I've
served on that board for 10 years and am currently chairman of the
Collier County Housing Finance Authority. So I am a concerned
citizen, and I care very much about my county.
I've sent you-all an e-mail that you received yesterday. I won't
go over that in any more detail now.
But I would like to read a letter from Gary Hicks, who is the
president of the Park Shore Association. Gary cannot be here today.
It's the time of year when a lot of people aren't here. But his letter is:
Dear Commissioners, the board and directors of Park Shore
Association wishes to express our concerns with the proposed
expansion of the Waterside Shops in terms of traffic safety on West
Boulevard. Specifically we are concerned with the increased traffic
flow on West Boulevard in a southerly direction and request the
following:
Page 65
September 21, 2004
One, traffic-calming be put into effect on West Boulevard; two, a
traffic study involving Neapolitan Way, Crayton Road, since the
southbound increased traffic will cause safety issues at this corner.
There's also a pedestrian safety problem due to lack of sidewalks on
Neapolitan.
Thank you for hearing our concerns.
Sincerely, Gary Hicks, president of the Park Shore Association.
A couple things I want to address that Attorney Keesey
mentioned. He said that there would be just minimal impact on traffic
on West Boulevard and Crayton at peak hour. Normally when
interests are promoting commercial space, they talk about peak hour.
They don't talk about the 24- hour effect.
Conversely, when office developers want office space, they talk
about the 24-hour traffic, not the peak hour. So traffic studies can be
very well slanted to the position that the petitioner is requesting.
What are some of the solutions? The traffic-calming devices --
we on West Boulevard and the city are not responsible for the
increased traffic on West Boulevard. It's the Pelican Bay. And if
Pelican Bay wants this development, if WCI wants this development,
then put a cul-de-sac at the southbound entrance of West Boulevard
onto Seagate, much like Crayton Road has a cul-de-sac in it in Pelican
Bay. This prevented a lot of cut-through traffic, and that's what we
have. Traffic takes the path of least resistance, and everyone knows
that.
If they can't get onto 41, they'll come down West Boulevard,
they'll come down Seagate -- they'll come down Crayton Road. And
I've seen the traffic on my house go from 1,000 cars a day to 6,000
cars a day, and the Plummers said, on West Boulevard, there will be
over 9,000 cars a day. That statement was made at the Planning
Commission meeting, and also a statement by Attorney Weaver at the
planning association meeting said, the average residents in Pelican
Bay is four. I looked at the 2000 census data, and the average
Page 66
September 21, 2004
household size in Pelican Bay is 1.8. If you look at the families, it's
2.1 units, not the four units that Attorney Weaver mentioned.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Lind.
MS. McPHERSON: The next speaker is Art Ritas, followed by
Richard Amato.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Trisha, would you let me know when the
people who haven't been sworn in get up so we can swear them in?
MS. McPHERSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. RITAS: Thank you very much, Commissioners. I'm Art
Ritas. I live at 740 High Pines Drive, and that's about three blocks
from Waterside Shops.
I'm a retired educator from Michigan. I've been retired here five
years. I'm a walker and a biker. And I don't have any number of
studies or any sort of official view of the traffic. I have anecdotal
evidence. I view the traffic every day.
I'm here year-round. And what my biggest concern is does have
to do with the safety and security of the children at Seagate School.
And I've been a volunteer there helping with their nature areas. And
what I see is a large number of children crossing West Boulevard or
crossing Seagate to get to school. I see a school grounds that's, at
times, over utilized and lots and lots of traffic on West Boulevard.
I just want to report that I see a lot of near misses. And I think
we may be at a tipping point or a balance point. And it may be a small
increase -- I don't think it will be a reduction. It may be a small
increase, but that small increase could jeopardize the safety and
security of some of these students.
I'm sure you also know that there's a city park adjacent to the
school. The city park has all kinds of after-school programs, very
active soccer and tennis programs. There are all kinds of kids coming
there during the hours when Waterside will be most active, and I'd like
Page 67
September 21, 2004
you to take that into consideration.
I think, in conclusion, what I would like to see is that that traffic
study in our neighborhood be done before the approval of this petition,
because I wouldn't want to see a problem created that can't be fixed.
And I think my neighbor spoke pretty eloquently to the dubious nature
of mitigating traffic once it's too strong.
Thank you very much.
MS. McPHERSON: The next speaker is Richard Amato,
followed by Vice Mayor of Naples, Tamela Wiseman.
MR. AMATO: Good morning. My name is Richard Amato. I
live off of West Boulevard.
I'm speaking today because I am opposed to the transfer of
development rights. I guess my -- I have a -- I'm a simple guy. Let
me ask a simple question, what road can better handle the traffic
generated by 120 or 160,000 square feet of retail space, Vanderbilt
Beach Boulevard or Pine Ridge Road?
Anybody who travels on Pine Ridge Road -- try traveling on Pine
Ridge Road west during the day, lunchtime, especially during the
season. It backs up all the way from 41 to Goodlette-Frank. There's
only one through lane, which is the lane that would serve the
Waterside Shops. How are you going to get all these extra cars to feed
in?
The gentleman talked about 41 being improved as if that's the
only way that people are going to get to the Waterside Shops. It's not.
Pine Ridge Road is in pretty sad shape right now. This is only going
to make it worse.
Thank you.
MS. McPHERSON: Next speaker is Tamela Wiseman, followed
by Mercedes Russo.
MS. WISEMAN: Good morning, Madam Chair,
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Welcome.
Page 68
~,~-~~--~-
September 21, 2004
MS. WISEMAN: For the record, my name is Tamela Wiseman.
I'm the Vice Mayor of the city of Naples, and I'm here officially
representing the city to you this morning.
I want to thank you for allowing me to address all of you today,
and to emphasize the fact, by being here in person, just how concerned
we are and how much we've heard from our residents that don't
necessarily oppose the expansion of the shops but are concerned about
their quality of life and the impact on the roadways.
Let me be clear, however, that the city council has not taken a
stance. It is not disapproving this today. What it did formally address
were those concerns that we've heard, and to emphasize, again, to you
that we are concerned about the impact on our city residents and our
city streets, and we want to do what we can in connection with these
petitions to mitigate that impact.
We recently received a report from our city staff that analyzed
your staffs report on the traffic impact and the petitioner's analysis,
and our staff -- and you'll hear from Dan Mercer, our director of
public works in a minute -- felt that the impacts to the south, to the
city, were not fully addressed in those reports.
So council at its last regularly scheduled meeting discussed those
concerns and determined to authorize me to meet with the petitioner,
the Forbes group, we also met with representatives ofWCI, and to ask
for their cooperation and their assistance in funding a traffic analysis
for us.
Staff determined that cost would not exceed $8,500. And before
we really ever sat down to the table, the petitioner had agreed to fund
that amount.
In addition, we received a letter that you all received copies of
the September 13th letter that Mr. Keesey referred to in which he set
forth certain assurances and representations -- actually it was singed
by Mr. Forbes directly, I believe -- in which he agreed and confirmed
the $8,500 assistance to the City of Naples in performing the traffic
Page 69
.... ---~_.~,,<.,
September 21, 2004
analysis and street classification, as well as -- and I want to get this
right -- they committed to have further discussions with us and to
contribute to such measures proportionate to the impact that the
expansion has on those streets.
Until the traffic analysis is complete, we will not know what
traffic-calming measures are needed there. So it is not our desire or
intent today to attach -- or request a condition to the petition that they
fund a particular amount with regard to the traffic-calming, only that
you make a part of the record the letter that we received and the
commitments that they have made to the City of Naples.
And in conclusion at this point, the city's concerns, as we
expressed formally at our last meeting, have been addressed and, we
appreciate the petitioner's cooperation with us today and look forward
to a continued dialogue with the petitioner as well as Collier County.
And I thank you. And if you have any questions for me, I'd be
happy to address them.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. McPHERSON: The next speaker is Mercedes Russo,
followed by Dan Mercer.
MS. RUSSO: I'm Mercedes Russo. I've been a realtor in Naples
for the past 25 years. I live -- my family and I own two properties
right across from the Seagate School. One is a four-unit that we rent
out, and the other one is our home.
We are opposed to this proposal because of the traffic it's going
to create at West Boulevard and the immediate area.
We have a Catholic school. We have Seagate School. We have
a pre-school right across from my home. There's a county park. And
there's a lot of traffic already on West Boulevard.
We really request to you to consider this very carefully before
making a decision.
Thank you.
Page 70
September 21, 2004
MS. McPHERSON: The next speaker is Dan Mercer, followed
by Kyle Kinney.
MR. MERCER: And I was sworn in. I was here a little late, but
I'll do it again if you want.
For the record, Dan Mercer, director of public works, City of
Naples. Thank you for the opportunity.
I'm not going to repeat anything you've heard already. Ms.
Wiseman addressed our issues excellent.
I do want to bring up just three quick elements that Mr. Keesey
mentioned, only to support our request to do additional traffic studies.
First is he mentioned that they did a -- two studies, actually, to
look at the traffic. I agree with that; however, if you go back and look
at their studies, their studies focused on arterial roads. It focused on
41, it focused on Seagate, and it really did not enter into the neighbors
from what we can tell at our staff level.
Our traffic engineers looked at it and says it's just missing the
mark. It's not a global report. It's just a little nucleus there addressing
just around the Waterside Shops. We need a piece of mind that the
traffic is not going to address (sic) that issue.
The second part he mentioned, it really does not affect the level
of service. And again, he was referring to -- in my position, I think
he's referring to the arterial study again. The side streets, he
mentioned, it wouldn't affect the level of services there, I think.
But the level of service on the north end of those two streets will
__ we don't see those additional numbers -- if they're accurate, we do
not see those affecting the level of service of those two streets;
however, when you go further south towards Neapolitan and Park
Shore, you add those numbers, which we haven't seen, into it, it does
exceed the level of service on those sections of the road.
So we have concerns about that. We just need to make sure the
whole picture is addressed, not just the one part. And the study may
prove that.
Page 71
-.-~--
-~"'-,......_~~--
September 21, 2004
The other issue I'll touch on real quick was the school issue. Mr.
Keesey addressed that very eloquently in talking about when they
open. Well, school does close also. And if you look at the peak
period that -- the school closes somewhere in the neighborhood, I
think, of 2:30 to 3 :00, the same traffic that's dropped off and the
pedestrian traffic of those kids in the morning is there at that same
time.
So if you look at peak hour -- and I think it is afternoon, is -- it
really doesn't get busy as he said, between 10 and 12. Well, in the
afternoon when school's released, it does get busy. So there is an
impact there, and we want to address all those issues in the study.
And again, I'll say that they've been very gracious to sit down
and talk to us about it on the 9th of September. We've got the letter
which you've got, and we appreciate their support in going a little
further to do a little more confirmation studies to give us that piece of
mind, give our citizens the quality of life they've been used to, to
make sure that's maintained.
And I agree with what Mr. Nelson mentioned. Another concern
is, you still have, I think it's about 140,000 square feet that's not built
there. Well, when that fills up and you plug in those magical numbers
plus the expansion, I just hope the study -- and we're going to try and
confirm that. I just hope the study has addressed all that to come --
that's approved traffic versus the additional expansion traffic.
With that, thank you very much for your time.
MS. McPHERSON: Next speaker is Kyle Kinney, and then the
last two speakers, Terry Lenick and Dick T opczyinski, came in after
the item started.
MR. KINNEY: Good morning, Madam Chair, Board of
Commissioners. My name is Kyle Kinney. I'm the president of the
Pelican Bay Foundation. Pelican Bay Foundation board of directors
represents over 14,000 residents of the Pelican Bay community, and in
addition to that, over 65 individual associations within the Pelican Bay
Page 72
September 21,2004
community .
I am here today to lend our support for the Waterside expansion
as outlined to you today. We have also met with the Forbes Company
and WCI, and we have found them to be extremely accommodating in
all of our requests and information as relates to the Waterside
expansion project. And at this time we ask for a favorable vote for the
Waterside expansion outlined for you today.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Win the two speakers about to speak
please rise and we'll swear you in.
MS. McPHERSON: Terry Lenick and Dick Topczyinski.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. LENICK: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Terry Lenick. I have a -- if I could pass around -- it's just a brief
summary of what I'm going to be presenting today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Lenick, you only have three minutes
though, so --
MR. LENICK: I don't expect you to read that. You can read it
afterwards. But let me tell you who I represent.
I am a land use attorney, and I do represent somebody who's
against Waterside. I represent Mr. Musco, one of the various property
owners to the north from whence the intensity of use at his property is
being down zoned.
There was an analysis that was presented to the county attorney's
office by both sides. Your regulations, zoning code, require that an
applicant has to be an owner or an agent of the owner. An applicant
has to be somebody who is either -- represented and is shown on the
application itself.
All of the properties to the north from whence the intensity or
down zoning of the property is occurring, none of them are on the
application, none of them were asked for consent.
South Florida Water -- Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Page 73
September 21, 2004
Council since this time is requiring on every single new case on that,
that property zoning be done.
N ow why is this important? Number one, my client doesn't want
his property down zoned. Yes, there's a deed restriction on his
property on certain intensity of use, but once the -- once it builds out,
the association will control that deed restriction, and that deed
restriction they can increase or decrease, depending upon how the
association is. That's a private matter.
What you're having is you're having a non-property owner come
before you and asking to rezone or down zone somebody's property.
Number one, it's taking away procedural due process rights, but
most importantly -- and I've got one minute. I'm going to do this real
quick -- it affects that traffic.
Mr. Mercer is the man -- you had some eloquent speakers here,
but Mr. Mercer's the man to listen to. Got 48 seconds left, I'll give
you three things I think you should do.
Number one, take my client's property out because it violates
your code. Number two, when you do that, then Waterside has to
stand on its own. This idea, which is -- up in the mid east we call it
bovine substance, and you can understand what the initials are. When
you have this box and square, the traffic is all out of that box, whether
it comes up the north or the south. That's how they get the idea that it's
only 100 cars here, 100 cars there. It's actually -- it doesn't fly if
Waterside has to stand on its own.
Two, listen to Mr. Mercer. He's right. Arterial roads were the
only thing that were analyzed. Waterside has to stand on its own and
you have to do a true traffic study, both local, collector, and arterial,
you'll find out.
And number three, U.S. 41 is a state road. Naples applies a
12-month traffic analysis to it. You should do it, too. Your 10-month
analysis with regard to peak, et cetera, is only good for county roads,
not a state highway.
Page 74
September 21, 2004
You do those three things, especially take my client's property
out, send it back, you're going to find out what's exactly going on.
This rezoning is premature.
MS. McPHERSON: Your final speaker is Dick Topczyinski.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sir, did you stand and swear in? Sir?
Were you sworn in?
MR. TOPCZYINSKI: I've filled out the paper. Not officially, I
guess.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He'll need to be sworn in.
MR. TOPCZYINSKI: Well, okay. My concerns have been--
(The speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And state your name, please.
MR. TOPCZYINSKI: My name is Dick Topczyinski, and I live
on Whispering Pine Lane, which straddles West Boulevard and
Crayton Road. And I can testify to all the traffic out there.
Most of my concerns have been addressed. The traffic on West
Boulevard, with the kids going to school, bus stops at just about every
corner, and in the morning and in the evening when they get -- the but
drops them off, there's a crowd of kids there. They run back and forth.
They don't watch the traffic. Something's going to happen there.
Just a reminder to the board, the International College which
wanted to put a campus on the corner of Crayton Road and Seagate
was turned down for much the same reasons. And -- the traffic and all
that. So if you consider, you know, the obj ections to Waterside, that's
the same as the International College request, which was turned down
by the commission.
And I'd like to second also the traffic between 41 and Seagate,
Pine Ridge Road, there's no studies. You need to go out there and
drive it and see what happens. Pine Ridge Road, I've seen backed up
for a mile trying to get through there. It's impossible to get through
there in rush hour. You know, you don't need a $300,000 (sic) survey
to -- just one trip during the rush hour would solve all your doubts that
Page 75
September 21, 2004
you have.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that all of the speakers?
MS. McPHERSON: That was your final speaker, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Then I will close the public
hearing.
And Commissioners, let's see. Would you -- would anybody like
to be first?
Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: First of all, is there any credence to
the one speaker saying that we have a problem here with the
application of this?
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney.
I have reviewed the documents pertaining to this PUD, and that
would be declarations of restrictive covenants in the chain of title of
the client that Mr. Lenick represents, and I find that the development
rights are vested in WCI, and only a certain amount of development
rights by virtue of the restrictive covenants were accorded to that north
property area and that deeds by which his client took title limit or
reference the declaration of restrictive covenants.
So it would be our opinion that we feel that they can go forward
because they have the development rights.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need to understand a little bit.
When I buy a piece of property that has certain rights on that piece of
property, I'm buying those rights, I don't build those rights, and then
somebody comes along and says, you're not going to have those
anymore and we're going to transfer it over here.
MS. STUDENT: A simple answer is, they didn't buy those
Page 76
September 21, 2004
rights.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: Because they're limited in the deed by the
restrictive covenants by which they took title from. There's an express
reference in their deed to those restrictive covenants. And perhaps
counsel for the petitioner could amplify that further.
But I've reviewed those documents, and so did Mr. Weigel, and
we are of the same opinion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
The next question, really concerned about traffic, and
understanding now that the shops have an hour of operation. Is that a
part of this application, is restrict the hours of operation?
MR. SCOTT: Not that I know of, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Yeah, I didn't see it
either, so that could change at any time, hours of operation.
MR. SCOTT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or hours of employees coming
and going.
MR. SCOTT: Right. As I referred to, you're talking about
morning. But the p.m. peak is higher. You know, the four to six time
frame is worse than the morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that is how we judge it is at
peak p.m.?
MR. SCOTT: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't view the traffic at
midday?
MR. SCOTT: There are numbers in there for a.m., but they're
not as bad as the p.m. peak, so that's right
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or mid-afternoon.
MR. SCOTT: Right, right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: While you're still there -- are you finished
Page 77
,,-."-.--'
September 21, 2004
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. And then after me,
Commissioner Halas again.
I just have a couple of questions about traffic also. How many
parking spaces, first of all, was that garage, each garage; 380, did you
say, for each garage?
MR. KEESEY: Total.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Total?
MR. SCOTT: Total of 380.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We were talking about some of
the figures that traffic was generated, it said -- but this is a generator
of traffic. Is it? Isn't it a receiver of traffic?
MR. SCOTT: Well, it's an attraction, so, I mean, that essentially
generates traffic. You know, the -- you have a reduction for the whole
piece that we're talking about because you're talking about something
that could be built. Obviously building something is going to attract
traffic, building more than is there right now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA; Well, you know, my problem is, they're
telling us it's going to be a reduction in traffic, and yet they're building
a -- two parking garages to accommodate the reduction in traffic, and
they want to add stores to accommodate the reduction in traffic. I'm
sure that they are not trying to build all of this extra stuff in there to
reduce their --
MR. SCOTT: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- sales. It's just --
MR. SCOTT: That's why they're talking -- they're talking about
the whole parcel, what it's vested for previously . You can build 800
more units. When you compare that to what's going to be proposed by
this, it's a 1.3 percent decrease in traffic versus that. But it is going to
add more traffic than there is right now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. That only makes sense, right?
Page 78
September 21, 2004
MR. SCOTT: Right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's all for now. Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'd like to get back to the
parking garage. The parking area that is presently in the Waterside
Shops, what is the present accommodation for vehicles at those two
parking areas? No, I'm talking about parking -- how many vehicles
can you park on those two premises presently in those parking areas?
MR. KEESEY: The parking structures would be addressed
during the site development plan, so I don't have -- I don't know the
actual number there. We do exceed code. It's my understanding the
code requires approximately -- or exactly four parking spaces for
every 1,000 feet of commercial use. We have presently -- it's 4.5
parking spaces for every 1,000.
So we exceed code now, and the parking structures -- there's two
of them, one with 130, one with 250. Those are our numbers that
could change at the time of site development plan review depending
on how much we first propose in the first phase. The first structure
might be larger than the second or a little bit smaller.
It doesn't -- but the plan now calls for 380, and it's going to be
whatever code requires. We always exceed code at Waterside Shops,
whether it's landscaping or anything else, so I'm sure we will continue
to exceed what the code requires.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So--
MR. KEESEY: But I don't know the number of spaces there
today. I can't -- I just don't know.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But what you're saying is that
you're not going to have any larger increase in parking than the 380
that you're requesting, is that correct, on top of what you presently
have? In other words, you have parking there--
MR. KEESEY: That's our current intent. If the code changed,
we would meet code.
Page 79
--
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. KEESEY: Our 380--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Whatever this magic number is that
you have today for parking --
MR. KEESEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- with the two parking garages,
whatever that magic number is today, you're only going to increase
parking by 380 spots; is that correct?
MR. KEESEY: It's our intent to exceed the code, and that would
exceed the code. So yes, right now, 380 is on the plan.
But again, this is a zoning change. We're not addressing the
specifics of how many parking spaces will be in each of those parking
structures. We show it on the plan because we would have to expand
the parking if we did expand, so we are showing it, and it shows a max
right now of 380. It could be more if the code is increased. But we
will exceed code. We will have more than the minimum
requirements.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can staff help me out on this,
please?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The land
development code has a provision that prohibits a developer from
adding more parking spaces than is required for the square footage.
And if they do, they'd have to provide additional landscaping and
buffering. They don't have the room to exceed the amount of parking
spaces required based on the square footage they have now or are
proposIng.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That is more clear. Okay.
The other question I have is in regards to the traffic impact.
When I sat down with the representative of this, Mr. Keesey, I talked
at some length in regards to adding an additional left-hand turn on
eastbound Crayton that would enter onto northbound U. S. 41.
How is this going to help as far as alleviating the traffic? And
Page 80
--.-.--
September 21, 2004
I'm very concerned about the traffic concerns on West and Crayton,
and will this hopefully relieve any of that kind of pressure being put
on those areas, those two streets in the City of Naples?
MR. SCOTT: Well, the reduction in intersection delay is five
seconds by adding that left turn lane, and that's about a 10 percent
improvement at the intersection.
Will that affect traffic? I mean, you're talking about traffic that's
essentially heading north. It probably has more impact to people
going through Pelican Bay than, say, further to the south. That's why
the city has raised some concerns of looking closer at the two streets
to the south.
The issue of how much that traffic is, I mean, we're talking about,
I think it was 25 peak hour for west and 10 peak hour for Crayton. It
is increased traffic on those two roadways. That's not substantial. But
if you have a speeding problem, it's one of the things, it's something
they want to have addressed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what I was -- what I was
looking for is the fact that if we have two stacking lanes, two left-hand
stacking lanes on Seagate, would this lessen the possibility of the
opportunity of people looking for another way out of that intersection?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's where I'm going with this.
MR. SCOTT: Any time you can improve the major road, then it
helps alleviate people getting off to the minor roads.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other question I have
is, with the addition of what the Planning Commission proposed, and
that was an additional left-hand turn lane off of northbound U.S. 41,
with the combination of these two adjustments in that intersection,
how will that affect traffic at that area?
MR. SCOTT: The intersection level of services goes from an F
to an E, it's very close to D, and you're talking about upwards of about
1 7 seconds of delay, reduction in delay at that intersection.
Page 81
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Now--
MR. SCOTT: And you have some other -- and I should add that
you have some other improvements in the sense that -- I'm talking
about strict delay, but also if you have, say, the northbound left turn
lane has more vehicles in it now, if it backed up in the through lane,
that can affect your traffic more. You're adding more storage, so those
occurrences don't happen.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. What benefit would we
have with the addition of Scoot into this intersection?
MR. SCOTT: It's -- and I know from a global aspect of doing it,
it's about 10 percent increase in capacity on a corridor.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that's why your analysis is that
the impact of traffic at this particular intersection, with the added
improvements there, should accommodate additional traffic in the
future and right now that level of service will go up; is that correct?
MR. SCOTT: That's correct, at the intersection, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, I know that Pine Ridge is a
heavily used east/west road. With the advent of the new interchange
coming in at Golden Gate Parkway, how will this affect the impact of
traffic on Pine Ridge?
MR. SCOTT: That helps. Of course, we've six-Ianed out, Scoot
will help another, say, 10 percent capacity. But, yes, the interchange
at 1-75 and Golden Gate Parkway will change some of the patterns and
should lower the traffic on Pine Ridge Road.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Then with the addition of
the completion of Goodlette- Frank as a southbound corridor, south of
Pine Ridge to Golden Gate Parkway, do you also feel that it will
lighten the load at that particular intersection?
MR. SCOTT: Well, even beyond that, Livingston has -- even the
sections of Livingston -- and we don't have it all opened up to
Immokalee. That will be later on this fall. But even some of that has
shown, not -- there's been some increase in 41, but a lot less
Page 82
_~."_.-"."..,....,....,_,_______^"<_.<._,. m___
September 21, 2004
percentage than other roadways, and it has had an effect on 41 and
Airport, and it's showing an effect across the system, too.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How are we going to alleviate the
traffic on West and Crayton, or do you think that is going to be not as
great an impact as was presented here this morning?
MR. SCOTT: Well, that's why we're looking at improvements at
the intersection of Sea gate and 41 that -- there is going to be additional
traffic, because you're going to attract people from the south from the
people that live in that area going to the Waterside Shops, too.
I believe that if they go through and do a study and look at some
of the -- trying to at least mitigate within -- if that's what they want to
do is traffic-calming, that would help. Beyond that, there will be more
traffic on it. I don't think it will be substantial, but that's what they're
trying to mitigate for.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, if you will indulge
me for a few minutes, I have a number of questions I need to ask
relevant to two issues that I think are key to making this decision.
And the first one is a legal question. I'll direct it to our legal
staff. In your opinion, does WCI have a legal vested right to the
density they're asking to transfer?
MS. STUDENT: They have -- they're a DRI, and they have a
legal right to that intensity --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: -- where it's, you know, presently located.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, if this density were to
be tran -- the 121,000 square feet were to be transferred from the north
to the south, is there an assurance that that is the only density that
would be transferred from the north to the south, and is there a
likelihood that additional petitions would seek further increases of that
density in the south?
Page 83
September 21, 2004
MS. STUDENT: I can answer the first part of the question. In
my review of the PUD document and the DRI development order,
those numbers are specifically set forth in there, in the documents. So
any further change would require another amendment.
As to the likelihood of that happening, I think that probably rests
with the petitioner as to what their forecasts and so forth are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, my second question
goes to the wisdom of transferring the density from the north to the
south and the concern there is the impact upon the community. Now,
it's my belief that we -- this is a quasijudicial hearing and we have to
make these decisions based upon law and fact.
MS. STUDENT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not opinion, not anecdotes, but law
and fact. And that goes directly to the accuracy and completeness of
the traffic study. If the traffic study is not accurate and complete, then
I have questions about whether we have adequately addressed the
potential impact on the communities.
So I need to go through a series of questions, and 1'd like for you
to answer those for me, to determine whether in my opinion the traffic
studies have been conducted accurately and completely.
With respect to all of the approved and vested density, has the
traffic impact already been taken into account in our concurrency
monitoring process?
MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir. It's a vested -- vested development that
we had included in our concurrency.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're already assuming that all
of that has already been developed and that the traffic is on the roads
as a result of it, and we have essentially reserved infrastructure for that
purpose; is that a correct statement?
MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And that would apply also
to the residential units that are not yet -- yet developed?
Page 84
September 21, 2004
MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the logic of subtracting
residential units that have not yet been built is correct because you
included them in the original calculations of traffic?
MR. SCOTT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And your calculations of traffic
include a fairly broad area, not just within the planned unit
development?
MR. SCOTT: That's correct. It's the whole system essentially
and what vested traffic's on top of it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you have looked well
beyond just the confines of this planned unit development to
determine what the impact of traffic will be?
MR. SCOTT: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, I am concerned about the
impact south of Seagate on West Boulevard and on Crayton Road.
Now, we've said we think there will be some increases, but we don't
think they will be significant.
What data have we collected to demonstrate that position?
MR. SCOTT: Essentially from their development distributing
the traffic throughout the system. That's where the trips come that say
25 peak hour and 10 peak hour.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, on a daily basis, what are we
talking about?
MR. SCOTT: We're talking about -- usually it's about 10 percent
the peak hours. So you're talking about 250 or 100 trips more
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 250 or --
MR. SCOTT: More on West 100 on Crayton.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now where do your -- what does
this traffic study indicate is the destination for those people on those
roads?
MR. SCOTT: It's the residential areas to the south.
Page 85
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So in your opinion, the
additional traffic that would be generated going to this new
commercial or retail facility is largely generated by the residents who
live in that area?
MR. SCOTT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Is there any indication--
and I've driven Crayton Road, and I know that there's a lot of traffic
there. Is there any indication that there is any cut-through traffic,
people who are trying to avoid congestion on 41 taking those routes?
MR. SCOTT: It's harder to model from that aspect of it. I'm sure
there's -- as you look at it, there would probably be a few that would
go that way. Obviously, if you came out and it was congested, you
might go straight versus taking a left, and then cut down another
street, so that can happen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Have we looked at any
traffic-calming mechanisms that would tend to reduce that possibility?
MR. SCOTT: I think that's directly at what they're trying to get
to. I mean, you can have it as little as signage and as aggressive as,
say, speed humps (sic) to try to dissuade people, if they go down it
once, they don't want to go down it again. I don't know exactly what
will come out of their study, but --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to the schools and the
churches -- and the church, what can be done to mitigate potential
impact there?
I think one of the speakers made that point very clear. Certainly
there's not a problem early in the morning when the school children
are dropped off, but there has to be some potential for a problem in the
afternoon.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah. And there's more traffic in the afternoon,
so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And how are we going to
deal with that?
Page 86
September 21, 2004
MR. SCOTT: Well, we're, you know, looking at it from the
aspect of trying to make as many improvements to make it move
better. Beyond that, I don't know if there's particular things that we
could work with the schools, from a -- bus stop, I know, was raised.
Maybe some pedestrian features that haven't been mentioned.
Especially safe crossing, things like that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Have we evaluated any additional
turn lanes from the PUD onto Seagate?
MR. SCOTT: Not -- I don't believe there's any changes on the
site specifically.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did you -- does your analysis
indicate whether some might be appropriate to make sure traffic
moves more quickly in and out?
MR. SCOTT: We didn't identify any specifically, no.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I appreciate it. I think
you've answered all of my questions.
Madam Chair, my -- my conclusion is that it seems like the
traffic study has been conducted properly and completely, but I have
concerns that it hasn't adequately addressed the local streets, and I
think we need to do that, and I am somewhat in favor of a remark
made by one of the speakers that we ought to have the traffic study for
the community before approval of this effort, and it's something that
seems to me could be done very quickly.
But somehow we have to allay the safety concerns and quality of
life concerns of the residents in the area while at the same time
respecting the legal rights of the petitioner to do certain things.
So that's where I come down on this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have Commissioner Halas
waiting and Commissioner Coletta.
I just wanted to ask one question with all the questions you
asked, and you talked about the studies. Is this a study that represents
10 years from now for the traffic? I mean, being that, you know,
Page 87
September 21, 2004
traffic continues to grow, is that just this year or --
MR. SCOTT: Well, this one was based on essentially opening,
opening year 2006. I would assume they would look at the same
issues, look at opening year.
There was one other thing I wanted to add about the study,
because it's been reflected about the 12-month versus the 10-month.
This actually started about a year and a half ago before all that was in,
so it is actually based on your highest (sic) hour 12-month analysis.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm just very concerned as we plan for the
future, and that's something we've all been diligently doing, planning
for the future, that we have to take into consideration what will happen
in the future to these little side streets as Waterside grows. And, of
course, we're talking about an office building here, too, which will
house not only employees, but attract people to their place of business.
So I'm still having a lot of reservations.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, Commissioner, Fiala. And I
think that's why I asked these pertinent questions in regards to, as we
expand the road system around not only Pelican Bay but out east of
Pelican Bay, Pine Ridge, and, of course, Goodlette- Frank area.
But that's what I was trying to get, and I -- my concern is, what
kind of an impact are we going to have on Seagate for the school
children that are there?
When you looked at your traffic analysis, was it primarily that
you -- the bulk of the traffic during the peak p.m. hours, is that traffic
on Seagate or is it on Pine Ridge and U. S. 41 ?
MR. SCOTT: Bulk of the traffic accessing the Waterside Shops,
or are you just talking about traffic overall?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm talking about traffic overall and
also, since you brought it up, do we have a large contingency of
people in Collier County or in that general vicinity that will use
Waterside Shops at that point in time?
Page 88
September 21,2004
MR. SCOTT: Well, of course, most of the traffic's on Pine Ridge
and on u.s. 41. If you look at specifically like peak hour, a lot of the
access is coming in off of Seagate. I think one of the things is school
is probably a little bit earlier than the p.m. peak, but it's still more
traffic than, say, the a.m..
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And what do you -- what do
you -- what's your best guess as far as the amount of traffic that will be
added to the Seagate eastbound at a peak hour?
MR. SCOTT: I'm not going to -- I don't know it off the top of
my head.
MR. LUNG: Good morning, Commissioner. For the record, my
name is Steve Lung. I'm with David Plummer and Associates, and I'm
representing the petitioner in this -- for this project.
To answer your question, the estimated peak hour traffic on
Seagate is approximately 140 vehicles during the peak hour, that's
between 41 and the entrance to the Waterside Shops.
I'd like to make a comment here, and it's extending
Commissioner Coyle's point. And he made a very good point
regarding that the Waterside, it's a destination. It's not a generator
itself.
I'd like to ask you-all to consider that shopping trips generating
from residents, such as those located south of Seagate, there are a
certain amount of shopping trips that needs to be satisfied, whether it's
at the Waterside Shops or it's further north at the Vanderbilt Beach
Road intersection or even further north, Immokalee Road.
So many cases, if they have to make a shopping trip, and if you
live somewhere south of Seagate, you're going to travel north and
you're going to probably use the Seagate intersection or 41 and turn
left and go north.
In this case, whether the shift in the commercial is from the north
or to the south, the path to those shopping areas will still be
northbound on West Boulevard. It doesn't change that much unless
Page 89
-_._..~...,. .. ....-.----......
September 21,2004
they decided, well, we don't want to go shopping and we'll stay home.
That way you're not generating any more trips.
So I think that you have to look at not just -- this is a PUD for the
entire Pelican Bay, not just Waterside Shops, and I think you should
make that consideration as to, if they don't shop at Waterside Shops,
where would they go and how would they get there?
I think, to also address the issue of diverting traffic and
encouraging through traffic at West or on Crayton, if you're coming
from south Naples, south Collier County, you're traveling north on
U.S. 41. Well, it's very likely that you would divert off to the local
streets in terms of the Crayton or the Seagate to get to Waterside
Shops. It's not likely that diversion's going to take place. They're
going to maintain -- stay on 41.
And I also heard a gentleman comment about through traffic
going south on Crayton from Pelican Bay. I think you'll find that
would happen more with those additional residential units that would
use that as a shortcut to go south. It's unlikely that the Waterside
Shops is going to cause this traffic to go all the way to use local streets
and then come back into the arterial where they're going to either go
home or to end their trip elsewhere.
I think these are very good points that need to be considered that
if -- in many cases where you have a successful opportunity of the
Waterside Shops to participate and be proactive and make these
improvements at the intersection -- which we all heard that today, the
intersection of Seagate, Pine Ridge, and U. S. 41, you know, is
operating at very bad level of service, and this is a very good
opportunity to add these turn lanes and make the situation much better
for both Waterside Shops, Pelican Bay, and the general public. So--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have one last question. Would
you say that most of the north -- or the southbound traffic on U. S. 41
would probably enter into Pelican Bay through the Pelican Bay
Boulevard to get into Waterside Shops, or there's a couple of roads -- I
Page 90
September 21,2004
think there's Laurel --
MR. LUNG: Laurel Oaks.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Laurel Oaks.
MR. LUNG: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They would enter in that way --
MR. LUNG: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- So that wouldn't impact that
particular intersection --
MR. LUNG: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- southbound? Okay.
MR. LUNG: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we approve
this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 1'11 second it for discussion
purposes. I still would like to ask some question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Scott?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me --let me see if I can
understand this a little better. The concern with the roads to the west,
is that correct, over the traffic study not being completed to that
direction; is that correct?
MR. SCOTT: To the south, the two roads --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: South.
MR. SCOTT: -- to the south, Crayton and West.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But basically, those
particular areas, haven't they reached their density some time ago?
There isn't more people coming aboard there? It's a stable population?
The people that probably shop the Waterside Shops from that area are
the same ones that are going to come.
Now, whether this expansion's going to make it more of an
Page 91
September 21,2004
attractive thing, and I can't tell you that, but I do think that it's
probably a moot point. We're not going to have a tremendous amount
of growth in that area that's going to be coming from that direction.
N ow the other direction I'm concerned about. But I think we
adequately addressed this as far as the roads coming into it and the
improvements that are being made.
Now, we're talking about -- what was the name of that thing in
the road, the Scoot?
MR. SCOTT: Scoot, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The Scoot. Now, are we talking
for sure on that or it's a possibility?
MR. SCOTT: No. Actually we were looking at 14 intersections
along Pine Ridge Road as our first thing, so that's why we're talking
about participation from them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And is petitioner paying for
this?
MR. SCOTT: The three intersections is what we were talking
about, the Seagate, U. S. 41, and Pine Ridge --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They're paying for all the
improvements that have to be made, and this isn't in lieu of impact
fees?
MR. SCOTT: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is over and above?
MR. SCOTT: Right, correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My motion includes the Scoot at
that particular intersection, also the additional lane, eastbound lane off
of Seagate, and also the recommendation that the Planning
Commission -- as they reviewed this whole agenda item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you want to also include the city's --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the city's traffic study of the
additional $8,000, I believe, it was.
Page 92
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Eighty-five hundred.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Eighty-five hundred, to be included
in this motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hen --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll add that to my second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. PETTIT: Chairman Fiala, we actually have to have two
motions for this item. There are two hearings. First there's the
amendment of the DRI, and then there's the amendment of the PUD.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So this is the motion on the first,
8C.
MR. WEAVER: Madam Chairman?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. This--
MR. WEAVER: Excuse me. I apologize. I'm Ronald Weaver,
for the record, from WCI. And I apologize, but as a point of personal
privilege, the motion of the Planning Commission was for approval,
but the motion is not to repeat all of the conditions of the Planning
Commission, is that correct, for clarification?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's to make sure that the additional
left-hand turn lane off of U.S. 41 is still included, and that's part of the
agreement that I believe was hammered out with the Planning
Commission.
MR. WEAVER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So I just wanted to make
sure that that, along with the additional eastbound left turn lane on
Seagate at 41 and the Scoot system.
MR. WEAVER: Absolutely. All four of those are part of it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then the -- also the study, the
traffic study --
MR. WEAVER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and see how that's going to affect
impact on West and Crayton of those people.
Page 93
-".,.....--._~-,.
September 21, 2004
MR. WEAVER: Absolutely, all five of those are a part of it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right.
MR. WEAVER: All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Part of the Planning
Commission's recommendations was the residential density, removing
800 and some odd units. Is that a part of your motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I said what the -- basically -- I hope
I covered that, yes. If I didn't, well then that's added. I think that was
part of the Planning Commission's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Are we accepting all
of the Planning Commission's recommendations?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And adding the others you talked
about, right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. WEAVER: Eight hundred twenty-five units were
mysteriously, at the last minute, thrown out with the door with the
baby at the end of the Planning Commission, and we would
respectfully request that -- no one ever asked to change the 826 units
and hopefully they weren't confused with the 800 units that are being
foregone.
There's 1,625 units left. There was 800 units that are clearly off
the table by the stipulation and will next put traffic on the system.
And as you just heard from Mr. Lung, that's the traffic that you really
want to get off the system, for many reasons. He pointed to one of
them.
The other 825 units have never been before you, respectfully, and
legally, we never applied to change them, we never planned to lose
them, and we'd really hate to lose them. And we don't know that
anybody will ever do anything with them. You know the realities.
But we just can't just let 825 additional units suddenly go out with the
Page 94
,",.~-_._._,.,.,.....,-_.-
September 21, 2004
baby.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where did -- how come this was in
our agenda package?
MR. WEAVER: The Planning Commission did include an
825-unit question at the end, and we would respectfully request --
Mrs. Student?
MS. STUDENT: I believe that the -- part of the Planning
Commission motion is more or less moot about those numbered units
because they can accommodate -- the geometry will allow them to do
the turn lane, and that came up at the very end of the meeting out of
the blue. But we would have some concern about removing those
additional units because of the fact that it is a DRI and it's been
represented to us between these two meetings that certain
improvements were made on the part of the developer utilizing that
number of units as a basis, such as widening U.S. 41 and so forth, so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So are you saying the information
given in our packet is incorrect?
MS. STUDENT: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: That's what the Planning Commission motion
and vote was. But between this meeting and that meeting, we had
discussed this issue with petitioners, and they had advised that they, in
reliance on the number of units, they had done certain things to U.S.
41 and so forth. And also, I understand that that lane will be
accommodated so it will obviate the need to remove any units
anyway.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I amend my --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So how do you amend it? Would you say
the words?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hold on. Let me let that gentleman
speak.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm going to -- I'm going
Page 95
September 21,2004
to try to support the commissioner of the district and the neighboring
commISSIoner.
A concern -- my concern was, and the reason why I can support
it, is the traffic enhancement by recognizing the number of available
commercial density and the residential density.
By removing the density, residential density, what the Planning
Commission recommended, that's why I can support it, because even
though the traffic analysis by the petitioner stated that people will
generally shop at a new destination instead of going to their previous
destination, I know my wife and she just found another place to shop,
so it's an impact -- financial impact on me, but I will support the
commissioners of the district.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to clarify something.
This discussion about the 825 units gets a little confusing. There's 800
units that are being reduced -- 800 residential units that are being
reduced contingent upon this approval. The Planning Commission
merely said that if you didn't construct the other left turn lane
northbound off 41 onto Seagate, then you would give up the
remaining 825 units.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that was the Planning
Commission's recommendation. And to solve the confusion, I think it
might be better if I could ask the motion maker to restate the motion to
accept all of the Planning Commission's recommendations and
stipulations plus add the ones that Commissioner Halas would like to
add.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My motion is corrected on that
basis.
MR. BELLOWS: And I'd I just like to make a point of
clarification. The 825 additional was only if the second turn lanes
wasn't constructed, and that should be tabled and not made part of the
Page 96
September 21, 2004
motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what we just removed from
that motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, just for--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I support in the second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just for the sake of our records, what I'd
like you to do is state your motion again, please,
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we'll give it a good try.
