BCC Minutes 10/12/2004 R
October 12, 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 12, 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
Jim Mitchell, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
-"~,---_.._......---
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
6'
,.".....~
"'-
--~-~
AGENDA
October 12, 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 PRESENT A TION OF
THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS
DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT
ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH
EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR
TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC
PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
1
October 12, 2004
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
A. Deacon Al Groh, St. John's the Evangelist Catholic Church
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. September 2,2004 - BCC/Emergency Meeting-Hurricane Frances
Briefing
C. September 5, 2004 - BCC/Emergency Meeting-Hurricane Frances
Briefing
D. September 9,2004 - BCC/EDC Workshop
E. September 9,2004 - BCC/Budget Hearing Meeting
F. September 10, 2004 - BCC/Emergency Meeting-Hurricane Ivan
Briefing
G. September 11, 2004 - BCC/Emergency Meeting-Hurricane Ivan
Briefing
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
2
October 12, 2004
4. PROCLAMATIONS
5. PRESENTATIONS
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition Request by Nestor Lobo to discuss the possibility of
building a public swimming pool in East Naples.
B. Public Petition Request by Kelli Justice to discuss proposed third
entrance to Pebblebrooke Community.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Robert K. and
Ruth P. Garee, property owners, requesting variances in the Lely
Country Club PUD Zoning District (Ordinance No. 84-85, PUD
Document Section 3.4.4.B.) as follows: 1) a 5-foot variance from the
required 15-foot, two story side yard setback, to allow a 10-foot side
yard setback adjacent to Lot 13; 2) a 6-foot 5-inch variance from the
required 15-foot, two-story side yard setback to allow an 8-foot 7-inch
side yard setback adjacent to Lot 11; and 3) a I-foot 1 I inch variance
from the maximum wall height of 6 feet as required by LDC Section
2.6.11.2.2., to allow a garden wall height of 7 feet 11 inches adjacent
to Lot 13. The property is located at 234 Palmetto Dunes Circle;
further described as Lot 12, Palmetto Dunes at Lely Country Club, in
Section 20, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. This item
continued from the June 22, 2004 meeting and was further
continued to the September 14, 2004/September 21, 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
3
October 12, 2004
of Livingston Road, and approximately one-quarter mile south of Pine
Ridge Road (CR-896) Ïn Section 13, Township 49S, Range 25E.
B. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners, to the Lely
CDD Board of Supervisors consenting to Lely CDDs special powers
for enhanced security.
C. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. This item was
continued from the July 27, 2004 Board of County Commissioners
meeting. Petition PUDZ-2003-AR-4250: Golden Gate Fire Control
and Rescue District and Waterways Joint Venture IV, represented by
Karen Bishop, ofPMS, Inc. of Naples, and Richard D. Yovanovich, of
Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A., requesting a rezone from the
Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Mixed Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) zoning district, to allow development of a fire
station with a I 35-foot high communication tower and a 75-foot high
training facility, and sixteen (16) single-family attached dwellings
(including townhouses intended for fee simple conveyance including
the platted lot associated with the residence) and customary accessory
uses. Property is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard (C.R.
951), approximately 340 feet north of Wolfe Road, in Section 34,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of9.38± acres.
D. Consideration of an ordinance providing for the creation of the Collier
County Administrative Code; providing for the subsequent
amendment, revision, or modification to that Administrative Code;
providing for conflict and severability; providing for codification and
inclusion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances; and providing for an
effective date.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. This item was continued from the June 22, 2004 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to consider Resolution opposing the City of Naples I
vessel speed zones. (Commissioner Henning)
B. Recommendation to declare 2 vacancies on the Hispanic Affairs
Advisory Board.
4
October 12, 2004
-.. .._~,,,..
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Amend professional engineering services agreement with Metcalf &
Eddy, Inc. for the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant, 8
MGD Reverse Osmosis (SCRWTP), Contract 98-2891, in the amount
of $1 ,924,500, Project 70054. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public
Utilities)
B. Recommendation to authorize the purchase of 150 Remote
Transmitting Units for Wastewater Collections Telemetry for the
amount of$950,525.00, Project 73922. (Jim DeLony, Administrator,
Public Utilities)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. Approve the contract for an Executive Director for the Collier County
Airport Authority.