What we're going to do in this motion is that we're going to go with
the recommendations of the Planning Commission, less the 825 units;
we're going to include the left-hand turn lane off of U.S. 41 onto
Seagate; we're also going to include in this an additional left-hand turn
lane off of eastbound Seagate onto U.S. 41; and that we also want to
have Scoot involved in this particular intersection.
MR. MUDD: Three intersections.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The three --
MR. MUDD: Seagate and West, U.S. 41 and Seagate/Pine
Ridge, and Pine Ridge and Goodlette- Frank.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. And we also want to
make sure that we put the eight hundred and -- $8,500 that's going to
be put in for a traffic study to address the issues that the people in
District IV have in regards to West and Crayton Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You did a great job. You made that very
clear.
And that's your second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I mean, you did include
the fact that the petitioner's paying for these road improvements?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, definitely. Oh, yes. I think
that they realize that this is --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm sure they do, but it's
good to have it in the motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Along with the impact fees.
Page 97
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and
a second.
Any further discussion?
All those --
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, this is -- this is item --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 8C.
MR. MUDD: -- the DR!.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. Thank you for clarifying that.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I just -- I just don't feel that -- I'll explain
my opposition. I just don't feel the study has gone far enough. I'm
worried about what's going to happen in 10 years down the road or 15
years down the road to those neighborhoods.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could explain my vote on this.
I believe our concurrency management system deals with that. I think
we've got a good concurrency management system now and it will
deal with the future.
The thing I am most concerned about -- and I keep coming back
to a remark made by one of the speakers. Why not do that
neighborhood study first so that people understand the impact and we
clarify all of this -- these misconceptions about what's going on, and
we find a safe solution for school children and for the church, and we
deal with those local roads? And I believe that could be done quickly.
But that's -- that's the reason.
It goes to the very heart of the completeness of the traffic study,
Page 98
September 21, 2004
which itself is one of the determining factors in the approval of this --
this petition. Because if we cannot honestly say that it will not have
an adverse impact on the community, than we can't really approve it.
And I need that study before I feel I can say that it won't have an
adverse impact.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I totally agree.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Just before we go, I want to make sure I've got a
vote clarification. I heard ayes and I heard nays.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning,
Commissioner Coletta, and Commissioner Halas voted for.
Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Fiala voted against.
MR. MUDD: County attorney, I believe that needs a
supermajority; is that correct?
MR. PETTIT: Not on 8C.
MR. MUDD: Okay. That brings us to item 8D, which is the
PUD.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, Michael, with this one, do we need
to close the public hearing again, or did we -- when we closed it, was
it for both?
MR. PETTIT: I believe that your intention, and it was clear, was
that it was closed for both.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And speakers for both.
MR. PETTIT: And speakers for both.
MR. KEESEY: Excuse me. With all due respect, on the second
item, I think it's -- we do need a supermajority according to the -- and
we'd like to just address your issue, and maybe we would ask for a
continuance if we can't resolve that.
We did meet with Ms. Wiseman and we agreed to the traffic
study and we agreed to fund it. The part that I think should, I hope,
take care of your concern is we're talking about the smaller streets that
are not part of your standard traffic analysis that your county staff
Page 99
September 21, 2004
requires, so all this is new to us. It isn't something we failed to do. It
was not asked.
But we have agreed to fund the study, and then beyond that,
we've agreed in the letter to pay our proportionate share, whatever that
is, that the study shows the city wants to implement, the city streets at
Issue.
So waiting will not resolve anything more. We are committed.
That is a given that we will commit to the city and pay our
proportionate share. It's in the letter now.
So I don't see what voting no at this point and waiting for the
study -- we've agreed, we'll do whatever the study says that the city
wants to implement in terms of traffic-calming. We're going to pay
our proportionate share for that. We shouldn't be asked to do more
than our fair share.
So I think your concern, if that is your concern, it is A, part of a
study we've never been asked to do before, and to deny us and send us
forever into the dark of the night, based on that, I don't think is quite
fair when nobody ever asked us to do this.
And when it did come up, we met with the city. We agreed not
only to fund the study totally, but we agreed to pay our proportionate
share of whatever the study shows is going to be done. So there's
nothing more we can give you later than we're giving you right now,
because later we would only be subject to our fair share, our
proportionate share of what our impacts are.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, if you're causing all of the impact,
what kind of a fair share or proportionate share would you be? I mean
MR. KEESEY: Ifwe were causing all of the impact, we would
pay all the cost. That's the bottom line. But we know from our study
that we only send 25 trips during the peak hour south on West. So we
know there's a lot more traffic there we don't pay -- we're not causing
100 percent of the impact. There's no way we could do that.
Page 100
September 21, 2004
So I just really ask you to think about that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I think that where I felt
comfortable with this whole scenario was when the vice mayor from
the City of Naples got up and said that we feel comfortable with
what's going to happen here.
And I would assume that before the shops even opened up, that
this traffic study would be done and you would address the concerns
and issues of the neighborhood in regards to that.
So that's where I'm coming from, because I'm sure that with the
letter that you wrote to the City of Naples, that's on the record, and so
that's why I feel strongly that you'll take care of this and address the
concerns that the citizens of Crayton and West Road have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I think there's a way to
get to where we need to be. I think the motion that we had before, if
we carried it forward and you add a little caveat that it would be
contingent upon a traffic study and the City of Naples working out any
conditions that have to be done. If major improvements have to be
made to some roads to be able to accommodate what's going to
happen -- all indications are that they won't.
But I'm not a traffic engineer; you're not a traffic engineer. We
need to leave that to the experts out there. But I think if we put
something like that in that, then we can hang it -- hang it right on to
the final little element that two seem to be uncomfortable with.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'm uncomfortable about the
projections for 10 years.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I'm really worried about that
intersection. It's already broken, and it's already at an F, and they're
going to try and improve it to a D. But that's right now, and I don't
know that's going to happen in--
Page 101
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. But you've got to
remember, too, if I may that. The -- that intersection's going to
receive major improvements because of this particular element going
in, moneys that are going to be a while from the county. So it either
gets improved now or it gets improved sometime in the future with our
own money. And you know what the competition is for those dollars
for roads. Just pointing that out to you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just ask my colleague,
Commissioner Coyle, does he feel his wishes to have the study to
address the citizens' concerns, or does he feel comfortable in -- the
study will address the citizens' concerns?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you want to continue it or --
MR. MUDD: You could put a caveat in just to help a little bit,
because I think we're -- you could have a requirement that this traffic
study and/or the rectification of whatever needs to be done for
traffic-calming or whatever, be agreed to, monetary dollars passed
between the City of Naples and the petitioner prior to the SDP
submittal. And the staff will know that's a requirement and won't
touch the SDP until those items show up.
MR. KEESEY: We would agree to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I respond?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's reasonable. And to
address Mr. Keesey's concern earlier, please understand, and I'm sure
you do, that you don't have a right to do this, otherwise you wouldn't
be here asking for our permission, our approval.
And in order for us to grant our approval, we must determine
certain things like capacity and impact on the surrounding community.
And I think you've done that with respect to all the major roads.
There is a safety concern, I believe, in that area, and there is an impact
Page 102
September 21, 2004
on the neighborhoods to the south, which I fear we have not
adequately addressed to the public's best interest, and even the city
council has not taken a position on this.
So all I'm asking is that we do that study as quickly as possible,
we determine what mitigating action is necessary, and we make the
public aware of it so they're fully informed, and hopefully their
concerns are allayed to some extent.
And so that is my concern. I merely want to make sure that we
have done a complete analysis of the traffic impacts on our
communities, and then I will live with whatever that complete analysis
indicates, because that's the law. And I would be willing to agree to
the compromise that the county manager has suggested.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. To my two fellow
commissioners, Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Fiala, that
was one of the main concerns that I had. And I sat down and really --
sat down and tried to figure out the best way to address the traffic
problems that we may have in the future, and that was one of the
reasons that I went to the petitioner and said, before I would even
think about even considering approving this, that we had to put the
additional left-hand turn lane on Seagate, just for that reason, for the
safety of the children.
And I also -- that's one of the reasons that I brought up, we know
that that intersection presently is broken, and we found that we can
probably help that intersection, not only now before -- or after the
Waterside Shops are open, but also with the advent of an additional
exit coming off of 1-75. That should take a tremendous load off of
that area, because we know that there's no other exit between Pine
Ridge, and then the next one is down there on 951.
So with the new interchange coming in, I think that alone is
going to help alleviate the impact on -- of that particular intersection.
And with the opening of Livingston Road and also the completion of
Page 103
September 21, 2004
the other southbound road, which is Goodlette- Frank, I think that
we've addressed our concerns.
The real big concern now is to make sure that we have the safety
of the children involved here, of the schools and of the churches.
But I would think -- I really believe in my heart that with the
advent of this additional left turn lane, that people will not be seeking
to go southbound to get out of that congested intersection since we
were able to open it up with additional left turn lanes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Commissioner Coyle, if
you would like to make the motion, word it in such a way you feel
comfortable that you've protected your constituents, it would be my
honor to second it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're on 8D?
MR. PETTIT: D.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: D.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I will make a motion to
approve accepting -- including the recommendations of the Collier
County Planning Commission with the additional stipulation that the
SDP will not be submitted until such time as the traffic study with the
City of Naples is conducted and appropriate agreement's reached
concerning mitigation of any traffic impacts.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, does that include -- and I want to
make sure the DRI motion and the PUD motion are close. Does that
include the two left-hand turns, the Scoot, and minus the 825 units?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't realize that was a
requirement for this particular item, but -- I thought the first -- the first
recommendation dealt with Scoot and intersection improvements and
the left turn lanes, that sort of thing. If it's necessary to repeat those in
this one to make it consistent, I'm perfectly happy to do that. It's just
. ,
It s not --
MR. PETTIT: I would recommend you repeat them, just to make
Page 104
September 21, 2004
it clear.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. This is going to be a long,
long motion, you understand that, don't you?
MR. PETTIT: I understand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. My motion -- my motion is
to approve contingent upon the Planning Commission
recommendations, the intersection improvements as specified in 8B --
or 8C for U.S. 41, the installation of the traffic control devices, Scoot,
and appropriate funding at three intersections that have already
previously been identified, and the completion of the traffic study with
the City of Naples, and the definition of the mitigation measures
necessary and their funding sources.
MR. MUDD: Prior to the SDP --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Prior to the SDP submittal.
MR. BELLOWS: Minus the 825 the Planning Commission --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Take out the 825, leave the
800 in, okay?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have a motion on the floor
that's been repeated, and we have a second by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I already seconded it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, you -- okay. I thought you
said --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I reserved it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right.
Do we have any -- any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Page 105
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
That's a 5-0, only because you made such a good motion and
you're protecting the people in that area could I agree with it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're trying.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
And with that, we will break for one hour for lunch.
(A luncheon recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Item #3
Right now we're going to go back to the beginning of the meeting
and we're going to give our presentations -- and followed by section 9
on our agenda. Okay?
So Commissioners, will you join me?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure, love to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, this is three service awards. The
first awardee will be a 20-year awardee, and that's Ms. Judy Bodine
from the county manager's office. Judy, if you'd come up.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for also being so friendly and
wonderful.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you for always keeping
Jim straight.
Page 106
September 21, 2004
MS. BODINE: That's ajob in itself.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next awardee is a 25-year awardee, and it's
Robert Lester from parks and recreation.
(Applause. )
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's really dedicated. Oh, thank you.
MR. LESTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations. Twenty-five
years, wow.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You must have started out here when you
were 12.
MR. MUDD: Hey, Bob, you want to get a picture here with the
commissioners, too?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
MR. MUDD: Congratulations.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Smile, Robert.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next -- the next awardee is a 30-year awardee,
and that's Curtis Anderson, Sr., from transportation road maintenance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is this my gift for presenting his awards?
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. It's his.
Is he not here, Norm?
MR. FEDER: He was here this morning. He had to leave.
MR. MUDD: Hey, we'll do it -- we'll reschedule it, okay,
because we don't get 30-year awardees very often, okay?
Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thirty years. Would you like me to open
that gift and see what's inside?
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am.
Item #9A
Page 107
September 21, 2004
RESOLUTION 2004-287 APPOINTING KAREN L. BEATTY TO
THE BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE LOCAL
Commissioner, that brings us -- and we're going to go into
paragraph 9, and then we'll go back to paragraph 8.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Agenda -- agenda item 9?
MR. MUDD: Agenda item 9, Board of County Commissioners.
And the first item is 9A. It's appointment of member to the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh.
I make a motion that we abide by the committee recommendation
and nominate Karen Beatty and readvertise the at-large position.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
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.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's unanimous.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2004-288 APPOINTING HEIDEMARIE KULPA TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
.ADO.nED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 9B, and it's
Page 108
September 21, 2004
appointment of members to the Collier County Coastal Advisory
Committee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we go the --
override the recommendation of the committee, and I'd like to appoint
Heidimarie Kulpa to that position.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's a 4-1, with Commissioner
Henning opposed.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2004-289 APPOINTING ROBERT W. SOTER,
SONYA L. TUTEN, CRISTINA PEREZ, AND RICHARD HEERS
TO THE IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY - A D.OEIED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9C. It's appointment of members to
the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make the
recommendations that we follow the committee's recommendation, for
Robert W. Sorter (sic), Private Industry Council, Sonya Tuit (sic),
business organizer -- owner, and Robert Heers, resident, and Kristin
(sic) Perez, representative of code development.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I just have a question about that. It says
that committee recommendation on the first page, but then on page 5
Page 109
September 21, 2004
and 10, it gives a different --
MS. FILSON: I can -- I can explain that, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MS. FILSON: Initially they wanted Mr. -- they wanted Mr.
Sorter -- Soter, and he withdrew because he thought it would be too
time-consuming, and --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So Essie Serrata then --
MS. FILSON: Then she applied, but just at lunchtime today I got
a withdrawal from her.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see. So then we're down to just three; is
that it?
MS. FILSON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So Robert Soter is not in the -- in
the line-up any longer?
MS. FILSON: Yes, he is. Ms. Serrata withdrew. I just received
that e-mail during this day at lunch.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So these four then are correct?
MS. FILSON: Those are correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. I'm sorry that I delayed that a
bit.
MS. FILSON: That's okay. This was after the fact, they'd
already made the recommendation of Soter, and then he withdrew.
And the state statute indicates that it has to be someone from the
Private Industry Council, so they called his boss, and, therefore, he
resubmitted.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see. Okay, fine.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 110
."._.~_.~..._'.,.,..-- -
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2004-290 APPOINTING MICHAEL BOYD TO THE
And we're on to number D.
MR. MUDD: It's number D, and it's appointment of member to
the Contractor's Licensing Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve Michael Boyd.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2004-291 RE-APPOINTING JOHN DOWD AND
APPROVING JUDITH NULAND REPRESENTING THE COLLIER
Page 111
'"".-""---...'-
September 21, 2004
MR. MUDD: Next item is appointment of members to the
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move that we approve John
Dowd.
MS. FILSON: And we also need to confirm--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second that and also confirm the
health department's --
MS. FILSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would that be put in your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve John
Dowd and approve Judith Nuland from the health department.
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.
Item #9G
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF SENDING A
COMMISSIONER TO ACCOMPANY THE ECONOMICAL
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (ED C) TO POLAND AS A COUNTY
AMBASSADOR IN SUPPORT OF THEIR EFFORT TO ENTICE
BUSINESS TO THE IMMOKALEE TRADE PORT AS PART OF
Page 112
September 21, 2004
MR. MUDD: F was -- F was withdrawn.
We go to item G. And--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Excuse me, sir. If I may, the
item on there that would follow 9G, that's an item that Sue Filson
needs to act on before she leaves today. If we could possibly hear
that, I would appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So in other words, 9F is withdrawn, and
the next one we're going to discuss is 9G; is that correct? Yes.
MR. MUDD: Is that what you said, Commissioner Coletta?
Is there another item, Sue, you --
MS. FILSON: No, that -- he--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's what he said.
MS. FILSON: Yes, 9G is what he wants to hear.
MR. MUDD: Yeah. It's a discussion regarding the possibility of
sending a commissioner to accompany the economical -- the
Economic Development Council, the EDC, to Poland as a county
ambassador in support of their effort to entice business to the
Immokalee Trade Port as part of the Economic Stimulus Program.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, Tammie Nemecek is
here, who's been the organizer of this particular trip. And I wonder if
we could -- if I could call her up with the chair's permission.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Certainly.
MS. McPHERSON: She's registered to speak.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Tammie, would you give the
commission here a brief summary of what this trip entails and who's
gOIng.
MS. NEMECEK: Yes, Commissioner.
Madam Chairman and commissioners, the Economic
Development Council -- Tammie Nemecek, executive director for the
Economic Development Council.
The Economic Development Council has been working several
Page 113
......----
September 21, 2004
months with representatives from Poland. It was as an out-growth of
the interest from SkyTruck to locate at the Florida Trade Port, which
has established an interesting relationship between Collier County and
Poland. Which if you told me a year ago we'd have a Memorandum
of Cooperation with the Polish government, I would tell you you were
crazy.
But it's a wonderful opportunity for us to extend to
representatives in Poland, businesses in Poland. The opportunities at
the Florida Trade Port.
This is what I call the second phase of our opportunity to grow
businesses at the Florida Trade Port, with this Memorandum of
Cooperation between Poland and Collier County as the first step, this
Polish delegation over to Poland, October 1 st through the 10th is the
second.
The third phase, that will have a delegation from Poland over
here and centered around the planning of the air show at the
Immokalee Airport, which has been changed to April now, but we're
hoping that that date stays solid and we'll have the Polish delegation
over here for that.
And what we're focusing on with this trade mission is an
opportunity for some educational exchange. We'll have a Florida Gulf
Coast University representative on the trade mission for international
trade development, opportunities to have products from the U. S.
exported through Poland, as well as businesses exporting products
from Poland through Florida Trade Port establishing businesses there,
as well as an opportunity to really have understand -- a clear
understanding from Polish companies of how they can establish
business sites here in -- in Collier County, specifically at the Florida
Trade Port, using our SkyTruck model as one of our success stories of
how it can be done.
We have about five to six companies that are representative on
this trade mission, as well as EDC Enterprise Florida, Representative
Page 114
September 21, 2004
Mike Davis from the State of Florida is also going on the trade
mission. I think it's important to have representatives from our local
county government on the trade mission as well in order to have that
exchange between the governments in Poland as well as the
governments here in Collier County.
So I'm looking forward -- I ran up the stairs to meet the 1 :30
time, so I'm out of breath. But I look forward to the opportunity. It's
just -- it's really, really important that we represent our community
well over there. They are very excited. It actually has prompted an
interest from the Krakow region to sign an addition Memorandum of
Cooperation with Collier County.
So again, we're looking for lots of opportunities to come from
this trade mission. And with the help of Enterprise Florida, U.S.
Department of Commerce, the Center for Strategic International
Studies up in Washington, D.C., everybody is really looking to this as
a model program for some success stories between Poland and the
United States.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, Tammie, I just wanted to say
that the first blush I'd heard of this was in the daily news, and they
were saying something about the SkyTruck president already lives
here. But I want to say on the record, that has nothing to do with
SkyTruck.
What it is is additional business that we're seeking and trying to
cultivate, and the way to do it is to go over there, meet those people.
I'm delighted to hear that so many other representatives are joining
you from the different fields around our community. And I, too, agree
that you need somebody from the county commission to go with you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I could point out, what
I'd be looking for -- the commissioner's travel budget, which expires
on October 1st when the new budget kicks in, has about $10,000 still
left in it. This was estimated to cost no more than $39,000 (sic) --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thirty-nine hundred?
Page 115
September 21,2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thirty-nine hundred, excuse me.
Thirty-nine thousand, we'd be gone forever. Thirty-nine hundred
dollars for me to be able to participate.
MS. NEMECEK: And that $3,900 is inclusive of all travel and
transportation, food, excluding breakfast. Breakfast everybody --
we're doing breakfast on our own. But it includes all the other
extraneous expenses as far as getting folks from -- because we're
starting out in Warsaw, traveling up to the -- to the Pomeranian region,
go down -- which is where our Memorandum of Cooperation is with,
and then traveling down to Krakow for the final leg of the trip of the
trade mission.
I shy away from calling it a trip because it's work. It's 10 full
days on of meeting with businesses, business representatives, business
organizations, and really looking to expand opportunities at the
Florida Trade Port. And what Poland is looking for too is a win-win
situation, so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a couple questions for you,
Tammie.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not sure if this is for
Tammie. Are we being asked to validate a valid public purpose for
this item?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know if she can answer
that.
MS. FILSON : Yeah. I believe Commissioner Coletta's
requesting any leftover funds from this year to roll over to next year to
cover his expense.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But that would be a valid public
purpose.
MS. FILSON: As a valid public purpose, correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- so we're asking
for the $10,000 to roll over or are we asking for $3,900 to roll over?
Page 116
September 21, 2004
MS. FILSON: Only enough to accommodate that plus his per
diem, which Tammie said included food but not breakfast. And if he
accesses computers while he's over there to get his e-mail, there will
be some charge for that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the breakfast for
Commissioner Coletta could cost us a fortune.
MS. FILSON: He's on a diet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We ought to put some limit on this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll bring my purple lunch box.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have some questions in
regards to -- I think you mentioned, Tammie, that Mike Davis was the
only person from the state that was going to be state representative.
I'm surprised that we didn't have any other state officials, maybe
like the lieutenant governor, to go on a trip of this nature.
And the other part of the question is, how many people with
technical backgrounds are going to be accompanying you? Because
from the itinerary, it looks to me as though this is a very high-tech
type of trip, the universities that you're going to and the technological
universities that you're going to be attending. I'd just like to have
some background in that, if you could.
MS. NEMECEK: Dr. Brad Hobbs from Florida Gulf Coast
University will be there, which will represent the university exchange.
We're also bringing with us -- unfortunately Ave Maria University is
going through their accreditation. They've got their accreditation folks
in, so President Heally had to defer on going on the trade mission.
In addition, the EDC's representation as far as connecting
technology types of companies, technology types of programs with
our local businesses, that's what we will be bringing back, what
opportunities are they seeking, what opportunities are there.
On the aviation side, Lance Maclean from SkyTruck will be with
us so we'll have -- we'll have that representation, plus we've got
Page 11 7
September 21, 2004
Katazyna Rypina, who is actually from Poland, who works for
Chastang, Ferrell here locally, will be able to answer questions as far
as setting up businesses here in the states and what tax implications
will be addressed. And we also have a representative from
Immokalee, Fred Thomas, who's also going to be traveling on the trip.
So I think, on the technical side of the house, between Florida
Gulf Coast University and myself, we'll be able to address those types
of technical questions with the university, and at least bring that
information back to our local business leaders so we can identify some
joint partnership opportunities.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you have any plans or do you
have any ideas in regards to what type of industry that you're going to
go after?
MS. NEMECEK: Most definitely. Aviation is one in particular.
There's also -- the aviation institute would like to develop some joint
training programs in the aviation field, manufacturing, biomedical.
We have Vitarich, Gerry David from Vitarich is going to be going
over with us. We have some meetings with some biomed companies
over there.
In addition to that, distribution companies. We're looking for
companies over in Poland that can site in Immokalee and distribute
throughout the Western Hemisphere, Canada, U.S., and Latin markets.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's get back to Commissioner
Coletta's breakfast.
Tammie, my experience with these kinds of missions is that
generally it is a lot better and more effective if the government
representatives who can commit things like grants and abatements on
taxes or impact fees and that sort of thing can interface with
companies that have already been identified and who have an actual
business plan or an interest in doing something, whereas an
exploratory mission such as this is best done by people who can go out
Page 118
~-'-
September 21, 2004
and just collect information.
And I don't think $3,900 is a lot of money under the
circumstances. I would certainly like to take any unused funds out of
my travel budget and allocate them for this purpose, and I don't intend
in any way to try to discriminate against or discourage Commissioner
Coletta from participating in this.
But if we are successful in attracting people, there will be a time
when it will be necessary to have government representatives meet
directly with those company heads, and I believe that we should use
government representatives whenever government representatives are
best to be used, rather than just use them on fact-finding trips.
And so basically that's my overall position here. And -- but I'm
not going to oppose. If Commissioner Coletta wants to go and
believes that it can serve a useful purpose, then I certainly am not
going to be the one to stand in the way.
MS. NEMECEK: Thank you, Commissioner Coyle. And, yes,
sir, the fact-finding piece of it, I think, is definitely a large component
of what we're doing, but we're also working with the U.S. Department
of Commerce, and Gregory Philopovich (phonetic), who is our
representative over in Poland, to find me specific companies that we
can actually meet with as well.
So there will be some interaction with specific companies that
have specific interests in doing business here, so that we will touch on
those types of conversations, not as strong as we'd like, because I
think that we're all in that mode of, okay, what does this hold for us.
But we're working very diligently to identify specific companies,
and that's been the directive to Gregory over in Poland, is make sure
we have specific companies that we can meet with.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we must be careful to
understand that any representative from this commission cannot go
there and commit anything to anybody, and it really is a goodwill
mission more than anything else.
Page 119
September 21, 2004
MS. NEMECEK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not likely to yield any specific
agreements, but it's more of an expression of willingness to cooperate.
MS. NEMECEK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- but we will, I presume, if
you're successful, have more opportunities to meet companies that are
specifically interested. And I would hope that we would emphasize an
interest in all of Collier County, and not just Immokalee and the
Immokalee Airport.
MS. NEMECEK: Most definitely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because that's really what we're
doing here, we want to diversify the entire county's job base, not just
Immokalee's.
MS. NEMECEK: Yes, sir. The -- one of the focuses of the --
because of the aviation component to it is that I would anticipate the
biomedical component would be something that would be interested
outside of the Immokalee area. That's Vitarich's participation that is
key.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'd like to make a motion to
approve.
MS. FILSON: Can I ask one question?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: I just want to get on the record -- and, perhaps,
Jim Mudd can help me, county manager. Ifhe wants this to be a
rollover this year's budget or a budget amendment for next budget
year.
MR. MUDD: Let's do it -- we'll roll the stuff as we do it, but let's
do a budget amendment for next year out of that roll-over dollars. I
think that will be cleaner, and then we know what the purpose is.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Isn't this event taking -- or this
trip taking place next month?
Page 120
September 21, 2004
MS. FILSON: Yes, in October.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you have to pay for it this month,
right?
MS. FILSON: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
MS. FILSON: No, but he wanted funds rolled over from this
year so that he didn't use all of his travel funds from next year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see. Okay. I have a motion on the
floor.
Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I feel a little reluctant to second
my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it for the purposes
discussed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And now we are open to
discussion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. This will make the fourth
time that I'll have had contact with the representatives of the Polish
industry in the past year, I believe it's been. It's been three times in
Immokalee and also once in Washington, D.C.
And I can see a developing friendship taking place from all of
this that seems to be spilling over to bring results. I mean, there's a
very big strong interest because of the placement of Collier County in
relation to South America, and I really think it would be an effective
thing if I would continue this relationship, to be able to see their own
job sites, to tour their own factories.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 121
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's passed unanimously.
MS. FILSON: Okay. And that's $3,900 plus any extra expenses,
breakfast and -- I just want to get that on the record.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We already determined breakfast might
get pretty expensive.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He said he was going to bring his
own.
MS. FILSON: There's a limit we go by now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
Item #9H
BOARD CONSIDERATION AND DIRECTION RELATING TO
POST DISASTER REPLACEMENT AND REPAIR OF DUNE
WALKOVERS DURING SEA TURTLE NESTING SEASON -
AEEROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9H, which is
a board consideration and direction relating to post-disaster
replacement, repair of dune walkovers during sea turtle nesting
season, and Commissioner Halas has requested this.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. The reason I brought this
forth is we have an area in District II that was probably the hardest hit
in the storm that we encountered here on August the 13th, which was
Charley.
And what took place is that a lot of beach walkovers in Barefoot
Page 122
September 21, 2004
Lely ended up being destroyed to the point where we're -- the people
that live up there are encountering problems whereby they're having
difficulties in getting these rebuilt because of the turtle season. And
those if -- as everybody knows, that we've discovered that we've lost a
multitude of turtle nests this year because of the storm.
And so the residents up there, and also the county, would like to
go forward and rebuild these walkovers. And how the county gets
involved in this is because at Barefoot Beach, they also encountered
an impact there of where walkovers were destroyed, and they're in the
same predicament as the people up there in Lely.
So that's why I wanted to bring forth this amendment to address it
at this time with my fellow commissioners, and I think that we can
work around this problem and accompany a one-time, whereby that
we, the county, will allow the rebuilding of these walkovers so that we
don't further damage the dunes, because if we don't have these
walkovers, basically people are going to use the dunes.
So it's kind of like a Catch 22 situation here. So we're hoping
that we can gamer the support here to address the concern of the
residents and also the concern of the county because that beach up
there that the county basically is a caretaker of in the State of Florida,
we need to make sure that we have access to the beaches there. So
with that --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have staff presentation on this, or
is this just open for discussion?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Schmitt sent each commissioner a memo
dated 6 September on this particular item. It had a series of about six
-- six items that he recommended that the board take in this particular
case.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
MR. MUDD: And if you want me to, I can read them, or you
can -- for this particular discussion, but if you want to tell us to go on
out there and do those six measures, then we'll start making those
Page 123
September 21, 2004
changes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have no presentations, but we do have
a speaker.
MS. McPHERSON: You have one speaker, Mr. Fritz Friday.
MR. FRIDAY: Madam Chair and gentlemen, I'm Fritz Friday.
I'm president of the Barefoot Beach Property Owners' Association,
and I would just like to elicit your support of this measure, one reason
being that after Charley, the governor allowed that certain of the state
regulations would be waived for a 60-day period of in terms of
rebuilding things destroyed by the hurricane. This would get us -- your
passage of your measure would get us under that 60-day window, and
we wouldn't have to require -- we wouldn't be required to have a --
redo a state permit, and that would be very helpful to us, too.
We -- Charley took four feet of sand off. Frances put two feet
back. And I even put another two feet back, so we're making
progress. I'm afraid that sea turtles took it on the chin, or wherever
they -- they moved out, and I don't think there's a -- frankly, there's
very much of a concern letting us get back and starting building these
-- rebuilding these walkovers is going to endanger the turtle situation
at all.
We know where they are. Turtle time knows where they are.
Our people rebuilding them are not going to be walking or crawling or
taking materials over the top of potential nests.
So I just ask for your support, and thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
Yes, David.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. As the board prepares to make a
motion and vote, it appears to me, upon reading the executive study
and discussion had so far, is that the board is going to be directing the
staff to go out and draft and bring back an amendment to the land
development code, specifically at section 3.10.7 of the land
development code, which, in effect, gives them a direction to change
Page 124
September 21, 2004
the zoning, bring it back so the board can consider and approve.
It also appears from the executive summary that aside from the
inconvenience that exists of the lack of operable dune walkovers both
from private property and from the public property, such as the county
park, that there are, in fact, health, safety, welfare considerations in
the board's consideration and direction in this. I have a couple -- of a
couple types.
One is that accessing the beach, if occurring not over walkovers,
may engender danger to the public person attempting such access, and
additionally there may be damage to the dunes themselves, and--
and! or currently unmarked but known sea turtle nest places, that
would be avoided if the walkovers were repaired and in place again.
So it seems to me that that is the essence of your consideration and
potential direction to the board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This has nothing to do with
Barefoot Beach since it's on Marco Island, correct? Or do we have to
follow a land development code in Barefoot Beach? Oh, I'm sorry.
You said Tigertail or Barefoot?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Barefoot.
MR. SCHMITT: Barefoot Beach, Commissioner.
MR. WEIGEL: It would be countywide though. It's a land
development code provision that's of general application.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- are you recommending
on private property to do the same?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, for the record, Joe Schmitt,
administrator of Community Development/Environmental Services.
Well, the issue here is LDC amendment, then that's -- the issue
was raised by Commissioner Halas, so that we're looking for staff
direction to come back for an LDC amendment. It would be private
property as well as public.
Page 125
September 21, 2004
But the issue really -- and there's even more to complicate this
issue. It's because we're dealing with repair versus replacement. If it's
greater than 50 percent, we're still trying to determine whether or not
that triggers the requirement to comply with ADA standards and other
acti viti es.
Mr. Friday and I've been discussing this. And of course, that's
what the -- that issue is now with the county attorney. But this is not
as simple as just saying, change the code, because we're also dealing
with the state, and the state, in the latest correspondence, is indicating
that they're not even going to allow any replacement -- replacement
during turtle nesting season. Repair they will, but replacement not.
In our code -- our build-back policy currently notes 50 percent or
greater destroyed, then you have to replace. If you have to replace,
you comply with current standards, which means that it may have to
comply with the American Disabilities Act and allow for those type of
activities or that type of crossing.
So there is -- this is an issue which we have to staff, we'll have to
bring back as an LDC amendment and define the time frames as part
-- as the county attorney, in section 3.10.7.2, that we would bring back
to define as part of the turtle nesting season when and how we would
facilitate reconstruction in the event of a disaster or hurricane.
I don't know if -- that was a long answer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got my answer.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. If the state allows the
homeowners to build back or repair --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- in 60 days, when does the 60
days start and how long will it take us to draft up an LDC amendment
and bring it back before the Board of County Commissioners?
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner, county attorney. I'll respond to
that, if I may, and that is, the importance of the board action today is
Page 126
September 21,2004
to provide the direction to bring it back, and the drafted amendment to
the land development code provision will come back in the normal
cycle event. It may -- it would be cycles from now, because we're
well into the next cycle at the present time.
But that's not important as far as a timing standpoint relative to
the ability for the county under its own rule to allow for repair, and it's
not important in regard to the state regulations, which we can't affect
but we can only work with and facilitate from the county rule
standpoint.
And all that this board can do and the staff can do is facilitate,
repair, or replacement at the county level. And if the state has some
barrier still in place, that's unfortunate, but that's the situation with the
state, and we can't affect that in the board's legislative efforts here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if I could -- we have to go
through the public process, two hearings before the Planning
Commission, two hearings before the Board of County
Commissioners for an LDC amendment.
Turtle season is over at the end of October. Basically what the
state -- what our code prohibits is to allowing anybody to go on a
beach to do a replacement, and in this case even a repair. The state
has said you can go in and repair.
And what we're trying to -- our LDC prohibits from doing either
during turtle nesting season. We need to amend that portion of the
code to allow at least some entryway, or at least allow us to get in to
do either repair or replacement based on the confines defined by the
state and to look at our LDC to define what we can do in our LDC.
We attempted to do this through an emergency order and come
back to the board and just -- because we have the GPS coordinates.
We know where the nests are, those type of things, but we are advised
by the county attorney, we could not do that. You would -- it would
be an illegal act for you to simply amend the LDC, and there's no
Page 127
September 21,2004
emergency authority to do that.
So now we have to bring it back in a normal process, through the
LDC amendment process. So it's really not going to be something that
Mr. Friday's going to be able to do something here in the next two
weeks or three weeks.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's kind of the whole idea
that I brought this forth, was to find some relief so that they could at
least -- if there's some of those that are beyond repair, then, of course,
they couldn't go forward with it, but if there are some that are less than
50 percent destroyed, the same with the county there, that we could at
least get that taken care of. I mean, that's the whole gist of this thing.
What you're saying here is we're no farther ahead than where we
were when we first started with this.
MR. SCHMITT: Our code prohibits that. And that's what we --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Even though the state says that we
could -- we're allowed to do this?
MR. MUDD: Sir, I think we're getting some mixed things. The
state --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, we might be here.
MR. MUDD: The state hasn't given you permission to go do
that. They say, stay away from the dunes at turtle nesting season, and
they are not waiving that requirement.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
MR. MUDD: So you don't have any special exemption --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- from the law, and see, that's a false premise.
And somehow that rumor's out there. Joe's been checking on it to
make sure. If we had some kind of 60-day waiver of all permitting
requirements, that would be great.
We tried to do that, and they said, yeah, for certain things like
build back and -- building back homes and roofs and things like that.
But when you start talking CCSL and turtle nesting season and the
Page 128
September 21,2004
dunes, they didn't give you an exemption from that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I was under the impression
that the state -- I'm sorry. I was under the impression that the state had
given the people along the coastline there that ability, so I was
misinformed then.
MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with
environmental services. The emergency order allowed under certain
circumstances some minor repairs, and those minor repairs could be
done on -- again, under other circumstances.
F or instance, it was an extremely minor repair to an access ramp,
then the county could repair their own ramp if they provided notice to
the state.
If it was private property and there was repair work that needed
to be done to a dune walkover, then they still needed to get a field
permit, but they were exempt from the larger permitting process that
they would normally have to go through.
If there's anything more than minor repair -- and minor repair by
the state is different than our determination. So minor repair by the
state is if it's just boards that need to be renailed in or arm railings that
need to be replaced or repaired, then they could do that with a field
permit.
If it's more than that, they need a full permit from the state, and
they have to go to Tallahassee to get that during sea turtle nesting
season, and I was told that it's probable that they would not permit
that, and that was a couple weeks ago when we had some
conversations over the phone.
The e-mail that we received yesterday stated that the state would
not permit anything more than repairs to the dune walkovers during
sea turtle nesting season.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So, therefore, no matter whether
the nests are destroyed or not, we still would have to go through this
LDC amendment process?
Page 129
September 21, 2004
MS. BURGESON: The LDC amendment process is something
that you could do to take away that one restriction that's currently in
the code right now. So if you put that in place, you would have one
less item that you'd have to comply with. So that if you could get the
state permits and if you could get the other items taken care of, then
you might be able to do some of those amendments or repairs during
nesting season. But it's -- as the code sits right now, you could not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Just to put this on record.
Where do -- where do the people, the citizens, stand in regards to
rebuilding their walkovers? They're going to have to wait till the end
of the turtle nesting season and then get the proper permits, and then at
that point in time, they can start to build; is that correct?
MS. BURGESON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Let me jump in a moment. Oh, pardon me, Jim.
Go ahead.
MR. MUDD: I believe they can start applying for their permits
now so that they can have their permits in place. So sea turtle nesting
season ends on 1 November; is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
MR. MUDD: On 1 November when that magic thing happens
and all the sea turtles go away or hatch or wherever they go, that they
can start putting their dune walkovers and have them done before you
get to Christmas or whatever and get some contractor laid out in order
to do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if that's the case, then there's
really no reason, I don't think, to pursue an LDC amendment change
here?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I'd recommend we do put
something in the language --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: For the storm?
MR. SCHMITT: -- that says, that we would have -- at least
Page 130
September 21, 2004
define some criteria to help us. At least we would not be prohibited by
our LDC, then we could turn to the state and try and seek relief from
the state.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: So at least we will do that, and that's something
I've discussed with the county attorney anyway. We've got to look at
this entire build-back policy issue globally across the entire county.
And then that came up, as you recall, during the Vanderbilt Beach
issue and the overlay. So that's something that's still on my plate to
do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: David, did you have something to say?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, Jim mentioned what I was going to say,
and that is, just because a permit from the state may not issue until
after October 31 st, doesn't mean you get in line and get in the
permitting process and the dialogue going with the state.
And again, what the board would be doing here in consideration
of this item is to remove an absolute prohibition at the county level
from the opportunity to repair or rebuild, and it's based upon the
criteria of a tropical storm or hurricane.
So it's not an unbridled opening flood gates for repair during sea
turtle nesting season. But it's, I think, a lesson from the current storm
events, is that if we have an ordinance that provides an absolute
prohibition, the county attorney will have to advise the board when
they authorize other acts contrary to the ordinance to be taken, that it's
an illegal act because the law prohibits it.
And I want to remove that proscription, remove that prohibition
from you so that upon identification of an event, in this case tropical
storm or hurricane, that, in fact, the land development code will
recognize and allow at this local county level, full speed ahead for
both public, county, and the private citizens alike, to get going as
quickly as they can, still under the -- under the restrictions that may
Page 131
September 21,2004
exist of the state.
And the restrictions of the state, as we have seen to some degree
from these storm events, are a bit fluid as well. And so an absolute
prohibition from the state this season may not be an absolute
prohibition next season, depending on how the events go. So I think
it's -- 1'11 say county attorney recommends the adoption of this --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you need a motion on that?
MR. WEIGEL: -- action. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we go
forward with the land development code change in regards to unusual
events that can occur along the coastline there that disrupts the
walkovers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 1'11 second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas to approve, and a second by Commissioner
Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #91
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REQUEST FOR BOARD
APPROVAL FOR PAYMENT TO ATTEND FUNCTION SERVING
Page 132
September 21, 2004
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we go back to 8E.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 91, which is an
add-on, and that's basically to determine a valid public purpose for
Commissioner Henning to attend the EDC --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
MR. MUDD: -- excellence in industry function on 23
September, 2004.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because Commissioner
Coletta's going to Poland, I'm going to reduce that to a $50 request.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just don't take it from my
budget.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second that motion.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #8E
RESOLUTION 2004-292 DESIGNATING STEWARDSHIP
SENDING AREA 5 (SSA 5) WITHIN RURAL LANDS
STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY DISTRICT (RLSA) INCLUDING AN
SSA CREDIT AGREEMENT AND PERPETUAL STEWARDSHIP
EASEMENT IN RESPONSE TO AN APPLICATION BY BARRON
Page 133
--.-.-
September 21, 2004
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us back to 8E, and
that's a recommendation to adopt a resolution designating stewardship
sending area 5, (SSA 5) within the rural lands stewardship overlay
district (RLSA), including an SSA credit agreement and perpetual
stewardship easement in response to an application by Barron Collier
Investments, Limited.
MR. VanLENGEN: Do we need to be sworn in for this?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, we don't have to swear in on this one.
And how many minutes -- does he have 10 minutes to present?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
MR. VanLENGEN: I'll be less than that. Kris VanLengen,
comprehensive planning. I'll be very brief.
Mr. Bruce Johnson from WilsonMiller will present more details
with respect to this application by his client, BCI, Limited.
I'd like to say that this site selection for SSA 5, Stewardship
Sending Area 5, is one that is consistent with the selections of one
through four that were approved in March of this year in that the land
involved has very high natural resource value, and Bruce will be
talking a little bit about that.
The layers that would be removed in exchange for credits under
this program -- I would refer you to executive summary beginning on
page two under the table called the land use matrix. And under that
table, starting from the left, the columns beginning with residential
land uses and including general conditional uses, earth mining uses,
recreational uses, agricultural group one, which are more active
agricultural uses, and those support uses would all be eliminated, and
under the easement agreement, would be permanently barred from the
land.
That means that they would retain on this portion, this segment,
ago two uses, which includes unimproved pasture and grazing,
Page 134
September 21, 2004
ranching, livestock raising, and other conditional uses, as well as the
layer beneath it, which is to the far right, conservation, restoration, and
natural resource uses.
This application contained all the necessary elements. They were
all found complete and all requirements of the LDC have been met for
the application. And in particular, environmental services staff closely
reviewed the natural resource index values on an acre by acre basis,
basically referring to large-scale maps, flux maps, and also including
on-site verification of those features. They made independent
calculations and recommended approval of the credits as requested.
In addition, the county attorney has reviewed, modified, and
approved the credit and easement agreements. And based on the
foregoing, staff recommends the designation of SSA 5 to be known as
BCI stewardship sending area number 5.
MR. JOHNSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Madam
Chair. Just give me a moment here to pull up a presentation. It's very
short, just five slides.
For the record, my name is Bruce Johnson. I am with
WilsonMiller, Incorporated. Together with Clay Brooker from
Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson, we're representing Barron
Collier Investments today.
Stewardship sending area 5, this presentation is just designed to
touch on some of the highlights of the application. And, again, Kris
noted that most of this information is already in the executive
summary .
The SSA 5 is located just east of Immokalee. In fact, its western
border is contiguous with the Immokalee urban boundary. It's a little
over 1,850 acres. It has some areas within it that have excellent
natural resource value, some forested cover that's relatively rare in the
eastern part of the county.
Most notably it has a high panther utilization. If you look at
telemetry points from the Fish and Wildlife Commission, it is loaded
Page 135
September 21, 2004
with panther telemetry. Also notable is the fact that within the last 10
or 15 years, there have been seven panther mortalities on that stretch
of CR 846, and five of those sites where the cats were injured and
killed by vehicles are now occurring along the same stretch of road
where we have stewardship sending areas.
Environmental groups such as Florida Wildlife Federation,
Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Collier Audubon, had pointed out
these areas to us during their rural lands stewardship process, so we
were well aware of their value before the program even went through,
and wisely, the landowners have chosen to target this as one of the
first areas for stewardship sending areas.
This is entirely within the area of critical state concern. This
slide shows basically the GIS, geographic information system, scoring
map for the rural lands. The darker tones, darker grayer tones and
black tones show areas of high natural resource value, and that's
calculated on an acre by acre basis based on environmental data sets.
The colorized portions are simply to show you the stewardship
overlay designations. For instance, the green is habitat stewardship
area, the dark blue is flowway stewardship, and the lighter blue is
water retention areas for agriculture.
Basically you can see from this graphic that virtually all of the
property, all but three acres or so, is within either flowway
stewardship or habitat stewardship areas.
These two views are actually from on-site. The upper image is a
palmetto prairie with pine-oak-cabbage hammock in the background,
and the lower photograph shows some of the freshwater marshes that
also exist out there. It's an excellent matrix of habitats. Again, this is
excellent for panther and other species.
There are pastures in the eastern portion of the property that are
within and adjacent to the Okaloacoochee Slough flowway.
And those also have habitat value for birds such as wood storks,
wading birds, sandhill crane and other similar species.
Page 136
September 21, 2004
This final slide is simply just to show you the relationship of SSA
5 to the four areas that were already approved, two of which are on
Camp Keais Strand in the lower left portion of the paragraph, SSAs 3
and 4, which were previously approved are directly adjoining SSA 5,
and it creates a rather large block of protected area.
Most notably, in discussions with Florida Wildlife Federation and
other groups, for years the environmental groups have wanted to do
something about the panther mortality on this road, and so have the
state and federal agencies. The main concern was that the land use into
the future could not be predicted reliably enough in order to make
those changes. With the designation of these areas as sending areas,
the state and federal agencies are now free to go ahead planning for
wildlife underpasses if they so choose.
MS. McPHERSON: Yes. You have one speaker. Nancy Payton.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife
Federation. And, of course, we're here today to support this resolution
designating stewardship sending area number 5.
Just a few comments. Yes, indeed, it's very important panther
habitat and it's high quality habitat for panthers and other wildlife.
It also includes wading bird rookery, very important. It peels
down to the seventh layer, which is next to the eighth layer, which is
the bottom layer, the best layer, which is conservation. So that's
extremely important and very good for wildlife.
Combined with 3 and 4, it's 5,000 acres that are being protected
at no cost to the public, forever protected and managed by Barron
Collier at no expense to the public. So this is an extensive swath of
land that is being protected in perpetuity and managed by a private
entity.
And, yes, indeed, it is part of a very important element in the
long-term goal of getting a wildlife crossing or two along this road to
eliminate panther mortality, and also other enhancements on the road
that will reduce wildlife mortality.
Page 137
September 21, 2004
So we urge you to move ahead and approve this resolution.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have Commissioner Halas and
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. As I look at your chart here
and on some of the backup material that was presented to us, it's on
page one of the white sheets, Exhibit C, and there you've got a couple
of columns in regards to the density of where you're going to transfer
these units to. Where did the .5 come up, that Delta .5 units, or .5 that
was used in your equation?
MR. JOHNSON: Are you speaking about the early entry bonus
calculation?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. You've got -- we're either
talking about 1,852 units or we're talking about 2,123 units, and we're
trying to figure out which one it is, and where did the Delta come in,
the .5? I need some clarification on that.
MR. JOHNSON: The .5, Commissioner, in the LDC, there is a
provision that habitat stewardship areas within the area of critical state
concern will receive a bonus of.5 credits per acre as a bonus to get
landowners to initiate this program early on.
If you are outside of the area of critical state concern in a habitat
state concern in a habitat stewardship area, that would be one credit
per acre. In this case, all of the HSA is within the area of critical state
concern.
So if you look at the calculations, there are 1,629 acres --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. JOHNSON: -- 30 acres, that's multiplied by .5 to provide
the early entry bonus.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So we're -- the bottom line
is, we're really talking -- that you're looking for 21 -- 2,123 units?
MR. JOHNSON: No. The regular base credits that are just a
result of the natural resource value of this land and the land use
Page 138
September 21, 2004
restrictions that are being placed on it result in 2,123 base credits.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And then you're going to
add the .5 to that?
MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. Add the 814 that result from
the .5 calculation, you get a total of2938.3.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 2938, I stand corrected. And
where is this going to be -- where are you going to transfer these units
to? Is this part of the Ave Maria?
MR. JOHNSON: It may be. I'm not sure as to the exact
disposition of the credits. As you know, the program is set up where
credits are banked and may be used for any purposes that are allowed
within the rural land stewardship area.
They're certainly going to need a lot of credits to entitle the Ave
Maria development. So it's safe to say that out of these pool of
credits, certainly some of them have to go towards Ave Maria. But
exactly which credits from which piece of land are going where is
indeterminate.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. By the way, I wanted to close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question. I think it was
originally designated in the Growth Management Plan, the area
around Immokalee, as one unit per 40 acres, or am I wrong?
MR. JOHNSON: I believe across that -- I'm not a planner, and I
may ask support. But I believe it was one per five across the eastern
lands.
MR. LITSINGER: For the record, comprehensive planning
director, Stan Litsinger. The base density is one unit per five acres.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. One unit per five?
MR. LITSINGER: Yes. And make a clarification so there's no
Page 139
September 21, 2004
confusion. This issue here is the 2,900 potential stewardship credits.
Those are not housing units. Those are units that are used at eight
credits per acre to entitle stewardship receiving area type development
in the future, which then comes back before you for approval relative
to densities and units and so forth.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you give us an example
how that would work? You explained it, but it's kind of confusing.
MR. LIT SINGER: In this particular case, we have about,
approximately, 3,000 credits. That would convert in a -- to about 240
acres of SRA development, which then comes to you for designation
of a SRA relative to approved SRA type developments, such as rural
villages, compact rural development. And you essentially -- it's very
close to a PUD type of process where you approve the unified land
development proposed, then it comes through the site development
process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I heard you say is the
3,000 units, approximately, are really not units, buildable units?
MR. LITSINGER: No, sir. No, Commissioner, they are not.
They merely entitle -- at eight credits applied per acre of designated
stewardship receiving area lands within the RLSA, to then come
forward to you for further designation and clarification of densities
and intensities and so forth.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the protection, was it 5,000
or 500,000 acres?
MR. LITSINGER: Five thousand total at this point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Five thousand total.
MR. LITSINGER: And the five SSAs that we had at this point.
And this is just the first year of this program that we expect --
anticipate that we will be seeing further petitions for designations of
SSAs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other questions, Commissioners?
Page 140
...~-_...,..-
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, a second by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That passes unanimously.
Item #8G
ORDINANCE 2004-60 - PUDZ-A-2004-AR-5211 NAPLES GOLF
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, NAPLES SOUTH, LLC; AND NAPLES
GOLF CLUB SOUTH LLC, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT
DUANE, AICP, OF HOLE MONTES, INC. REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
KNOWN AS BOYNE SOUTH PUD TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS BOYNE SOUTH PUD BY
REVISING THE PUD DOCUMENT AND MASTER PLAN TO
CHANGE THE PERMITTED USE OF TRACT B FROM
COMMERCIAL/MOTEL TO ALLOW FOR 34 MUL TI-F AMIL Y
UNITS AND ELIMINATE THE 64 MOTEL UNITS; INCREASE
Page 141
September 21, 2004
THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 154 TO 171
DWELLING UNITS; CHANGE THE PERMITTED USE OF THE
EXISTING TRACT "D" FROM MULTI-FAMILY TO SINGLE
FAMILY; PROVIDE FOR A NEW ACCESS POINT EAST OF THE
EXISTING ACCESS ROAD; REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE GOLF
COURSE TRACT FROM 152 ACRES TO 148 ACRES; AND
INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA FROM 54
TO 58 ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF US 41, FIVE MILES EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD
(C.R. 951), IN SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 27
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 242.35+
ACRFS-AllQEIED
MR. MUDD: The next item, 8F, was continued indefinitely by
the petitioner, and that was the Nagel-Craig petition.
The next item is 8G. This item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by the commission
members.
It's PUDZ-A-2004-AR-5211, Naples Golf Development, LLC,
Naples South, LLC, and Naples Golf Club South, LLC, represented by
Robert Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a rezone from
PUD, planned unit development, known as Boyne South PUD to
PUD, planned unit development, to be known as Boyne South PUD
by revising the PUD document and master plan to change the
permitted use of Tract B from commercial/motel to allow for 34
multi-family units and eliminate the 64 motel units; increase the
number of dwelling units from 154 to 171 dwelling units; change the
permitted use of the existing Tract D from multi-family to
single- family; provide for a new access point east of the existing
access road; reduce the size of the golf course tract from 152 acres to
148 acres; and increase the size of the residential area from 54 acres to
58 acres.
Page 142
September 21, 2004
The property is located at or on the south side of U.S. 41, five
miles east of Collier Boulevard, County Road 951, in Section 20,
Township 51 south, Range 27 east, Collier County, Florida, consisting
of 242.35 plus or minus acres.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Will everybody who wishes to
speak on this subject please stand and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any
ex parte to declare?
We'll start with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None at all.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Am I next?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I have met with petitioner. I
have a file on the appointments and any correspondence and e-mail I
might have received.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
I, too, have had meetings and correspondence, and I have them in
the folder here that I will be displaying for public use.
And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I also had meetings, and I
don't have any e-mails to show for my meetings, but I do have my
folder here with regard to the meetings.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have met with the
petitioner, and I've also met with the representative of the
homeowners' association there, and basically it was all meetings. No
e-mail, nor was there any phone calls. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
I just wanted to -- before we get into this, on page 24 and 25 of
Page 143
,-_.~,----~_.._"
September 21, 2004
this -- of the document, under Exhibit C, the very last sentence there,
it says, the following deviations are requested to the Terafina PUD.
And then on the next page under section four, second sentence, it says,
right of way width within Terafina from 60 feet to 50 feet. And I just
wanted to clear up, we're not talking about Terafina here, are we?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, we're talking --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hope not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- about Boyne South.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Okay. So I guess we need to
change that to reflect the proper name.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What page was this on?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Twenty-four and twenty-five.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can you tell me the PUD page number?
Would that be easier, Commissioner? Can you tell that on the bottom?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, let's see.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's the letter from Robert Duane,
so it's something prepared not by the staff, but by the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a letter to Ray Bellows.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Section number, would that -- can
you tell me that? The paragraph number?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's agenda item number 8G, page
22 of 65, if you have the same--
MR. YO V ANOVICH: No. But if you could tell me the PUD
section, 7 point something or 6 point.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: PUDZ-A-204 -- 2004-AR-5211.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's a cover letter. Okay. It's not in the
PUD document itself. It's in a cover letter. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Got ya. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. So it's not in there --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not in the PUD document. It's just in a
cover letter, which was the outline of the changes that were being
Page 144
·'_";"'__H""_-_·'"~·-
September 21, 2004
made.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Somehow I guess you got into
T erafina, wandered over there instead, huh?
MR. MUDD: I wonder how that could happen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They just use the same arguments
on all of these things.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's what it says.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're just going to go with argument C
today, and I'm ready to sit down.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for indulging me.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on
behalf of the petitioner.
With me today are two representatives of the developer, Ashley
Bloom and Leonard Zedeck, Mr. Duane, who is with Hole Montes, is
the planner on the project, George Hermanson is the civil engineer on
the project, Jim Boughton, who's the architect involved on the project,
and Gordy Lewis, the golf course architect are here as well.
They'll be available to answer questions. I'm going to just give a
brief summary of what we're asking for. And your staff report was
very thorough, and I believe you're all familiar with what the Planning
Commission action was.
What we're doing -- this is a fairly unique type of project. It
involves both straight zoning, which is the RSF-3 portion of the
proj ect, and a PUD zoning, and I'll walk over to the existing master
plan.
This is the existing PUD master plan. And the dark gray is
what's within the PUD for the project, and what is in white is RSF 3
zoning for the district. Obviously you can't tell that when you drive
in, but the project itself is composed of two different zoning districts.
What we are -- the existing proj ect allows for a motel site and a
multi-family site, and the remainder is a single-family development.
We're requesting basically two changes. We're requesting to
Page 145
September 21, 2004
change what was formerly the motel site to a multi-family site. We
would be going from 64 motel/hotel units to 34 multi-family units, and
we want to convert what was formally a multi-family site to a
single-family site.
And in doing that, we are essentially increasing the project from
154 residential units to 171 residential units. So the additional 17
residential units is the conversion from 64 hotel units.
In order to accomplish this, we're going to be doing a whole lot
of other things with the PUD. One, we're going to be -- I think Mr.
Lewis can take you through in greater detail. Weare going to be
reconfiguring the golf course. The way it's laid out -- and I don't
know if any of you have played the golf course.
The way its laid out now, you actually-- when you hit some shots
off the tee, you could cut the comer and go over some homes, if you're
skilled or not, and you'll get over the house; if you're not skilled, you'll
go into the house.
So we're attempting to reconfigure the golf course to where it
makes more sense and it's more playable and it takes the homes out of
play.
And in doing that, we'll be spending a tremendous amount of
money to upgrade the golf course. And in doing that, we will actually
increase -- we will improve the drainage for golf course and actually
improve the drainage for the existing homes.
And Mr. Hermanson can take you through the details of how -- in
addressing changes to the golf course, we'll be improving the drainage
for the community, the existing homes, as well as proposed future
homes.
Essentially we'll be increasing the lake area by about 20 acres,
21, 22 acres of actual lake area to accommodate and assist in the
drainage.
We will also be renovating the clubhouse and bringing that --
expanding that, and if you want greater detail of that, Mr. Boughton
Page 146
September 21, 2004
can talk to you about the increase of the square footage of the golf --
of the clubhouse.
And in order to accomplish all of this, we are, you know, going
to be redoing the site -- the master plan, as I said. And what has
happened is, two cul-de-sacs that previously existed, these two
cul-de-sacs, will be extended so we can reconfigure the golf course.
Essentially they will be -- we've had two neighborhood meetings
to address what we're proposing to do. There are a few residents who
are not thrilled with what we're proposing to do because they live
along this roadway right here, and their concern is, how are we going
to impact their view because we are extending the cul-de-sacs so we
can realign the golf course.
In the end they will still have two fairway widths of golf course,
at least 500 feet of a view of a course. So we're confident that we're
not doing anything that will harm their value in their home by doing
this. In fact, we're confident that everything that we're doing, the new
golf course, the improved clubhouse, is actually going to increase their
property value.
They will have a shorter distance of view of the golf course, yes,
but it will not harm the value of their home, nor will it affect their
quality of life.
We've had two meetings, as I've said, with the neighbors and the
residents, and I will tell you the vast majority are in favor of what
we're doing and how we're giving this community a facelift, and -- it's
an older community, as I think you're all well aware of.
It was built before you had real standards for water management
district. We're going through the permitting process to bring the entire
development through the water management district permitting
process.
So we're really -- we're really going to be spending a lot of
money to bring this community up to current codes, or as close to
them as we can get considering it's an existing development.
Page 147
September 21, 2004
So we've had those neighborhood meetings, like I said. The
residents, as a whole, I believe, are in favor of this. There are a couple
of residents who would rather see us do nothing. I don't think they're
terribly concerned about helping their other neighbors. But the
general feeling out there, I believe, is that what we are doing is a good
thing for the community.
We went to the Planning Commission as we're required to do,
and the Planning Commission obviously made -- they made some
changes to our PUD, and I'm going to have to hand out for you the
changes, because not everything got into the version in front of you.
We had agreed to a few things through the Planning Commission
that are not in the document in front of you. What happened
apparently, you know, Fred Reischl was with the county, he was our
planner, he left. It got handed off to Kay Deselem. Kay included in
your packet an older version of the PUD document.
It's substantially the same, but as you'll see from this cover letter,
these three points are not addressed in the PUD document in front of
you, but we did agree to them and we wanted to make sure that you
had before you the current PUD that includes all the terms.
We agreed that the golf course owner would be responsible for
all the lake maintenance and that would not be an association expense
for the homeowners. That's reflected in the document in front of you,
so that's -- the cost-saving expense we agreed to as the developer of
the project, that that would be an expense for the golf course only, not
the residential lot owners.
We also agreed that should the property to our east ever become
developed, that we would work with that individual to allow for
interconnection. That's not in your document in your agenda, but it is
__ needs to be included, and is in the provision that we have in front of
you.
We also agreed to include a neighborhood park on one of the
residential lots, so that's also in the PUD document. These are
Page 148
~"...þ,.,._---~..,>,-",' .
September 21, 2004
commitments we made to the Planning Commission that need to be
reflected in the PUD document.
And we transmitted those to staff right after the Planning
Commission report. But again, I think we lost something in the
tradeoff when Fred left. So that should address those issues.
We also agreed that -- one of the concerns that one of the
Planning Commissioners had, and Mr. Schiffer, who's an architect, he
was concerned that cars that were driving down this cul-de-sac, the
lights would get into the residence here, so we agreed to put additional
landscaping across the yards as well as the cul-de-sac itself, in these
yards, to make sure that it was opaque enough to block any lighting
that could occur because people were driving down the street.
I think that also -- you know, these houses, obviously, will be
oriented to face the golf course, so the back yards of the houses will --
really will not be facing the back yards of these houses either. So that
does also add a sense of privacy for those property owners.
So I think you can see the Planning Commission did a pretty
thorough job in dealing with this petition. They unani -- they voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the PUD with the changes
that were recommended.
We request that the Board of County Commissioners follow the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, adopt the PUD
document that I just handed out to you because it includes all of their
required stipulations.
And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have of me or
anybody else. Any of the other consultants can get into other
technicalities that the board or commission would like to address.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I've got one question.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why wasn't this given to us a day
or so in advance so we could sit down here and read all this material?
MR. YO V ANOVICH: Well, Commissioner, to be honest with
Page 149
September 21, 2004
you, when I got through the materials and figured out that the wrong
version was in there, I called your staff. It was really not until
yesterday that I figured it out, that the agenda package -- we don't get
your agenda package. We have to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's online.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I went -- that's where I got it. I
tracked it down, printed it off, figured --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's been online for almost two
weeks.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Halas, that's all I can tell
you is that's what happened. I talked to Ray Bellows when I realized
there was an issue. We went through the different points and we
recognized that there were three significant issues that were left out,
and we wanted to make sure that that was included. It's my fault.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I know it's your fault, that's
why I'm bringing this up at this point in time because you want us to
come up with a decision today in regards to this development, but yet
this has been online for at least a couple of weeks, and I feel that you
should have -- you should have looked at this to see that everything is
in line before you bring it forward to us.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll take responsibility for that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You know, we've got -- we've got
an awful lot to read on agendas, and then all of a sudden the last
minute you throw this on our dais up here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Halas, you know,
ultimately there were three points that were left out, I caught them. I'll
take responsibility for that, but I'm not the one who puts the agenda
package together. You're right, I should have checked staffs work. I
caught the error. I brought it to your attention, and I apologize for
that. I hope that -- they're three insignificant issues. Mr. Bellows
could tell you that we've addressed the three issues.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any speakers?
Page 150
September 21, 2004
MS. McPHERSON: Yes, ma'am. You have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's the end of your
presentation. Do we have staff?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Unless you want to hear from the
individual consultants.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. Did staff want to make a
presentation?
MR. BELLOWS: Good mor -- or good afternoon, excuse me.
For the record, Ray Bellows.
I did review the document that Mr. Yovanovich handed out, and I
attended the Planning Commission meeting where Fred made the
presentation.
The items presented are consistent with the notes I took during
the meeting. It's not significantly different from the PUD document
that you have, but it is vital to have it on the record what the correct
document is, and that's the purpose for handing it out today.
As staff, I apologize. We had a turnover, and we were trying to
catch up with some of the work that piled up.
But, for the record, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Staff did a compatibility analysis, and there will be no adverse impact
from that standpoint for the proposed change.
Planning Commission recommended approval subj ect to
conditions, and staff is supportive of that, and I'll be happy to answer
any questions.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you'll look at the PUD
document, this win help just a little bit. Maybe it will be help -- or
might not be, but if you take a look, there's those three things on the
front. For instance, number one item, it's a change to section 4.10, and
that's on page 9 of your letter, and it's underlined, the change in 4.10.
It says, however, the entity operating the golf course shall be
responsible for maintaining the lake, and that's per the guidance that
they received from the CCPC.
Page 151
September 21, 2004
And then if you look at section 816 -- and I've looked, and there's
no other added underlined section. So if you take a look at page 18,
under 816 -- and it basically gets at the interconnection. An
interconnection for pedestrian inter vehicular access can be provided
for lands located to the east of Boyne South upon request of the
adjoining property owner.
And any cost associated with this interconnection shall be shared.
In the event that the roads become private and Boyne South -- and
vehicular connection is provided, the interconnection shall be gated so
as to discourage the general public from using the principal roadways
in Boyne South.
All costs shall be borne by the developer of the lands to the east,
including a proportionate share for the maintenance of roadways in
Boyne South.
And then last, but not least, is the section with playgrounds, and
that's in section 6.4, and that's on page -- and that's on page 15 at the
bottom, and it says, and playgrounds may be located anywhere in
Boyne South development, including portions of the development that
are zoned RSF 3, and that's the -- and that's the magnitude of the
changes, and they're highlighted in that document.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: That concludes my presentation. If you have
any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Will you call our speakers.
MS. McPHERSON: Yes, ma'am. The first speaker is Richard
Haberlin, to be followed by Linda Gutierrez.
MR. HABERLIN: How much time do I have, please?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You have five minutes.
MR. HABERLIN: Five minutes.
Madam Commissioner -- Madam Chairman, Commissioners,
Naples Golf Club residents and other interested attendees, my name is
Page 152
September 21, 2004
Richard Haberlin, and for the past four years, my wife, Margaret, and
I have lived at 18031 Greenwood Drive in the PUD under discussion
today.
I am a retired state licensed general contractor who has built
quality up-scale homes and commercial properties for over 20 years
on Marco Island and in Naples.
It was my intention to close out my career by developing the
Boyne South property, what is now called Boyne South property, and
then retire there. My company purchased six lots and took the option
of 12 more, in -- actually 24 more, two groups of the 12, with the
expectation that our proj ect would proceed.
I have followed the history of this property through the stages of
Big Cypress Country Club, Royal Palm Golf Estates, Naples Shores
Country Club, and felt that the time to introduce this diamond in the
rough, no pun intended, was now.
To described the saga of the misadventure of this timing and the
people I was dealing with, there's not enough time in four minutes or
probably in four days. Suffice it to say that Naples Shores Country
Club was not to be, and the Boyne Corporation took over from them
in 1992.
Boyne started off right. They're a good outfit, and they probably
would have been successful if September 11 th had not adversely
affected their development in Petroskey, Michigan.
Needing cash for that endeavor, Boyne sold the Naples property
to the principals who now operate it as Naples Golf Club South. And
as a little aside, my wife and I have been actively involved in that
property since 1988, so we go back a long time in following that
property .
Now, I must repeat, not one, not one of the previous owners,
including Boyne Corporation, ever demonstrated the dedication, the
commitment, the vision, the personal involvement, that B&G
Developers has demonstrated.
Page 153
September 21, 2004
F or this reason, my wife and I, as well as 1 7 other landowners
whose endorsing letters I previously submitted to the Planning
Commission, are in full support of all the upgrades that the B&G
Development Corporation has proposed and requested in this revision.
Does everything that they have requested mean that they have a
potential of making more money? It sure does. That's what they're in
business for. They're smart men, and they deserve to be rewarded for
their efforts.
But everything that they are proposing also improves the
property, increases its value to present and future owners and residents
and upgrades the whole image presented to the potential buyers in the
community.
Just think for a minute. No motel, no multi-family residences,
both of which have now resulted in reduced population density,
improved drainage, a gated community, it will be a gated community,
a remodeled and enlarged and beautified clubhouse, all big pluses.
Sure there will be some compromises. Some of the objectors
who think -- some of the objectors think their views will be
compromised, and they will be. But may I suggest that they walk the
property, as I have, and put some white stakes or markers where the
new cul-de-sacs will end, which I did, place the markers at the side lot
lines of the houses that will be built, and then check the views.
Will their views be compromised? Yep, they sure will. Will
they be significantly or negatively impacted? Not a chance.
Absolutely not.
The closest any residence will be to the yard of a concerned
property owner is over two football fields long, two football fields,
and those views will be either over water or fairways.
If you folks had endured the frustration and the heartache, not to
mention the financial losses that my life and I have had over the 16
previous years of ownership, you, like me, would be beating down the
doors to get this approved so that the completion of a beautiful,
Page 154
September 21, 2004
affordable golf club community could proceed as soon as possible.
I was once told that the level of sincerity and commitment is to
put your money where your mouth is. My wife and I have done so,
and we now live in this beautiful community.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker?
MS. McPHERSON: The next speaker is Linda Gutierrez, and
your final speaker is Leo Salvatori.
MS. GUTIERREZ: Good afternoon. My name is Linda
Gutierrez, and I am a landowner in Naples Golf Club South, as well as
the salesperson in the community. I represent Gulfstream Homes, and
I I'm a licensed realtor with Gulfstream Realty Group.
I have been working in an office in the community five to six
days a week for the past two years. I have worked closely with the
developers, Mr. Bloom and Mr. Gross, over the past few years, and we
have developed a wonderful working relationship.
I only have my past dealings with these gentlemen to rely on.
They have always held true to their promises to myself, my clients,
and the companies I work for.
The developers have agreed to provide Gulfstream Homes a
minimum of one-half of the lots within the second phase that they're
proposing, and we're looking very much forward to working with
them on that.
In the time that I have been at Naples Golf Club, I have definitely
seen positive changes in the community, as well as property values
going way up, in most case tripling.
In my opinion no one's property value will be negatively affected
by the changes that they're proposing in this proj ect.
Additionally, I have helped Gulfstream Homes with
approximately 30 new home contracts. These homes range in size
from two to 5,000 square feet and are now to be built within the
Page 155
September 21,2004
existing Naples Golf Club.
I represent most of those people, numbering now over 40. And I
can assure you that I speak for every one of my clients when I say that
this is a fantastic opportunity for the community, and we all stand
behind the developer's plan to make this a beautiful and much
improved golf course, and a better place to live.
At our last meeting myself and Mr. Haberlin handed in some of
the letters, and some of the people are repeated within those numbers
that I just mentioned.
My clients are thrilled that Gordon Lewis will be heading up the
redesign of the golf course, and we have been assured by Hole Montes
engineering that the drainage in the community will be improved by
this proposed proj ect.
We have also been told that water management will be involved.
This is something, I might add, that we are very seriously in need of,
as drainage has been a long-time problem within this community.
Additionally, the clubhouse is in dire need of a facelift, and the
developers have promised to replace the existing clubhouse with a
brand new updated, larger-in-size version, and offering more
amenities, which will be a benefit to all of the landowners in Naples
Golf Club.
They will also be providing a guardhouse, and, of course, the
redesign of the golf course with no assessments to the landowners for
these three major changes. I can only see this as a positive situation.
Thank you.
MS. McPHERSON: Your final speaker is Leo Salvatori.
MR. SALVA TORI: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is
Leo Salvatori. I'm with the law firm of Salvatori and Wood, and I'm
speaking on behalf of a number of the neighbors who live along one of
the impacted areas.
And the neighbors that asked me to represent them are Bob
McCarthy and Trudy Smith, Dave Lambert and his wife Linda,
Page 156
September 21, 2004
Deborah O'Donnelly, James Eveleth, and Andy Andrew.
They are the ones who are a little concerned about the extension
of the cul-de-sacs. Overall what's being proposed is fine. Our clients
really have no objection to what they're doing. It's a wonderful
change. We look forward to the drainage improvement, we look
forward to the golf course improvements. We think that would be a
wonderful benefit.
I'm remotely aware of Mr. Hermanson and the work that his firm
does as well as Gordy Lewis. I think it will be a fine addition. But
our only concerns are with regard to the extension of the cul-de-sacs.
And if you'll indulge me, and if I can do this properly, I'll show
you what our concern is. The existing PUD called for these
cul-de-sacs to end fairly shortly. They are consolidating these two
into a longer cul-de-sac and extending this one as well. Our clients
live along here, and these are the ones that are somewhat concerned
about their through view.
Overall speaking, we're talking about cul-de-sacs extending down
roughly doubling the number of lots along this street, roughly
doubling the total aggregate number of lots along these streets.
Our clients who have built along here are concerned because they
have built residences, enjoying the wonderful views that they have
here. Are these views still going to be fine? Yeah, they're not going to
be too bad, but they're not going to be these views, and this is what our
clients built, this is what our clients designed, this is what our clients
bought into, and they have spent a significant amount of money for
what they have there as well.
So our request is actually fairly modest. We do want to be good
neighbors. We don't have a real objection with the plan or anything
else that they are trying to do relative to the multi-family, the
drainage, the golf course, clubhouse. That's fine.
Our request is fairly simple. We would like to see the extended
cul-de-sacs brought back a little bit. And what I would define as back
Page 157
September 21, 2004
a little bit is bringing those cul-de-sac lots three lots' worth; so in other
words, shortening the cul-de-sacs, I'm told those lots are an average of
about 90 feet wide. George can correct me if I'm wrong.
So shortening the cul-de-sac extensions by approximately 270
feet. The result of that would be you'd have six less lots on each
cul-de-sac extension; however, you'd still have significantly more lots.
By my rough calculations, the platted lots now on those -- on
Lake Hammock is 15 platted lots. They're looking for 33. We'd like
to see 27.
Similarly on the aggregation of Irene Drive, and I cannot
pronounce the other drive, I'm afraid, you had before 16 platted lots
going down Irene Drive. They have now aggregated to 34 lots. We'd
like to bring that back to 28 lots, so you're shortening it three lots'
worth, for a total of six lots because it's double loaded streets.
So with that request in mind, we would conclude our
presentation.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. We have no further
speakers?
MS. McPHERSON: No, ma'am. That was the final speaker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Then I declare the public meeting closed,
the public hearing closed.
Do we have any questions from any of the commissioners?
Oh, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How does that compromise fit with
regards to the -- with what you have there?
It seems that the residents are fairly impressed with what's going
on, but I think they have some concerns there. And could you address
the issue that they've just brought up --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- in regards to the compromise? I
think that would be a great proposal.
Page 158
September 21, 2004
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it sounds good on paper.
Unfortunately, if you look at, I think -- I didn't count. It was five or
six people that Mr. Salvatori represented, and you heard -- you heard
from people who represent approximately 50 people who are saying
that they like everything we're proposing.
Frankly, what -- you know, you use the lot sales -- and we're
losing 12 lots. And when you lose 12 lots at roughly 150 to $200,000
a lot, you're talking about close to a couple of million dollars. That's
the money we would be utilizing to revise the -- you know, bring the
golf course up to standards, improve the drainage for the overall
community, and deal with the clubhouse.
So although it sounds like he's only asking us to give up 12 lots,
that's 12 lots that we need for our overall program.
And, again -- and we've explained this. This isn't the first time
we've heard this discussion about cutting the cul-de-sacs. We've
explained it to the residents, and I think you've heard from two
individuals who represent a lot of people out there, that they believe
that the -- the overall tradeoff for what we're proposing to do and your
-- and your Planning Commission as well, recognized that the tradeoff
-- because we're really not -- if you listen to Mr. Salvatori, we're really
not hurting their views. It's not exactly what they bought from the
previous developer, not from us, but from a previous developer, but
they still are going to have fairways and lakes between them and the
side of someone else's house, which is going to be landscaped,
because the Planning Commission wanted to make sure we assure
pnvacy.
So we cannot afford to lose 12 lots.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're going to have a total of 171;
is that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will lose 12, so that will bring it down.
Remember, I can't make it up somewhere else.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. But I mean, you're starting
Page 159
September 21, 2004
off where you're going to -- with the advent of taking away the motel
and then converting that to single-family residence, you're looking at
about 1 71, prior to us even talking about cutting down six lots or --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And I have 154 right now, so I'm
asking -- for 64 hotel units, I'm asking for 17 residential units. So we
would be trading 64 hotel units for five residential units.
Economically, it doesn't work to fund all the improvements we're
talking about funding. It's a net increase of five homes. The dollars
don't work.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Would -- do you think that the
possibility of maybe putting in enhancements into where the
cul-de-sacs are going to protrude back in there, that you put additional
landscaping, that this would help in there -- in regards to -- so that
they didn't see the homes that are butted up there?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just want to make sure I understand,
Commissioner Halas. You're talking about enhancing the landscaping
in these areas right here?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely. We can absolutely do that.
We had committed to that to the Planning Commission. And if you
need us to do addition -- even further landscaping to help do that, we
absolutely can put landscaping there to shield the house.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't want to prohibit the
future owners of a view of the gulf course like everybody else enjoys.
You just -- your proposal to the Planning Commission would be to
just soften with landscaping on these cul-de-sacs?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And Commissioner -- and
somebody just pointed something out I needed to remind -- I didn't
bring up.
Commissioner Halas, my client doesn't own all 1 71 one of the
lots. He only owns 110 of them. So he's -- so the numbers are even --
Page 160
September 21,2004
he's got to make these improvements with 110 lots, not 171. They're
owned by some others, so he's funding all the improvements with 110
lots.
Commissioner Henning, to get back to your point, yes, we agreed
to landscaping here. The rears of the homes are still going to have the
golf course views. So we think we can accommodate the people that
are going to be buying those lots. They'll still have their golf course
view. But this is a side view, so it should work out nicely for those
homes, and also provide some additional assurances for these homes
over here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, I think what I
see is being proposed is an overhaul benefit to the community,
removing multi-family and a hotel that would generate a lot of trips
down there, besides fixing some of the stormwater issues. And I could
tell you that if you have a view of a Gulfstream home, it's a benefit.
I'm going to make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second that.
Thank you.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So that passes unanimously.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think you're going to be doing some
great things for everybody that lives in there. It sounds like it's a great
Page 161
September 21,2004
improvement now to what -- you know, what has been going on, so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the plan. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- that's wonderful.
Item #8H
ORDINANCE 2004-61- AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, EXTENDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
ORDINANCE 2004-41, WHICH RE-CODIFIED THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TO OCTOBER 18,
2004, DUE TO UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES AND
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 8H, and that will
be presented by Mr. Joe Schmitt, and that's an emergency ordinance,
okay, to change --
MR. SCHMITT: Oh, no. That's going to be Patrick.
MR. MUDD: Excuse me.
MR. SCHMITT: Patrick. Patrick's got this one. I was jumping
to the next one. This will be quick.
MR. MUDD: Excuse me, Commissioners. Mr. White from the
county's attorney's office will present. This is an emergency
ordinance to change the UEC effective date and shift it to the 18th of
October, 2004.
And I believe you will have to declare an emergency for this
ordinance and then approve the effective date; am I correct, Mr.
White?
MR. WHITE: Assistant county attorney, Patrick White. The
county manager's correct on both points. Just so you know, there was
no advertising required for this, but we would like to have that
declaration as part of the motion. It is included, however, as part of the
ordinance. So unless there are any questions --
Page 162
September 21, 2004
MR. MUDD: Can you tell them why the date had to be shifted,
please, for the record?
MR. WHITE: As stated in the executive summary -- I apologize.
Yes, this is truly something I think that falls under the category of
emergency in the sense that our publisher's municipal code
corporation were affected by both Frances and Ivan.
And although we knew we were going to be running very close
to this September 27th date for completion of their activities, we're
unfortunately going to miss it by a little bit.
I just got their proofs on a CD ROM yesterday. It's probably
going to take me and staff the better part of a week to look those over.
We're still optimistic we'll be able to make the 18th for publication,
and that's fully our intention. But those are the background reasons.
Essentially uncontrolled weather.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So do we first need to declare an
emergency?
MR. WHITE: No, ma'am, simply as part --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just make a motion.
MR. WHITE: -- of the motion that, based upon the fact that
there was a weather emergency, that the ordinance will be passed
under the emergency enactment procedures.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we approve
this executive summary item in regards to this emergency that
transpired, because of the hurricane, I believe, is really what it is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
And David, you did have something to comment on?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I was going to indicate that the declaration
of emergency is part of the -- part of this. Action of the board does
require four-fifths vote. The vote itself to approve the ordinance
amendment act -- well, it's LD -- it's not LDC. It's effective date. It's
Page 163
September 21, 2004
hard to say. If you pass the four-fifths vote on the one and include it
in the other, you'll be in good shape.
MR. WHITE: The statute requires a four-fifth vote for any
emergency ordinance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas to approve the extension due to these unforeseen
circumstances, and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now we're going to take a
10-minute break.
(A brief recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Item #10A
A REQUEST FOR DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS REGARDING PROCEDURES FOR A
FORTHCOMING AMENDMENT TO THE COCOHATCHEE BAY
PUD. THE AMENDMENT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING
Page 164
September 21, 2004
CHANGES TO THE BALD EAGLE MANAGEMENT PLAN-
RECOMMEND TO SEND IT BACK THROUGH THEEAC AND
Now, we're going on to item lOA. But before we begin, I'd like
Margie Student to come up and frame this item for us.
MS. STUDENT: Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record,
Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney.
And I just wanted to put on the record, we're not here today to
rewrite a PUD document or anything like that. We're here to talk
about process. And the Cocohatchee Bay PUD is illustrative of a
larger issue before the county, but we're not here to rewrite that PUD
today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners, we are all aware
of that, and so -- and we will try and make sure that we address --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Stay on point.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, that's much better said. Stay on
point, thank you. With that, Joe Schmitt.
MR. SCHMITT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, I'm Joe Schmitt, administrator of the Community
Development/Environmental Services.
Today with me is Susan Murray, my zoning director, and
Marjorie Student, who already has spoken. And I want to reiterate.
We're here today basically for policy guidance. Policy guidance on
how we amend PUDs through the process.
Just -- and this was triggered, frankly, as a result of the
Cocohatchee Bay PUD. We were looking at our processes on how we
amend PUDs. But just for highlight, on December 12th, 2000, the
board approved Cocohatchee Bay PUD as ordinance 2000-88.
And that PUD basically contained two master plans. Exhibit A
was the master plan that was based on a premise that the existing
eagle's nest would be abandoned prior to construction, and Exhibit B
Page 165
September 21, 2004
basically was the plan dealing with only building in the non-nesting
season and not within the zones of influence of the eagle habitat area.
The developer approached the staff. The staff looked at our
policies and our procedures in regards to amending PUDs. The
bottom line is about -- a little over two years ago, therein, if you recall,
we had a series of six LDC amendment workshops. We also
discussed in those workshops some of the sunsetting provisions of
PUDs.
And in the workshops, the board directed staff to no longer do the
PUD amendments, PUDAs, which essentially was extracting or taking
a portion of the PUD language, line through and underline the new
language, and then we would slap that on top of the PUD and we
would have a series of amended changes.
Based on board direction, we have been, for the past almost two
years, doing full PUD to PUD rezones, meaning if a petition came in
and you wanted to amend a certain portion of the PUD, you would
have to go through the entire rezone process.
We have since reevaluated the process and the positions. And
based on the county attorney -- discussions with the county attorney,
county attorney conferring with our attorneys in Tallahassee, we've
been advised that we -- it would be best that we go back to some
portion of what we call the PUD amendment process.
But to preclude this series of changes and compiling changes on
top of each other, what we're recommending is that we go to a PUD
amendment process where we still print a complete version of the
PUD, retain, instead of -- instead of what we -- we were doing in the
past, we would basically repeal the existing PUD and publish a new
PUD, but now we're going to retain those PUDs, and we will note in
the PUD through strike through and underline, and then through
footnoting, the changes.
Now, how does that bring us back to the Cocohatchee issue? The
Cocohatchee issue is dealing with a certain portion of a PUD, and
Page 166
"_......,""--,..._.~-,.
September 21, 2004
that's called the habitat management plan, or the eagle habitat
management plan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But we're not addressing that at this
meeting?
MR. SCHMITT: We're not addressing that, but my request to
you today is, based on the request by the petitioner to amend the
PUDs, staff is proposing that we limit the amendment process to
specifically deal with the bald eagle management, habitat management
plan and not the entire PUD.
So because it's an exhibit to the PUD, what we're asking is the
board's guidance -- and it's only policy. It's not an LDC requirement,
so it doesn't require an LDC change. We've just been working with
your policy for over the last two years.