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) win
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Island Walk, Phase lA.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Island Walk, Phase I-B.
5
October 12, 2004
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Island Walk, Phase 3-A.
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Island Walk, Phase 3-B.
5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Island Walk, Phase 3-C.
6) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Island Walk, Phase 6A.
7) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Island Walk, Phase 6B.
8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Vista Pointe at the Vineyards.
9) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for The Dunes Phase 2B.
10) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Naples
Walk Unit Two".
11) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with James A. Price for 1.14 acres under the Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $12,900.
12) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with the Joe S. and Polly Cannon for 1.59 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $17,600.
13) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water utility facilities
for Mediterra, Parcel 104.
14) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Madison
Park, Phase One", and approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
6
October 12, 2004
15) Recommendation to accept the final report and consider the findings
of the Immokalee Housing Condition Inventory and close the
Immokalee Hou'sing Initiative.
16) Petition CARNY-2004-AR-65 12, Peg Ruby, Special Events
Coordinator, Collier County Parks and Recreation, requesting a permit
to conduct the annual October Fest Carnival on October 22,23 and
24,2004, at the Golden Gate Community Center located at 4701
Golden Gate Parkway.
17) Petition CARNY-2004-AR-65 13, Peg Ruby, Special Events
Coordinator, Collier County Parks and Recreation, requesting a permit
to conduct the annual Fall Fest Carnival on October 28, 29, 30 and 31,
2004, at the Eagle Lakes Community Park located at 11565 Tamiami
Trail East.
18) CARNY-2004-AR-65 14, Peg Ruby, Special Events Coordinator,
Collier County Parks and Recreation, requesting a permit to conduct
the annual Country Jamboree Carnival on March 11, 12 and 13,2005,
in the Vineyards Community Park at 6231 Arbor Boulevard.
19) CARNY-2004-AR-65 15, Peg Ruby, Special Events Coordinator,
Collier County Parks and Recreation, requesting a permit to conduct
the annual Snowfest Carnival on December 4 and 5,2004, at the
Golden Gate Community Park located at 3300 Santa Barbara
Boulevard.
20) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Indigo Lakes, Unit 5.
21) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of "Ibis Cove Phase 2A". The
roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
22) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Villa Vistana.
23) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Villa FIorenza at the Vineyards.
7
October 12, 2004
24) Recommendation to terminate Contract # 02-3317 with Henderson,
Young and Corripany relative to the Fire Protection Impact Fee
Update Study, waiver of the formal competition process and
solicitation of proposals to select a new consultant to update the Fire
Protection Impact Fee (estimated amount not to exceed $50,000).
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve change order No.1 to Contract # 03-3483
- "Equipment Noise Barrier Wall" with NR Contractors, Inc., for an
additional 100 feet of Equipment Noise Barrier Wall at Davis Blvd.
Road Maintenance facility in the amount of$129,160.00.
2) Recommendation to Approve deleting items with overhead and office
services, section B.2.3., items (b) and (d), of Schedule B of the
Standard Professional Services Agreement, for Contracts issued under
04-3583 "Construction, Engineering and Inspection (CEI) Services for
County Road Projects". Vanderbilt Beach Road Project No. 63051.
3) Recommendation to approve awarding Bid #04-3707 "Lely Golf
Estates MSTU Irrigation and Landscape" to Commercial Land
Maintenance, Inc. for $113,311.80 (which includes 5% contingency).
4) Recommendation to approve a three (3) month extension to Bid #99-
2955 "Immokalee Road Ground Maintenance Service" to Commercial
Land Maintenance, Inc. in the estimated amount of $30,000.00.
5) Recommendation to approve a declaration setting aside county-owned
lands for Vanderbilt Beach Road and Logan Boulevard roadway,
sidewalk, drainage and utility facilities. (Fiscal impact: $27.00)
Project No. 63051.