But rather than open up the entire PUD, unless the board deems
there's some rational nexus that would require opening the PUD or a
certain portion of the PUD, that we address the PUD through an
amended process, the PUD amendment process, rather than the full
PUD -- the full PUD rezone, and that we deal specifically with the
Cocohatchee PUD through dealing only with the eagle management
plan.
Now, what has happened? The developer has received its U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' permit, incidental take permit, which based
on that, we, as staff, and supported by the county attorney, have
determined that because Exhibit B, which is the portion of the plan
that needs to be amended, because the Exhibit B is part of the PUD,
that the PUD would have to come back and go through the PUD
amendment process.
And in that process, regardless, if we come back to you the full
PUD, the full PUD rezoning, or if we just stick with amending the
eagle management plan, that procedure requires us to proceed and go
through vetting of this through the Environmental Advisory Council,
through the Planning Commission, and the Board of County
Page 167
September 21, 2004
Commissioners.
So based on that, staff is recommending that board revise and
direct a new policy, that we reinstitute this process called a PUDA, or
PUD amendment process, which deals with specific aspects of PUDs
rather than a full PUD to full PUD rezone.
I hope I covered that. I know it's much more detailed in the
executive summary.
Subject to your questions, that pretty much concludes my
introduction.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a question, and then Commissioner
Halas has a question.
Yes. My question to you is, I think at the time that we approved
this, it was something that staff recommended.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we -- I shouldn't speak for anybody
but myself. I was very eager to do that because the rules have
changed so much in the last four years.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we've created a concurrency
program now that really is going to be guiding the future of our
roadways and allocating development according to how much
capacity there is on a road.
And some of these old PUDs that have been hanging around for a
long time, they're vested and so forth, they haven't put a shovel in the
ground yet, and I want to be able to get back in there and do
something with it, and so that's why I voted for it, and I was very
eager to vote for it.
There are other things, of course. But concurrency is the big
thing with me. And so I'm worried if we do something like this, then
we won't be able to -- you won't have the teeth to adjust all the things
that are important to us as commissioners as we try and have a more
responsible plan in place for the growth of our future, or for our future
Page 168
September 21, 2004
growth.
MR. SCHMITT: And I understand exactly what you're saying,
and that was staffs request as well, that we go back, take these old
PUDs, bring them up to the current standards, and ask the board to at
least impose current standards on some of the building --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: -- criteria and other things in the PUD.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And you needed that --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- in order to help you to do that.
MR. SCHMITT: But based on guidance from Carlton Fields and
others, and we've been discussing this for almost six months, it just
happens to be that Cocohatchee is the PUD that we decided that would
be best to amend this process, that there was a question of legality in
regards to forcing a petitioner to do a full PUD to full PUD rezone.
And it also does open up the door to some opportunities for the
developer in regards to issues involving -- involving the staff, and that
could be in payments for lands that have been dedicated for
transportation or other aspects, that the -- amending the PUD had
given it a new ordinance would somehow allow for that -- that
developer to now, instead of using 1995 prices, could use new prices
as of 2004 for the assessed value of properties, or at least in that
regard.
But I'll have to turn to the county attorney for some guidance that
we received.
But basically, Commissioner, just to reiterate though, it's our full
intent to address those kind of issues that still -- that need to be
addressed in a PUD. And as long as there's a national nexus in regards
to what's being requested versus an opportunity to amend the PUD, we
can do that.
An example, if one comes in -- just like what happened today
with Pelican -- with Pelican Bay and the Waterside Shops. There was
Page 169
September 21, 2004
a change of intensity. There was a reduction in density, but the
change of intensity, but that required certain things to be done to that
PUD, for instance, the left turn lane.
So if there's a rational nexus to connect, we would do that and
make those changes within -- within the PUD. So it's a matter of, yes,
if there is a way of entering into some of those other areas within the
-- within the ordinance, we will do that.
If I could turn to the county attorney, if she wants to highlight
more in regards to that.
MS. STUDENT: Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: And if Susan wants to discuss that, I can -- go
ahead.
MS. STUDENT: Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney, for
the record. And we've provided the commission with a memorandum
from our outside land use legal use counsel, Martie Chumbler and
Nancy Lanan of Carlton Fields.
And I want to reiterate. This is a policy decision, and what this
memo does is explains some of the legal pitfalls that could happen as a
result of doing this. It's not to say that you can't do it. It just
highlights some of the legal pitfalls.
And I provided each of the commissioners a copy of this memo.
But just to highlight some of the areas, there are issues of vested rights
that could come up. Say for example, a developer has dedicated a
certain amount of roadway based on a certain number of units, and
then he comes in for a PUD to PUD rezone for some other area and
the board opens up the PUD and takes away some of those units, he
mayor may not have a claim for vested rights or equitable estoppel
because he dedicated some land to the county based on that number of
units.
Or he may have a Bert Harris claim, and that's a little bit less
burdensome to, perhaps, prove than vested rights where there's been
some reasonable investment expectations by virtue of receiving the
Page 170
. ---...-.
'> '''""-~''''''"'''-'''''._-'''''~'
September 21,2004
original PUD approval that may have been inordinately burdened by
, the county if the county goes in and changes some of those reasonable
investment type expectations.
Also, there's a situation of where a PUD may have -- many of the
parcels may have been sold, it may have been subdivided, and lots are
sold. So sayan owner of a commercial component wants to come in
and amend a PUD and the board looks at other aspects of the PUD
that the property owners not before you that may wish to change, well,
other owners of property in the PUD, there's a procedural due process
problem because they aren't before the commission asking for a
change.
It's only the owner of that discrete piece of property that's before
the board asking for the change, yet there may be a situation where
opening up the entire PUD, their property is affected and they become
legally nonconforming, which mayor may not have an impact on their
property value.
There's a situation that Mr. Schmitt eluded to having to do with
payment or getting credits for fees and such because of dedication of
property, that as a property's rezoned, if it hasn't -- the dedication
hasn't occurred and they haven't gotten credit, after the first rezone
may be some argument, they could potentially argue, well, I've got my
second rezone, so you have to look at the zoning before -- as a result
of this one when I get -- do my dedication and I get my impact fee
credit. So that's another unintended consequence.
So -- and then you have to be careful, too -- or Mrs. Lanan makes
a point that if you do make any changes that go beyond what the asked
for amendment is, that Mr. Schmitt also alluded to, there has to be a
rational nexus.
So that's just more or less a highlight of the memo that I had sent
to the commission, the miscellaneous memo.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When you say a rational nexus,
Page 171
._._---~,-;-_._..-
September 21, 2004
that could be whether it's a substantial or insubstantial change in the
PUD; is that correct?
MS. STUDENT: Well, that means that any other change has to
bear a relationship, and a reasonable relationship to the other -- to the
change that's being sought, any further change the commission might
wish to make has to be reasonably connected to it or related it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So in the discussion as the PUD
was evolving amongst the petitioner and the landowner and the Board
of County Commissioners that were sitting at that point in time, as
they were discussing the best way to approach the development of this
PUD along with the preserves and anything else that was discussed,
then it could that be there were promises made in regards to what was
going to take place in this PUD; that may have had a large effect in
regards to how the PUD was actually developed through the process
of being brought before the Board of County Commissioners?
MS. STUDENT: That -- I can -- when you say this PUD, you
mean --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or any PUD.
MS. STUDENT: Right, that's part of the process, is there's
typically negotiation between the applicant and staff and __
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: -- the various boards.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I guess what we need to -- do
we need to establish then whether we feel this is significant or
insignificant, or is that left up to somebody else?
MS. STUDENT: I think that depends on the particular PUD or
amendment that you're looking at.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: And in our code we even break it out what
substantial and insubstantial ones are, and there are two different
processes that we have for those.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if there were commitments
Page 1 72
~--,.
September 21, 2004
made, substantial commitments made in regards to a certain item,
PUD, that has a lot of bearing in regards to whether this would be
substantial or insubstantial; is that true?
MS. STUDENT: Yeah. I think it would depend on what the
commitment is. And in our code, any text change has to go through a
PUD amendment. So whether it's substantial or not, any text change
to the document has to go through --
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if I could make sure you
understand. We have criteria that specifically identified in the land
development code, that defines and helps determine whether it's a
substantial or insubstantial change.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess what I want to do is get it
on the record that there were some promises made, and I think that
those promises -- to me, when somebody gives your word on
something, to me that carries a lot of weight, and that's all I'll say
about the matter.
MR. SCHMITT: I understand. From a legal prospective, it's
what's in the ordinance, is what we enforce.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But it's also in the documentation
of what is brought forward?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, and that's the board's prerogative, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And also, when there isn't a promise
made, but say, for instance, somebody has approval for 3,000 units
and this was approved 10 years ago, long before we ever had
concurrency in place, now we don't know that this guy's even going to
build 3,000 units, we don't even know if he's going to build one unit,
but yet, he's taking up the capacity on that road.
Now he wants to come in and change his PUD around a little bit.
I think that we ought to be able to get back in there and allocate the
road capacity.
I know somebody that is going through this right now, and
Page 173
.--.-
September 21, 2004
they're following our rules, and now they have to divide it up. They
can't build as they thought they were going to, and they have to divide
it up amongst six years, and that's because now they're following the
present code.
And I'm just wondering if -- you know, I don't want to lose that
ability to do that, and I don't want you guys to be saddled with the
inability to follow through and slip into our new land development
code.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, it will not be a new land development
code. The PUD amendment --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, the way it's been rewritten up to
this point.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. The code authorizes the PUDA process
right now, so to change and go back to an abbreviated version of PUD
amendments is not a problem.
But in regards to your discussion about density, we can always
work with the developer in regards to trying to exact -- exact from the
standpoint, put an exact number on what the density or the build-out
for density will be within that PUD, and certainly try and define that
when a PUD has to come back for amendment. Those are one of the
things we've worked on.
I know that's been a concern of this board for a long time, is
trying to get some of those older PUDs that are consuming capacity
that we know will not ever be built, but they still have it. And we
have certain parts of the county we're experiencing that, and
specifically down in 951/41 area.
Susan, do you have any comments in regards to process of
density? I mean, we -- but the issue -- and I'll have to turn you to the
county attorney, because the density is still vested. I mean, they still
own that, and that's still -- they still have that in regards to the
ordinance. We didn't try and --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Maybe their -- maybe their density is
Page 174
"'---..~.._--"..
----.----
.·O~__......_
September 21, 2004
based upon the rules as they stood before -_
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- where -- you know, and those rules
don't exist any longer.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, when those kind of PUDs come in -- and
we're usually dealing with large PUDs and DRIs. We'll try and get
them to identify in real terms what they really think they're going to
do. And we did that with Lely. I think you're going to see that again
in some other areas where we did get them to take some of that -- what
we know is not going to ever happen. I'll call it what it is, fictitious
density.
I think last time Fiddler's Creek came in, they, in fact, did that,
and reduced it from 9,600 units down to 6,000. So that's a process __
when they come, staff will work with the petitioner to try and zero in
on those kind of issues.
But the issue before you today is, frankly, Commissioner, do you
want to continue with staff doing a full PUD to full PUD rezone. As
the county attorney mentioned, that does create some problems that
we're now aware of. Or do we want to go to this amended process, the
PUD amend -- back to a PUD amendment process?
We're not going to go back to what we once did. This will be
more of a -- we will redo the entire ordinance, identify the changes,
and that document will be one document.
And one of the first cases we'll be dealing with, of course, as I
mentioned, is the issue regarding the Cocohatchee PUD from
Signature Properties, having to deal specifically with the eagle
management plan. Do we come back and just address the eagle
management plan, or do we go through the full PUD to full PUD
rezone, given that this project, certainly there's some vested -- vesting
questions and other issues involved?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: While I think Commissioner Fiala
Page 175
--
September 21, 2004
raises a good point in trying to make that decision, there are clearly
circumstances in some PUDs that are so minor -_
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that it is foolish and
time-consuming, a waste of time for everybody involved to open up
the entire PUD for potential revision and debate, not to mention the
exposure to adverse legal decisions made against the taxpayers of
Collier County. So clearly there must be some circumstances where
we should be able to open up just a portion of a PUD.
But Commissioner Fiala's concern is quite valid. As PUDs begin
to get older, there is good reason to try to find a way to update them.
And perhaps what we could do is to tie this decision with respect to
whether or not you open up the entire PUD or only a portion of it to
our -- tie it to our sunsetting provisions so that if a PUD has been
around for five years or so, and there is a minor change, we might
want to have the ability to go in and take a look at what they have
been doing, if they're making appropriate progress, if they are __
appear to have density they're not really going to be using, we can get
that off the books at that point in time, hopefully, in -- through
negotiation --
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- with the contractor, rather than
trying to arbitrarily remove something from them. So there has to be a
way, I think, that we can begin to update some of those older PUDs.
But again, I think that we must have ways to deal with relatively
minor issues without opening the entire PUD up.
And this gets very complex. And I don't know that I've got a
solution for this one, because what is a rational nexus for one person
might not be a rational nexus for the other person.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, it would have to be a legal rational
nexus.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, and even that is
Page 176
September 21, 2004
subj ect to interpretation.
And I think that particular issue takes a lot of study and a lot of
work, and I'd be surprised if we can come up with all the conditions
today that would permit us to define what those are. But earlier today,
we did exactly that.
MR. SCHMITT: We did.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We opened up Waterside Shops for
one single thing, and we made that decision. That didn't seem to
bother us a lot.
And so I guess I'm a little puzzled as to why we are hesitant to do
that here, although I can find some rational nexus between this
particular change being requested and some other elements of the
PUD. Others can find, perhaps, others.
But with respect to the policy, it seems to me we've already
changed the policy by considering the Waterside Shops thing.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, we did with that one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And so you've done it once.
How can you pick and choose?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, but that was -- that -- again, that's a PUD
that's already built out. I mean, for all intents and purposes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, not really. They've got
several thousand units that they're -- they're selling that density and
they're using that density. And so there are issues here that get very,
very complex.
MR. SCHMITT: And the Pelican Bay PUD was also the DR!, so
that's -- they were also vested because it was a DRI, which gives it
other protections.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah, I understand. But
those reasons are not quite as clear-cut as they might initially seem.
But I'm not sure that we can draft a change to the policy today
that provides you guidance to do all of the things that we would like
for you to do, be able to do, which is, on the one hand, change it --
Page 177
--,.
-~"~'. ....... ..,",,,
September 21, 2004
change something fast and quick because it doesn't have much impact,
on the other hand, we want you to be able to go in and take a look at
unbuilt density and see if you can't reduce it, bring up building codes,
add requirements for sidewalks that didn't exist at the time of
approval. All these kinds of things.
It's unfair to do that, I think, if the PUD is currently in the process
of development and substantial money has been invested based on a
certain set of circumstances. I think it is not unfair if many years have
passed and there's been little progress on these. It is not unfair for us
to go back and take a look at what was approved and try to bring it up
to date.
So bottom line, I don't think we've had a firm policy all along. I
think we've violated it from time to time in considering changes to
PUDs, and I don't know that we shouldn't do it here.
MR. SCHMITT: I understand. Of course, with the sunsetting,
the one rule was that if there's government action that prohibited the
development --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct.
MR. SCHMITT: -- then we'd certainly -- as you recall, we
extended that -- the deadline for that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But in many cases there has not
been government action which prohibited it, and we need to have the
option to get in there and do something about it.
MR. SCHMITT: If I could just -- I guess we can -- I know
there's going to be public speakers, but from -- I can hold off if the
guidance we're looking for -- and I -- what I've just heard you say is, I
guess it's going to have to be an assessment by staff, because we just
did this with some in place.
We did a full PUD to full PUD rezone because they changed the
side yard setback, or the rear yard setback, and -- when we could have
just done just a table. And what I heard you saying is, in those
instances, it certainly makes sense to just deal with that.
Page 178
-.'~-".
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. SCHMITT: There's no written policy. We've just been
acting on the board's direction, and the LDC allows it.
Susan and I both know that the LDC has to be amended to clarify
some of the parameters and the criteria, and we know we need to do
that. But in this regard, I guess we're looking for guidance specifically
on how you want to deal with this PUD, because it's going to come
back, and it's going to come back either as a full PUD to full PUD
rezone, or it will just be dealing with the specific issue, and that is the
amending of the eagle management plan.
So that's -- it's how you want to deal with this and how you want
to deal with this through the public hearing process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The complicating factor here is
though, once you make a decision as to how you deal with this, you've
established a policy, because we can't afford to be flip-flopping on
this. We have to be reasonably consistent, and we have to find a way
to treat everybody fairly.
So when you say you're looking for guidance on this one, you
really are looking for --
MR. SCHMITT: Guidance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- pretty much permanent __
MR. SCHMITT: Overall.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- permanent guidance on this
policy overall. Good luck.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So are we saying then basically if
any changes, whether it's an amendment to the PUD, it's going to have
to go through the full process of going through the environmental
boards and everything else; is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: It's a "it depends" answer. If it's a substantial
change and it deals with certain aspects, it may not have to go back to
the EAC --
Page 1 79
---
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Who's going to make the
determination?
MR. SCHMITT: -- but in most instances, it will have to go back
to the board -- to the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And who makes the
determination whether it's substantial or insubstantial?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, that is through the LDC and __
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: -- Susan Murray, my director for zoning and
land development review, makes that decision based on the criteria in
the land development code.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no qualms about it as long
as it goes through the process, and that's through the Planning
Commission, and then so on, till it gets to us.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course, the reason why we're
in such deep discussion is because it's a hot button issue, very much
so.
MR. SCHMITT: Extremely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I agree, and when it comes
back to us, I'm definitely going to be weighing everything that I heard
before, and what's being done, what's being asked.
I really don't think it's proper to be setting different parameters
for everything depending on the hot button issues by the fact that the
whole PUD has to be revised from beginning to end.
I agree with Commissioner Halas that when something is
substantially changed, in this case the eagle management process, the
suggestion of how it's supposed to be put together, that it probably
should go back to the EDC. And we're talking about something that--
it's dramatically different than it was before. In their recommendation,
something that we weigh heavily on, and, too, the Planning
Page 180
September 21, 2004
Commission.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would still keep the
process moving forward though, if you didn't have to do the whole
PUD; is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. In this case, staff has deemed
that, regardless, even if we just deal with the eagle management plan,
it has to go back through the EAC, through the Planning Commission,
and the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, judging by the e-mails
I've been getting and the phone calls and people visiting, they're not
going to be dealing with an issue like that. They're going to be
dealing with it as an eagle issue.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Beginning and end.
MR. SCHMITT: It's a listed species issue again. As far as the
development criteria in the ordinance, staffs review of the ordinance.
Really there is nothing else to amend in the ordinance. They're below
the density in regards to the coastal high hazard area.
So those issues, staff had -- has no need to go back and dip into
the PUD unless the public or, of course, the board, feels that there's
justification to go in and deal with what had been approved in the past.
And, of course, that's a dangerous and slippery slope __
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: -- because it was approved in 2000 and there
were certain development rights that were -- were given, and it
certainly leads to a situation that could --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not only that, but we set
ourselves up for failure if we try and go back and do the whole PUD.
We've got -- we have a published recommendation from our
consultant, legal consultant, that's telling us that it's not done anyplace
else. This is totally out of the ordinary, and it could be brought up to
Page 181
--,.--.-.-
.. .. "'".~..~,~",._,-"
',.,"-"---
September 21, 2004
legal challenge. So why do I want to come tempt fate by taking that
on with the whole PUD each time being brought back for review?
MR. SCHMITT: That's our staffs recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could we go to public speakers?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How many public speakers do we have?
MS. McPHERSON: You have eight public speakers. The first--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. They each get five minutes.
MS. McPHERSON: Okay. The first public speaker is Doug
Fee, followed by Nicole Ryan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you want us to read these, or do you
want us to listen to you?
MR. FEE: Let's have a moment of prayer, please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's either-or.
MR. FEE: Thank you very much for allowing me to speak.
Good afternoon, Commissioners. F or the record my name is
Doug Fee. I'm here representing North Bay Civic. On behalf of our
members and member others who have signed a petition urging you to
protect these eagles, I thank you for this opportunity to speak.
We put our trust in each of you to make the decisions that are in
the best interest of Collier County. Weare here because your staff is
asking for guidance on amending the Cocohatchee Bay PUD, more
specifically the bald eagle management plan.
First of all, the North Bay Civic Association feels this
amendment is not -- is not necessary, and because of the stipulations
made in the PUD in 2000, it should not be allowed limited to the eagle
Issue.
In December 2000, there were plenty of statements, testimonies,
conditions agreed to, and regulations written into the PUD -- I have
given you the copies of the quotes from the transcripts -- and finally, a
motion made by you that clearly the intent was to protect these eagles.
Nothing has changed -- nothing has changed that allows this eagle
Page 182
'.-'-
September 21, 2004
management plan to be changed from the intent of those proceedings.
In my hands is a copy of the executive summary that was
presented to the commissioners on December 12th, 2000, which is
prepared by county staff. It includes the Planning Commission
findings and staff recommendations, as well as the EAC staff report,
and it is always a part of any rezone proceeding.
Over the past three years, I have read and referred to it quite
often. I have given each of you a copy of the pages I'm referring to.
And on page 7 under the title, environmental issues, it reads, quote,
regulations provided within the PUD speaks to the existing presence
of a bald eagle nest and establishes a management plan to ensure that
the viability of a nest is unaffected by the actions of man.
The result of this measure is that a major portion of the
residential development potential will not be able to go forward until
such time as the eagle nest is abandoned or otherwise altered by
natural condition.
In the EAC staff report, on page 9 and 10, staff recommended
approval with the following stipulation, and it reads under number 9:
Remove the residential high rise tract designation on the parcels where
there is currently an active bald eagle nest.
Commissioners, these two statements in the executive summary
are very important, and I believe that your staff at the time spelled out
very clearly the intent of protecting the eagles while the nest is active.
The eagles are still using the nests and have every year since the PUD
was approved.
I would like to put on the teleprompt -- in the executive summary
today -- I pulled out one sentence. It's on the very first page in the
middle of the page, and it says, Exhibit A is applicable only when the
bald eagle nest tree is deemed no longer active. And I've given you a
handout.
What I want to do is -- there are two master plans for this
ordinance, and I think what's important here is to understand which __
Page 183
""-.-,-.--.......-
September 21, 2004
which master plan we're under today and how we can get to the future.
I've highlighted for both -- for all of you Exhibit B, and you can
see the yellow highlighted areas. In the middle is the eagle nest, and
you have the primary and secondary zone. And you will notice that
the designation for the residential towers is not located on this plaster
plan. That is R-l.
I'm going to put up a new map, which is Exhibit A, and I
highlight R -1, which says residential towers. And you will notice that
I highlighted also, in that same area where the nest is located, the R -1.
My point here is -- I'm almost through. My point here is, the
Exhibit A is only applicable when the bald eagle nest is deemed no
longer active. Weare not there yet. It's still active.
North Bay Civic would encourage you, urge you, if you're going
to allow an amendment to this PUD, that was a significant part of the
approval, and we would like to make sure these three meetings, public
meetings, allow us to all speak on the facts as we know them today,
and we trust that you'll help us out in that matter.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Next speaker?
MS. McPHERSON: Next speaker is Nicole Ryan, and she will
be followed by Donna Reed Caron.
MS. RYAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Nicole Ryan here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
It seems that staffs presentation on this item today has focused
on the process in general and PUD amendments in general. And while
I agree that's a very worthy discussion, and it sounds like we need
further discussion on that, if you'll look on the agenda item, this is
specifically for the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. And this item goes
beyond the general PUD amendment process. It gets into whether
agreements made at the PUD approval process count for anything
when a developer seeks to amend that PUD. And that's another item
which is also very important and above and beyond the general
Page 184
'----
September 21, 2004
process Issue.
Your staff is requesting that you give them direction to only
partially open the Cocohatchee Bay PUD in order to amend only the
eagle management plan. The Conservancy believes that this cannot be
done, because the eagle management plan is tied into the entire PUD
document. It's tied through various references within the text of the
PUD master plan, it's tied through verbal agreements made by the
petitioner's representative on the record, and it's tied through
commitments made by county staff on the record during the PUD
approval process.
You received an August 11 th memo, which Margie has referred
to, from your outside counsel, and in it Nancy Linan writes, just
because the developer requests modification for only one aspect of the
PUD does not mean that no other previously approved portions are
subject to change. You simply need to look for a rational nexus
between the requested change and any additional conditions the
commission now seeks to put into place.
So what you're looking for in this specific case is that rational
nexus, a link between the eagle management plan and the entire PUD
document. We believe this link is clearly found in the verbal
commitments that the applicant's representative made, that no
high-rise towers would go up in the eagle primary zone until the eagle
abandoned the nest.
These stipulations were also emphasized by county staff, and the
commitments were also referenced in the PUD document, specifically
Page 2.1 and Page 6.1 of the PUD master plan. Since these assurances
likely played into the decision to approve the entire PUD master plan,
this is one example of a rational nexus linking the eagle management
plan to the PUD master plan in its entirety.
Also, perhaps staff made the clearest connection with this
rational nexus in your executive summary in the second paragraph
under considerations. It states, the approved PUD document is
Page 185
"--
September 21, 2004
unusual in that it contains two master plans. Exhibit A indicates the
proposed development plan, including golf course and residential
areas. Exhibit B indicates golf course only entirely outside of the bald
eagle primary protection zone, and no residential areas. Exhibit A is
applicable only when the bald eagle nest tree is deemed no longer
active.
So, if you can only get to Exhibit A, which is the plan with the
residential towers, by waiting for the nest tree to be deemed no longer
active, which is contained in Exhibit B, then how can the bald eagle
management plan, Exhibit B, possibly be separated from the entire
PUD. We don't believe that it can be.
This also goes into the issue of commitments made on record.
When this PUD was approved, you and the public were given repeated
assurances that the developer was not going to do anything until, I
quote, Mr. Eagle decides to find a new place to live, end quote. That
was on the record from Karen Bishop, representative for the
developer, at the December 12th, 2000 commission meeting. Such
statements were also made at the EAC and the planning commission.
Additional assurances were given by county staff that, and again
I quote, until that eagle decides to find a new home, that development
can't go forward. It just can't go forward. It's there, and it will have to
wait until the eagle finds a new home, end quote. And that was a
quote from former county staff member, Ron Nino, at the November
16th, 2000 planning commission meeting.
These, and other promises, are on the record, and we've given
you excerpts from the record. The Conservancy believes that these
commitments made on record, along with assurances written into the
PUD master plan and the eagle management plan, are tied together
and cannot be reevaluated separately. Nothing has changed except the
developer's desire to begin construction of the towers prior to a time
line that was agreed to within the PUD.
F or this to even be considered, The Conservancy believes that the
Page 186
~--"-
~-~~.~~-- --- .+
September 21, 2004
entire PUD needs to be reopened. Thank you.
MS. McPHERSON: Next speaker is Donna Reed Caron,
followed by Rich Y ovanovich.
MS. CARON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Donna Reed
Caron for the Estuary Conservation Association.
It is the opinion of the ECA that the entire matter, this entire
matter before you is subject to the public hearing process with all
development standards open for review. The LDC provides that a
change is substantial if there is a proposed -- one of the criteria is if
the proposed increases the total number of dwelling units.
Well, I would submit to you that currently, under the current
plan, this developer has approximately, maybe as many as 190 units
that he can build as of today, while -- out of a total of 590 that are
permitted, but not permitted until the eagle nest is declared vacant and
abandoned.
The LDC further specifies that a substantial change -- that in a
substantial change, the applicant shall be required to submit and
process a new application. And that's what they should be required to
do.
The broader concept has been brought out, and was just brought
out by Nicole. First of all, I think we can easily create the rational
nexus that Marti Chumbler wants us to create, because I submit to you
that that PUD would not have been approved had the petitioner stood
up to you and said, we will go forward with this PUD no matter what,
no matter whether the eagle's there or not. They never would have
gotten the approval of the commissioners at that BCC meeting in
2000.
The broader concept is all those commitments that they made,
just today in these very hearings, commitments were made to
Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas on the Waterside
Shops. Commissioner Coletta is getting commitments made to him all
the time on Ave Maria. If those commitments made in a quasi-judicial
Page 187
September 21, 2004
hearing are not valid, and you can't count on them, then you can't
count on them for anything. Today, forget it. You may as well just
forget what happened today.
This PUD was approved and granted on the representations of
safety and protection for the eagles. By reneging on prior
commitments, the developer upsets the balance of the original PUD.
If any part of the PUD is to be modified to allow a greater
number of residential units than presently or foreseeably authorized, it
must be done through the same public process that produced the
existence of the original PUD ordinance. Thank you.
MS. McPHERSON: Next speaker is Rich Yovanovich, followed
by Bob Diffenderfer.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich.
I'm going to try to just focus on the process and not talk about
what mayor may not have been said at a previous hearing or what was
said and may have been taken out of context.
I do want to point out, for the record, that at both the EAC, the
planning commission meeting and the Board of County
Commissioners, Mr. Corns (phonetic) got up and stated that they had a
four or five-year time frame before they wanted to go forward with
their project, and that's exactly where we are. We're at a four or
five-year time frame.
Our PUD document specifically provides a process by which we
would amend an eagle management plan or to go to the EAC. Ifwe
were not allowed to come forward with a proposed amendment to the
eagle management plan, the PUD document would have said, thou
shalt not be allowed to come forward with an amendment to the eagle
management plan. That commitment is nowhere in the PUD
document.
We acknowledge that we have to go through a PUD amendment
process. And that amendment process will include the EAC, the
Page 188
September 21, 2004
planning commission and the Board of County Commissioners to
amend our eagle management plan.
I think Commissioner Coyle touched on, you know, some of your
concerns, Commissioner Fiala, regarding older PUD's. We have
probably one of the strongest and most strenuous sunsetting provisions
in the state to address PUD's that were speculative PUD's, that
nobody's ever acted on. This is not the case.
We have spent a lot of money in an effort to further our project.
We have gotten site development plans approved, we have gotten the
Water Management District permit approved, we've got an Army
Corps of Engineers permit approved. We are not just sitting and
speculating. We are moving forward with the PUD.
This PUD was adopted in the year 2000. As your staff has told
you, we meet your current regulations. If you take out submerged
lands, we're still under the density thresholds. There's no reasons for
this particular PUD to go through a full-blown review.
And if you look at the eagle management plan itself, it says that
there can be changes to it if the management techniques change. We're
coming forward to you, with you, on an eagle management plan that
shows changed techniques. Let us go through the process. Let us -- let
us go through the three hearings we'll have to go through and we'll
deal with that issue. And that's the issue we need to focus on, the
eagle management plan.
A lot of what was said to you is excerpts I don't think are relevant
to today's discussion. If you want to bring those up when we're really
into the eagle management and the PUD, let's get into that and let's
talk about the entire, entire record and what is actually in the PUD
document and what is not in the PUD document, because as I earlier
spoke on a different matter, I made sure that commitments, and you
make sure that commitments that are made that are important to you
find their way into the text of the PUD document. That's the
document you deal with, the PUD document.
Page 189
September 21,2004
The record -- or the discussions are really not relevant. You get
into the PUD document, because that's what's important to the
commission and the community, and what finds its way into the PUD
is what we have to be held to, not discussions that lead up to the
ultimate motion, because all that really matters is the PUD, because
that's the law.
We're asking that we go through what the PUD says, that we go
to the EAC to deal with our amendment. It's an amendment to the
PUD. Let's focus on the eagle issue, and let's just deal with the eagle
issue and not focus on other issues that are unrelated to how do we
address and deal with this particular listed species.
Mr. Diffenderfer is going to follow me. If you have any
particular questions, I'll be happy to answer them. And with that, we
agree with your legal counsel, your outside legal counsel, Ms. Student,
that you should go back to a PUD amendment process in this
particular case, and that you should follow your staffs
recommendations for a PUD amendment process and limit it to the
eagle management plan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Rich, you're talking about the PUD. 4.3,
I'm assuming that that's the PUD, sections 8, 16, 17 and 20, Township
48, S, Range 25 E, Collier County, Turrell and Associates, August,
2000. Number 4.3, which says site development considerations and
species management protocol?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And in the paragraph, starting with
the habitat management guidelines, it ends with saying, no residential,
commercial or industrial development, logging or mining should occur
within this zone.
MR. yaV ANOVICH: Where are you talking about,
Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, if you look in all the paperwork I
have here, it's page 45 of 52. I don't know if you have what we have
Page 190
September 21,2004
here. It's 4.3.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. In that very same section of the
opening paragraph, Commissioner --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. yaV ANOVICH: It says --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Only with the option to conduct future
residential construction should the site conditions or management
techniques change to allow it.
MR. YO V ANOVICH: Right. And management techniques have
changed, Commissioner. We've gone through and got an Anny Corps
of Engineers pennit. So we need to get into that when we talk about
the eagle management plan and how we amend the eagle management
plan. We never, and there's nothing in this PUD document that says
we have given up our right to come in and ask for an amendment to a
PUD, or an amendment to the eagle management plan.
And if you look at the environmental conditions within the PUD
itself, which is 6.9F, any amendment to the bald eagle management
plan shall require review of the Environmental Advisory Council.
Why would there be a provision that talks about an amendment to the
eagle management plan if we said we'll never come in and amend it?
It doesn't make any sense.
So I mean, we -- but the point is, we never gave up our right to
come in and amend the eagle management plan. That's what we need
to focus on, and let's get rid of these other tangential issues that are
irrelevant to the discussion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Marjorie, when stuff is -- when
items are brought before the Board of County Commissioners here,
and it's discussed, isn't this stuff, when it's finally hashed out and
everything is laid out, isn't that put in the PUD in regards to the
promises and --
MS. STUDENT: Yes, the commitments are generally -- find
Page 191
-..,...
September 21, 2004
their way into the PUD. However, as a stop gap, let me just find it,
because PUD's typically contain language that all conditions imposed
and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the
development -- I'm reading from the Cocohatchee PUD in this case,
shall become part of the regulations which govern the manner in
which the PUD site may be developed. That's standard language that
appear in every PUD document, or should appear in every PUD
document.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got one other question. Has
there ever been any applications for insubstantial changes to a PUD
whereby the planning commission viewed it as a substantial change
and pushed it back?
MS. STUDENT: Any amendments that would have gone to the
planning commission would have been text amendments to the PUD.
Then we have master plan amendments, and there are substantial and
insubstantial changes to the master plan. And as I recall, the
substantial ones are the ones that go there and the insubstantial can be
made by staff. So it would have to be substantial to get there in terms
of talking in code language.
Now, if you're talking in a small text change, you know, as long
as it's a text change, it would have to go through the planning
commISSIon.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The question I have is if
we're dealing with 590 units, if the -- supposedly the problem that we
have, if the petitioner, at that time, said hey, 1'11 only agree right to this
point with 190 units until whatever the problem that arises with this
PUD, until it goes away naturally, then I'm allowed to build my -- the
-- have my total build-out.
Is -- since there's two plans, can they revert back to that single
plan and be held accountable for that single plan?
MS. STUDENT: I think that's where we have to sort this out
with the habitat management plan and taking care of that other exhibit
Page 192
September 21, 2004
and the habitat management plan that's attached. And that's why we
have to sort this out.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But right now, as it stands, there is
a possibility that the developer can still put 190 units there without
any infringement at all in regards to any concerns that we have there,
and of course, that's the bald eagle; is that correct?
MS. STUDENT: I believe -- I may have to defer to staff on that,
but I believe that that could be correct, because those would be outside
the primary zone.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So therefore, in no way are
we inhibiting him of developing his property, but he just doesn't have
the ability, at this point in time, to completely build-out the property
because of the fact that we have a problem there with the eagle; is that
correct?
MS. STUDENT: Yeah, that would be true. And I want to point
out that that master plan has ambiguous language in it. On one page it
talks about, you know, a golf course, unless there's a change in
management techniques or site conditions, on another page that
Commissioner Fiala read from, it has some more generalized language
that seems to address residential development, and that's why we feel
that the master plan needs to be amended and fixed to reflect what
really needs to be done on that site.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then how did this ambiguous entry
enter into the plan?
MS. STUDENT: I believe it was a staff recommendation that the
habitat management plan be attached, and staff may be able to give
you some more guidance on that, and that it came up, more or less, at
the end of the process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is a very complicated issue.
MS. STUDENT: Yes. It came up, more or less, at the end of the
process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But really, like I say, as I clarified
Page 193
-,",-,.,
September 21, 2004
before, I think we came to the conclusion here that the developer does
have the right to go ahead with 190 units as it is today.
MS. STUDENT: Yeah. I would defer to staff, but if that's
outside of the primary zone, I believe that that would be correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. STUDENT: I'm not sure as to the number.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We still have other speakers?
MS. McPHERSON: You have one final speaker. The last three
withdrew. The last speaker will be Bob Diffenderfer.
MR. DIFFENDERFER: Thank you, Madam Chair. Bob
Diffenderfer, Lewis, Hahn (phonetic) and Walker for Signature
Communities.
I want to stick with the process question for a minute, and stay
out of the weeds in the particulars of this particular Cocohatchee PUD
as to what mayor may not be going on with it upcoming.
The question in front of you is, what ought your process to be,
what are you doing in terms of amending PUD's, or are you, in fact,
amending PUD's or doing something else, which is requiring PUD to
PUD rezone.
That process, I guess, has evolved as a policy from this board.
When I was asked to look at it, I went to your land development code,
which governs the processes you use for these things, and could find
no requirement to go PUD to PUD to amend the PUD. That is, if you
want to change a PUD, there certainly is provision for amendment in
your Land Development Code, and your Land Development Code is
written with an eye toward the ability to bring in an amendment to
your code.
So in that sense, I'm very much in agreement with what your staff
is proposing today, that you, if you will, readopt that as the way to go
forward, because I think that's the only safe way to proceed with the --
I think that's the only cover you have in your Land Development Code
to do PUD amendments, is through an amendment process, rather than
Page 194
.~--,".-"-~
."~'."-"',,~",""""
September 21, 2004
a rezone.
The law in Florida is clear that you cannot impose PUD zoning
on somebody. So in essence, to say to them, you've got to go PUD to
PUD, you're asking them to abandon, first, their existing zoning, and
then asking to impose PUD zoning on them, and I don't think the law
supports that. And I don't think your outside counsel agrees with that
position either.
And I wanted to just look at a couple of provisions in the memo
that you all got from Carlton-Fields, because I think it's supportive of
what staff is proposing, and it's certainly supportive of where we are.
Our major concern is that to require a total rezone on a PUD may
allow staff or the commission to think it can unilaterally alter
provisions of the PUD for which no changes are sought. If the
developer has contributed land, entered into a development agreement,
or begun development, the developer may have vested rights, or a
claim of equitable estoppel against the county.
Now, that is certainly clear here. Independent of your concerns
about being able to come back and tune up PUD's, if you will, those
that have gone stale, there's nothing in your ordinance which purports
to alter the law of vested rights in Florida, and this project,
Cocohatchee, certainly has them.
In sum, they conclude, we believe your ordinance can be read to
require a PUD amendment, and not a brand new rezoning, and think
that's the more appropriate way to go. We certainly concur with that
recommendation. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I just add one thing to that?
And I agree wholeheartedly with the gentleman that just spoke, but
not being a lawyer myself --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank God.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank God, yeah.
There's one area that Marti Chumbler talks about. You simply
need to look for rational nexus between the requested change and any
Page 195
"--~....-.
September 21, 2004
additional conditions the commission now seeks to put into place. So
I mean, that's -- I guess that right there says an awful lot also, if we
look at the rational nexus to this whole scenario.
MS. STUDENT: May I address that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, please do.
MS. STUDENT: I've already given you a definition, from
memory, actually, of reading case law of what a rational nexus is. But
the courts look, when they go to court, the courts take them on a
case-by-case basis and apply the rule and look at the situation and
determine whether or not there was a rational nexus. So, you know,
there's a rule and then the courts flush out the rule based upon specific
factual circumstances it has before it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So there's no real cookie cutter
explanation to this.
MS. STUDENT: Vested rights, takings and things like this, it's
hard to get a cookie cutter approach. The reason being the courts, in a
sense of fairness, look at the individual circumstances that they have
before it. And it's, you know, from a sense of fairness that they look.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that gives us even a harder
decision to make as far as addressing this whole issue and figuring out
MS. STUDENT: Well, it's a reasonable connection, so that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if I could just conclude, and I
want to make sure that the commissioners understand, any request to
amend a PUD, we still go through a comprehensive review process to
ensure that it is in compliance with our comprehensive plan. And in
doing that, we would note in the staff report, to the planning
commission and the Board of County Commissioners, the executive
summary, what previous agreements, vesting or anything else that was
involved in that.
That situation is where we are. I know Mr. Fee talked about the
Page 196
--'^"
--.....---"..-
September 21,2004
merits of the case. I didn't want to argue the merits of the case. I
think what Mr. Fee pointed out is exactly what needs to be debated
when we bring it back to the EAC, to the planning commission and
the board.
If the board deems that that triggers changes, and we've already
noted -- this is a unique situation, as I discussed in the executive
summary. It's probably the only executive -- or only PUD that we
have two master plans. Why that happened, I don't know. I wasn't
here when that happened, but certainly left me another situation to
deal with, but it has two master plans. One with the eagle, one
without.
What we need to do is amend the eagle management plan to
identify what the builder wants to do. They have their permits. We're
going to be dealing with compo plan consistency in regards to that.
And if the record and the review shows that there are -- there is a
rational nexus to deal with other issues within the PUD, we certainly
address those.
But the -- I think the dangerous path is just to assume a PUD to
PUD rezone and that's what we were here for today. I think Ms. Ryan
made a very sound argument in regards to there may be some criteria
out there that would allow, in the review process, certainly in the
public hearing, to address that issue with the petitioner. And we
would certainly address that in the public hearing and then developing
the final PUD document.
And I just wanted to close with Ms. Caron, and we have no
argument. This is a substantial change. It is not an insubstantial
change. That's why we're here before you today, to discuss the merits
of this issue. And I think what we're trying to do is define, do we go
through the full PUD to PUD rezone, and let me explain. When we do
a full PUD to PUD rezone, we're going through the entire process;
transportation, environmental review, stormwater, all the other type of
things that are associated with the PUD review.
Page 197
September 21,2004
In this case, most of those -- all those issues have been resolved.
The only issue is the environmental issue, of course, and that's the
eagle management plan or the listed species management plan that's
associated with this PUD. So with that, I put it in your hands.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not sure that we have the
expertise to review the -- this eagle management plan. We have
always deferred to the federal agencies on this issue. Do we have the
expertise on the eagle?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, the eagle management plan just
defines the rules. To answer your question, our compo plan clearly
states that we'll defer to the state or federal agencies.
In this case, as the petitioner just pointed out, they received the
U.S. Army Corps permit, which basically is going to allow them to do
an incidental take. We'll deal with that as part of the eagle
management plan. That decision has been made by the federal
government.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that our expert, the federal
government in this case?
MR. SCHMITT: And we go back. Again, now we're opening
the issue in regards to listed species, but back in March, you directed
us to, basically, follow what was then option two, I can put that up on
the viewer, if you want to see it. But we basically --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just in this case.
MR. SCHMITT: In this case, we will defer to the state and
federal agency.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're depending on their
review and their expertise?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. The eagle management plan
just outlines what they can and cannot do in regards to this eagle. And
with the permit, they will rewrite that plan and identify what their
plans are in regards to what they want to construct, what they believe,
Page 198
September 21,2004
in accordance with that permit, they're allowed to do, and that's what
will be debated publicly in regards to eagle management plan, and
then we'll amend the master plan so that we have one master plan that
identifies what will be built, when, and what they're allowed to do.
And that's the entire essence of this entire amendment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the construction around
that --
MR. SCHMITT: The primary and secondary zones.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could be an issue.
MR. SCHMITT: In this case -- well, here we are debating the
merits of the case, but in this case, they have the permit. We have not
reviewed the permit, but all indications are that they are going to be
allowed to build in the non-nesting season within the primary and
secondary zone.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess my concern is that we,
as elected officials, don't try to find a rational nexus in this case,
because I don't think we have the expertise to do that. We hope that
we can get guidance from our legal staff, find out what would be the
rational nexus of other ancillary, and I don't want to be led down the
rosy path of the case of Aquaport or anything like that to where we're
opening ourselves up, which we will talk about later on, of millions of
dollars. That's my concern in this process, that we do the right thing
by the taxpayers and the residents.
MS. STUDENT: Yeah, I was just going to say that when we get
there, and looking at what's proposed, that's when you look at the
rational nexus aspect of what's proposed by the proposed amendment.
And if the board, on any PUD, wanted to look at another aspect of the
PUD, the connection has to be with what the applicant is changing and
what the board may wish to change.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And who's going to keep us on
the straight and narrow line to make sure that we --
MS. STUDENT: Well, one of the words in the term is rational.
Page 199
September 21,2004
And I think it's, you know, it's what's reasonable under the
circumstances on how it's related to the applicant's proposed change.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would it be Trish that's going to
keep us down that straight and narrow?
MS. STUDENT: No. It would be your legal staff in
combination with your planning staff.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Joe, I guess you basically summed
it up, what you said, that whatever process that since -- you basically
said, at that podium, that this is a substantial PUD change, and it has
to go through the process, I feel comfortable with that. It has to go
through all the boards and everything else, I feel comfortable with
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course, we're going to be
hung up with the fact that when you get right down to it, the decision
is going to be made by the federal and state government, based upon
what they determine before; is that correct.
MR. SCHMITT: In this situation, probably most likely we'll be
debating whether or not there will be more rules placed upon habitat
management than currently exists, but we've been down that road --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we do that? Can we--
MR. SCHMITT: This case here, even if we changed the compo
plan, it will not affect his petition.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I feel like I've been
hoodwinked.
MR. SCHMITT: The argument, really, is going to come down
to, bar none, it will come down to what was said on the record, what
commitments were made, what is in the PUD, and frankly, what's
changed. And you've heard those statements, and that's what's going
to be debated, and it's going to probably be debated pretty fiercely
Page 200
.-..--"........-
September 21,2004
during the public meetings, because there were perceived
commitments made.
We know what's on the record. The record, in fact -- or the
situation is now changed, because they -- the petitioner has now
obtained the federal permit that basically impacts that eagle, and based
on our compo plan, we will probably find it -- most likely find it
consistent with the compo plan, because we defer to the state and
federal agencies.
The debate will become whether or not the state will -- does
recognize that. And that's probably where we're going to be debating.
And I'm not even prepared, nor is my staff, to address that issue
today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other questions? I just wanted to
make one comment back onto the original subj ect, and that is, the staff
wanting to go back to the old procedure, old policies.
MR. SCHMITT: Amended old policy, if I could clarify that,
because it would -- you would still see one document, but what you
would see is strike through and underline language in that document.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the thing that bothers me about that
particular thing is when somebody comes back in to amend their PUD,
it's certainly to their advantage, to their benefit, but yet -- but yet that
wouldn't give us the ability to bring them up to our present rules,
which would be a benefit to our community. And I'm having a little
problem with that.
Did that make any sense? Do you understand --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, it gets into what Commissioner Coyle
mentioned.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's like what's good for you isn't good for
me.
MR. SCHMITT: Where we get into the arguments, ma'am, quite
frankly, is now the LDC requires different sidewalk patterns and plans
than the older, and we get into the argument --
Page 201
~_.---~
September 21, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right, concurrency.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, concurrency is not an issue. That's dealt
with at the local development order, which is, of course, at the site
development plan or the final plat. That issue is dealt with if they get
their building -- if they get their development order, meaning their
approval of the SDP.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Unless they're vested already for a
number of units of density.
MR. SCHMITT: You're talking about the number of units. We
will do that through a compo plan consistency review, and I don't
know, I've got to turn to Susan for an expert analysis in discussing
that, but those issues will be reviewed. And if there are concerns,
certainly in that regard, we're going to raise that up as a matter of
debate in the public meetings. We're going to say, board, we think
this is an opportunity to look at the density in this project, because we
don't think they'll ever build to this density, and we want to put this on
the record. And we will note that to the petitioner. And the petitioner
can debate their position, but we know that that's a point, because it
certainly impacts norm, and you're going to hear it at the end of the
year during the AUIR process. We know that's a real problem,
because there are folks out there -- but the other issues are the
sidewalk issues. Some of these minor things that they -- we have
created a process, frankly, that is a dissuader, that everybody is
looking for a way to get around having to come back in and open up
the full PUD. And sometimes, as Commissioner Coyle mentioned, it
makes sense just to do a simple strike through and underline, and
move on and move that through the process.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But what you're describing,
however, is a process where we can elect to consider a single small
change to a PUD --
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
Page 202
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and make it relatively simple,
but during the process, we will also have the opportunity to
substantiate any rational nexus to any other provision of the PUD so
that if we wish to, we can change something beyond what was
requested.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so I think, if that's what you're
describing to us, that gets us where Commissioner Fiala wants to go,
where we would have the option, then, of deciding what is related to
this particular request for change and should we not also modify that
or update it.
It doesn't go quite as far as I think she would like to go, which
would be to just update the whole PUD to new standards. But we
could do that through our sunsetting provisions, if I remember
correctly. Can we not link this opportunity to a sunsetting provision,
and for the older PUD's, where there is a greater likelihood that there
are outdated standards, can we not, then, update these?
Now, the problem this creates is that it leaves the petitioner
uncertain as to the risks of asking for even an insubstantial change.
They don't -- they won't know what's happening to them until it gets
into the public hearings, and then we decide, yeah, we're going to do
lots of things to you.
MR. SCHMITT: You're using the word again, insubstantial
changes. Insubstantial changes is simple things that comes to the
zoning director, and it's administrative approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: But I know exactly what you're asking,
Commissioner, and it's -- it's what's discussed when they come in and
meet with either myself or Susan and discuss the extent, breadth and
depth of change that's going to be required. And I need to have Susan
really tell you from a technical perspective. She's the expert.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: While we're talking about this,
Page 203
September 21, 2004
Commissioner Coy Ie referred to before, and I'll say again, we want to
make sure it's fair as well. I mean, you have to be fair to the public, to
the developers, and to the commission. So, you know, keeping that in
mind, I'm not saying that we want to be so stringent that we're unfair.
MS. MURRAY: Good afternoon. Susan Murray, for the record.
I think I sense the direction you are leaning towards in your
concerns. But I think I need to make it really clear on the record, both
for the benefit of staff, yourself and for any petitioners now or in the
future that come before you, because our old process, old meaning the
time when we segregated simple amendments from significant
changes, did not provide for the process in which staff reviewed the
document in its entirety.
So if you're looking for staff to come back to you in the case of
minor changes, with a whole list of things that potentially are
inconsistent or not consistent with current rules, what have you, then
that needs to go through an entire review process.
In the past, what staff would do is evaluate the proposal by the
petitioner and then segregate the application out, and only send it to
affected departments based on their professional analysis. So for
example, if it was a minor change to -- you know, if it was an
environmental issue that wasn't related to transportation, it wouldn't go
to the transportation department for review. But if you're looking for
that type of review and that type of analysis, at this point, where we
would do that type of analysis and a staff report and say, we realize
they're only requesting an environmental change, however, here are
some things that we've noted that are now inconsistent with current
code for your infonnation, I would have to send it back through the
entire review process. And I can do that, but I need to understand that
that is the infonnation you seek. Otherwise, we're going to segregate
it out and only address the issues that the applicant is requesting to
change when they're doing the minor amendments.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning is waiting,
Page 204
..~_..,~-._-,--
September 21, 2004
but let me just ask one more question.
So we talk about minor changes, insignificant changes. So say,
for instance, a builder has already started to dig ground, and they've
put in all their infrastructure, and they're moving forward, but they've
decided they wanted to change the streetlights. That, to me, is an in
significant change that wouldn't have to put them into any PUD
reevaluation.
MS. MURRAY: Right. There are several different types of
changes. The first is a minor change that can be handled
administratively, and the LDC sets forth a criteria on what's
considered a minor change that I can approve administratively without
any public hearing.
The second set of changes are substantial versus insubstantial,
and again, the code culls out what is substantial. And then it says, if it
is substantial, it goes back through to the Board of County
Commissioners. If it's not, then it follows a different process. And
then we have the third, which is just, really, substantial, meaning text
and master plan changes or, in the case of a new PUD, it goes through
the whole process.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion that
we direct staff to bring it back, Mr. Schmitt's recommendation to
amend the habitat management plan in Exhibit B of our packet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: For the LDC?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, for the -- for this item that
we're discussing today, and make sure that it goes through the EAC
and the planning commission before it comes to the Board of County
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Would you restate your motion
one more time, please?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Direct staff to bring it back to
the Board of Commissioners through the EAC and the planning
Page 205
September 21, 2004
commission to amend the eagle management plan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second on that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is basically staffs
suggestion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
take staffs suggestion to move this item back through the -- the
process going through EAC, CCPC and then the BCC to amend the
eagle management plan; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion by Commissioner Henning and a
second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. The only thing I'd like to
add is I still don't like the way it came down. I plan to be following
this thing extremely closely as we go through it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I can say that that's how I'm going
to be following it, too, because I feel that this should be a substantial
change.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It is a substantial --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sure we'll have that
discussion when it comes back.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'll add also, that the reason I voted
for it in the first place is because of the eagle management plan. So it
will be interesting.
Okay. So I'm going to call for the vote. All those in favor, say
aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 206
September 21, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Eye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a 4-1 vote.
Item #10B
RECOMMENDATION TO RATIFY EMERGENCY PURCHASE
ORDERS ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION FOR
THE COLLECTION, TRANSPORTATION AND PROCESSING OF
HURRICANE CHARLEY RELATED BIOMASS, FOR THE
RENTAL OF EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT USED BY THE
WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT FOR HURRICANE ACTIVITIES
AND FOR THE APPROVAL OF RELATED BUDGET
AMENDMENTS IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $1,937,500-
AEEROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 10(B),
approval of this agreement by the county manager is subj ect to the
formal ratification by the Board of County Commissioners. If the
decision by the county manager is not ratified by that board, this
agreement shall be enforceable against Collier County only to the
extent authorized by law in the absence of such ratification by the
board.
Recommendation to ratify emergency purchase orders issued by
the public utilities division for the collection, transportation and
processing of Hurricane Charley-related biomass, for the rental of
emergency equipment used by the waste water department for
hurricane activity, and for the approval of related budget amendment
in the estimated amount of one million three hundred seven thousand
five hundred dollars.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
Page 207
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to --
MR. YONKOSKY: Commissioners, before we move--
MR. MUDD: Before you do this, I want to make sure, the
money is coming out right now of general fund reserves, and I don't
have a problem with that. FEMA's going to reimburse us. But if
FEMA doesn't reimburse for the full amount, any discrepancy
between the FEMA reimbursement, okay, and the money that was
borrowed out of the general fund will be transferred over from the
solid waste account, so that the general funds will be solid, 100
percent. I wanted to put that on the record, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir. Thank you. Okay. That's great.
Okay. Commissioner Henning has made a motion to approve--
MR. YONKOSKY: Commissioners, before you vote, one of the
things that, when the executive summary was written, the amounts
that were put in there have changed, and we want to be able to read
into the record the actual amount --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. YONKOSKY: So that you're approving what it is that we're
-- so I'll just go to the recommendation.
Excuse me. My name is John Yonkosky. I'm the utility billing
and customer service director.
The recommendation is to ratify the eight emergency purchase
orders, as amended, and authorize the processing of budget
amendments, moving funds from the board's general fund reserves to
the emergency measures cost center in the general fund. The EPO's
total, one million nine hundred thirty-seven thousand five hundred
dollars; forty-five thousand dollars for removal of trees from blocking
roads that was through the transportation department where they cut
down trees that had to be -- that debris had to be removed; $50,000 to
Phillips and Jordan for the removal of that big pile of debris on Marco
Island; $50,000 for Phillips and Jordan to remove debris from the curb
Page 208
September 21,2004
site on Marco Island; $650,000 to Phillips and Jordan for debris
removal in the southern half of the county.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is it 650 now rather than 350?
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, ma'am. It was 350 -- when we started
off, when the executive summary was written, it was 4,000 pounds
was our first estimate -- 4,000 tons was our first estimate. By
September 3rd, we had collected 6,000 tons, so, it went up. We just
made -- our estimate was based on what we saw at the time, and it
became a little bit bigger.
$3,100 to Phillips and Jordan for the rental of generators;
$99,400 to Phillips and Jordan for the rental of pump-out trucks from
the wastewater department, and in the north sweep, it's $750,000 to
Waste Management of Florida for the north half of the county for
curbside pick up of Hurricane Charley yard waste.
And then the original estimate was $180,000 to process, chip and
move the debris to an off -- a site outside of Collier County. Because
of the increase in the debris that we picked up and processed, that is
now $260,000.
And that's what -- I just needed to read that recommendation into
the record, so that when you approve this, if you approved it, it would
be the right amounts, the current amounts, and they will not go up any
further than that.
MR. MUDD: Do you have that on a slide someplace or an
overhead, to let the board see that -- can you give them a total, please,
George?
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir, we've got it.
MR. YONKOSKY: The total is one million nine hundred and
thirty-seven thousand five hundred dollars.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Does your motion still stand?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Page 209
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry. Okay. Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say that on behalf of
everybody that worked diligently to get all the debris cleaned up, hats
off to you, and I commend everyone that was involved in this thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's still more out there, I
understand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But, you know, when you look at
the -- when you look at the big picture, and you look at our neighbors
to the north, my gosh, they're going to be wallowing in this trash for
God only knows how long. It could be another six to twelve months.
It's just amazing the impact that that storm had on people up there in
Port Charlotte, and of course, Arcadia. They're probably even more
destitute. But I'm glad that we had the ability, we had everything this
place, and we were able to clean everything up in a short period of
time, which was about two weeks, and I would say the majority of it
anyway, but I wanted to commend everybody in the county for heads
up and putting things in place to take care of a situation just like this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one question. Do you know
where anybody can get any free mulch? Have you got any idea at all?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, up in Port Charlotte. You can go up with
semitrucks and they'll give it to you for free.
MR. YONKOSKY: Because there may be some things mixed in
with the mulch that we're taking out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're going to guard ours and
save it for a rainy day.
MR. YONKOSKY: No, sir, we're transferring it to another site.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Page 210
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
That's 5-0.
Item #1 OC
STAFF UPDATE TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ON THE STATUS OF REQUESTS FOR
EXEMPTIONS AND VARIANCES TO THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR CENTER POINT COMMUNITY
CHURCH, CARSON LAKES PHASE II AND NASER MEDICAL
OFFICE CONTINUED FROM THE JULY 27, 2004 BOARD OF
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is an update to the
Board of County Commissioners on the status of requests for
exceptions and variances to the Land Development Code for Center
Point Community Church, Carson Lakes, Phase II, and Nassar
Medical Office, continued from July 27th, 2004 Board of County
Commissioners meeting. Joe Schmitt is prepared to answer any
questions, but he basically -- this is no action for the board. It's just an
update on the actions. You had three public requests that came to you
in June. We've worked on them all, and I believe there's an
administrative solution in the works on all three.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No questions from me.
MR. SCHMITT: Subject to your questions, that concludes the
briefing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for working
out all the problems.
MR. SCHMITT: We're going to be coming back with, frankly, a
Page 211
September 21, 2004
policy to deal with some of this in the LDC, some of these conflicts
that we discussed with sidewalks. And I'll add to Mr. Mudd the
settlement agreement that he has to sign concerning the Center Point
Issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I commend you for working this all
out. With three different applicants, and work -- putting this together.
So you've got a marching order and working in compromise with
them. Thank you.
I just want to note that Bob Murray, one of our planning
commissioners, has been sitting here all day long, just participating
and looking like he loved it, and another commissioner, Lindy
Adelstein, just left the room. So I thought that's nice that they sit -- I
don't' want to say sit through this. Let me just say enjoy this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not keeping them busy
enough. That's the problem.
Item #10D
RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW A PROPOSAL FROM
SOUTHWEST HERITAGE, INC., TO LEASE THE NAPLES
DEPOT AS A BRANCH FACILITY OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
MUSEUM - DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH SOUTHWEST
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, the next item is number 10(D). This item
is continued from the July 27th, 2004 BCC meeting. It's a
recommendation to review a proposal from the Southwest Heritage,
Inc. to lease the Naples Depot as a branch facility of the Collier
County Museum, and Ms. Marla Ramsey, the interim director of
public services division will present.
MS. RAMSEY: Good morning. Marla Ramsey, for the record.
On May 25th, 2004, Mr. Lodge McKee, president of the board of
Page 212
September 21, 2004
directors of Southwest Heritage, Inc. appeared before the board of
County Commissioners with a public petition to offer the county a
long-term lease of the Naples Depot, the associated railroad cars and
parking lot to operate as a branch facility of the county's museum
system at the rate of one dollar per year.
At the board's direction, county staff has met with representatives
from the Southwest Heritage, Inc., the Friends of the Collier County
Museum, the county attorney's office and the facilities management
department to consider the practicality, the advantages, disadvantages
and approximate cost of implementing such a lease agreement.
And at this time, I'd like to bring up Mr. Lodge McKee to talk a
little bit about what that proposal was that he requested to bring back
to you.
MR. MCKEE: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, members of
the commission. I hope it's still afternoon. You've got a long day
ahead of you.
Thank you for allowing us to address you this afternoon. As was
mentioned recently, since our last presentation to you, the facilities
management folks have had a good, hard look at The Depot, made
determinations about the future maintenance and upgrading issues that
exist there, and have quantified them. I know that all of you have
seen a memo with the dollar amounts presented, and a -- the museum
director can address those more specifically.
The museum staff has quantified the operating requirements for
this facility, and we have attempted to try to cover the bases and fill in
the gaps that existed since our last presentation. I'd just like to clarify
a few things, and then go on and let anyone else who can shed some
light on this come forward.
First of all, Southwest Heritage is a nonprofit corporation. It's a
501 C3 that was formed by a volunteer group solely for the purpose of
acquiring and preserving The Depot as a national landmark. They
succeeded in that effort. They have been operating it for about 30
Page 213
September 21, 2004
years as a civic and cultural meeting place. It does not have any
formal relationship to the City of Naples. The land is owned by
Southwest Heritage.
It's approximately a 200 by 400 foot parcel, about 80,000 square
feet, just under two acres. The market value of the property is
something in excess of four million dollars today. But it is not an
asset or a property that's in any way related to the City of Naples
government.
We have experienced a situation since we went public with this
initiative that we didn't anticipate, and that is that our clients, our
renters, our tenants, who were contemplating using The Depot in the
coming season and in the years after that, have begun to evaporate.
There really wasn't any way to avoid this. You can't have your cake
and eat it, too.
And because we felt that this initiative was, in the long run, the
very best thing for The Depot, we went ahead and went public with
our hopes for the museum initiative.
So it's not an easy circumstance for us to continue in terms of the
income stream that we're used to having to operate The Depot, having
climbed out onto this limb. That certainly is not the commission's
fault. It was a necessary risk in terms of what we were contemplating.
A couple of other comments that I -- with which I would like to
leave you about the attributes and the merits of this particular
proposal. As you may know, the Chamber of Commerce is moving to
a new headquarters facility at U.S. 41 and Mooringline Drive. They
will be leaving their information center on U.S. 41 South and Fifth
Avenue.
That former gasoline station, that small visitor's center,
experiences about 140,000 inquiries, personal visits a year. That's
really quite a lot of traffic. We're a block away from that facility.
And in fact, made an overture to the chamber, as many museums do,
to try to bring the two situations together. An information center
Page 214
September 21, 2004
simply draws gate for a museum. And it works very well in other
communities.
They're committed to their new project, so they'll be leaving that
area. But they have demonstrated for us the potential visitorship that
we might have at a museum facility in The Depot location. And we
think that's a huge advantage in terms of the way that location can
work.
We also think that it's important to note that as a museum, we
will be handy, we will be more available to a large number of tourists
and visitors and houseguests and students who come to Collier
County. And we think that will be of considerable benefit to the
museum and to tourism. So we see a very strong advantage there.
The visitor exposure is really terrific.
The last thing I'd like to say is that this is really a terrific
partnership, in our view. There's a lot of hands coming together to try
to make this initiative work. We have the Friends of the Collier
County museum, we have the members of Southwest Heritage, there
are about 600 members of that organization. Southwest Heritage has a
board of directors of 25 people. It has a cadre of volunteers. We hope
to keep all of that on board as a support group for this operation.
I have met with the mayor, with Mayor Barnett, to discuss
participation on behalf of the city. He and I have discussed and
agreed that one of the -- one appropriate area for that might be the
beautification and maintenance of the grounds at the Naples Depot.
So there's really quite a broad collaboration that can take place.
And that usually makes for a successful proj ect, when you're trying to
enhance a public facility, having as many people involved as possible
and a lot of support, and I think that's one of the strongest suits that we
have to offer with this initiative.
And finally, I'd like to leave you with the thought that of all the
projects of this type that are before you now or have come before you
recently, I think this one provides the most bang for the buck. We're
Page 215
-----" .~-,-,--~-
September 21, 2004
really bringing a project before you that doesn't require that we float a
bond issue and buy a multimillion dollar piece of property. It does not
require that we build an expensive facility. It's a dollar a year.
And we think that it will bring a lot of gratification, education
and entertainment to the people at Collier County for a relatively
small outlay, and it's something that can be done in a short period of
time. We can be open for the coming season.
If you have any questions, I'll be glad to try to respond.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have two speakers on this subject.
MS. McPHERSON: Mr. McKee was one of the speakers. You
have one other speaker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you have a question for Mr. McKee?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'd like to know, how long
is the lease for?
MR. MCKEE: It's negotiable. We would simply want to have--
we would expect, for example, that in order to set this up and get it
running, that we'd have to start out with a minimum often years.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if we're going to place this
much of an investment in a building, I would assume we would want
to have a lease that was a lot longer than ten years.
MR. MCKEE: With renewals -- the only thing that we want to
be certain of is that there are -- there's a check system along the way.
So that if, for some reason, the partnership isn't working, if it's not
succeeding as a museum, we have a direction to follow.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, in the agreement, when
it's put together, I'd like to see it written in such a way that if, ten years
from now, it doesn't work, that the county can be reimbursed
proportionately for the amount of money they invested into it against
the amount of years they got out of it. I don't want to go into
something and put in a tremendous amount of money renovating
somebody's building and ten years from now--
MR. MCKEE: Would you be reimbursed for the improvements
Page 216
--....- ..-..---""'-'
September 21, 2004
in the property appraiser's office across the street if you decide not to
use it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That is a county-owned facility,
and we're not -- we don't have a 20-year lease on it or a ten-year lease.
Well, I take that back. We do on that.
MR. MCKEE: My understanding is it's leased.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The lease thing is a little bit
different there. This is something that when you set up a museum,
they're more of a permanent facility. I mean, you really -- you get
something going, I'd hate to lose it in ten years. I don't know how the
agreement could be drawn up, but I'd like to see that there's enough
protection there to project the county's interest.
MR. MCKEE: I certainly think that everyone will work to
explore the issues there and come up with a satisfactory answer. Most
leasehold tenants amortize the leasehold improvements over the period
of the lease, and don't expect to be paid for the fully amortized
improvements when they leave. Ideally, we don't expect this to ever
end.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would hope not. But I'm
concerned. This is considerably different than the tax collector or the
sheriff. These are facilities that we can't live without, that we are
mandated by the state to make sure that we provide for them.
This is something over and above that we need to do for the
cultural aspects of our community. And in that light, I want to make
sure that we have enough protection in place to guarantee us a return
on our investment. I think it's a wonderful idea. Don't get me wrong
on it.
I'm just very concerned about the type of lease that we enter into.
Let's be honest with ourselves. The value of the property in that area
is going to probably, in ten years, triple, maybe double. It's doesn't
matter, but it's going to be worth considerably more in ten years.
I'd hate to see some future board of directors of your organization
Page 217
September 21, 2004
suddenly say, well, you know, we're talking about something that's
worth untold millions of dollars, and if we get rid of the county, we're
home free. Now, if we can put together something in the lease that
avoids those kinds of problems, I'd be quite receptive.
Now, today, you're asking for us for what? To actually approve
this final direction or to just come up with direction that --
MR. MCKEE: Weare hoping that you will approve the
initiative, allow it to go forward, and there will be a funding
requirement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: More than a dollar a year?
MR. MCKEE: Yes, yes. But a very, very modest amount in
terms of the return. And I'll let some of the other members of the staff
address that. I would certainly hope that we can come up with an
agreement that will give comfort to both sides.
Southwest Heritage has nowhere to go within its own charter. I
mean, we have no other -- we have no other direction other than to
preserve The Depot as a national landmark. So if we were to sell it,
what would we do with the money?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, since we're on the subject,
dealing with the lease, possibly somebody from county attorney's
office is prepared to comment on this?
MS. ASHTON: I think the direction is to -- they're seeking is to
negotiate a long-term lease. And so I don't think you're really
approving the funding at this point. I'm sorry. I may have missed your
question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just -- I was just concerned
about the type of lease we're going to come up with. When we
negotiate the lease, is this something that comes back to the
commission again?
MS. ASHTON: Yes. Today, you're only approving the, I'd say,
conceptual approval that, yes, this is a proj ect we want to go forward
with, and the lease will be back before the board with the final terms.
Page 218
~"-~"--"",........,~,,...¥.
September 21, 2004
And obviously, we've heard from you today that you're concerned
about the money that the county is putting in, and that's something that
staff and the county attorney's office, if we're involved in the
negotiations, can make sure that we're protected before we come back
with a final lease.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll tell you right now, I'm not in
favor of this at all. Not for the amount of money that's in here. We
have a number of museums here in the county, and we have a hard
time funding them at the present time. Every year, we have to fight
for funding for those museums that we presently have, and I think
they're in dire shape, that I think we need to look to those museums,
for supporting those museums, instead of taking on additional
liabilities.
I look at this, what you're looking at here. It looks to me like
we've got a total cash outlay, eventually, of over $300,000. We're
looking at putting a new roof on here that's about $235,000, and we're
just going to lease this land? And then we're going to have to staff it
with two people and pay benefits and pay wages on this?
I don't see any real benefit for the county here. Like I said, we've
got our own museums that we've got to take care of. That's where I
stand on this issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it is a real benefit to the
county. The problem is, and I think nobody has really said it here, is
the funding sources for the ongoing additional growth of, in this
particular case, the museum. And I don't want the museum to be a
crutch on the tourist development tax, because it's already taxed.
And then we had, just this year alone, 45 million dollars
unfunded requests by our staff. I just don't want to take on any more
obligations myself. But I'm concerned about what the facility will be
in the future. And the concern of will your organization be able to
Page 219
September 21, 2004
keep it going or is there something that the board members,
individually, can assist you on fundraising or --
MR. MCKEE: I -- I'm not sure about your question. I just -- I
would have to reiterate that I don't know of many situations where
someone comes before you and offers you a facility and a support
group and an income stream and management and, you know, all of
the different things that come into play here, and then to have people
say back to us, well, what's in it for us?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. I hope -- I didn't
perceive your perception that I relayed that to you. My concern is
taking on more liability. And what is written here is we're probably
looking at a quarter of a million dollars a year or more that we need to
find funding for.
MR. MCKEE: We had the roof evaluated earlier in the summer
before the rainy season got underway. We found three areas of
concern. We addressed all three of those with roof repairs, not
replacement. Ultimately, roofs do need to be replaced from time to
time, and flat deck roof systems in Southwest Florida, you know, are
really only good for 12 to 15 years and then you're back at it again.
There are ongoing maintenance issues.
If you were to look at the annual maintenance proj ections and
factor them as rent, you'd be way below what it would cost to lease
such a facility.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. McKee, I don't disagree
with that at all. And I think it's very noble of the offer that you're
offering. My only concern is where do we get the money? Where do
we get the funds? That's my concern.
MR. MCKEE: Well, that, I understand, and I don't have the
eight ball for that one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I realize that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think I've got a suggestion for
Page 220
September 21, 2004
saving The Depot, or to take that --
MR. MCKEE: This isn't about saving The Depot,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe what we need to do is look
at a community foundation, and people that would get involved in this
thing, and it would be the same as the Philharmonic. They have a
foundation there where people put money forth through the
Philharmonic, and it does very well by itself. And I think that this is
something that may be that the -- your group ought to look at in this
regard, this community foundation.
MR. MCKEE: I would say to you, sir, that we've already done
that for 30 years, and it has been a benefit to the community. As that
use has reached a point where it no longer is effective, we looked for
what we felt would be the most beneficial use of The Depot for the
people of Collier County. And this was a very big flag.
It -- that's really why we're here. We have saved The Depot, and
we will continue to preserve it one way or another. We're here
because we think this is a considerable benefit to the county.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As my fellow commissioner, Tom
Henning says, that we have a problem here. We just cannot take on
any more liabilities at this time. Okay? In fact, we have a lot of
501 CIS that come in front of us, always looking for additional money.
And I understand you've got a worthy cause here and everything, but
it's just the point in time where, when we look at the budgets, and
what kind of constraints we have, and the amount of unfunded
requirements that we have, we feel, at this time, this is not a good time
for us to take on additional liabilities.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's some spins on this that I
think we're missing. You know, we do have an established museum at
this time. And if staff is supporting the idea that this would be a
positive thing to be able to bring the museum to its new age, to a new
Page 221
September 21, 2004
direction as far as the exposure, let's face it, we have very poor
exposure where the museum is located now. It would be great to have
a place that's right in the center of all the activity, where all the tourists
come, all the residents go by on a continuous basis, and they could be
referred there to the other museums and see what it is. I'm sure we
would probably even gain more support, more people to come aboard
as far as our Friends of the Museum.
I think it's a positive thing. I can see a lot of positive things. I
still have a lot of questions. I just don't want us to get too negative on
it too quick. Yes, there's a lot of competing interests out there, but this
would be something that would be a county museum. It wouldn't be a
private entity.
They're going to still have the building. They're still going to
have, I guess, the railroad facilities outside. They're going to be
running that, I guess. There was a couple of things --
MR. MCKEE: Yes, we --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- I believe, in the whole
process, more or less to be able to keep the organization with an active
hand in it, and meanwhile, you know, we gain more allies. I'd like to
know what the bottom dollars would be and what you see as the
benefits to the whole system.
MR. MUDD: I think Marla's got that information for you,
Commissioner.
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioners, just to let me kind of jump in
for a second and talk about some of that financial issue that you're
talking about.
We have anticipated that it will be about $254,000 for the first
year for startup, and then after that, about $200,000 for ongoing on it.
There is -- in the information that we provided for facilities
management on the various things that needed to be done to the
facility was something over the next five years. It doesn't have to be
done today in order to get into the facility.
Page 222
September 21,2004
It's something that we can look at as funds are available or as the
area deteriorates, but those are some areas that they looked at, that
they thought might cause a problem in the next five years. So it's not
necessarily an issue today.
The funding source, there's two different sources, of course. The
tourist development tax dollars, as we sit right now, with the
allocations, the grants that are out there right now, there's $140,000 in
excess of the grants that are currently being requested. So there is
quite a substantial dollar amount available right now in that category
that could help to offset the '05 budget to some degree. And then, of
course, the general fund revenues is the other.
Staff has met with the Friends, as I mentioned earlier, and with
the Southwest Heritage, and we've discussed some of the various
opportunities that might exist here, one of which is the 5,000 square
foot gallery area that is very attractive to the museum in order to bring
in some larger exhibits, and because it's placed in the center of the
City of Naples, it's in a prime location. It's also an opportunity for
those people that are coming into the city area to see what we have
there, but then also to sell what we have at other places. So it
becomes a very good starting point for people that want to see what
the Collier County historical element is all about here to Collier
County .
So I think there's some -- there are some pluses in here. I think
there might be a little bit of anxiety about the funding, but I also think
that we have a period of time where some of that could be done.
As far as revenue that moves forward, Lodge's group has already
offered whatever revenue they do have to help offset some of the
expenses that go on in the facility through the train element as well as
some of the other revenues that they have, membership fees, et cetera.
So there is a partnership there that may not have come out as
clearly in the very beginning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And may I ask you how the
Page 223
September 21, 2004
Friends of the Museum, are they supportive of this?
MS. RAMSEY: Very much so. As a matter of fact, in the
recommendation, you have the Friends of the Museum and the staff
both recommend going forward with this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once more, you've said that if
we were to grant the other ones that follow this, there would still be
enough funds to be able to finance this, or we'd still be running at a
deficit?
MS. RAMSEY: You would be a little bit short. There's
$140,000 sitting right now in reserve after you would do the three
grants that you have currently on the table for TDC. There's $140,000
in '05, because we had a very good year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there a possibility that we
might be able to balance the grants so that we would have enough to
finance this. In other words, to reduce the grants that we're looking at
to follow this, to be able to come up with enough tourist development
tax dollars to be able to move this forward?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, I believe that that's the other item up after
this issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know that, but what I'm trying
to do is look forward to where we are --
MS. RAMSEY: Well, there's currently $508,300 sitting in the
TDC funds as we sit --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand that, but what I'm
saying is that if we were to go forward with this particular venture at
the Naples Depot, that we wouldn't have enough money from TDC
dollars to be able to do it, we'd have to go to the general fund; is that
right?
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah, a portion it, if you're going to grant all
three grants that are coming behind. Yes, there would be about
$100,000 that you're looking at.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So we would be looking
Page 224
September 21, 2004
for $100,000 that we don't have at this time?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And is there some
possibility we might be able to balance it off so that we wouldn't have
to go to the general fund?
MS. RAMSEY: Ifwe take the $140,000 and move it forward
from there, you know, yeah, I suppose we can look at it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And then proportionately break
it down with the other ones for consideration?
MS. RAMSEY: I think that staff can take a look at what 140,000
does, and what it's able to achieve with that in order to keep the
building open. I do know that there might be some volunteers as well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's a lot of needs, and I
think everybody has to share something in this. I'm sorry, I took
enough time. Please go ahead.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we're getting way, way
ahead of ourselves here. Let me go back and read what the executive
summary says. It says, at the board's direction, the county staff met
with the representatives from Southwest Heritage, Friends of Collier
County Museum, the county attorney's office, the facilities
management department to consider this proposal. All parties agree
that leasing Naples Depot for this purpose would give Collier County
Museum an ideal high visibility satellite location that could serve as a
convenient gateway or hub to direct tourists and visitors to the
county's three other companion museums, and that this is likely to
generate 140,000 new visitors each year.
So now, it's been established that all of the people that we asked
to evaluate this support it. They think it's a good thing. Now, I think
we're jumping way ahead to say, because you've given us an initial
estimate of $240,000 as a first year of cost, to say, no, let's throw it
way, it's not a good thing. I don't think you've even had a chance to
Page 225
. "._--.....",-' ,
September 21, 2004
evaluate all the potential sources of revenue. If you generate 140,000
new visitors, you ought to get some pro rata share of the TDC funds
for those 140,000 new visitors.
I haven't seen any discussion about possible donation revenue
that is likely to result from having a highly visible presence at The
Depot location. I haven't seen any indication of revenue from
donation -- or from benefactors who might wish to contribute to this.
So I think that there's an opportunity to fill that gap. And so what
you're really saying is that under worst case scenario, there's 100,000
shortfall. Under the best case scenario, there's a $60,000 shortfall.
So rather than condemning the project at this point in time, I
would urge the board to suggest we urge them to go ahead and let's
flesh this thing out and see if we can't find ways to bridge the gap.
I'm not suggesting we just, you know, throw money at it. But I'd
like to hear more from the City of Naples about what their
contributions are likely to be to this. They have a vested interest in
preserving this facility and having it there.
So, I would really like to see the board heartily endorse this
project, and let's see where it goes. Give you a chance to work out
these details and come back to us with a complete report about the
funding and the lease arrangements, the term of the lease, and all those
kinds of things, rather than just slamming the door on it at this point in
time, which I think is premature.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm next. And then I know you're waiting
again, but I haven't had a chance yet.
MS. McPHERSON: You still have one--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I'm going to jump in, and then we still
have one speaker.
So I'm going to jump in and then I'm going to get the speaker,
and then we're back to Commissioner Halas again.
I just want to, just for the record, I want to say that I'm solidly
behind this. I think that this is a wonderful opportunity, probably a
Page 226
September 21, 2004
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to add this magnificent Depot to
our museum system. I'm sure that Ron Jamro is going to love every
minute. I love the idea of having a transportation museum, and I think
that there are many things that we can add.
I think we have a very creative staff. I don't want to see any of
the other tourist development applications denied because of this. I
think we can work out -- and I'm going to ask staff to go back and
work out funding sources, but I want to see us move ahead with this.
Now we have one more speaker.
MS. McPHERSON: The last speaker is Molly Reed.
MS. REED? Commissioners, Madam Chair, my name is Molly
Reed, and I'm here on behalf of Friends of the Museum, who have
asked me to tell you that we totally support including the Naples
Depot in the Collier County Museum system, and in this partnership.
It will be a wonderful addition to our community, and it's going
to contribute greatly to the public's knowledge of our particular unique
history. Those of us who are old timers, and I'm one, actually use that
museum -- well, what's going to be a museum, used The Depot and
rode trains out of there, went to college on the Orange Blossom
Special from there, all the way to Washington D. C.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're a relic, Molly.
MS. REED: So I'm a relic and so is that museum, and you ought
to save both of them.
Originally, TDC funds were designated to our Collier County
Museum system, and I urge you to consider restoring enough of those
funds to that purpose, because it means a first-rate museum system
that could easily include developing local treasures like this.
Please don't abandon Collier County's commitment to a first class
development and growth of our museum and our local culture. This is
an excellent idea to save something that is so unique. Not just unique
in our community, but unique in south Florida. The idea that that
Depot building is still there for us to be able to preserve it, and then to
Page 227
September 21, 2004
open it up to the public, and with the wonderful amount of space in it,
to bring exhibits that we don't have room now to bring to our area.
So, thank you for your attention to it, and I count on your
support. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks for waiting all day.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Again, I have some concerns.
We have a number of museums already in our -- open in Collier
County here. And I'm concerned that every year we have shortfalls as
far as getting projects done. And that's why I have concerns about
taking on added responsibility. I think we ought to divert those TDC
funds to the county-established museums that we presently have, and
bring them up to par so they're best in class. And I really think that's
the direction that we really need to go.
And maybe we could come back at a later date and look at, when
we find out that our financing sources are such that we can take on
added responsibilities, that would be great. We've also went through a
hurricane season, and we've got some issues there as far as the beach
renourishment. And we may need TDC funds to make sure that the
renourishment program goes on. There may be some damage in the
Naples Pier that needs to be taken care of.
But overall, I think that, and maybe Ron J amro can enlighten me
in regards to what we've got left out there that needs to really be
addressed, let's say, at the Roberts Ranch, what we need to do to get it
up to par so it's best in class. We've got this museum right over here
that I know a number of times they've tried to implement and get
completed some displays and things, and they've always had
shortcomings.
And I realize that a lot of people have concerns about it. But
overall, I think what we ought to do is take care what we have right
now before we take on any more responsibilities.
Would you enlighten me, Ron?
Page 228
-,"._-_."...".,~..
September 21, 2004
MR. JAMRO: I'd be happy to, Commissioner. Good afternoon,
Board. Ron Jamro, your museum director. Everyone is right. Those
are all great concerns, and there's no wrong answer here. There's no
good time for these kinds of projects. There's never a convenient time
to restore an historic structure and turn it into a museum, and these
opportunities, that sort of come along once in a blue moon, and I think
we have to seize them, as we did with the ranch, we did with
Everglades City, and we've turned those into real successes.
Commissioner Halas you're absolutely right. We have a wish list
of projects. Although, in the context of our five-year plan I'm
developing, that list is going to get smaller. Some of these things
maybe don't need to happen, or right away. So we're trying to live
within our budget and make that work.
I think that the Naples Depot is the missing piece of the puzzle.
We have always needed a downtown presence. We all realize that the
location here may not be ideal. It's an excellent archive, and general
history of the county, but to get into the mainstream of Naples cultural
life, that will open entirely new doors.
I can't guarantee 140,000 visitors. There is that potential, to be
sure. But what I hear from the TDC and from Commissioner
Henning, the last discussion we had was get the numbers up, get more
people coming to the museum. And we'd love to oblige you with that.
Weare stretched now from a resource point of view, but -- and say,
well, why stretch even more? Because this one's worth stretching for,
and I think that brings us into -- an entirely new downtown donor class
of old Naples that will embrace the museum there and the Depot.
It's not a derelict building. We're used to getting derelict
buildings and fixing those up with grant funds. This one is
operational. We could move in tomorrow morning. I can put a
traveling exhibit to test this whole experiment by January, and see if
we are really turning the numbers that we say we promise we can
deliver for you.