6) Recommendation to award a construction contract in the amount of
$44,069 to Subaqueous Services, Inc., to dredge the outfall at Naples
Park in the Vanderbilt Lagoon, Project Number 51004, Bid No. 04-
3704.
7) Recommendation to approve the use of transit enhancement funds
(313) to purchase two new transit buses under Florida Public
Transportation AssociationlHarline contract 2003-07-0 I, trolley decal
8
October 12, 2004
wraps and necessary equipment (in the estimated amount of
$573,000). .
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving Special
Assessment Hardship Deferrals for certain Sewer Special
Assessments for the 2004 tax year. The fiscal impact is $18.50 to
record the Resolution.
2) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1992
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $40.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
3) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said lien is satisfied in full for the 1993 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
4) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1994
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $30.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
5) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1995
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $40.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
6) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1996
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $48.50 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
9
October 12, 2004
"._.;-_._..~~.~~..",.
7) Recommendation to approve the Satisfaction for a certain Water
and/or Sewer Irripact Fee Payment Agreement. Fiscal impact is $10.00
to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
8) Recommendation to approve the Satisfactions of Notice of Claim of
Lien for Sanitary Sewer System Impact Fee. Fiscal impact is $28.50
to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
9) Recommendation to award Construction Contract for Bid #04-3719 to
Santis Engineering, Inc., for installation services related to the Water
Distribution Radio Telemetry System Implementation in the amount
of $326,968.00, Project 70124.
10) Recommendation to approve the raw water transmission project to
interconnect the Tamiami and Hawthorn Wellfields in the amount of
$1,500,000 and to approve and authorize the initial phase, which is a
work order under the Annual Contract for Underground Utilities
Contracting Services, RFP 02-3345, based on an estimated
construction cost not to exceed $690,000, Project 710061.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) That the Board of County Commissioners award bid Bid S04-3708 for
Sale of Surplus 32 foot regal boat to Bryan C. Durkin.
2) That the Board of County Commissioners award Bid No. 04-3701 for
Electrical Parts and Supplies to Graybar Electrical, Inc. as primary
vendor, Rexel Consolidated, as secondary vendor, and Hughes
Supply, Inc. as tertiary vendor.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to Approve Tourism Agreements between Collier
County and Best Shot, Inc. for Stock Footage Usage.
2) Recommendation for Approval and Ratification of the Extension of
Contract No. 03-3537 for an Additional Year Between Paradise
Advertising & Marketing, Inc. and Collier County for Marketing and
10
October 12, 2004
Advertising Collier County as a Tourism Destination.
3) Approval of Budget Amendments.
4) Recommendation to authorize staff to prepare and submit applications
to register service marks with the United States Patent & Trademark
Office and the State of Florida Division of Corporations to preserve
the County's advertising, logos, phrases and slogans.
5) Approve the Transfer of Two (2) Existing Full-Time Positions fTom
the Emergency Medical Services Department to the Bureau of
Emergency Services and Approve the Necessary Budget Amendment.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala's request for Board approval for reimbursement
for funds pre-paid to attend a function serving a valid public purpose.
The Commissioner will be attending the Regional Planning Council's
"Addressing the Regional Agenda" Conference on October 29,2004
at the Harborside Event Center in Fort Myers; $35.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
2) For the Board of County Commissioners to declare a valid public
purpose for a Commissioner to attend the Greater Naples Chamber of
Commerce Wake Up Naples Breakfast on September 22, 2004.
$20.00 to be paid out of Commissioner Henning's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Halas' request for Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attend the
ground breaking ceremony for the North Naples Research &
Technology Park on September 30, 2004. $8.50 to be paid from
Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Items to File For Record With Action As Directed.
I 1
October 12, 2004
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) That the Board òf County Commissioners make a determination of
whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the
Detailed Report of Open Purchase Orders serve a valid public purpose
and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said
purchases. A copy of the Detailed Report is on display in the County
Manager's Office, Collier County Government Center, W. Harmon
Turner Building, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve the Settlement at Mediation in the
lawsuit styled Lee W. Tuttle, v. Collier County, Case No. 02-4085-
CA. Total settlement of $28,000.
2) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment as to Parcels
122 and 722 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Robert G.
Schubring, et aI., Case No. 02-1949-CA (Goodlette Road Project
60134).
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve
the Stipulated Order of Taking and the Stipulated Final Judgment
Relative to the Acquisition of Parcel No. 136 in the Lawsuit Styled
Collier County v. First National Bank of Naples, et aI., Jmmokalee
Road, Project #66042.
4) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners Approve an
Agreed Order and Authorize Payment of Expert Fees and Costs for
Parcel 110 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Northside
Construction Company, et. aI., Case No. 00-0 l36-CA (Pine Ridge
Road Project #60 Ill).
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDA TION FOR APPRO V AL 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
12
October 12,2004
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE
QUASIJUDICAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN
IN.
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. SE-04-AR-5971,
an Ordinance amending Ordinance 04-22, the Balmoral PUD to '
correct a scrivener's error in Section 1.2 - Legal Description of the
Ordinance to the Balmoral PUD for property that is located on the east
side of Livingston Road (C.R. 881) and the west side of Whippoorwill
Lane, in Section 8, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida.
B. RZ-2004-AR-5876, Commerce Center At Naples LLC represented by
Robert J. Mulhere ofRW A, Incorporated, requesting a rezone from
the Heavy Commercial (C-5) And Industrial (I) zoning districts to the
Heavy Commercial (C-5) zoning district. The subject property is
located at 3400 Radio Road, in Section I, Township 50 South, Range
25 East, Collier County, Florida and consists of 5.36 acres.
C. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and exparte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Recommendation
to approve Petition A VPLAT2004-AR6172 to disclaim, renounce and
vacate the County's and the Public's interest in the 20 foot wide
drainage easement located along the rear of tracts 30 through 32,
according to the plat of "Tollgate Commercial Center Phase Three" as
recorded in Plat Book 22, Pages 95 through 100, Public Records of
Collier County, Florida, located in Section 35, Township 49 South,
Range 26 East and in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 26 East.
D. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments to the
Fiscal Year 2003-04 Adopted Budget.
E. Petition PE-2004-AR-6093, Dougall McCorkle, ofthè Lutgert
Companies, represented by Wayne Arnold, A1CP, ofQ. Grady Minor
and Associates, requesting a Parking Exemption to allow off-site
13
October 12, 2004
parking on two lots zoned Residential Multi-Family (RMF-6) to serve
proposed general and medical office uses, on a parcel zoned General
Commercial (C-4), which is contiguous to the subject properties.
Access to the parking lot will be from the commercial parcel or the
existing 20-foot wide public alley. The subject property is located at
4817 -4819 West Alhambra Circle and 10131015 North Alhambra
Circle in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
14
October 12, 2004
October 12, 2004
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Welcome to the Board of
County Commissioners meeting for -- this is October 12th. And with
us today is Deacon Al Groh from St. John the Evangelist Catholic
Church.
Sir, would you say the invocation for us, please.
DEACON GROH: Let us pray. God of power and might,
wisdom and justice, through you authority is rightly administered and
laws are enacted. Assist with your spirit of counsel and fortitude, the
commissioners of this county, that their administration may be
conducted in righteousness and be eminently useful to your people
over whom they preside.
May they encourage due respect for virtue and ethics. May they
execute their decisions with justice and mercy. And by their work,
may they seek to contain crime, vice, and immorality. May the
deliberations of the commissioners seek to preserve for us and promote
communal happiness in our county.
Finally in the commissioners and all of you people and our
citizens, we commend to your love and mercy all our men and women
in service and their families, and may your divine light continue to
bring us the blessing of liberty and equality.
May God bless us all.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Birthday Boy, would you lead us in
the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And before you -- before you are seated,
1'd like us all to sing a rousing happy birthday, rousing happy birthday,
to Commissioner Coletta, whose birthday is today.
(Happy Birthday was sung in unison.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 2
October 12, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forty-one today.