Page 229
September 21, 2004
So it's got the visibility. There is expense, but as we complete,
for example, the exhibits that you funded this year in the '05 budget,
whether they're done, that releases money back into the museum's
budget. So there is -- we could live within that budget, I do believe.
We're adding some employees. We really need to do that.
There's nothing left to give. We've pressed volunteers and our
employees to the limit. So that has to happen to make this a success.
But I would join the chorus and say, basically, I would urge you
to seriously consider this. As Commissioner Coyle points out, you
need some flesh on these bones, we need to tell you exactly what this
is going to look like. And to that end, our design consultant has been
waiting all day with a handout for you, and it will help you visualize
what we're talking about in very rough terms of this gateway to the
Collier County museum system.
And I think it will serve as a welcoming point, and maybe begin
to replace the Chamber of Commerce visit center in that main lobby
area. What a tremendous -- we can introduce the museum to tourists
and our residents here.
I haven't heard anyone in the community disparage this plan.
Teachers I've talked to think it's a tremendous idea. The tourist people
think it's a real boost, and provide another attraction for downtown
Naples.
It seems perfectly positioned at the right time would be my
assessment of the situation.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you asked the question about how
much, and we never gave you an answer. Roberts Ranch, you've had
about 3.5 million dollars on it. And that's what I can tell you off the
top of my head, because I remember what was sitting on that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What do we have with this
museum over here?
MR. JAMRO: Actually, that's the entire list. That includes all
three museums. I believe we're looking at the Roberts Ranch coming
Page 230
September 21, 2004
up a little short, but I'll tell you, in truth, a lot of those improvements
that the SDP is calling for, I'm wondering if they're really prudent
improvements to a site, and if we may be destroying the historical
landscape of that project, and maybe we're done with Roberts Ranch.
We're darn close to it.
And so I would like your permission to go back and revisit that
list in view of our five-year plan, to make some amendments, to make
this -- and my goal has always been to make the museum affordable
for you, and that will continue to be my goal.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You say the building -- I just want
to finish up with one last, and I'll be quiet.
You say that the building is inhabitable and everything is cool
with it. Is it air conditioned?
MR. JAMRO: Lodge, I'd have to defer to you. It is.
Environmentally, it's okay for a museum. And Mr. Barrios (phonetic)
has looked over the lighting systems, and we can work with all that.
Facilities has identified some long-term improvements, and that
should be our goal, but our goal should be greater than that. We
should be looking at a partnership with Southwest Heritage, and other
partners, to go and get grants, state grant funds to restore that to its
1927 appearance and really make a statement in downtown Naples.
We just need the chance to make that happen. I think that's what I'd
ask you to consider today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just like to conclude my
remarks by suggesting that it -- we will never have a successful
museum system, no matter how much money we put into it, unless we
have lots of visitors. Visitors is what makes a successful museum. If
nobody comes there, it doesn't make any difference what exhibits you
have. And if you look at our museums, how can we possibly ever
really attract the volume of visitors we want to attract?
They're in a corner of a government complex, in Immokalee,
Page 231
September 21, 2004
many miles from here, and at Roberts Ranch. Now, how many
visitors who come to the Naples area ever really know that those
museums exist?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Everglades City.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry, Everglades City, that's
what I should have said, Everglades City Museum, and I've been
there, it's a nice, interesting museum, but it doesn't have many visitors.
And if we can have a point of high visibility in downtown Naples
that will serve as a feeder to those other museums, then we can get the
kind of visitor numbers we need to make our museum system
successful, and with the number of visitors comes dollars.
And I think all of that will fall in place. It's just like advertising.
You put the sign on some back street somewhere, and you're not going
to get the results. You put the sign at The Depot where there are a lot
of people going by there, a lot of visitors know where it is, they're
going to find out about it, they're going to find out where those other
museums are, they're going to get interested in them, and they'll go
down there and take a look at them.
And I think that's the point here. It's just like an advertising
program. And I think we need to view it that way. And I would -- I'll
make a motion right now that we give staff direction to continue this
plan, develop all the details, come back to us with some final outline
of a lease, lease period, and the financing requirements, and potential
sources of revenue, and let us take another look at it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I second that one. Okay.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the thought is, Commissioner
Coyle, that we might be advertising in the wrong places to bolster our
numbers on visitors?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think it's difficult--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe we ought to rethink our
museum structure, and -- but I just have a question, Mr. Jamro. You
Page 232
..~,..,-~..__...~,,.,....."."-_"-~.
September 21, 2004
stated that -- I think that you have a three million dollar capital
improvement request, but you're not sure if that's really needed?
MR. JAMRO: It's needed, but I think we can make some
reductions and we can -- we can just get maybe a little smarter with
the way we put projects together. This is based on the SDP.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we're not on the final
budget, but I'm sure we can accommodate you on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You better be careful. The sheriffs
going to get it.
MR. JAMRO: If you ask for a baseball glove every Christmas,
and after ten years, you don't get one, you take up soccer. So I'll make
some adjustments. We're used to doing without at the museum. We
really are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a refreshing outlook.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Fiala to ask staff to
work with the Southwest Heritage to bring us back figures, and move
forward with this project.
Any more discussion? All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have 3-2.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'd like to state on the record
why. I think that we're getting ourselves into a situation here where
we're going to be financially involved in this thing to the point where
we won't be able to back out of it. And I think we've got other
concerns we should address with our own museums before taking on
any more responsibility.
Page 233
,- .._...._-'"~""'----~-,.-
September 21, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you get the two that were opposed?
Okay. Very good.
Thank you so much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item
which is --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we will move forward, by the way.
That's what that vote means.
Item #10E
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THREE (3) TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "C-2" GRANT APPLICATIONS
AND THREE (3) TOURISM AGREEMENTS FOR NAPLES
BOTANICAL GARDEN $217,650; THE CONSERVANCY OF SW
FLORIDA #100,000; CITY OF NAPLES $50,000; TOTALING
#367,650 FOR FY 05, AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 92-60 AS AMENDED TO
INCLUDE MUNICIPALLY-OWNED MUSEUMS FOR C-2
GRANTS - AffROVED
MR. MUDD: 10(E) is our next item. It's a recommendation to
approve three tourist development category C-2 grant applications and
three tourism agreements for Naples Botanical Gardens for $217,650,
the Conservancy of Southwest Florida for $100,000, the City of
Naples for $50,000, totaling $367,650 for FY '05 and direct staff to
prepare an amendment to Ordinance 92-60, as amended, to include
municipally-owned museums for C-2 grants. Mr. Jack Wert will
present.
MR. WERT: Thank you, Commissioners. Good afternoon. For
the record, Jack Wert, tourism director.
These three grant applications and tourism agreements are
coming before you actually for the third time. We've discussed them a
Page 234
"--"'---.-....
September 21, 2004
couple of times. And I just want to clarify that these grants are part of
the current ordinance that we have for the tourist development tax.
And this includes all of what we call category C. Category C-l are
the county-owned museums, and C-2 are noncounty-owned museums.
And this has been in the ordinance for a number of years.
This group of three started this grant application process, which
we've had in place for a number of years, back in March, and it went
through the Tourist Development Council in April and May, and these
then were brought forward as part of the budget process and so forth,
and to you for approval.
Each of them have a good deal of merits related to bringing
people to this area. The Naples Botanical Garden has been with us for
several years, and we actually have made a very conscious effort to
back down that funding each year so that they can become
self-sufficient at some point.
So -- and we actually reduced their funding again this year to just
promotion expenses, which is really how we would like to see the
tourism funds spent. In the museums, of any kind, the more
promotion we have, and I think each of you has said that, in one way
or another, we need visitors to come to all of our museums, whether
they're county owned or noncounty owned, because it really does help
the whole visitor experience.
So these three applications are before you again. They were all
approved and recommended by the Tourism Development Council,
and we bring them to you today for approval and moving forward.
They each have projects that are very time sensitive. They would like
to have them ready for season so that we can take advantage of the
most number of people to see them.
The one at the Conservancy is extremely important, because it
really tells the story of the Everglades. A number of the projects that
the Botanical Gardens has really begins to make that a real visitor
experience, one that I think we can really capitalize on in terms of
Page 235
September 21, 2004
promotion.
The Naples Preserve is an opportunity for us, really, for the first
time, to have an area where we can really catalog and promote and
advertise what we have in ecotourism, and that is the product that we
truly have to offer that nobody knows about yet. And we really need
to further the knowledge of our visitors of what we have here in terms
of the nature-based experience.
So that is the three proj ects before you and I'm here to answer
questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Before that, and before the
commissioners ask any questions, we have two speakers.
MS. McPHERSON: The first speaker is Steve Carbol, followed
by Sondra Quinn.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: After this, we'll take a ten-minute break
for our stenographer.
MR. CARBOL: Good evening, everybody. I'd like to thank you
for the opportunity to speak. We've all had a very long day, and I've
been waiting all day to speak to you on this subject.
I'm a naturalist with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and
in my time there, I've seen all the good work that the Conservancy
does, and it was stated earlier that one of the things that the
Conservancy hopes to do with this funding is create and enhance an
existing exhibit featuring the Everglades. And the Everglades is such
an important thing, not just here in Southwest Florida, but nationally,
because it is so unique.
I'd like to remind you all that Naples is in the upper western
corner of the Everglades. So it is very, very pertinent to our lifestyle
here in southwest Florida, and very, very applicable to our daily lives.
And one of the reasons that many of the people here in Naples
and Collier County live here is because of the quality of life that this
area affords us; the beautiful beaches, the abundant parks and wildlife,
and of course, the Everglades, and it is threatened. It is a threatened
Page 236
,.."._-,....~,-,~."'-_....~'~"._...._."
September 21, 2004
environment, and we hope that, through this exhibit, we can promote
it not just to children and adults here in this area, but to visitors who
come to this area, because it is of nationwide and global importance,
and I'd like to basically support everything that's been said so far, and
if anybody has any questions, I'd be happy to field those now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle does.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where is this exhibit going to be?
MR. CARBOL: It will be in our existing Naples Nature Center
on the Conservancy grounds at 1450 Merrihue Drive here in Naples.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you think it might get better
visibility if it were in The Depot at the Naples Museum?
MR. CARBOL: Actually, it'll playoff of a lot of things that we
have currently installed at the Naples Nature Center. One of the
exhibits that we have going on this year, it will finish installation by
the end of this month, is the Jason project exhibit. Every year, we
change the exhibit to reflect the Jason proj ect. We go to different
places each year.
Last year, it was Panama. The year before, it was the Channel
Islands off the coast of southern California. This year, it's Louisiana.
And as we know, when Ivan went through that area, it was in severe,
severe threat of scarring their landscape. New Orleans was in threat
because it's below sea level, and it's facing nearly as many
environmental problems, if not more, than southwest Florida. So there
were a lot of parallels to be drawn.
And the reason we want to enhance the existing exhibit is so we
can tie it in with this year's Louisiana exhibit. And we are currently in
the process, as I said, of installing that, bringing in baby alligators,
which are very, very popular with a lot of our volunteers, a lot of
youth, and county students that we showed them to thus far.
So I think that it will have a real impact, draw a lot of visitors,
not just here from the county, but from all over the country as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Next speaker?
Page 237
^ _....,'~......~_____""N····'
September 21, 2004
MS. McPHERSON: Sondra Quinn is the next speaker.
MS. QUINN: Just a few brief comments. Sondra Quinn,
president and CEO of Naples Botanical Garden, and the butterfly
pavilion can't go in The Depot, because they slam against the walls
and hurt themselves. That's why they have to have their own
enclosure, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can put such an enclosure up.
MS. QUINN: Okay. When I first came to the county
commission in two oh one to present plans for the new Naples
Botanical Garden, you were extremely supportive of the participation
in a public/private partnership to develop a world class botanical
garden on the 160 acre site, which is serving as an anchor in the
Bayshore/Gateway triangle redevelopment area.
Past TDC funds have partially assisted the garden in opening a
portion of the garden two years ago. We have grown from serving
1,000 visitors in two oh two to serving 25,000 visitors this fiscal year.
So we have grown exponentially, and a lot of that has been because
we have had support from the TDC.
We survey every visitor coming in, and over 50 percent of our
visitors are from outside of Collier County. After three years, and I
know Commissioner Halas was concerned about this the last time,
after three years, we are running our current operation on a sustainable
basis. We, through pro bono assistance from Goldman Sachs this past
spring, have put together a three-year business plan for sustainability.
So this is not about operating funds.
In fact, we are earning -- our earned revenues are from
admissions, program fees, from store sales and membership and our
unearned is from special events, the annual fund that we run,
sponsorships and grants. So we are taking care of our operating
budget.
In addition, a private donor is making it possible to open the
conservation areas of our natural habitats, which are the pine
Page 238
September 21, 2004
flatwoods and the oak scrub areas by January two oh five, if
everything goes according to plan, and through a collaborative
partnership with Florida Gulf Coast University, we have raised 2.5
million in private funds and secured matching funds of 2.5 million
from the state. And this is going to be the building of the first
university facility in Collier County. It will be a joint use research and
education center. So we're doing that as a partnership.
So this, along with the opening of the uplands, will result in
approximately 25 percent of the property being opened in the near
future.
I just mention that because we are working to raise those funds
through private. Approximately 87 percent is private, and the
remainder is public. But the importance of this is that the receipt of
the TDC funds from Collier County will demonstrate your continued
support of this public/private partnership to develop a world class
botanical garden in Collier County.
As Jack Wert mentioned, it was my understanding the ordinance
that was done several years ago for C- 2 funding was for noncounty,
not- for-profit museums, open to the public, and it was also to be used
for the advancement and promotion of tourism.
Our grant request met all of these requirements. We met all the
requirements established by the county commission, we submitted it
on time, we had matching funds, we went through the process, our
application was reviewed by the CEB, and it was recommended by the
TDC.
We have a written agreement drawn up by the county attorney
for your approval, and all required documents have been submitted.
So we have gone all the way through this process.
This is a really important part of our program for this coming
year, because it's the sort of thing, the tropical butterfly house, will be
the sort of thing, it's the only place that we have tropical butterflies for
the first time anywhere on the west coast of Florida. Giant day geckos
Page 239
._",.,,,.."~.____"_ð·_
September 21, 2004
from the Seychelle Islands off the coast of Africa, rainbow colored
parrots from Australia will be a huge draw for kids and for families.
At this time, I am respectfully requesting your approval of this
grant to build this butterfly pavilion. It is comparable to the tourist
attraction in Fort Lauderdale, and it will provide a new family
attraction to market and bring in additional tourists from outside of
Collier County. It also provides a new venue for families and children
here in Collier County. So it's an added value.
I guess, in closing, public/private partnerships, such as this, are
what build cultural institutions and build healthy communities. So I
hope that you will consider this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did we have another speaker?
MS. McPHERSON: Another speaker did come in, David
Lykins.
MR. LYKINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I appreciate
the opportunity to actually get in front of you for this particular item.
It's been a long track. Ifwe could figure out how to get the little train
to go to the Naples Preserve, we would be very happy as well.
David Lykins, for the record, City of Naples.
We very much would like to thank you for your previous support
in this particular team. The Naples Preserve has grown quite
substantially in its community support, its popularity. It is very much
centrally located within the community. We have a growing list of
partners of the preserve that we have listed on our website that are
very active with us. We're in the volunteers -- by the way, this is a
completely volunteer-driven facility. We have very minimal
operational funding that goes to operate the facility or the preserve
itself. The volunteers do all of the leg work. They provide all of the
programs, and within the partner system, and our volunteer efforts, we
expend a great deal of time promoting all the county facilities, such as
Rookery Bay and many of the others throughout all of Collier County.
That's one of the our primary focuses when we operate the
Page 240
-,.>-,--_._.~ ,.
~. ...~--~-~,-.._,....,_..,
September 21, 2004
Naples Preserve, is to promote, not just ecotourism, which you
mentioned earlier, but to promote the county facilities that are partners
with us in the ecotourism movement to take care of the tourists that
come here that want something that's an alternative to the night life
that happens downtown or some of the other attractions that you have
in Southwest Florida.
We have, through the efforts of Bill Meek, and the Friends of the
Preserve, provided a match of $50,000 in private contributions for the
additional 50,000 that you see is the request that we have here for you
today.
We appreciate the comments Mr. Wert had earlier about the
preserve system. We would very much request, respectfully, your
continued support of this operation, and we look forward to working
with you on this in the future. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, we depend upon
advisory groups to make recommendations to us. The Tourist
Development Council has made a recommendation that they think that
the approval of these funds is in the best interest of the county, and I
would like to make a motion to accept their recommendations and
approve this petition.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second that.
Okay. We have a motion on the floor to accept the TDC
recommendations for funding for those three facilities, and a second
by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion? All those -- yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What Botanical Garden -- what
was the amount that it was given last year?
MR. WERT: Last year, I believe it was 397,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that money's expended?
MR. WERT: Yeah. We're working on the last batch of that now,
that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Page 241
September 21,2004
MR. MUDD: There is a request for the 28th of September on
your agenda, I know it's not the 28th of September, that you -- for the
board to extend, by four months, the closeout date for that particular
expenditure from '04, because there's some things they couldn't get to
within that -- within that 12-month period of time so they're basically
asking for 16 months in order to get it accomplished. And I think it
was a 1 January 2005 end date. They asked to extend it from the end
of September till then. That, you'll see on the next board meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second. 0 h, I'm sorry.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to know what the operating
hours of the Botanical Gardens is. Is it open on the weekends?
MS. QUINN: Yes. We are open Wednesday through Saturday
during the summer months, and Wednesday through Sunday,
November through May.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because I've been down there a
couple of times, my wife and I, on the weekends, and it wasn't open. I
guess it must have been Sunday then.
MS. QUINN: Yeah. And we will be back open on Sunday
November 1st. This is our first year, because we just started charging
admission, and so we were trying to -- we checked with other agencies
around to find out what the summers were like, and I talked to the
Conservancy, and they had recommended these hours, so we were
trying those this year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I ask you a question?
MS. QUINN: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got on line, and I looked at your
2002 income tax form, and I looked, just basically, looking at the
salaries there. And for yourself and the people that you listed on the
2002 form, it looks like we got a --
MS. QUINN: A lot of those people are no longer with us, the
Page 242
- ".,..-..,-....--...-
September 21, 2004
high level --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A payroll of $588,000.
MS. QUINN: When -- how this came about is that originally,
when Harvey Capnick (phonetic), who purchased the land was alive,
we had expected to be able to have the first phase open by two oh
four, two oh five, and we hired people who had really been in high
capacities across the country to come in and get this open. Along with
his death, along with the war, along with a whole lot of other things,
we laid all of our senior staff off.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And who do you presently have on
your staff? Can you tell me?
MS. QUINN: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you tell me who you've got
presently on your staff?
MS. QUINN: What their titles are?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, just what the titles are.
MS. QUINN: I have somebody who takes care of facilities, and
does all the site -- we have 160 acres that have to be mowed and so
forth, and also, all of the operations, and we have a person who is in
charge of finance and human resources. And we have myself and an
assist who takes care of all of the board work as well as assisting me.
We have a person who does grants, annual fund, sponsorships --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And they're all on payroll?
MS. QUINN: Yes. Yes, we also have 200 volunteers. I mean,
most all of the work that is done in the garden is done by volunteers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what do you think your payroll
is right now?
MS. QUINN: I think our payroll now--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Per year.
MS. QUINN: Is five something.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Five hundred thousand?
MS. QUINN: Yeah. Two of the people that are listed as payroll
Page 243
~...._"",_.......,...
September 21, 2004
are not part of operations. They are on the capital campaign. They
are, basically, only people who are out raising major gifts. So it's
major grants of 100,000 and more, and private. So that's kind of
separate from operating.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I see.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I just wanted to say that I
still feel that the first priority, of course, is the county museums. But I
also recognize the needs in the county are quite diverse, that there's
many ways for this cultural aspect to be -- satisfy the needs out there.
As long as we can meet the basic needs of the county museum now
and in the future, I can go ahead and support grants like this on a
yearly basis.
MS. QUINN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: However, when it gets to the
point where it gets push or shove, I've got to be honest with you, at
that point in time, I'd have to withdraw my support. But at this point
in time, it's a pleasure to be able to help you to the next step.
MS. QUINN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mrs. Quinn, so you stated that
you let go most of those people?
MS. QUINN: Senior people, we did. We had laid five people
off a little over a year and a half ago.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your total monies for salaries
stayed the same.
MS. QUINN: Actually, they didn't. I can't -- I don't know,
without looking at the two oh two return. Basically, we have -- I am
the only senior person, along with the vice-president of fundraising,
who is only in charge of the capital campaign, not -- does not deal at
all with operations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. My concern is not--
Page 244
,._"..".,..---,~-'-- "."".",,,-.-..
September 21, 2004
private organizations are great, but, you know, when I see that the
CEO is making a tremendous amount more money than, you know,
our county manager, that has to manage thousands of employees in
different divisions and that, I've got a real concern when you come to
MS. QUINN: I was recruited by the board. So actually, I mean,
actually, I can't address it. You'd have to -- I mean, that's comparable
within the museum field nationally, where I come from. I will just tell
you that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're way off on our salaries
then.
MS. QUINN: Well, part of it has to do with raising 60 million
dollars, building an organization and building a business. There's a
difference in terms of responsibility. I'm not saying that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We run a billion dollar corporation
here in the county.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We've got a motion on the floor
and a second.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a 3-2 on that.
Okay. We're going to take a ten-minute break.
(Recess taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats. Madam Chair, you have a hot mic.
Page 245
W·___·_··_ "~."-'.~..~.-
September 21, 2004
Item #10F
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE GUARANTEED
MAXIMUM PRICE (GMP) OF $53,802,645 FOR CONTRACT NO.
013189, ARTICLE #1, EXHIBIT J TO KRAFT CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF NORTH
Ma'am, the next item is 10(F), and that is to -- a recommendation
to approve a guaranteed maximum price of fifty-three million, eight
hundred and two thousand six hundred and forty-five dollars for
contract number 013189. Article number one, Exhibit J, to Kraft
Construction Company, Inc. for the construction of the North Naples
Regional Park, project 80602. Ms. Marla Ramsey, the interim director
for public services division, will present.
MS. RAMSEY: Good evening, Commissioners. This is a project
that we've been working on for a very long time. On June 25th of
2002, the Board of County Commissioners approved the agenda item
for the design fee portion of the contract of this particular park for the
construction manager at risk.
Today, we're here to bring forward to you, as part of that
contract, the guaranteed maximum price for the construction of the
North Naples Regional Park.
The guaranteed maximum price was formulated by the
construction manager through the solicitation of price quotations from
at least three, but in some cases, as many as ten subcontractors from
each trade. The quotes were then thoroughly reviewed by the
construction manager and the staff. And included in that we also had
the Clerk of Courts, had Charlie Abbott and Bonnie Zinn (phonetic)
and also purchasing involved in the team to help us to look at what the
cost of the -- to make some specification changes, to make some
adjustments as necessary, and then also we went through a process of
Page 246
"_,c.~~·,· .
,,-..,-........-....-
September 21, 2004
value engineering in order to bring the guaranteed maximum price
down. We cut out about a million four out of this project about four
weeks ago in order to get it to where it is today.
The proj ect will be funded through community and regional park
impact fees. A forty-three million dollar bond will be needed to
finance this project. It will be bonded over 20 years with impact fees
being paid, used to pay back the bond.
The recommendation is that the Board of County Commissioners
award the guaranteed maximum price construction portion of the
contract, number 01-3189 to Kraft Construction Company, Inc., in the
amount of fifty-three million eight hundred and two thousand, six
hundred and forty-five dollars for construction management at risk
and approve all the necessary budget revisions needed.
I would like to note that in your packet there is a duplication on
pages four of 45 and five of 45. Those are duplicates of six of 45 and
seven of 45.
And I'm available for questions, if you have any.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
MS. McPHERSON: You have two speakers on this item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coy Ie to approve, and a second by Commissioner
Halas.
We have a speaker and we have Commissioner Henning waiting
in the wings.
Okay. Your speaker?
MS. McPHERSON: Jim Hennessy is the first speaker, and the
second speaker says Sports Organizing Committee.
MR. HENNESSY: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Madam
Chair. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak this
afternoon. For the record, I'm Jim Hennessy. I'm representing the
Page 247
September 21, 2004
Collier County Sports Organizing Committee. And I'm just here to
express my support for the approval of the guaranteed maximum price
for the construction of the North Naples Regional Park in its entirety.
The SOC believes that the North Naples Regional Park will
provide a great service for the community, as well as significant
economic impacts for our community at large.
A little background. The Collier County Sports Organizing
Committee was formed earlier this year and designed to help grow and
develop sports events that we want to bring to Collier County. The
committee is comprised mainly of various members of the local
hospitality community, as well as representatives from the Collier
County Parks and Recreation, as well as the CVB.
And basically, you know, we strongly believe that the North
Naples Regional Park is a much-needed sports and recreational
complex that will help attract, for example, softball -- mainly softball
and soccer tournaments that, in some cases, have been proven to
generate an economic impact of as much as $500,000 per event. And
this is especially needed during our low season months from May
through October.
And again, I thank you for allowing me to express my support for
your approval of this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have a second speaker? No name,
huh?
MS. McPHERSON: It says Sports Organizing Committee. Then
it says Tom white, Jim Hennessy, Mark Van Dam, Clark Hill.
MR. HILL: My name is Clark Hill. I'm the general manager of
the Hilton Naples and Towers, representing the Collier County Sports
Organizing Committee. I'd just like to echo what Jim said. This is an
excellent facility, one that our community is very fortunate to have.
And we feel that the hospitality community can benefit during the off
season by bringing in amateur sports, their families and other
spectators to enjoy these tournaments.
Page 248
<""-...,.,.-......",.
September 21, 2004
I've seen this happen before. I've been involved with sports
organizing committees elsewhere, and the economic impact can
certainly be large. So it's incremental business. It's soccer
tournaments. It's softball tournaments. It's good for the community.
It's good for the tax base.
Furthermore, I think it's -- sports is the best thing we can do for
the youth today. There are a lot of distractions, a lot of challenges for
our young people. Let's keep them involved in sports, and they'll stay
out of trouble. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Marla, can you give us an
overview of the facilities, the fields, please?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes. Again, remember that the acreage on this
park is 212 acres. There will be eight soccer fields with a concession
in the center. There are five softball fields with a concession in the
center. There is about a ten-acre water park in the facility, as well as a
fitness center, staff offices, a community building that will seat 300 in
the north side, which we feel is really important, given the amount of
turnout that we have for some of our public meetings, and a double
wide gymnasium, 90 acres of preserve on this site, and about five
miles worth of trails, paved trails for inline skating, biking, walking, et
cetera.
MR. MUDD: Can you tell the commissioners where the child
museum is going to go.
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. It's sort of hard for me to show it to you,
but there's a little parking --
MR. MUDD: See how steady your hand is. Point at that screen
up there.
MS. RAMSEY: Do you think I can do this?
MR. MUDD: Sure you can, if you push the button.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't get Trish between the eyes.
MS. RAMSEY: It's right there. How's that?
Page 249
~"._.._IOI<_~___'~
September 21, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The children's museum?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, that's where the children's museum is
slated. It's about 20,000 square foot, if you recall the agreement that
we have with the children's museum, on about two acres in the parcel.
So that's a synopsis of what we have in the location.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the clerk review is just the
staff with the proposal?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes. As a matter of fact, we brought them on
really early. Maybe they want to comment themselves, but we
brought them on really early back in April, and we met probably two
times a month ever since then. So we've had a number of meetings
where we've gone over the numbers.
MR. MITCHELL: Absolutely. The clerk's office was invited to
engage very early in this project, and we have been 100 percent
engaged from day one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we appreciate -- or I
should say I appreciate. You know, it's a lot of money, and going over
the list, I don't know what an engineered shelter -- shelters. I'm sorry,
with trellis structures is.
MS. RAMSEY: We have -- on this particular project, we're
pulling 28 building permits on this site, and that includes every
structure has to have a building permit pulled. So there are trellises on
the site for covered walkways, I don't know about the courtyards, but
then there's shelters, and I really feel that those are two separate
Issues.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's part of the -- what's going to
be constructed out there. So there -- there are shelters within the
meandering path?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. There are shelters around the
playground area. There are shelters around the ballfield area. There
are shelters at the concession stand areas. There are a number of
Page 250
September 21, 2004
shelters throughout that will allow for picnicking and various activities
for the general public.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I see. And those, kind of
like what we have at Sugden, where you rent those out?
MS. RAMSEY: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I understand.
MS. RAMSEY: Open air pavilion, so to speak, if you like that
better, a better definition.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Just--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Marla, I had a question, and I'm going off
the track just a little bit here. But with Eagle Lakes Community Park,
you were going to put in the kiddie water park?
MS. RAMSEY"': That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, actually, for the last couple of years
you've been saying it was going in. Number one, I want to know
when it's going in and number two, I hope the money doesn't get
siphoned off someplace else.
MS. RAMSEY: No, ma'am. This is two separate items. We
have had the funding available for that. As a matter of fact --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know.
MS. RAMSEY: -- we are in the permitting process for that right
now. We've submitted it for SDP, and we're having reviews done and
then we will be pulling building permits.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the other improvements as well?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes. There are two tennis courts, the water area
and two shelters are planned for that park in phase two of three.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, in this -- any of the structures
that are going to be built there, are they going to be able to
accommodate people in case of a storm?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes. As a matter of fact, I worked with Dan
Page 251
September 21, 2004
Summers on the community building, and we have put in a generator
adaption so that he can bring in a portable generator, plug it in and
cool the large community center.
It's not really a facility for the event itself, although we have to
put in impact glass. Dan has designated that as an after-event shelter
at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you tell me approximately
what the load-carrying capacity is of the ten-acre water park?
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah, about 1200 people at a time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 1200 people. Okay. Because of the
fact that, as our population increases, I think we're going to have more
demands on this water park because of the lack of access to the
beaches. So that's what my concern is, that -- do you think this is
going to be adequate, and do we have the ability to expand in the
future?
MS. RAMSEY: We don't really have the -- well, we might have
some capacity to expand some of the footprint in the future, but we're
doing this -- the water park a little bit in phases in the fact that we'll be
adding -- we're putting in three of the five slides to begin with, adding
one slide the following year and another slide the second year out. To
phase that in, it helps with marketing and allows you to readvertise the
facility itself.
But we're looking at about probably 120,000 people annually
going through the water park. And as a matter of fact, we are working
with the productivity committee to help us determine what the hours
will be at that facility and what we should be charging as fees. So we
are working with them. I think we started that in August.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Last question I have. Is there going
to be something similar to an auditorium there?
MS. RAMSEY: No, not an auditorium as you may think, like at
the central library, for example. Not an auditorium like that, but we
will have seating for up to 300 people, with a setup that will allow
Page 252
September 21, 2004
commission chambers to be moved into that location and broadcast
directly from it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I guess where I was going
from this, would it be possible that this would ben an area where we
would have concerts?
MS. RAMSEY: There's been a lot of concern from people that
live right around the area that we were going to take the concerts from
Vineyards and move them directly up to North Naples Regional Park.
Until such time that we outgrow the Vineyards location, we would
not do that, but yes, we do have eight soccer fields, and we have put in
the capability for the electrical to move those concerts if we do need to
do so on the population that comes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We've heard from all of our
speakers?
MS. McPHERSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle, and a second by Commissioner Halas. Any
further discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed? And that passes 5-0. Thank
you.
Item #11
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 12(A), but that was
Page 253
September 21, 2004
withdrawn, and it was on the change sheet.
The next item is 12(B), and that was an add, and that has to do
with the Aquaport settlement, and this is under the county attorney's
report.
MS. McPHERSON: Under number 11, you have speaker on--
MR. MUDD: Excuse me. I'm sorry. We went right by it.
You're right. Thank you very much. I appreciate --
MS. McPHERSON: You have one speaker and it's Ken
Thompson.
MR. MUDD: We have public comments on general topics under
paragraph 11.
MR. THOMPSON: I'm Ken Thompson. I live at 2831 Becca
Avenue. I come here today, boy, I was going to let a few of you have
it, but I changed my mind and got on with the eagle there. You stayed
on him for so long, I done flew away with him, I guess.
But this thing here, is the boathouse bar and grill relating as the
Tipsy Seagull across the bridge. And they went over there, somebody,
and they was trying to open it. And I called it in and they got it
stopped.
And it's awful funny, the railings on the bridge is painted the
same color as the top of the bar. And the side of the building is
painted the same color of the bridge. So I think somebody's been
doing some moonlighting on county property.
Now, I found out this past Sunday over there, somebody, they're
taken all the wood rails down and they're taking the county rails down
somewhere, and they're putting them up along the thing there, so I got
a hold of Mrs. Arnold. And I don't want that bar open no more, and it
states, it states right here in this thing, and I got a hold of Norman, and
Donna Fiala, it states right here that they cannot open that place again
unless they make -- put a right-hand turn lane from the bridge down to
Bayview Drive. And Ms. Donna Fiala knows about it. And so does
this fellow I was just talking to out there.
Page 254
_.,.w_....._,._.. ...···..'w~,.,,·.._.._.._.·-
September 21, 2004
But I don't want it open. They already got one in Gulf Gate
Shopping Center that you need to close. It's called a Lion House, and
it's an inside bar. It's on the roof. Outside in the parking lot,
everywhere. You don't need all these bars.
You know, it's just -- hell, every night over there in that
neighborhood, and then you got this place across me with the
boathouse that they closed up, and they've -- this guy went out Sunday
morning with a van, and he come back with a brand new trailer and
brand new scaffolding. Now, where would he be getting all that kind
of stuff at that time of night, and he's running a business out of the
house, and the owners don't even live there anymore.
So that is about the scummiest hole that me and my wife has ever
had to go through I believe I have ever seen. But these people, I just
don't understand how anybody can live like that. I drink like that and
I worked like that, but I didn't carry on like that. Never. Never did it.
I'd take two pennies and I can make a miracle happen with it.
But I changed my mind on some things that I was going to say today,
because it's -- I thought it over, and it's not right.
But this overpass you got here, I don't care whether you build it
or you don't build it. I know you don't need it. People's telling it takes
too long to get through it. I don't. I go to Southwest Regional
Hospital every day, and -- to the surgery center up there, and I have no
problem getting back and forth through that thing.
But there's a lady here last week was a standing over there, and
she was a talking about it, that the city didn't own the right-of-way,
that the county owns the right-of-way. And I can't remember her
name. She's kind of tall, colored lady.
Well, she was saying that the county owns the right-of-way. I
wish you would get with road and bridges, and John V olet (phonetic)
and let him know that, because he's telling all the homeowners out
there that they own all the property right up to the blacktop. That is
not so, because I've had to pull permits to put pipes in, to run the
Page 255
September 21, 2004
right-of-way for my wife's beauty parlor, and I keep a perfect yard and
a perfect place, and I'm getting tired of inherited property. I wish
somebody would take it off of my hands. I really am. I inherited
some more, and I don't even want it.
I'm trying to get out of Naples, but I can't get her to go, because if
she don't let's go pretty soon, she can just stay here, because I'm just
going through too much surgery.
But this thing here, this bar across that bridge there, it -- they owe
the State of Florida $92,000 sales tax from liquor they never did pay.
So I don't know what happened to them.
But what we've had to go through with that Tipsy Seagull and
this mess up there, the Big Lot just opened up. If I was the Big Lot, I
would really come over here and I can give you a word or two to put
some of them boarders out of there, because every time you get a good
business, somebody runs them out of it.
That sheriff department, and boy, you was talking about him a
minute ago, and boy, does he ever get you for the money. He's worse
__ more like roulette at Las Vegas. I'm telling you, he's fixing to get
$255,000 again? And you need to talk to him about that. I went to
Commander Baker yesterday morning, and I got accused of shooting
down three deputies, and boy, I just think the world of the deputies. I
really do. I'm so glad to see them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They're nice guys. Your time is up, sir.
MR. THOMPSON: You got it. So don't give him nothing else.
Make him go to work for it.
Item #12B
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT
REQUEST FOR PURPOSES OF FUNDING THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED SETTLEMENT OF THE AQUAPORT CASES -
Page 256
---..
September 21, 2004
AEEROVED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now 12 --
MR. MUDD: Now we're at 12(B), which is the Aquaport
settlement, and that's Mr. David Weigel to present to you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Jim. Commissioners, this is a
follow-up to your approval of the settlement of the Aquaport cases,
and as you're aware through memo, the parties have accepted the
settlement payment amounts. It's a gross amount of two million,
seven hundred fifty thousand. What's appropriate for our budget
requirements is for you to approve a budget amendment that would be
related to the property and casualty insurance fund, center number
121650 for the amount of two million, seven hundred fifty thousand,
but the good news is that although we write the check, Northland
Insurance Company will be writing us a check for two million, five
hundred seventy-five thousand, which we expect to receive before we
send ours out the door, and we have seven business days to
accomplish this. So that's the general basics of looking toward a
budget amendment.
And we would additionally ask the board to approve the
chairman to sign off on any necessary settlement documents in this
regard. This will put to rest all the Aquaport and Aquaport-related
cases both in federal and circuit court.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The bottom line, Attorney Weigel,
can you tell us what the bottom line was that came out of the budget of
county commissioners?
MR. WEIGEL: I sure can. We were operating out of an
insurance policy, a five-million dollar insurance policy, which was
triggered with the $200,000 worth of deductible. So before we got
into our insurance policy, the county paid $200,000. That was done
approximately two years ago. With the additional $175,000 that the
Page 257
..-.-
September 21, 2004
county will be paying through this -- these actions to settle the case,
it's at a dollar figure amount, a dollar outlay of $375,000.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any more discussion? Any
questions? Any board members?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, a hard lesson.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Halas. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
Very good. That passes unanimously.
Item #13A
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM
GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE
BUDGET - MOTION TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION AT THE
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next item is other
constitutional officers, paragraph 13. It's item A. It's a request
approval of a budget amendment transferring funds from the general
fund reserves to the sheriffs office budget, total, two million, five
hundred thousand dollars.
Page 258
September 21, 2004
MS. KINZEL: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record,
Crystal Kinzel, finance director for the sheriffs office. And I believe
Sheriff Hunter is with us by telephone. Sheriff?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Correct. I'm here.
MS. KINZEL: And we're here to answer any questions you
might have on our agenda item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: From what I understand, this is
because of unanticipated new hires of filling your staffing request for
this budget year?
MS. KINZEL: Correct, Commissioner Henning. As you know,
at the beginning of the budget year, each year, when we were back in
2003 and we projected forward for 2004, at that time we had
numerous vacancies throughout the agency, around 80 vacancies.
Over the course of the year, we've been very successful, and this
is very good news, because it provides us the staffing that's necessary
to respond to our increasing cost for servicing, increases in schools,
the things that we have confronting us in our growing community.
But each year the budget, when it's adopted, the board takes off
from that budget a 4 percent attrition for those vacancy rates. We're
not recognizing that attrition this year. We have been very lucky and
successful in hiring, and consequently, we're coming back to the board
to get those dollars appropriated to cover salaries for the end of
September.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're saying it's 80 --
MS. KINZEL: It was 80 vacancies last year in 2003, but we've
hired up. We do not have vacancies at the agency at this time. We
actually have a waiting list for some of our certified positions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you've filled 80 positions
this year.
MS. KINZEL: Yes. Well, we've actually hired over 150,
because you have some that you lose and gain, and lose and gain.
Page 259
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So how many vehicles
did you purchase this year?
MS. KINZEL: Oh, off the top my head, probably a little over a
hundred this year. We have saved, in that capital item, probably
300,000, knowing that we would need it to go towards salaries.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How much of that would you
say would go to what we consider capital improvements, such as
vehicles, outfitting the vehicle? Do you provide guns to the deputies?
MS. KINZEL: No, sir. They buy their own weapons.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uniforms?
MS. KINZEL: Yes, we do provide uniforms.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have a figure on that
cost?
MS. KINZEL: Not with me off the top of my head. Each
deputy, if you include salary in their operating, the total for a deputy
in the first year, including their training cost, is probably around
$85,000 for those positions when you buy a vehicle, operating,
training, physicals that we deal with.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How long have you been fully
staffed? Has it been the whole fiscal year?
MS. KINZEL: No, Commissioner, but the 4 percent attrition rate
accounts for -- it depends on whether you get into the dollars or the
positions. But it accounts for, it equates to approximately 40
positions, and we were below 40 position rate as of January of'04. So
we had started eating into that attrition dollars back in January and had
exceeded the staffing level that would have accounted for the 4
percent. The 4 percent equated to 3.2 million, and we're here asking
for about 2.5 million, because we did have some time that we were not
fully staffed during this current fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Are you planning to be
fully staffed next year?
Page 260
".,._.._._~..,_.ow.,..._..._.~,,__u
September 21, 2004
MS. KINZEL: Yes, sir. We're planning on going into October 1,
and we should be fully staffed. We've been very successful, and in
fact, our Human Resources department has people, you know, that for
2005, we're projecting phasing in positions, and we're actually going
through some of the hiring processes now so that we have those
positions, people lined up for those when the phase-in occurs during
'05.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So, are you telling me that you're
overstaffed presently, that you're already into the -- your allotment for
'OS?
MS. KINZEL: Excuse me. No, sir. We have them in a cue
waiting with a tentative hire date of either January or May, when we're
eligible to phase them in next year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If when we go through this process
next year, are we going to be hit again with another 2.5 million
dollars?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, actually, we probably will. When
we go into the 2005 budget, the way it sits right now, you have taken
off of the top of that budget a 4 percent attrition rate. If we are fully
staffed for the full year, yes, I would need to come back to you by the
end of the year and get funding for those positions that are authorized.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you're contemplating that you're
going to have additional overtime next year?
MS. KINZEL: We're hoping to see -- as we've explained in the
past, Commissioner, we have an interesting scenario is that most of
our agency, with the certified officers and dispatch, they have a rather
large training cycle. We have the academy time and then we have
what we call our field training officer time. So while the new hires are
in those positions, you don't really see a reduction in overtime,
because they're not fully capable of responding on their own to a call
or to a dispatch in the radio room.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So how much higher do you think
Page 261
September 21, 2004
the budget's going to be next year?
MS. KINZEL: Well, we hope to live -- we have projected and
factored in those costs for 2005. So what you have before you for
2005, we are comfortable that we can make it through next year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you're going to go back to the
board and ask us for some additional funds; is that correct?
MS. KINZEL: We will probably have to come back to you for
the 4 percent attrition if we remain fully staffed for the course of the
year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll tell you, I've always -- one of the
things that bothered me a lot was you were never fully staffed. And I
kept saying, well, you're putting together a budget and you're not even
fully staffed. I'm delighted that you are, and I realize you've had to
put this money away for attrition. I'm delighted to hear you don't have
any. So to me, I think that's a positive.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Kinzel, would you speak
into the mic so that we can get you on the tape? Thank you.
MS. KINZEL: Okay. Sorry. My voice usually carries.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It does, but I'm not sure if
people trying to listen to this at home can hear it. That's the only
reason I'm asking. Thank you.
Do you anticipate your overtime next year reducing, since -- I
mean, the deputies that you have hired this year should be trained, I'm
assumIng.
MS. KINZEL: I will tell you, Commissioner, we anticipate a
reduction in the growth of the overtime hours, absolutely. What you
do have to look at, though, it's also a factor of the salary rate plus the
hours. So as the salary rate increases, the total dollar budget may not
reduce, but the hours, we certainly should start to see economies when
those people are fully in their positions to function as full capacity
members.
Page 262
>-'"""~ _..~._-~
September 21, 2004
And we have seen that in the last -- we've been very fortunate the
last couple of payrolls. We've actually seen a reduction in the
overtime, and then we had the hurricane time. So the hurricanes kind
of threw us back into a higher overtime to cover the weekends when
we anticipated those events, but overall operating, we are starting to
see a slowing of that overtime, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you give us a breakdown of
the employment, how many jail deputies you have, road deputies?
MS. KINZEL: Sure. For the 2004 year, our budget, we have
certified law enforcement officers, about 616, we have about 337
civilian positions, and about 211 certified corrections officers.
Now, under the civilians, that includes your dispatch center. We
also have civil crime scene processors. So we have civilianized
several of the positions throughout the agency. But our total
authorized positions are 1178 and a half.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Kinzel, 2.5 million dollars
seems to be a lot of money when we're approximately two weeks
away from our fiscal year. Can you help me with that? I mean, are
you going to pay these new deputies 2.5 million dollars?
MS. KINZEL: No, Commissioner. It's a function of the overall
budget as we get to the end. It is an accumulation of the entire year's
budget, and when we get down to the final September, we do our final
projection of funds that we will need to cover those last payrolls. And
our payroll runs over five million each pay period. So this is only a
fraction of that last payroll, and that's why we're coming to you.
And it does show up late. I mean, we gave the board a projection
of 2.8 million back in June, because that was our best guess at that
time where we would end up for year end. We've tried to economize
in our capital and some of our operating costs to reduce that to a 2.5
million dollar request. But the actual need isn't until the last month
fiscally. And we tried to look at where we're going to be, because
we're projecting out two payrolls, basically.
Page 263
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't you have a reserve fund
for health insurance?
MS. KINZEL: Yes, Commissioner. We have a reserve -- we're a
participant in the Florida Sheriffs Multiple Employment Trust Fund,
and we do have a reserve that's based on our actuarial reporting, and
we pay the premiums to that fund as well as a reserve amount, and
that's offset against then the premiums that we charge all year, and we
do retain a reserve in the insurance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what is that reserve?
MS. KINZEL: Right now, we're at about 1.9.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's the status of your medical
program at the present time?
MS. KINZEL: Status, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Is it properly funded?
MS. KINZEL: I believe so. We're -- right now, we're in the
process of -- we have a request for proposals out for a health insurance
TP A third-party administrator. So we are reviewing our entire plan
that would change in plan design as of January. But at this point, we
feel that our actuarial is funded and that we are a healthy plan going
through to the end of the year.
Now, we will have another actuarial report that will be as of
September 30th, and actually, they do it as of December 31st, because
it's a calendar-year basis, and that's reported then for next year's
financials, but based on the total of the reserves that we currently have
and the premiums that we will charge, that total amount should make
us a sound health insurance.
I'm sure you're aware, as with the county side, health insurance
costs continue to escalate. And we are working with the board and
other major employers in Collier County on a health consortium to try
to minimize the cost to the taxpayers wherever we can, either plan
Page 264
September 21, 2004
design, through agreements with physicians and through discounted
rates. So we're being pretty aggressive with that as a participant of the
consortium. But at this point, based on the claims that we have and
the claims that we see, we are healthy.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I look at this CAFR report,
and it looks like you're about $990,000 in the hole, almost a million
dollars in the hole. I'm concerned that maybe you're not charging
enough premiums.
MS. KINZEL: No, Commissioner. We actually have
unrestricted reserves of about that amount.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Of 1.8 million dollars?
MS. KINZEL: Right, the unrestricted reserves are about 1.8
million, and that would be our reserve fund to make it actuarially
sound, not in the hole.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. As I was going through this,
there's one area that I'm really concerned about. It says 2.18 million
that comes from other funds. Where is this other funds? Is this
operating expenses that are -- instead of being turned over to us that
you use?
MS. KINZEL: No, Commissioner. Those are funds that do go
from the operating account and they're paid into the insurance fund to
establish our reserves and our rate structure for the insurance fund. I
think, if you look at the -- and I think you're probably looking at the
CAFR, page 114, and if you do have a copy of that, when you look at
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got it right here in front of me.
MS. KINZEL: Okay. When you look at the first column, for
example, that's the board's self-insurance funds. And you'll see that
they have similar accounts. When you have it --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It says due from other funds,
though. I'm concerned about due from other funds.
MS. KINZEL: Right. That does come from the operating
Page 265
-~-_."'.---~
_..__.__..".~
September 21, 2004
account. The constitutional officers, and where we are at year end, a
constitutional officer does have to return funds to the board at year
end, or send the funds to where we would have our reserve.
So we have to have a definitive cut-off. If you look down, for
example, on the board's side, you will have insurance claims payable,
and also some noncurrent liability payable claims of about four and a
half million. That's similarly -- we could have probably shown that
two million in the same place as the four and a half with the county,
and we've talked about that with the auditors, but it is a similar thing.
We take the money. We look at the claims that we have for
insurance for the year. We look at claims that we have projected for
the next year, and we balance those reserve funds and our payments to
make sure that we are going to be actuarially sound before year end,
but that is due from the operating account into the reserves for the
health insurance fund to keep it whole.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It sounds to me as though, from
what you're telling me, is that you don't charge enough premiums in
regards to the health care, that -- your commitment that you have for
health care. Am I right or wrong?
MS. KINZEL: No, I believe you're incorrect. But we look at
those claims that we charge to individual members routinely, and as I
said, we participate with the consortium, and we do comparisons of
plans.
I don't believe it's a right or a wrong. We do have different plan
designs. One has a deductible, one has long-term disability, one has
vision. Each of the plans is different. And we try to meld our plan.
If you'll think about it, when we have been short on vacancies,
our ability to recruit and retain individual members is a combination
of salary adequate to market and, obviously, benefits package. So we
look at the totality of that benefit system, salaries plus benefits, to
make sure that we're staying equitable to market.
So, our plan design at the sheriffs office might be a little bit
Page 266
September 21, 2004
different from the plan design at the board's, but I don't believe that it's
a right or a wrong position on what we -- you know, plan design.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So in other words, you're saying
that for this year, you're going to get, from other funds, 2.18 million
dollars; is that correct?
MS. KINZEL: No, Commissioner. We did that last year. These
are the audited financials that ended on 2003. So that money was
already put into the reserves.
Now, this year, we charge claims, and it's in our budget as a
budgeted line item for health insurance claims, and those -- I'm sorry,
not claims. Those budgeted amounts, plus the premiums that are
charged the individual members, are collected each pay period, and
then we send, monthly, off to the insurance fund so that we can pay
claims.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you have some idea, what's it
going to cost next year?
MS. KINZEL: Next year, we budgeted for 2005, maybe Jean
can pull that number, but we have it budgeted in our--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You have it budgeted next year in
this, from other funds, due from other funds, another two million --
2.167 million dollars.
MS. KINZEL: No, Commissioner. That is last year's financial
statement. So when you're talking about going into next year, that
would be what would --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It says 2005, I think. Am I correct?
MS. KINZEL: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Plan year two, January 2005 to
December 2005. Income from other funds, it looks like, or other
incomes, investments and so on, is 2.167 million dollars -- two million
one hundred sixty-seven thousand dollars. Then for year 2006, it
looks like you've already planned two million three hundred nineteen
thousand dollars.
Page 267
September 21, 2004
MS. KINZEL: Okay. I see, Commissioner. You're looking at
the actuarial report.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, ma'am.
MS. KINZEL: I apologize. Not the financial. So you switched
pages on me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm sorry. This is the actuarial
report.
MS. KINZEL: When you look at the total of the actuarial report,
you have to look at everything from the claims that we're going to
have to pay, the sources of income that we will have, and that comes
from two places. It comes form the premiums that you charge
individual members, and it comes from your budgeted amount. But
you're absolutely right.
On this actuarial report, we are looking at increasing claims cost.
And I think that's consistent with every plan. Where we're going to
have to look at, and hope that that doesn't happen in 2005 and 2006, is
through an adjustment to the plan design. We will either have to
increase the premiums to members, or we will have to look at the
plans and see where we can come up with some economies to reduce
those claims costs, because that is the total cost of your insurance
package, the claims that you incur.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And then what's this
unrestricted fund of 1.889 million?
MS. KINZEL: That, at the end of 2003, was in addition to our
reserves. Now, unfortunately for this claims year, we've eaten into
those reserves about a million dollars, because when you look, our
claims were much greater than anticipated. We had proj ected, based
on the actuarial, about a 16 percent increase in claims costs. Through
March, those were around 30. They've tapered off a little bit this year,
and we're probably going to end up the year with about a 23 percent
increase in our claims costs.
So we have dipped into those reserves, but those were in addition
Page 268
-----..
September 21, 2004
to the reserves that we had available to pay claims.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you're telling me that that's the
$990,000 that you're in arrears because you didn't charge enough in
your medical program?
MS. KINZEL: No, we're not in arrears, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it says negative, $990,000 in
the medical, and this is on the CAFR fund. Operating income losses,
and so I assume it's probably medical.
MS. KINZEL: Okay. But that is then taken out of the reserves,
okay, because we had a reserve fund in our health insurance -- I know
where you're at on that page.
We have a reserve in health insurance. You always retain a
reserve. And usually, the actuarials will recommend about a 25
percent reserve amount. When you exceed your claims in a certain
year, you'll have to dip into those reserves. So that is what we did in
last year, so that was -- you are correct there, that we went into the
reserve amount that we had for our plan.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that meant that you didn't fund
your medical enough. So therefore, you went into this other plan
where you call it due from other funds, which is basically money, the
way I look at this, money that probably should have been turned back
to the taxpayers and you saw fit to put this into this account, because it
looks to me like you have a program for the next three years or next
two years, I should say.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, your insurance program goes on
forever, as long as you have a funded self-insurance plan. That does
go for multiple years, and the actuarials are required by state law to
project those funds out for three years.
What we try to do is look at the balance. You might have a good
claims year or you might have a bad claims year. Remember, the
actuarials do their reports a year in advance. Then as you progress
through the years, you have insurance claims. One year, they'll be
Page 269
.'-.-"" .~. : ."..... '.~"-
September 21, 2004
good, one year, they'll be bad.
So we're projecting, based on our rates charged to individual
members and budgeted amount that we have in the budget, that
combination is what we intend to spend.
Now, when we budget for the next year, we look at a
combination of what are we going to charge members, what are we
going to charge to the budget, what are our fees and what do I have in
reserves that would be available to apply to those rates.
So we plan to bring down some of those reserves, because you do
not want to overreserve. We try to keep it at a reasonable reserve rate.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So are you telling me that you do
not have the 1.889 million dollars that's unrestricted at this point in
time?
MS. KINZEL: No. At this point, we have a reserve, total
reserve of about 1.9 million as of July 31.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to make a motion that the
Board of Commissioners only advance about $500,000 to this offset,
and then your reserves could probably pick up the rest of this.
MS. KINZEL: Okay, Commissioner. Let me explain, however.
Those aren't reserves that are accessible to the sheriff. Those are
reserves that have been turned over to the Multiple Employers Trust to
keep your health insurance lucrative.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But it says unrestricted.
MS. KINZEL: But, Commissioner, that still rolls into the next
year to offset your claims amount. When the actuarial projects it out
for the next three years, they include that amount as a portion of their
claims. If you would want us to rob the insurance fund to pay off the
payroll, I'm going to run into the same problem next year, because my
claims are going to exceed it and I'm going to have to ask you for
more money to pay for my health insurance claims.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It looks like you've already done
that and you're already going to ask us for additional money next year.
Page 270
.'.....«"'''',," ""F r'O . ",,'
September 21, 2004
You've already stated that.
MS. KINZEL: But that's because of the full staffing. That has
purely to do with personnel costs and the filling of vacancies. Off the
top of the budget, you take 4 percent for vacancy factor when we're
not recognizing those types of vacancy rates any longer.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Frank, are you almost done?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I'm almost done.
I'm concerned that here you are running at full -- you've got full
staffing, and yet, you ran a deficit in the budget, and you're telling me
that's because of overtime requirements. And is it really the 2.5
million, or how much was your overtime budget this year? Can you
tell me?
MS. KINZEL: It was about 3.8, total overtime budget, four
million.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Four million dollars.
MS. KINZEL: Right. But Commissioner, I'm not telling you
that we overran our budget because of that. What I'm trying to explain
is when you passed the budget initially, you took 3.2 million dollars
off of our full position funding. We came to you and we said, for
these positions, it will cost this amount of money. And the board said,
but we expect that you will have these vacancies. You need to remove
4 percent of your budget. So we deducted 3.2 million dollars for our
budget for vacancies, telling you that, if we were ever fully staffed, we
would need to come back to you to get those funds to pay the payroll.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Really?
MS. KINZEL: Absolutely. That is exactly how it has worked
for numerous years on the attrition for vacancies. And we were
fortunate that we are now fully staffed.
Now, because I wasn't fully staffed the entire year, we were able
to make up some of that. So I'm not coming back to you for 3.2,
unless, of course, the calculations for the hurricanes ends up a little
greater than I expected.
Page 271
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, you should be able to get that
from FEMA, I would hope.
MS. KINZEL: Eventually, we will, but Commissioner, that
would go back to the Board of County Commissioners. We have to
fund the payroll through September 30th, file those claims, and that
will be a receivable to the board for those payroll amounts, but yes, we
are filing with FEMA to the maximum that we're able.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Ms. Kinzel, you
realize, of course, what we're doing is our job, and try to critique the
budget.
I've got to be honest with you, you seem to be extremely
knowledgeable, and I think your knowledge probably surpasses the
total sum of this board when it comes to the sheriffs budget.
What I'd like to do, if I may, with your permission, Madam
Chair, I'd like to ask Michael Smykowski, our management budget
director, if he'd come forward to the podium.
I bet you, Michael, you didn't think you'd ever get called on,
right? You looked very comfortable back there.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's why I'm here, Commissioner. For
the record, Michael Smykowski.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know, Michael. I appreciate
it.
Michael, listen, you heard us going around the horn on this time
and time again, asking questions, getting answers back. Can you help
us with this, being like an oversight, looking back on this, what should
we be asking, what should we be looking at, and what are we missing?
Or am I asking you too much?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. I think you're asking the right
questions, especially in light of the general fund millage picture we've
alluded to that '06 will -- looks, at this point, like it's going to be an
especially challenging year, and given the initial projections that we
Page 272
September 21, 2004
were looking at, Mr. Mudd and I, at the analytical model I used, was
looking that we might need up a half a million tax increase in fiscal
year '06.
So I think it's important that you ask hard questions, obviously,
the extent to which you're not accessing reserves is additional money
that would otherwise carry forward. So it is important that you ask
those difficult questions of the sheriffs staff.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you didn't answer my
question. What should we -- from what you see of the sheriffs
budget, obviously, you've looked through it and you went through it
with great detail. Is there something in that sheriffs budget that we're
missing? You heard the questions we were asking. You're the
accountant.
MR. MUDD: Let me take Mike Smykowski off the hot seat.
The actuarial account is a little bit -- is a little bit fishy, okay, from a
cynic's side of the house.
Ms. Kinzel got up and said you have your actuarial amount, and
you normally keep about a 25 percent reserve. Her actuarial amount
is 2.7 million dollars, 25 percent of that is $700,000. She's carrying
1.9.
Now, that tells me, in an actuarial account, they're holding that
reserve and they're not turning back that money to you. That's been
going on for five years. And I looked at the actuarial account, and it
looks like they're planning to do that for the next three. And that's
what Commissioner Halas is in front of, and so I would say to you,
there are probably some monies in that reserve that can be used to
cover part of this request.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. That's
what I've been looking for.
What was your motion again?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got one other --
MS. KINZEL: Excuse me, Commissioner. Could I respond to
Page 273
September 21, 2004
that for a minute? Because 25 percent on the actuarial is based on 25
percent of your claims, not the claims payable amount that we have
remaining at September 30th. So you have to look at about a three
months claims proj ection.
Right now, we're running over a million dollars a month in our
health insurance claims costs. So I think to say that it's 25 percent of
the two million that I have in here is incorrect. Actuarials usually
require a three-month reserve for paying out of claims in the
subsequent year.
MR. MUDD: Your actuarial said it was 2.7 million dollars on
the report that I got.
MS. KINZEL: But that was as of September 30th, and as of
9/31, we've eaten into those reserves a million dollars this year to
offset the claims payment for the current year. So we're not sitting on
those kinds of reserves for this year.
So to say that we're, you know, not funded well, I think you need
to look at where we're at for this year.
MR.OCHS: Madam Chairman, if I might. Just for the record,
Leo Ochs, deputy county manager.
There was some discussion about how you fund the self-funded
medical plan. Mr. Walker, our risk management director, is here, but
essentially, how we fund the board's self-insurance plan is that we
anticipate all the costs that we would incur in a given year, claims,
reinsurance, your administration fees, and we set a premium that we
budget and is shared between the board and employees to fully cover
the anticipated cost of that year's claims expenses, or program
expenses, including claims and all the other things I mentioned.
I think the difference, when you look at the CAFR, if I
understand what Commissioner Halas was saying, is that it appears
that the sheriff has approached it a little differently. It appears that
they have set a rate for their medical premiums and then regardless of
what the costs turn out to be, if they're over what they've set as rates,
Page 274
September 21, 2004
they're pulling that money out of their operating budget, plugging that
hole in their self-insurance fund that had they been able to set their
rates at a level sufficient to fully cover those costs, those funds that
have been pulled out of operating and moved into the self-insurance
fund would otherwise have been available to come back to the board
as turn-back dollars, and then you would have to make the decision on
how to reappropriate those in future years.
And the CAFR shows that kind of a transaction in fiscal years
2000, '01, '02, '03, and I'm anticipating, I don't know if we're going to
see that in '04, but again, as Commissioner Halas mentioned, based on
the actuarial study that was done by the sheriffs consultant, at least for
planning purposes, you see, for fiscal years '04, '05 and '06, income
from premiums that don't cover plan expenses, and are supplemented
with an additional two million dollar income stream that's
unidentified. The assumption is it would be that same transfer out of
sheriffs operating general fund.
And the question is, as Ms. Kinzel said, there may not be a right
and a wrong, but just for comparison purposes, in your self-insurance
fund, all of the reserving and the incurred but not reported and all the
other claims and associated costs are all covered, or at least attempted
to be covered by the premiums that are charged. And if you have a
bad year, certainly, you can have a bad year, but when you see that
five years running and plan for three years out, you have to wonder if
that's preplanned or not.
MS. KINZEL: Okay. But for the record, Commissioners, I do
have to correct one thing that Mr. Ochs has said.
We do exactly what the board does. We look at a totality of what
we have sitting in the plan design, what our claims costs are projected
to be, and we come up with a rate that we put into the budgeted
amount for our operating account. That's offset by also the members'
premIums.
When we look at those claims, though, and we get to the end of
Page 275
September 21, 2004
the year, we adjust because we know we have that next year's
experience from the last actuarial's report. And you need to look at the
ongoing claims cost.
To go back to the actuarial a year ago, we take all of those same
factors into account when we determine what premium is going to be
charged at the sheriffs office.
I just want to make that clear in the record.
MR. OCHS: My only comment would be, then premium
revenue would be expected to cover all of the cost of the plan.
MS. KINZEL: It would, Leo, but if I have reserves available,
then I don't charge exactly the premiums, because you don't want to
overreserve. So if I had to charge those premiums in the next year, I
would have had to increase my cost to the budget and cost to the
taxpayers in this year to cover those increased claims costs, when I did
already have a reserve amount that we could use. So I did not
overstate my claims premium for this year, because it is an ongoing
account when you have claims and you're trying to project a year out
and you're trying to then meet those claims adjustments.
But it's just different, based on the timing of the year. We use
those exact same factors to calculate our insurance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I can ask the elected official,
sheriff.
Sheriff, I think that it's prudent that we get a handle on the
understanding on that, and what I want to propose is if we can get the
next -- or the last eight years of the reserves of the -- for your health
insurance budget and settle this issue on Thursday, two days from
now, at our budget hearing. Would that be appropriate?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, you may have, obviously, under
state law, public records law, anything you request. Essentially, we
would be more than happy to provide that to you, if that's going to
help the board. I listened to the discussion.
Page 276
September 21, 2004
If I may add that it's gotten a bit confusing, because now we've
began to talk about insurance, insurance plan structures, and I think
that both Crystal and Leo have been very explicit in trying to describe
to the board how plans are established. Plans -- if you're self-insured,
you establish plans designed around your experience. We have had a
different experience than the board has had, and each of the
constitutional officers have had different experiences, so you design
your plan to try to fit that experience.
We had the self-insured retention that can be classified as a
reserve. It is required to be reserved by the actuarial experience that
we have had over the course of years. And perhaps you will see that
in some of the earlier planned years of how we've gotten to where we
are today.
I don't think there's anyone in the room with you today who is
listening to this meeting, this very important meeting, that would
disagree that health insurance has become one of the largest issues
facing the American public today and every employer. There is no
silver bullet. There is no magic plan. There is a mixture of premium
and employer contribution that keeps every plan afloat today in
America.
I will neither certify that the board's is the plan of choice, nor that
mine is. But our plan seems to fit our experience. And I'd be very
happy to discuss that plan. We are proud of it. We are proud of the
experience, but we have suffered some major issues within our plan,
and we have, unfortunately, had a number of deaths of members who
we've supported throughout that process, and it has been very
damaging and disruptive to the plan, but that's what the plan is for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sheriff, would it be detrimental
to put this off until Thursday at our budget meeting and make a final
decision?
SHERIFF HUNTER: That's a board decision. I have no problem
with that.
Page 277
.....---,,-.-
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I don't want to
jeopardize your operation whatsoever.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Commissioner, that would not in any way
jeopardize it. We submit these items to you, you set the date for it to
be heard, and as Director Kinzel indicated, the reason it's coming
before you now is because we're at year end, and we simply have no
choice. This is when these matters become of issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I feel very comfortable, Sheriff,
I feel very comfortable the way that Crystal laid it out of the request. I
just want to see if there's any other opportunities that we can soften the
blow. That's all. And I would be the first one to make a motion, if I
feel comfortable that there are no other sources.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I would second it. I think waiting
until Thursday, that's only two days away, and it isn't going to cripple
them. I think that's a great idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to make sure it's
okay with our county attorney to do so.
MR. WEIGEL: It is, Commissioners. I noted that earlier
Commissioner Halas had placed a motion on the floor. I don't believe
that the chair had addressed it in regard to looking for a second or
determining that it died for lack of a second. So you may want to take
care of that as housekeeping, and then from that determination, you
would be ready for whatever motion and decision you wish to go from
there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think the motion died for lack of a
second, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it didn't die. I'm going to be
honest -- be the second for discussion purposes. I do think it's
important enough that we resolve this finally, once and for all.
Obviously, there was enough concern to be able to keep us going
this long. Do I fully understand the implications of the actuarial
budget compared to the regular budget? No. That's one of the reasons
Page 278
September 21, 2004
why I'm going to give a temporary second to this and just do it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Temporary second--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, a second to it, and I may
withdraw it, but I just wanted --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What is the motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I call the motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What is the motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The motion was that we, at this
point in time, because we're -- clarification is not clear in -- I have one
other question that I want to direct to the clerk of courts, and that is,
periodically, how often do you audit the sheriff?
MR. MITCHELL: We don't audit the sheriff.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why?
MR. MITCHELL: The clerk of the circuit court has duties that
are bestowed upon him by statute and by constitution, and we have no
authority whatsoever to look at the sheriff. The constitutional offer is
separate and apart.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Who does -- then who does the
auditing for the sheriff? He has an outside --
MR. MITCHELL: Your auditor does the auditing for the sheriff.
KPMG comes in here every year and does the audit on the sheriff.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So what was your motion, please?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My motion was to only pay, to
only forward $500,000 towards the deficit that showed up on the
budget back on July 1 st, when we first got the book. Then there was a
line item that said they were going to already incur a 2.5 million dollar
cost overrun in regards to overtime.
So when I look at the unrestricted funds, I feel that we, as Board
of County Commissioners, all we need to do is advance $500,000 to
offset their deficit of 2.5 million, and that they've determined that they
__ with these unrestricted funds of almost 1.9 million, that they use that
to payoff the additional charges.
Page 279
September 21, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And those -- okay. Your motion is to
only pay them 500,000 --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and use their medical reserve funds to
pay their salary?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The unrestricted fund that they
have of 1.9 million dollars.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And this is what your second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to check again. Is
that a medical reserve fund? I'm asking Mr. Mudd, Mr. Ochs, if you
don't mind?
MR.OCHS: As I understand the CAFR, and that was as of the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2003, not 2004. So I have no idea
what kind of balance may be in that self-insurance fund at this point in
time. But as of September 30, 2003, your consolidated annual
financial report says that there's net assets in that sheriff self-insurance
fund, unrestricted net assets of about 1.9 million dollars, and that's, as
I understand it, and Ms. Kinzel may need to say differently, as I
understand it, that's over and above all of the liabilities of that
self-insurance plan. In other words, the reserves and the incurred but
not reported are already reflected in the liabilities in that statement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why do we feel compelled to try to
tell the sheriff where he should get the money? Why don't we just
specify what we think he ought to have, and let him worry about
where he gets it. I don't think we're qualified to tell him what line
item he ought to take it out of. And quite frankly, we shouldn't care.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's your suggestion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Make your motion of however
much money you think the sheriff should have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He already did.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And just end it right there.
Page 280
-_..,---~-"._.~
September 21, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So do you want to delete the second part,
telling him where to get the money from?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. That's up to him.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you want to give him $500,000?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: $500,000.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's your second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any further discussion?
SHERIFF HUNTER: If I may.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Before this goes sideways,
Commissioners, last year, when the budget was submitted to you, you
budgeted a 5 percent reserve for the sheriffs office. What I had
requested of you is to fund a shortfall that resulted from hiring all of
the people that you appropriated for the agency, that you approved for
the agency last fiscal year, the one that we're in currently. I've asked
for you to fund the fact that we were able to secure the people that you
approved in the budget of last go-round this fiscal year.
If you only now provide $500,000 to the agency, we will not be
able to fund positions that we have hired that you authorized this year,
and to ask now that we use a self-insured retention amount of dollars
to fund salaries means that we're going to run into the same difficulty
you would run into or anyone, any employer would run into if they
were to use insurance dollars, which were invested in the plan, to
offset future liabilities based upon prior experience, we would need --
we would be ill advised to do that because we would simply not be
able to fund our plan.
It is true that we can always come back to you next year and ask
for two million dollars, perhaps, to fund the deficit that would now be
in front of us, but that's not a self-insurance plan any longer. That's a
year-to-year program under the Board of County Commissioners, and
we would, in essence, be abandoning our self-insurance plan.
Page 281
September 21, 2004
I would be very happy to discuss this on Thursday, as
recommended by Commissioner Henning, if you need additional
information on how self-insurance plans and programs work, and
operation and especially ours. And again, it's a mix of employer and
employee contributions and premiums that make these plans work and
each plan is different.
There's no cookie cutter. And as I said before, there is no perfect
plan. But I would appreciate the opportunity to have additional
discussion on it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
SHERIFF HUNTER: We are simply requesting reserves that
were already programmed for the agency.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, if the commission
agrees, I can withdraw my second and wait for Tuesday for a better
explanation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thursday?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Tuesday, next Tuesday, isn't it?
MR. MUDD: Thursday.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Next Thursday. Excuse me.
Right. Budget. I'll withdraw my second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion that
we defer this discussion until Thursday, at our budget hearing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second that.
Okay. Any further discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 282
---" --,~._-' ,.,
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, Sheriff.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Thank you, Commissioners. We've had a
long day.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, we have.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I'm sure your attention is still as sharp at
the end as you were at the beginning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Fred's trying to get up and leave already.
We still have more to go.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're only halfway done.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Thanks for letting me dial in.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Thank you for being with us.
We'll see you Thursday evening.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Thank you.
Item #15
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And so now we come down to
commissioners' comments and communications, and also -- let's see,
let's start off with the county attorney first, and then we'll go to the
county manager, and then we'll end up with the commissioners.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I think that's often the order of
things.
Under communications, I want to just state that, good news,
which you're receiving, is that in all the efforts of the county staff and
the county attorney office in pursuing the school impact fees with the
adult living facilities, which also brought, one might say, a windfall of
other impact fees to the county, and not merely to the school board,
that we've collected over $800,000 as a gross amount.
We have one case left to finish up with the Homewood facility,
and I'm looking to bring a settlement agreement to you soon. I wanted
Page 283
September 21, 2004
to take the opportunity, at this point, to say that I may -- am
requesting, but may not utilize a closed session with you briefly next
week, prior to the agenda item being presented. And if I can avoid
having to pull you aside for the closed session and just handle it by
memo, and things of that nature, I would certainly do that, and then
we would be done with that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. Thank you, David.
County manager?
MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, I have several items, and I'm
really serious about that. I do have several items.
First of all, I would like to discuss the fiscal committee and the
makeup thereof, and exactly what the direction of the Board of County
Commissioners is for the fiscal committee.
I will tell you, under what I have been told, this ad hoc
committee, it breaks into the sunshine, and with that, I don't want to be
a member with Commissioner Coyle, because that means I can't talk
to Commissioner Coyle. So I don't ever want to be in that mode
where I'm on a committee in the sunshine with one of you, okay,
because that basically -- that basically puts us at a disadvantage.
What I would -- there are several ways to do this. I'm not too --
one of the things that you asked this committee to do is to sit down
with our legislators and get frank about what things are possible and
what things aren't possible.
I don't know if, in the sunshine, you're going to get that frank
discussion. I think the people's comments are going to be guarded.
And I'm not too sure you're going to fulfill what the board wanted to
do in that particular issue.
There's several ways to do that. You can tell the county manager
to go get this group of people, and there's a whole list of people that
have already communicated, okay, and Judy is making -- my
secretary, that teenager that we gave the 20 year award to today, is
keeping the contact list to make sure that we have got that stuff and it's
Page 284
~._"..~-,_.~-
.-,,--.---,.-.--
September 21, 2004
raring to go, okay, so that the information from the people that you
asked to be on it has to come forth.
I just need to get some direction from the board on what you
want this thing to be. If you want it to go to the county manager and
have Commissioner Coyle be part of that and get that frank discussion
with those folks there, you could put it as a sub-committee of EDC
and have them go do it as your agent. But I will tell you, under the
direction that you gave me at the workshop, I think there's some issues
there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you looking for direction?
MR. MUDD: Oh, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have to ask my colleague if he
wouldn't mind taking a hold of this and running with it.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Taking hold of what and running
where?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we're talking about the
fiscal committee. The concern is having a county manager and
yourself on there. So if we just drop the county manager, would you
run with it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It would mean, essentially, that I
would have no contact with anyone else on this committee to discuss
any of those issues like Tammy Nemecek and others. I would have
the same problem that the county manager would have.
So it would be very restrictive trying to do it in that particular
way. I sort of like the county manager's suggestion, and just let the
county manager collect information and report to us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. I just thought I'd
throw it out. I'm happy with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is an additional twist. And
it's my responsibility, I think, to at least raise this issue with the board.
You'll recall that particular discussion was about fiscal stability and
Page 285
September 21, 2004
looking for sources of revenue and seeing what legislators might be
able to do with respect to helping us.
But I also said, at that time, we shouldn't look just at the revenue
side of the ledger. We should look at the expenditure side, because I
think we need to take a look at the way the government does business.
If we're going to be faced with the kinds of escalations and
expenditures that we are -- we're discussing tonight, we're going to run
out of money if this continues.
And I really believe we need to take a good, hard look at why all
of the departments of budgets have their own purchasing departments,
have their own finance departments, have their own MIS departments,
and we need to do it in coordination with the constitutionals, because
I'm sure they have some good reasons for wanting to do that.
We need to understand that, but I can see that we can save
millions of dollars if we were able to begin to operate all of Collier
County government in a more efficient manner, rather than having it
divided into fiefdoms.
And so I discussed this with the productivity committee. They
think it's a wonderful idea. And I need to get your guidance so that we
can tell the county manager whether or not that's what we want him to
do. And it's not my intent to try to blind side the constitutionals. We
have to bring them in on this thing and try to find some way that we
can have a government that is more efficient, and we can control some
of these massively escalating costs that we're seeing in Collier County
government outside of our direct control.
So my question to you is, do you want to look at that sort of
stuff?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it's very beneficial. We
may even have to look at some different form of government. Maybe
a charter government where we bring everybody under the umbrella.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know, that gets awfully
Page 286
September 21, 2004
complex.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it gets awfully complex, but I
think it's one of the only real ways that you're going to control costs.
As we're going right now, everybody can go their own separate ways.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't see where any charter
county in the State of Florida is doing any better than what we are.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's just one facet to look at. It's
also, in trying to determine the best way to control expenditures. I
mean -- you know, that's only one way, but there's other ways of
looking at expenditures, if you can get everybody to come on board,
but I don't know how you're going to do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. I think that's a first
step, but we need to talk with people and see if there's a way we can
make it work. We don't have the authority to cram it down anybody's
throat. It would have to be voluntary, and if we can find a way that
works for everybody, let's give it a shot.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can you do that through the productivity
committee, perchance?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think you probably could.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: If you coordinated that effort?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think you probably could,
yeah. They're not going to have the authority to do anything unless
they're permitted by all of the constitutional officers and the courts to
come in and take a look and make some recommendations to all those
bodies and see if we can't resolve some problems, but I don't -- I'm not
sure they have the manpower to do this alone. I think this is a big
task.
But I bring it up, not to resolve it here, but to let you know that it
has been discussed and to make sure that whoever goes forward with
this, whether it's the county manager or productivity committee or me,
that we have your blessings to at least look into it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, absolutely.
Page 287
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Definitely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got four nods and a sneer.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He's not sneering. Oh, maybe that is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So do we tell the county manager
to coordinate this thing as a county manager staff function, and let him
use the productivity committee, and I will function as liaison to the
productivity committee, just as I do now, and I'll provide whatever
assistance or help, but we won't be faced with this --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what I don't want to do -- and I
want to be impartial in this. What I don't want to do is be accused that
because I'm hosting this thing, that all of a sudden I make a
recommendation that somebody doesn't like, and it's, well, he wants to
keep IT, so he wants to run everybody's IT.
I would prefer to have an outside agency, like the productivity
committee, do it, and provide whatever information they need from
my agency, and whatever they come up for a recommendation, when
you get this agreement with everybody, then we basically salute and
make it happen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then if it's okay with the board,
why don't I communicate to the productivity committee that we'd like
them to take this on as a project, and they can coordinate with all the
other constitutional officers and departments and see what the reaction
is, and I can, too.
MR. MUDD: And I can work with that group of folks that
you've got, and start working on the revenues on the revenue side with
our state legislators to see what the opportunities are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. And you know, if -- the other
thing that is, trying to consolidate some of these duplicate departments
turns out not to be a good idea, then we can continue with the other
portion of it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think that sounds like we're going in the
right direction.
Page 288
September 21, 2004
Other board members?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's a good way to try.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Next item that I'd like to talk about is CRA. You
asked me, during your CRA meeting, which I wasn't at, because I
really didn't know you were having one, to go over and talk to the city
manager and Mr. McCabe, and I did that yesterday.
I went into that discussion looking for the city to talk about a
portion, and to try to come up with a portion of the cost of their TIF.
Now, I want to put on the visualizer for just a second, try to beam
this up just a little bit. What I got yesterday was not a whole heck of a
lot. The total funds, based on Mr. McCabe's -- Mr. McCabe's
calculations is about $64,000 a year from this particular TIF.
You have to understand, in the CRA, you have TIF monies right
now, if the Ruffina property stayed within the Bayshore triangle CRA
you receive monies from the general fund and the unincorporated
general fund. And we just use their millages, 3.8 in the general fund
and about .8069 in the unincorporated millage rate.
When they annex to the City of Naples, you don't have the
unincorporated piece anymore. You have the general fund, which is
about 3.8. That's the county's piece. And you now have the city's
piece of about 1.11, and I think it's going up to 1.18.
So went into the discussion to try to see if any of that 1.1 could
stay into the CRA. And some things need to transpire. If the city
approves the voluntary annexation of Ruffina, the developers asked
that it be incorporated in the City of Naples. And their second reading
here is within a week or so.
If they do that, there isn't precedent, nor does the law cover what
happens when something gets annexed out of a CRA. We can't find
any, and it's really fuzzy. I mean, I think we've now had at least five
lawyers give us five different opinions. Okay. It depends on which
one you talk to, and then the part of the day, and sometimes they'll
Page 289
September 21, 2004
even start changing their tune in midsentence. I'm not saying they're
right or wrong. I'm just saying there's nothing there that has precedent
and whatnot.
So, in this particular case, this interlocal agreement would talk
about the properties being voluntarily annexed into the City of Naples,
the City of Naples passing a resolution that would put that property
back into the CRA, okay, whereby the general fund piece would stay,
and where their portion, that 1.1, would be excluded from the CRA
and go into the city coffers.
One of the things I was successful to get was a promise, and I
said, how about putting it down on a piece of paper whereby that new
annexed property would be maintained in appearance and in service in
the same way that the City of Naples, as a whole, is maintained and as
it looks. And that's what you have on the bottom line, what you have
on the bottom line of paragraph three, and it basically says the city
will commit to ensuring that municipal services are provided to the
parcel at the same level as the other properties within the city.
Some would say that that's automatic, but that might not be
automatic on the other side of the bridge. And, you know, on the
other side of the railroad tracks, on the other side of the bridge, out of
sight, out of mind --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Tell me about it.
MR. MUDD -- who's going to be the first fire department that's
going to get there, it's going to be East Naples, because they're right
down there on Jeepers Street, right down the street from them.
So guess what, there's some blending that goes on, but we want
to at least get that -- at least get that promise from them, that that area
would take on the same ambience as the City of Naples. And that's in
keeping with what you want with the CRA. You want it to be better
than it is today . You want it to be of the quality that Naples is. You
know, that's a nice dream to have. Will it ever get there? We hope so.
We're going to do everything we can to get there.
Page 290
September 21, 2004
That's what I'm bringing back to the board as the CRA piece that
I could get based on that negotiation that I had yesterday. If you want
me to go back to the City of Naples, and say that's not good enough, I
don't know. The subcommittee that you have on your CRA is giving
me all kinds of mixed signals. I mean, I got some signals the other
day, and even in your testimony in front of the podium that says, no,
we want it all to come back in, and yet, I received e-mails today that
you received, Commissioner Fiala, that basically said they want to
omit the piece of the TIF, and then they have a resolution out of your
subcommittee that says that.
So I'm -- I don't know what they want, okay, at this particular
juncture. I will tell you, that's what I've been able to come to grips
with. I think it keeps the majority of the monies into the CRA. I'm
not too sure that the whole spirit is there, but at this particular
juncture, it's better to go -- than going into some kind of fight, some
injunction. We could spend more money on legal fees than we get in
the entire CRA on a yearly basis, okay, as they're just getting started,
and I don't think that's a prudent thing to do at this particular juncture.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I think the advisory board agrees
with that. They pretty much echoed some of those same words at the
meeting that I attended.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If it is annexed, and the monies
don't go into the CRA, the general -- the monies that would be
received would go into the county's general fund?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So why do we need the city to
agree to that? Why don't we, the Board of County Commissioners,
agree to that?
MR. MUDD: You're right. But what this forces you to do,
though, is this CRA is for 30 years, and what you're basically saying is
you want to gift to the CRA that amount of money that they would get
Page 291
September 21, 2004
in the TIF if the Ruffina property stayed in. And you would have to
do that on an annual basis as a gift.
And then all of a sudden, you get into a tight year, and that gift
goes away, and then they don't get the general fund piece. What this
forces the Board of County Commissioners to do, and this board, or
the previous board made a commitment to the CRA to try to get this
neighborhood and get it out of the situation that it's in, and get it to be
better than it is, made a commitment that they would keep the CRA
monies in there for a 30-year period of time. This would -- by having
the city bring it back into and recognizing that CRA, it would keep
your general fund moneys from the Ruffina property or TIF money
into that CRA for the future, and it wouldn't be a decision of the Board
of County Commissioners in the future. It would be a guarantee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you lost me on that. It's
coming back to the board and can we discuss this, you and I, one on
one?
MR. MUDD: Sure. It would come back to the Board of County
Commissioners in total, okay, not just the TIF money, the whole thing.
And you would have to make a separate gift in your budget to that
CRA every year of that general fund dollars, okay, and you budget on
a yearly basis.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, you mean because it's annexed into
the city? Isn't the city saying that you can keep that in the CRA?
MR. MUDD: They will put that property back into the CRA
voluntarily by resolution, and that's --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So then it would automatically be under
the CRA provisions, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. The only thing that would be
exempted -- the only thing that the CRA would be losing is that
unincorporated piece, because it no longer is in effect, because it's
now incorporated and the city wants to keep their tax base outside of
Page 292
September 21, 2004
the CRA.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So the county wouldn't be giving it a gift.
It would be back into the CRA as -- is that thunder?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. No, that's Ivan. The remnants of Ivan
we're still getting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So the CRA would then stay in the CRA.