MR. MUDD: You wish.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta just got back from
Poland yesterday. He came into the office, and you never saw such a
wiped-out looking guy. I tell you, he's a -- I've never seen him that
way. He's always bright and sparkly. And man, he was -- but you're
looking pretty good today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much,
Commissioner Fiala. I do appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Weigel, getting on to the serious part
of the meeting. And thank you for indulging me.
Do you have any additions or corrections to today's agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: Seriously, no, I don't.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And let's see.
Mr. Mudd?
Item #2A
REGULAR, SUMMARY AND CONSENT AGENDA-APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, Commissioners, agenda changes,
Board of County Commissioners meeting, October 12,2004.
First item, continue item 8A to November 16th, 2004, BCC
meeting. It's PUDZ-03-AR-3561, which is the Hiwasse, Inc., item
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, and I'm just going to let that --
because it's going to be continued.
Next item is item 8B. We need to add additional language
provided, and it's to paragraph 2 -- or 2 in parens, no guardhouses,
fences, gates or any like security measure will be erected upon any
Page 3
October 12, 2004
public road within the district, to include Lely Resort Boulevard,
Triangle Boulevard, Grande Lely Drive, Lely Cultural Parkway, and
any future roadways which may be dedicated to Collier County, and
that's at staffs request.
The third item is item 14A. This item to be heard at 11 :30 a.m.
And the reason for that is the new director needs to catch a plane this
afternoon right after lunch, so -- and she's here today while that item
will be heard.
Backup information, (Employment Agreement), was omitted
from the printed agenda packet, and a corrected agreement has been
provided.
The Collier County Airport Authority, the dependent authority of
Collier County, and Theresa M. Cook, the executive director, enter
into this agreement effective on the 15th day of December, 2004, and
that's at staffs request.
And they're -- and I want to make sure for the record that we have
all the changes to this particular agreement.
Page 1, section 4, last sentence of the employment agreement
should read, the salary increases shall become effective on October 1
of each year, the starting date of the county's fiscal year, and shall be
increased by applying the then current CPI-U increase to the
employee's then current base salary or larger salary increase approved
by a majority vote of the Airport Authority and funded by the Board of
County Commissioners in the airport -- in the authority's budget,
whichever salary increase dollar amount is greater for the respective
fiscal year.
Page 2, section 5.A of the employment agreement should read,
the executive director shall be entitled to receive the same vacation,
sick leave benefits, health insurance and life insurances -- insurance as
are then accorded generally to Collier County employees in her pay
range, including the provision governing accrual and payment of
vacation upon termination of employment, except that three-week
Page 4
October 12, 2004
vacation shall begin in the first year.
Page 3, section 6.D of the employment agreement should read, in
the event of termination or resignation, authorities shall pay the
executive director all money due the executive director no later than
30 calendar days after the effective date of the termination of
employment, including accrued vacation benefits.
The fifth item on the agenda, move item 16A24 to 10C, and that's
a recommendation to terminate contract 02-3317 with Henderson
Young and Company relative to the fire protection impact fee update
study, waiver of the formal competition process and selection (sic) of
proposals to select a new consultant to update the fire protection
impact fee. Estimate amount not to include (sic) $50,000, and that
move was requested by Commissioner Fiala.
Next item, withdraw item 16B2, and that's a recommendation to
approve deleting items with overhead and office services, section
B.2.3, items (b) and (d) of Schedule B of the Standard Professional
Services Agreement for contracts issued under 04-3583, Construction
Engineering and Inspection, CEI services, for county road proj ects,
and this particular item had to do with Vanderbilt Beach Road proj ect
number 63051, and that's at staffs request.
The next item, item 16CI0, continued to October 26,2004, BCC
meeting. It's a recommendation to approve the water -- raw water
transmission project to interconnect the Tamiami and Hawthorne
Well fields in the amount of $1.5 million and to approve and authorize
the initial phase, which is a work order under the annual contract for
Underground Utilities Contracting Services, RFP 02-3345, based on an
estimated construction cost not to exceed $690,000, and that's project
710061, and that's at staffs request.
And the final-- final item is item 17B. The ex parte disclosure
statement was omitted from this item and should read, this item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members, and that's RZ-2004-AR-5876,
Page 5
--_._._.~_...._,.,..._-_._,_.,-_.,,-~.~_.._-
._,.....-..-.-._._,,~"'._-,,-
_mm...,..,.,.____
October 12, 2004
Commerce Center at Naples, LLC, represented by Robert J. Mulhere,
of RWA.
And there's even a correction to this particular item. It says
FW A, but I believe he's RW A, Incorporated, requesting a rezone from
the heavy commercial (C- 5) and industrial (1) zoning districts, to the
heavy commercial (C- 5) zoning district.
The subject property is located at 3400 Radio Road in Section 1,
Township 50 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida, and
consists of 5.36 acres. That's at staffs request.
And that's it, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioners, do any of you have any ex parte disclosure for
the summary agenda or any additions or corrections to the agenda,
starting with you, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, Chairwoman Fiala.
I don't have any additions or corrections to the minutes.
I do have one ex parte, which is 17B, and all of the information is
located on my desk.
I also would like to request that I have to -- or would like to be
excused. I have to go down to the Supervisor of Elections and be
involved in the Canvassing Board in regards to logic and accuracy
testing this morning, so I'll probably be gone for a couple of hours.
So if you'd indulge me in that, as soon as we get done here, I'll
leave.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a suggestion, possibly you
might want to readjust the schedule for anything that requires a
supermajority to wait until that point in time that Commissioner Halas
returns.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. We'll certainly do that. Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Halas.
Now Commissioner Coletta.u
Page 6
October 12, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'm leaving now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, you're leaving now?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no additions to the
agenda. I do have a declaration to make on 17B. I have had meetings,
correspondence, with -- and also met with staff. And on 17C, I met
with staff several times on it, and anybody that wishes to see my files,
they're right here on my desk. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no ex parte
communication and no changes to today's agenda. Just a clarification
on the county manager's change list. You stated that Hiwasse was
going to be continued to November 18th, but on our list it says
November 16th.
MR. MUDD: Thank you, sir. It's the 16th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no further changes to the
agenda. With respect to the summary agenda on 17B, I have met with
the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And I have no changes to the
agenda, but on 1 7B I also have met with not only the petitioner but
then I've spoken to a couple members of our staff, and then I've spoken
to somebody who rents a place there. So I just wanted to cover all my
bases, so -- and I have everything noted if my -- in my folder here.
Thank you.
Do we have a motion to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion that we approve
today's agenda as amended, the regular, consent, and summary agenda.
Page 7
.,.","._~_._,_._..._.,-,...'-
October 12, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Be happy to second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve today's
agenda and a -- by Commissioner Henning and a second by
Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Page 8
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
: October 12. 2004
Continue Item 8A to November 16. 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 8B: Additionallanauaae orovided: ... (2) no guardhouses, fences, gates or
any other like security measure will be erected upon any public road within the
District: To include Lely Resort Blvd., Triangle Blvd., Grande Lely Drive, Lely
Cultural Parkway and any future roadway(s) which may be dedicated to Collier
County. (Staff request.)
Item 14A: This Item to be heard at 11 :30 a.m. Backuo information (Emolovment
Aareement was omitted from the rinted a enda acket and a corrected
Aareement has been orovided. The Collier County Airport Authority, a dependent
Authority of Collier County, and Theresa M. Cook (the IIExecutive Director") enter
into this Agreement effective on the 15th day of December, 2004. (Staff request.)
Page 1, Section 4, last sentence of the Employment Agreement should read:
"The salary increases shall become effective on October 1 of each year (the
starting date of the County's Fiscal Year), and shall be increased by applying the
then current CPI-U increase to the Employee's then current base salary, or larger
salary increase approved by a majority vote of the Airport Authority and funded by
the Board of County Commissioners in the Authority's budget, whichever salary
Increase dollar amount is greater for the respective fiscal year."