I mean, the property would then stay in the CRA?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the real value of the
agreement, is there's a declaration that it stays in the CRA.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The only thing that -- the only thing that
-- of uncertainty is as additional pieces become in the development
mode, will they also be annexed to the City of Naples, and will also
that particular dollar amount be, therefore, exempt, and it makes it
very difficult for the CRA to use their revenues as a bonding source to
go into those capital proj ects that they need.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And this same developer owns another
piece of land that's 17 acres, and in an area that just possibly touches
even a small portion of the city, and then that goes. And there we have
more TIF funds leaving the area, which -- so it desperately needs the
funds in order to pull itself out of the mess that it's in.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. I think that's probably a discussion
that you want to do at your joint meeting on the 4th of October.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 5th of October, right?
MR. MUDD: 5th. I thought it was 4th.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It was 4th, and then I think you changed it
to the 5th, or did you change it back to the 4th?
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. I think the joint meeting -- the conflict
resolution is the 5th. That has nothing to do with this joint meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Do I have direction to go with this and tell
the City of Naples that they can go forward with this and get the
Page 293
.....--
September 21, 2004
resolution moving, or --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think it's fine. I think it's okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In the end, will it be costing us
more now than we've been paying in the past?
MR. MUDD: No, it won't be costing the county any more one
way or the other, but the CRA is going to be minus some funds, but if
the city does what they say on that bottom line, and they provide the
services that it needs to make it look like the City of Naples, then I
think we've probably got that money and a little bit more.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. The city doesn't lose anything on
this. There's -- they've got a leg up on the whole deal. They get a lot
of money and they don't have -- they're exempt forever, for the life of
the CRA, from ever having to put any money back into it, so the city
is making out okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next item.
MR. MUDD: Okay. So I have direction to go back to the city
and say, this is fine, and they can bring that in front of their board and
then I'll bring it back to this board and we'll be in good shape.
The other thing that came up during your CRA meeting that I
took a big gulp, and I talked to David about it, is the advisory board
recommendation. And the advisory board recommendation, in this
particular item, starts talking about -- I'm going to back out just a little
bit. Talking about advancing funds from the general fund, okay. As a
CRA, you can't do that. I just want to make sure you know that. You
have to do it as the Board of County Commissioners, okay?
And I'm -- and so then it gets into the conversation with the
county manager, where do you want me to go get the money from,
since we don't have a whole lot ofUFR money out there right now, so
we need to talk about that a little bit at another board meeting.
I will get with Mr. Blair to have him do an executive summary
for the Board of County Commissioners to fulfill this obligation with
the board, and we'll get into discussions --
Page 294
September 21, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can you talk to Norm, also, to see if he
has something in there that we can borrow that will be paid back next
year, being it has to do with transportation, just possibly there might
be something that he stored up and that he's going to be needing to
spend over the next couple of years, but --
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, we'll take a look and see what we can do.
Okay. I just want -- we'll talk about funding sources and everything as
we go through this. I just want to do it the right way. And the CRA
action was right on track. But you've got to put your other hat on.
When we start talking about general fund money, the CRA
doesn't do general fund money. They only do CRA money. So we're
going to have to bring this into another forum at another meeting. I
just wanted to make you aware of that.
The other thing I wanted to make sure that everybody knows
about is the cancellation of the policy meeting for F AC. They're
going to do it now on a one-day fly in on 5 November. I want to make
sure everybody knows that. We've got an October legislative
workshop with you, so that we can make sure we have all that stuff
down and we can get it to our legislators for their Tuesday before
Thanksgiving meeting so that they've got that particular issue.
And the last thing that I want to bring up is just to make sure that
we all know, and I put this out a couple of times, October, it's the
second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday for BCC meetings. In
November, it's going to be on November 16th, okay, which is the third
Tuesday. And it's going to be on November 30th, the fifth Tuesday.
And so what it got us around was a Veteran's Day holiday, which
was the 11th of November, and it also got us out of the Thanksgiving
holiday week, which we also do legislative stuff in between. So it fit
well. And then we'll have one meeting in December, and that's the
14th of December. And that's all I have, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir. Let me begin with
Commissioner Halas. Do you have any communications?
Page 295
September 21, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not really. I think we've pretty
much covered everything today, and it was quite an interesting day,
and I want to thank everybody that was here today, the constituents
and everybody, and of course, the Board of County Commissioners. It
was a great day.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Nothing more to
add.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: County manager, are you asking
-- you're saying the meeting dates have been changed for November
and December?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, for November and December. We put
those out back in May and April based on --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you asking for the board's
guidance to change its meetings?
MR. MUDD: Yes, if you would like to do that, that would be
wonderful.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The changes are fine with me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Me, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What was the dates again?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 16th, 30th and 14th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We'll put it on your calendar.
MR. MUDD: Sir, it's on your calendar.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's not tell him.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've got two things.
The remodeling in the commissioners' chambers, it kind of
bothers me, and I'll drop it if nobody else has a problem with it.
Perception, to me, is when I walk in, access to your elected officials is
getting rougher and rougher. And I'm just throwing that out there to
see if anybody else has a problem with it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the way it ought to be. I
Page 296
September 21, 2004
think it's great. I think we've ignored security too long around here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I do, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll drop it.
The other thing is the Craig -- Ned Craigel (phonetic) or
whatever that was, that business park, this Board of Commissioners
approved the Growth Management Plan for the footprints of business
parks in 2002, I believe. I'm very disappointed that this was continued
and dropped and it's going to be a mixed use. Not that mixed use is
bad, but when this came forward to the Board of Commissioners, this
change in the Growth Management Plan to add business parks, it was
smart growth.
It was putting jobs near where the work force lives. And I see
that because of public pressure, the board is crumbling on its policy.
So either we're going to do what has been done all along, is we direct
traffic somewhere and give Norm some more money to build some
more roads, or we do smart growth, okay? And that's my only
comment on that item. I'm just very disappointed that it didn't come to
the Board of Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I am, too.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle, do you have
anything?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've communicated everything I
can communicate today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'll finish up by just saying that
two things I wanted to address. I was just going to ask commissioners'
approval if I would ask Michelle Arnold to check on the billboard
situation around the county. Right now, a lot of billboards are taken
down because of the hurricanes. We especially have an abundance of
them in East Naples. They're disgusting looking.
The law says that we're not even supposed to have any billboards
anymore, and yet, they've put up three new ones in the last six months.
And so I'm asking that we have Michelle look and see what we can
Page 297
September 21, 2004
do to stop any further billboards from going up, and possibly stop
those that are now down from going back up. So if that's all right with
the other members.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't know if you have any in your
district.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The code needs to be enforced.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. But she needed a little bit of
assurance from us that -- I don't know if anybody else has the
problem, but it's not a nice problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, and I like neon. I don't like
billboards.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the last thing I wanted to do, County
Manager, was see if -- I wanted to talk to you just a little bit about
burying power lines. I wonder if there's even a possibility -- I wrote
you a note on that, of course, but I just wonder if that might be
something that we might consider with all of the storms and
everything that come up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, my perspective of
that is the City of Naples buries their power lines and they had power
outages. You know, even burying these massive high-powered power
lines is -- it's a maintenance problem. I don't see any way around it. I
think we'll always be in the generator world, myself.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Other commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Well, as far as the City of
Naples is concerned, they've been wrestling with this for a long time.
They really have never done much with respect to that. They've tried
to do it on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, and they even
developed a plan in the budget for one neighborhood, and then the
residents shut it all down because they didn't want to contribute to the
cost.
So I think it begins to break down when people start being asked
Page 298
September 21, 2004
to pay for it. And they're going to have to pay for it whether we assess
new taxes or whether we set up MSTU's to do it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's very, very expensive. And
Commissioner Henning is correct about the large feeder lines that they
have to have ways of dissipating the heat when they bury those things
underground, and that's a very complex thing to do.
And whenever something happens, it's very difficult to find the
break and find the problem and to repair it, because they have to dig
up a lot of stuff. And so there's a debate going on about whether or
not burying those really high-powered feeder lines does, in fact,
improve or detract from your ability to recover from emergencies.
So that's a tough problem. But the lines going to homes can be
easily buried. It's just that there's a cost associated with it, and most
people don't want to pay for it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other comments, Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that it's an item that we
should look at. I understand where Commissioner Coyle's coming
from, and that is the fact that the real high tension lines are almost
next to impossible. But the secondary and the primary lines,
secondary lines are like 4,800 volts, that stuff can be put underground,
and the primary lines, which are basically your 110 lines or 220 lines,
that also can be buried.
And I think that we're -- what happens, even in gated
communities, because of the fact that they lose power, it's not so much
because they've got the lines underground, but how they are fed to
those particular communities, they go through older communities, and
of course, we've got trees and so on, and I think it's an issue that we
should address again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may. Of course, the area I
represent is pretty widespread. It would be the last place that it would
be financially feasible to ever buy power lines. The only way I would
Page 299
September 21, 2004
be able to support it is if Fred Coyle did it himself. No, I'm just
kidding.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have power out there in
your district?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We do, but it's usually candles.
And then mosquitoes get in front of it and they blot out the lights.
But MSTU is the only way that I could support it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. I wouldn't ever want to just do this
without -- you know, everybody would have to pay for it or maybe
neighborhoods would have to decide whether they wanted to do it, and
let the neighborhoods duke it out and decide whether, you know, they
want to come up shooting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, you could do it the
same way we've done the landscaping in certain neighborhoods. If
people want it, and they're willing to pay for it, set up an MSTU, and
there's nothing wrong with that. And, you know, you do that enough
over a period of 30, 40, 50 years, and maybe you've got a good portion
of the county done.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Speaking of 30 or 40 years, that
feels like how long we've been here. Let's go home.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. With that, meeting 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 #16A1
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "VERONA WALK PHASE
2A", AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
Page 300
September 21, 2004
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
HIBISCUS POINTE AT CARLTON LAKES - WI RELEASE OF
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR CARLTON LAKES BOULEVARD -WI
Item #16A4
APPROVAL FORA $120,000 CHANGE ORDER TO AMEND
THE EXISTING CONTRACT WITH TOMASELLO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. FOR EXPANSION OF THE
LIMITS OF THE COUNTY'S FEMA-RELATED BASE FLOOD
ELEVATION STUDY - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARY
Item #16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR COCOHATCHEE NATURE CENTER - WI
Item #16A6
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
Page 301
September 21, 2004
FACILITIES FOR OLYMPIA PARK - WI RELEASE OF
Item #16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR THE CLUB ESTATES - WI RELEASE OF
Item #16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
REGENCY RESERVE AT THE VINEYARDS - WI RELEASE OF
Item #16A9
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR IBIS COVE PHASE 2A - WI RELEASE OF
Item #16Al 0
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "PINE AIR LAKES UNIT
FIVE", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
Item #16All
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
Page 302
September 21, 2004
BANYAN WOODS MULTI-FAMILY - WI RELEASE OF
Item #16A12
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
BANYAN WOODS SINGLE FAMILY (SUBDIVISION) - WI
Item #16A13
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES
PHASE IV", AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
Item #16A14
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR IBIS COVE PHASE 2B - WI RELEASE OF
Item #16A15
RESOLUTION 2004- 258: APPROVING THE ROADWAY
(PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "CLUB
ESTATES". THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED; THE
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY - WI RELEASE OF THE
Page 303
September 21,2004
Item #16A16
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "MANDALA Y", APPROVAL
OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - WI
SIœllLAI.lONS
Item #16A17
MODIFICATION #1 TO THE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
MITIGATION PROGRAM STATE FUNDED GRANT
AGREEMENT - TO FACILITATE HURRICANE HARDNESS
AND OTHER WEATHERIZATION IMPROVEMENTS ON
SINGLE-FAMILY AND LOW-INCOME_RESIDENTS - WILL
Item #16A18
RESOLUTION 2004-259: CERTIFYING THAT PROJECTS
COMPLETED BY IMMOKALEE NON-PROFIT HOUSING INC.
Item #16A19
COLLIER COUNTY'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM AND HOME INVESTMENT
PARTNERSHIPS (HOME) PROGRAM YEAR 2003-2004
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND
EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) AS REQUIRED BY THE U.S.
Page 304
September 21, 2004
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(HUD), AND AUTHORIZED THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS CHAIRMAN TO CERTIFY THE CAPER FOR
SUBMISSION TO HUD - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16A20
AUTHORIZED THE COUNTY MANAGER OR THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES (CDES) DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR TO ACCEPT
THE FISCAL YEAR 2003 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING GRANT AGREEMENT, PROJECT # FL14B30-6001,
EXECUTE ALL GRANT SUB-RECIPIENT AGREEMENT (S),
PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPROVAL OF ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - AS DETAILED IN
Item #16A21
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "GRAND LEL Y DRIVE AND
LELY CULTURAL PARKWAY", APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
Item #16A22
SEVEN SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD CASE NOS.: 2001-079,2002-001,2004-003,2003-005,
2003-006,2001-001 and 2004-020 - AS DETAILED IN THE
Page 305
September 21, 2004
Item # 16A23
RESOLUTIONS 2004-260 THRU 2004-277: LIEN RESOLUTIONS
FOR THE FOLLOWING CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE
NUMBERS: 2003120886/REECE EST., ANNIE EARL, 2004030081/
JULES, JOSUE & TERCILIA, 2004030533/ ANDERSON, BOBBIE
& RANDOLPH, 2004010483/ MONTES, LILLIAN, 2004011198/
REECE EST., ANNIE EARL, 2004030804/ DOMINGUEZ, ET AL.
JOHN R, 2004030990/ MIRANDA, GUIDO, 2004041022/ MUNOZ,
MARGARITA, 2004030055/ TREVINO, FRANCISCO,
2004050829/ FACCONE, JOSEPH, 2004050826/ CAVATAIO,
SALVATORE & ANTOINETTE, 2004050746/ FENTON, BONNIE,
2004051406/ PRETSCHOLD, E.H. & CATHERINE L, 2004050506/
GALLOWAY, BARBARA, 2004050796/ TAUSCH, V ALARIE S.,
2004010906/ LEWIS TR. EVELYN G., 2004050825/ TREMBLAY,
Item #16A24
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY
(EDC) FOR CONTINUATION OF THE ECONOMIC
DIVERSIFICATION PROGRAM AND PROVIDE A
CONTRIBUTION TO THE EDC OF UP TO $400,000 FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2004-2005 - TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Item #16A25
RESOLUTION 2004- 278: AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO
Page 306
September 21, 2004
SIGN A FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND
CONSUMER SERVICES' GRANT PROPOSAL FOR $12,855 (OF
WHICH $6,355 WILL BE REIMBURSABLE) TO FUND A
NATIVE TREE PLANTING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ON
THE CONSERVATION COLLIER VISNICH PROPERTY, AND
TO SIGN A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (CDES)
DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR TO ENTER INTO AN URBAN
AND COMMUNITY FORESTRY (U&CF) GRANT
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AND AN U&CF GRANT
MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICUL TURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES UPON RECEIPT
OF THE GRANT AWARD. TO BE PRESENTED WITHIN TWO
(2) YEARS
Item #16A26
AN INTERIM MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE VISNICH
PROPERTY UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
A CQl.IISIII(ThlEROGRAM
Item #16A27
EXECUTE THE ANNUAL CERTIFICATION FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATORY REFORM ACTIVITIES
Item #16A28
ACCEPTANCE OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON THE
Page 307
September 21, 2004
ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE JOB CREATION INVESTMENT
PROGRAM AND THE ADVANCED BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM - TO REDUCE
THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF INCREASED DEVELOPMENT
FEES AS WELL AS RELOCATION AND/OR EXPANSION
COSTS - (FEBRUARY 19,2004 THROUGH JUNE 1,2004 W/
SKYIRll.CK COMEANY)
Item #16B1
A CHANGE ORDER FOR THE COUNTY WIDE SIDEWALK
PROJECT #1 EAST NAPLES AREA IN THE AMOUNT OF
$20,883.16 AND CHANGE ORDER FOR THE COUNTY WIDE
SIDEWALK PROJECT #4 IMMOKALEE AREA IN THE
AMOUNT OF $16,979.00 TO COUGAR CONTRACTING
SPECIALTIES, INC. - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARY
Item #16B2
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE GRANT REVENUE
RECEIVED FROM THE FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST,
FLORIDA FOREVER GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,007,700
AND APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE LEL Y MITIGATION AND
LIVINGSTON GREENW A YS PROJECTS - AS DETAILED IN
Item # 16B3
WORK ORDER # PBS - 02 - 38 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
SCHOOL BUS SHELTERS IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES TO
PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, IN THE AMOUNT OF
Page 308
September 21, 2004
Item #16B4
A DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT RELATED TO
THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIRED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK ROAD BETWEEN POLL Y AVENUE AND COLLIER
BOULEVARD CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
COMMITMENTS OF THE MANDALA Y PUD - PROJECT NO.
60169 - (FISCAL IMPACT: $680.00) - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16B5
LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CALUSA BAY MASTER
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR
LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON
GOODLE.IIR:E.RA.NK 0 A D
Item #16B6
AWARD BID #04-3654R, LIVINGSTON ROAD (PINE RIDGE
ROAD TO V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD) MEDIAN
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECT TO
VILA AND SON LANDSCAPING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
Item #16B7
FIVE (5) ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENTS AT THE
Page 309
September 21, 2004
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING AT A
TOTAL COST OF $450.00 FOR THE FOLLOWING (ROYAL
PALM ACADEMY, METLIFE FINANCIAL SERVICES, MEN'S
BROTHERHOOD OF MAYFLOWER UNITED CHURCH OF
CHRIST, PARADISE COAST PILOT CLUB AND T.G.I.
ERIDA V'S)
Item #16C1
THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE PREVIOUS SOUTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO THE CONTRACT PURPOSES
IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,192,049.66 WITHIN THE SAME
WATER IMPACT FEE FUND - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16C2
AWARD A SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE ORDER FOR RETURN
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PUMPS AND WASTE ACTIVATED
SLUDGE PUMPS FOR THE NORTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY TO THE ELLIS K. PHELPS
COMPANY IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $75,637.00 - AS
Item #16C3
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN DOCUMENTS (13) 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 $130.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF
Page 310
September 21, 2004
Item #16C4
WORK ORDER HS-FT-04-04 UNDER 00-3119 - FIXED TERM
PROFESSIONAL UTILITIES ENGINEERING SERVICES TO
HAZEN AND SAWYER IN THE AMOUNT OF $285,310 FOR
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN OF LIME
SOFTENING FOURTH REACTOR, PROJECT 710011, A
PROJECT 710012 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARY
Item # 16C5
THE PARTIAL TRANSFER OF FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE
LIME SOFTENING FOURTH REACTOR IN THE AMOUNT OF
$136,000 FOR THE DESIGN AND PERMITTING FROM WATER
USER FEES PROJECT 710011 TO WATER IMPACT FEES
PROJECT 710012 -AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARY
Item #16C6
AWARD BID #04-3695 - "ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR SODIUM
HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION" TO ALLIED UNIVERSAL CORP.
IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $500,000.00. - TO
BE USED @ THE WATER TREATMENT AND WASTEWATER
Item #16C7
RESOLUTION 2004- 279: APPROVAL OF A DECLARATION OF
Page 3 11
September 21, 2004
EASEMENT FOR ADDITIONAL WELL SITE EASEMENTS
WITHIN PROPERTY ACQUIRED FORA FUTURE PARK AT AN
Item #16C8
A PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND ACCEPT ADDITIONAL
WELL SITE EASEMENTS FROM OLDE FLORIDA GOLF CLUB,
INC., AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $6,150, PROJECT 710111-
Item #16C9
GRANT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR THE
LIVINGSTON ROAD AQUIFER STORAGE & RECOVERY SITE
Item #16C10
PURCHASE ORDERS FOR THE LOAN PROCUREMENT
SERVICES FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) TO ANGIE BREWER
AND ASSOCIATES (ABA) IN EXCESS OF $25,000 UNDER
SARASOTA COUNTY CONTRACT 2003-040 FOR GOODLETTE
FRANK ROAD FORCE MAIN PROJECT 72002, PUMP STATION
103 PROJECT 73945 AND FOR GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD
RECLAIMED WATER MAIN PROJECT 74077 - AS DETAILED
Item #16D1
Page 312
September 21, 2004
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE THE
ACCEPTANCE OF DONATED FUNDS TO OFFSET THE
"INDEPENDENCE DAY" EXPENSES APPROVED BY THE
BOARD ON MARCH 9, 2004 - $6800.00 WILL GO TO THE
Item #16D2
THE LIBRARY'S STATE AID APPLICATION AND
ACCEPTANCE OF THE LONG RANGE PLAN, INCLUDING THE
CURRENT YEAR ACTION PLAN AND TECHNOLOGY PLAN
Item #16D3
GRANT AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 BETWEEN
THE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION DEPARTMENT, COLLIER
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, AND THE
EMPOWERMENT ALLIANCE OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING HOMEOWNER EDUCATIONAL
Item #16D4
RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2,569 AND SIGN THE BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE
THE RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP)
BlIDGET
Item #16D5
BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD TO HOLD A VOTER
Page 313
September 21,2004
REGISTRATION RALL Y IN ANTHONY PARK ON SEPTEMBER
25, 2004 - TO PROVIDE OUTREACH TO THE AFRICAN-
AMERICAN COMMUNITY REGARDING VOTER
REGISTRATION - THE RALLY WOULD BE HELD FROM 12:00
E..M...TIlA: 00 -eM
Item #16D6
AGREEMENT FOR LANDSCAPE SERVICES WITH TECH OF
COLLIER COUNTY (ESTIMATED BUDGET OF $33,800). - TO
PERFORM LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE WITHIN THE
COMMI.lNII.Y.EAS
Item #16E1
RESOLUTION 2004-280: APPROVING THE ADVISORY
COMMITTEES OUTSTANDING MEMBERS SERVICE AWARD
EROGRAM
Item #16E2
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE BUILDING
MAINTENANCE SPECIAL SERVICE REVENUES TOTALING
$90,000 AND SECURITY SPECIAL SERVICE REVENUES
TOTALING $13,500 FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF PERSONAL
AND OPERATING EXPENSES IN FISCAL YEAR 2004 - AS
Item # 16E3
APPROVAL OF ADDITIONS TO AND DELETIONS FROM THE
2004 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MADE
Page 314
September 21, 2004
FROM AUGUST 2, 2004 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 3, 2004 - AS
Item #16E4
BID #04-3709 IN THE AMOUNT OF $942,430.00 FOR A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH BROOKS & FREUND, LLC
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES (EMS) FACILITY NO. 19 - TO BE LOCATED ON
Item #16E5
BID #04-3694 IN THE AMOUNT OF $233,839.00 FOR A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH SURETY
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. FOR THE REMODELING OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY CLERK'S MIS OFFICE LOCATED ON
THE 5TH FLOOR OF BUILDING F - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item # 16E6
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS
FOR PERSONNEL AND OPERATING COSTS IN FLEET
MANAGEMENT FUND 521 IN THE AMOUNT OF $155,800
($25,000 FOR PERSONNEL COSTS AND $130,800 FOR FUEL
COSTS)
Item #16E7
CONTRACT FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $670,000.00 TO VICTOR J. LATA VISH
Page 315
September 21, 2004
ARCHITECT, PA FOR THE DESIGN OF THE NEW SHERIFF'S
SPECIAL OPERATIONS FACILITY, CONTRACT # 03-3550. - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - LOCATED ON
Item #16E8
CONTRACTS FOR RFP 04-3614 "FIXED TERM LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES." (DOLLAR AMOUNT OF
CONTRACT ESTIMATED AT $600,000 ANNUALLY) - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE EIGHT
W-EJRMS-SELECIE
Item #16E9
REPORT AND RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS'
COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED BY
THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO
RESOLUTION 2004-15: - DURING THE PERIOD APRIL 1,2004
IHROllGH1IlNF ~O, 2004
Item #16E10
BID #04-3658 IN THE AMOUNT OF $376,000.00 FOR A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH EHC, INC. FOR THE
REMODELING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY MEDICAL
EXAMINER'S FACILITY - LOCATED AT 3838 DOMESTIC
Item #16F1
SUMMARY OF CONSENT AND EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEMS
Page 316
September 21, 2004
APPROVED BY THE COUNTY MANAGER DURING THE
BOARD'S SCHEDULED RECESS. PER RESOLUTION NUMBER
2000-149, "APPROVAL OF THIS AGREEMENT BY THE
COUNTY MANAGER IS SUBJECT TO FORMAL
RATIFICATION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS. IF THE DECISION BY THE COUNTY
MANAGER IS NOT RATIFIED BY THE BOARD, THIS
AGREEMENT SHALL BE ENFORCEABLE AGAINST COLLIER
COUNTY ONLY TO THE EXTENT AUTHORIZED BY LAW IN
THE ABSENCE OF SUCH RATIFICATION OF THAT BOARD -
Item #16F2
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL
DISTRICT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM RESERVE FOR
CONTINGENCIES TO REGULAR SALARIES IN THE AMOUNT
OE.$65,OOO
Item #16F3
AFFIRM THE LETTER OF NO OBJECTION RELATIVE TO THE
ANNEXATION OF HORR'S ISLAND (KEY MARCO) INTO THE
CITY OF MARCO ISLAND - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16F4
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF BEACH
RENOURISHMENT, MAINTENANCE AND STABILIZATION
SERVICES IN THE HIDEAWAY BEACH SECTION OF MARCO
ISLAND
Page 31 7
September 21,2004
Item #16F5
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND DR. MARTA
U. COBURN, M.D. FLORIDA DISTRICT TWENTY MEDICAL
EXAMINER DBA DISTRICT TWENTY MEDICAL EXAMINER,
INC. TO PROVIDE MEDICAL EXAMINER SERVICES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2005 AT A COST OF $804,400 - AS DETAILED IN
Item #16F6
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING AND
APPROPRIATING AN $11,765.00 DONATION FROM THE
AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION IN THE EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES FUND (490) - FOR THE PURCHASE OF
Item #16F7
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND NAPLES
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL FOR USE OF THE MEDICAL
Item #16F8
TOURISM AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
EQUINOX DOCUMENTARIES INC. FOR TELEVISION
PROGRAM PRODUCTION - TO PRODUCE A 30 -MINUTE
Item #16G1
Page 318
September 21, 2004
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $18,800 TO INCREASE
BUDGETED REVENUES AND BUDGETED EXPENSES FOR
THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF AVIATION FUEL AT MARCO
ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR BOARD
APPROVAL FOR PAYMENT TO ATTEND FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE - JIM COLETTA TO REPRESENT
THE COUNTY AT THE NAACP ANNUAL FREEDOM FUND
BANQUET AND SILENT AUCTION ON OCTOBER 16, 2004;
$55.00 (TO BE PAID FROM TRAVEL BUDGET) - ELKS LODGE
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REQUEST FOR BOARD
APPROVAL FOR PAYMENT TO ATTEND FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE - COMMISSIONER HENNING TO
ATTEND THE RSVP 2004 SUMMER RECOGNITION
LUNCHEON ON AUGUST 26, 2004 AT THE NAPLES BATH &
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR BOARD APPROVAL
FOR PAYMENT TO ATTEND FUNCTION SERVING A VALID
PUBLIC PURPOSE - COMMISSIONER HALA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF $25.00 FOR ATTENDING THE RSVP
Page 319
September 21, 2004
2004 SUMMER RECOGNITION LUNCHEON ON AUGUST 26,
2004 AT THE NAPLES BATH & TENNIS CLUB; (TO BE PAID
EROM..IR A VEL..Bl.illG:E.T)
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR BOARD
APPROVAL FOR PAYMENT TO ATTEND FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE - COMMISSIONER COLETTA
REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF $15.00 FOR ATTENDING
THE "LEADERSHIP COLLIER KICK OFF" IN HONOR OF THE
CLASS OF 2005 ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 (TO BE PAID FROM
TRAVEL BUDGET) - NAPLES BEACH HOTEL AND GOLF
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR BOARD APPROVAL
FOR PAYMENT TO ATTEND FUNCTION SERVING A VALID
PUBLIC PURPOSE - COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF $15.00 FOR ATTENDING THE
"LEADERSHIP COLLIER KICK OFF" IN HONOR OF THE
CLASS OF 2005 ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 (TO BE PAID FROM
TRAVEL BUDGET) NAPLES BEACH HOTEL AND GOLF CLUB,
~A
Item #16H6
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR BOARD APPROVAL
FOR PAYMENT TO ATTEND FUNCTION SERVING A VALID
PUBLIC PURPOSE - COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF $55.00 FOR ATTENDING NAACP'S
Page 320
September 21, 2004
22ND ANNUAL FREEDOM FUND BANQUET & SILENT
AUCTION ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16,2004, (TO BE PAID
FROM TRAVEL BUDGET - ELKS LODGE RADIO ROAD,
NAELES.,.ELORIDA
Item #16H7
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR BOARD
APPROVAL FOR PAYMENT TO ATTEND FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE - COMMISSIONER COLETTA
REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT OF $20.00 FOR ATTENDING
THE UNITED WAY OF COLLIER COUNTY 2004 CAMPAIGN
KICKOFF BREAKFAST ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2004. (TO BE PAID
FROM TRAVEL BUDGET) - NAPLES BEACH HOTEL AND
Item #1611
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 321
1611
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
,September 21 st 2004
FOR BOARD ACTION:
A. Districts:
1. Verona Walk Community Development District - Proposed Budget for
FY 2003-04 and for FY 2004-05
2. Fiddler's Creek Community District - Agenda and Minutes of Meeting of
May 26, 2004; Agenda for June 25, 2003 Minutes of Meetings of June 25,
2003 and August 27, 2003; District Map; Current Year Budget and
Description of Outstanding Bonds; Proposed Budget
3. Fiddler's Creek Community District #2 - Agenda and Minutes of Meeting
for April 28, 2004; Minutes of Meetings of May 26,2004, Proposed
Budget FY 2005; Current Year Budget; District Map and Description of
Outstanding Bonds.
4. Cedar Hammock Community Development District - Agenda and
Minutes of meeting held on July 14, 2004; Description of Outstanding
Bonds; Budget FY 2004 and Audit; Voting Conflict form.
5. Key Marco Community Development District - Agenda and Minutes of
Meetings of May 6, 2004 and Description of Outstanding Bonds; Budget
FY 2005.
6. Tuscany Reserve Community Development District - Agenda for May 13,
2004; Minutes of May 13,2004; General Fund Report.
B. Minutes:
1. Public Vehicle Advisory Committee - Minutes of January 5, 2004, March
1, 2004, March 10, 2004, April 5, 2004, May 10, 2004; June 16, 2004. No
meetings in February and July, 2004.
2. Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board - Minutes of March 21,
2004; May 26, 2004.
a) CRA - Immokalee - Minutes of January 21, 2004; February 18,
2004.
3. Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Board - Agenda for June 10,
2004; Minutes of June 10, 2004.
H:Data/Format
_.~.._'~"-----_.
----.--,-.-.--
H:Data/Format
1611
4. Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for July 15,2004;
Minutes of June3, 2004, June 17, 2004.
5, Development Services Advisory Committee - Minutes of July 7,2004.
6. Domestic Animal Services Advisory Board - Minutes of June 15, 2004.
7. Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee - Minutes of
January 5, 2004, February 2, 2004; March 1,2004; April 5, 2004; May 3,
2004; October 6,2003, November 3,2003, and December 1,2003.
8. Collier County Tourism Development Council- Minutes of January 26,
2004 Workshop, February 23,2004, Special meeting March 29,2004,
March 22, 2004, April 19, 2004 and May 24,2004.
9. Lelv Golf Estates Beautification M.S.T.U. - Minutes of June 17,
2004Agenda for June 17,2004; Agenda for July 15,2004. Scheduled
dates for projects 1& 2.
10, Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force - Agenda for February 25,2004;
Minutes of February 25,2004. Minutes of Nov. 14,2003.
11. Affordable Housing Commission - Minutes for January 9,2004;
February 20, 2004 (No Quorum); March 19, 2004, April 16, 2004 (No
Quorum), and June 18, 2004,
12. Pelican Bay Services Advisory Committee - Agenda for July 7, 2004;
Minutes of June 2, 2004.
1. Pelican Bay Budget Sub-Committee - Agenda for July 21, 2004.
2. Clam Bay Sub-Committee - Agenda for July 7, 2004; Minutes of
April 28, 2004.
13. Bavshore Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for July 14,2004; Minutes of
June 9, 2004.
14. Collier County Airport Authority - Minutes of January 12,2004, February
9,2004, Minutes of March 8, 2004; Apri112, 2004, May 10,2004, June
14, 2004.
15. Collier County Contractor's Licensing Board - Agenda for July 21, 2004.
16. Collier County Emergency Medical Services Advisorv Committee -
Minutes of January 28, 2004; Agenda and Minutes of February 25,2004;
Agenda and Minutes of March 31,2004; Agenda and Minutes of April 28,
2004; Minutes of May 26, 2004.
~ <-~.'._"~--
1611
1. Sub-Committee Meeting Minutes of February 13,
2004
2. Special Meeting for NCH Ordinance - Minutes of
February 23, 2004.
3. COPCN Non-Emergency Workshop Minutes of
May 21,2004
17. Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for July 21, 2004; Minutes
of June 15, 2004.
18. Black Affairs Advisory Board Meeting - Minutes of January 26, 2004,
February 16,2004, May 27, 2004.
19. 1-75 Golden Gate Interchange Ad-Hoc Committee - Minutes of January
14,2004; November 17,2003 and December 15,2003,
20. Collier County Historical & Preservation Board - Notice of July, 2004
meeting canceled.
21. Collier County Productivity Committee - Minutes of June 16, 2004.
C : Other:
1) Guy L. Carlton, Collier County Tax Collector - 2004-2005 Annual Budgets.
2) Collier County Community Development and Envir. Services - CRA Agenda
Item 16G I Report.
3) Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court - Payment of Publication Notice for
Unclaimed Funds.
H:Data/Format
September 21, 2004
Item #16J1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS TO THE
SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR PAYMENT OF COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR THE SPRUNG STRUCTURES (TENTS) TO BE
ERECTED AT THE IMMOKALEE JAIL CENTER. (TOTAL
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 - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE TIME
Item #16K1
AUTHORIZED THE MAKING OF AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO
RESPONDENTS, RICHARD McPHILLIPS AND DENISE
McPHILLIPS, FOR PARCELS 129 AND 729 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$10,000.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
TERRY L. LICHLITER, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2273-CA
(GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT #60027) - AS DETAILED
Item #16K2
AGREED ORDER AND AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF BUSINESS
DAMAGE EXPERT FEES FOR PARCEL 112 IN THE LAWSUIT
Page 322
~-"~-_.~,,,,",,"...~,._~-.,.-
September 21, 2004
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. NORMA E. BANAS, ET. AL.,
CASE NO. 02-5137-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #60018)
Item #16K3
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 118 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. JACK E. GREEN, ET AL., GOLDEN
GATE PARKWAY, PROJECT #60027 -AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16K4
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED INCORPORATING THE
SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE MEDIATED
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 180 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND FIRE
DISTRICT, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-2218-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD
PROJECT #60018) - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARY
Item #16K5
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS, JOHN J Y AKLICH
AND CAROL A. Y AKLICH, FOR PARCELS 122,822 AND 922 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $36,595.20 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN J. Y AKLICH, ET AL., CASE NO.
03-2259-CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT #60027) - AS
Page 323
September 21, 2004
Item #16K6
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS, TERRY L.
LICHLITER AND DEBORAH LICHLITER, FOR PARCELS 128
AND 728 IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,000.00 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. TERRY L. LICHLITER, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 03-2273-CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT
Item #16K7
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS, WILLIAM E. BELL
AND LINDA M. BELL, FOR PARCELS 117 AND 717 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $30,000.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. JACK E. GREEN, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2227-CA
(GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT #60027) - AS DETAILED
Item #16K8
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, ROSE SOMOGYI,
FOR PARCELS 123 AND 823 IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,000.00 IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN J.
Y AKLICH, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2259-CA (GOLDEN_GATE
P ARKW A Y PROJECT #60027 - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16K9
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS, ELHANON COMBS
AND SANDRA S. COMBS, FOR PARCELS 720, 820A, 820B AND
Page 324
September 21, 2004
920 IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,000.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. ELHANON COMBS, ET AL., CASE NO.
03-2352-CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY_PROJECT #60027) -
Item #16K10
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, FRANCISCO
LEMUS, FOR PARCEL NO.1 IN THE AMOUNT OF $169,950.00
IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. FRANCISCO
LEMUS, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2788-CA, (13TH STREET SW
PROJECT NO. 69068) - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARY
Item #16K11
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS, CHARLES R.,
HELEN 1. AND BETTY J. WILSON, FOR PARCEL NO. 142 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $25,185.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. CHARLES R. WILSON, ET AL., CASE
NO. 02-5164-CA (IMMOKALEE RD. PROJECT 60018) - AS
Item #16K12
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS, LEWIS R. AND
MARGARET JEAN KING, FOR PARCEL NO. 164 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $18,120.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. JUAN RAMIREZ, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-5166-CA
(IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NO. 60018) - AS DETAILED IN
Page 325
"."--""".,,....,--"_.~,.,,._..
September 21, 2004
Item #16K13
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS, ROGER A. AND
COLEEN SHARPE, FOR PARCEL NO. 141 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$13,200.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
EDWARD STANLEY SANDITEN, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-5165-CA
(IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NO. 60018) - AS DETAILED IN
Item #16K14
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, ROY DAVID
HILBERG, FOR PARCEL NO. 140A IN THE AMOUNT OF
$6,900.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
EDWARD STANLEY SANDITEN, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-5165-CA
(IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NO. 60018) - AS DETAILED IN
Item #16K15
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, ROY DAVID
HILBERG, FOR PARCEL NO. 140B IN THE AMOUNT OF
$53,130.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
EDWARD STANLEY SANDITEN, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-5165-CA
(IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NO. 60018) - AS DETAILED IN
Item #16K16
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, MARY E.
LANNETTA, FOR PARCEL NO. 167B IN THE AMOUNT OF
$28,520.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
Page 326
-.......-...-..---
September 21, 2004
ANDY R. MORGAN, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-5169-CA
(IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NO. 60018) - AS DETAILED IN
Item #16K17
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS, JAMES L. AND
ESTHER E. SWIGERT, FOR PARCEL NO. 143 IN THE AMOUNT
OF $15,240.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY
V. CHARLES R. WILSON, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-5164-CA
(IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NO. 60018) - AS DETAILED IN
Item #16K18
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, LOUISE V.
TAYLOR, AS TRUSTEE OF THE LOUISE V. TAYLOR LIVING
TRUST UIAlD 9116/87, FOR PARCEL NO. 156 IN THE AMOUNT
OF $91,500.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY
V. ANDY R. MORGAN, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-5169-CA
(IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NO. 60018) - AS DETAILED IN
Item #16K19
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AGREEMENTS WI CUNNINGHAM,
KANTOR, LEGACE AND PELLETIER FOR VALUE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD HEARINGS FOR TAX YEAR 2004 - AS
Item #17A
Page 327
September 21, 2004
RESOLUTION 2004-281: AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER
96-377, THE TAYLOR PROPERTIES CONDITIONAL USE TO
CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR RESULTING FROM THE
UNINTENTIONAL INCLUSION OF AN INCORRECT LEGAL
DESCRIPTION IN THE ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF DAVIS
BOULEVARD (S.R. 84) IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2004-56: PUDZ-2003-AR-5087, STEPHEN G.
SPOSATO, AICP OF AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC.,
REPRESENTING COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PUBLIC
(P) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO BE KNOWN
AS THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMPLEX PUD.
THE PROJECT WILL CONSIST OF A MAXIMUM OF 996,799
SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING AREA FOR PERMITTED AND
ACCESSORY GOVERNMENT CENTER USES. THE PROJECT IS
LOCATED AT 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST. THE PROJECT IS
IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 55± ACRES -
SUBJECT TO THE STIPULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE PUD
DOCUMENTS
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2004-282 (DISTRICT 1) AND RESOLUTION 2004-
283 (DISTRICT 2): APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY
ASSESSMENT AS THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND
ADOPTING SAME AS THE NON AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT
Page 328
."_..,^<__"_____.m.'.>_...,_~"..__._"_._o,,."____·_,·.."_..",~___,___
~.._ ,_..--._._Æ."""_'__>'..r_'-' ......,_.....____0_·_..>·.·__·__
September 21, 2004
ROLLS FOR PURPOSES OF UTILIZING THE UNIFORM
METHOD OF COLLECTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 197.3632,
FLORIDA STATUTES, FOR SOLID WASTE DISTRICTS NO.1
AND NO.2, MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNITS SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT LEVIED AGAINST CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY PURSUANT TO COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE 90-30, AS AMENDED. REVENUES ARE
$J 2,~72,ROO
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2004-284: PUDEX-2004-AR-5897 TERYL
BRZESKI, TRUSTEE OF THE GARRET F.X. REVOCABLE
TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER, REPRESENTED BY J. GARY
BUTLER, OF BUTLER ENGINEERING, INC., REQUESTING A
TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE MAGNOLIA POND
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), PURSUANT TO LDC
SECTION 2.7.3.4.6, FOR A 42.05+ ACRE TRACT LOCATED ON
MAGNOLIA DRIVE ~ MILE WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD
BETWEEN I-75 AND THE GOLDEN GATE CANAL, IN SECTION
34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER
COI..JNI4ELORID A
Item #17E
ORDINANCE 2004-57: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-
18, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, TO DELETE THE NON-VOTING
MEMBER WITH PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN THE
Page 329
.__,._~_. ."'....__.___._._."......__m._____
_",__,,,_,_'.__"ffl·_.>~._~___-·
September 21, 2004
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:48 P.M.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD (S) OF
SPECIAL ISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~d~
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
. .
. .
,. . tJ'J>n.Qø "" ,
/\:~&_~- ~'..!I' . '" 1/'.. ~ ,~.. 'I.
ATTEC1~~"'" . "': ~¡,
~!;r..: " : t~,'" ''''¡,;; \
DWIGÌItI;~..E:"·',Bl{ó.ç~ C~ERK
' ~:-:: ',', .~ . .', :ij i ~' ,
';j' '.. ~ ':, . ~",,-,,,./ þ" ..~
- '.' j"\' )' .' .' · n
iP'I " \.-.
Att.~'~:.· 'Øiát...·
s 19ftc1tur¥ t. h.
These minutes approved by the Board OD/()-J{o<='1-.tJO V ,
as presented ~ or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS AND CHERIE
NOTTINGHAM
Page 330
, _.-..__......._,."""'-_._--_..~--_.,.....~
,._,.'-~_. -."-.-,-...,,.-.- --'''''.<."