Page 2, Section 5.A. of the Employment Agreement should read:
liThe Executive Director shall be entitled to receive the same vacation, sick leave
benefits, health insurance, and life insurance, as are then accorded generally to
Collier County employees in her pay range, including the provision governing
accrual and payment of vacation upon termination of employment, except that
three week vacation shall begin in the first year."
Page 3, Section 6.D. of the Employment Agreement should read:
"In the event of termination or resignation, Authority shall pay the Executive
Director all money due the Executive Director not later than thirty (30) calendar
days after the effective date of the termination of employment, including accrued
vacation benefits."
Move Item 16A24 to 10C: Recommendation to terminate Contract #02-3317 with
Henderson, Young and Company relative to the Fire Protection Impact Fee Update
Study, waiver of the formal competition process and solicitation of proposals to
select a new consultant to update the Fire Protection Impact Fee (estimated
amount not to exceed $50,000). (Commissioner Fiala request.)
October 12, 2004
Items #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F, #2G
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2004 BCC/EMERGENCY
MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2004 BCC/EMERGENCY MEETING,
SEPTEMBER 9, 2004 BCC/EDC WORKSHOP, SEPTEMBER 9,
2004 BCC/BUDGET HEARING MEETING, SEPTEMBER 10, 2004
BCC/EMERGENCY MEETING, AND THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion we approve
September 2nd, '04, BCC emergency meeting, Hurricane Frances
briefing; September 5th, '04, BCC emergency meeting, Hurricane
Frances briefing; September 9th, BCC/EDC workshop; September 9th,
BCC budget hearing meeting; September 10th, BCC emergency
meeting, Hurricane Ivan briefing; September 11th, 2004, BCC
emergency meeting, Ivan -- Hurricane Ivan briefing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a second by Commissioner
Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we move down to the public petitions
portion of our agenda.
Item #6A
Page 9
October 12, 2004
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY NESTOR LOBO TO DISCUSS
THE POSSIBILITY OF BUILDING A PUBLIC SWIMMING POOL
The first public petition request will be by Nester Lobo to discuss
the possibility of building a public swimming pool in East Naples.
Mr. Lobo, are you here?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Looks like he isn't. Okay.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY KELLI JUSTICE TO DISCUSS
PROPOSED THIRD ENTRANCE TO PEBBLEBROOKE
So then we'll move to the second public petition request by Kelli
Justice to discuss proposed third entrance to Pebblebrooke community.
MS. JUSTICE: First off, I want to let you know that it might be
obvious that I'm a little nervous, but I'm also very appreciative of a
system that allows me, homemaker and mother of five children, to be
able to come to you with my concerns. So I appreciate this
opportunity .
My name is Kelli Justice. I've been a resident of Pebblebrooke
community for close to two and a half years.
I just want to give you a little peek into our community.
Basically we are about close to six years old, 350, maybe maxed out to
400 homes, single homes. We have a community pool, a tennis court,
basketball court. We have two children playgrounds.
We fill two full busloads of elementary children who attend
Laurel Oaks, which is just two miles west of us, and the bus stop is
right in the middle of our community at the Pebblebrooke clubhouse
Page 10
October 12, 2004
where we all throw our children's birthday parties.
Oak Ridge Middle is adjacent to the south of our community,
connecting us with a pedestrian walk where the kids can ride their
bikes and walk to and from school. Any given day you'll see many
children in the community playing. This is important, as I'll continue.
Basically, we're a very family-oriented neighborhood, and take a
lot of pride in this. I'm here today basically as a result of going around
and talking to my different neighbors and finding out that we are very
-- have in common a strong feeling about what I'm about to share with
you, and we're very unified on it.
We are already a two-gated community. And at this time we
have some -- as you can see in the overhead --
MR. MUDD: Do you want me to move it up a little bit?
MS. JUSTICE: Oh, yes.
This white section up here, that was originally -- the history
behind that, that was Phase III of Pebblebrooke community, okay?
This is history. Basically, that was owned by Ken Saunders, Kenco
Development, and it sold to DAD Development, DeAngelis.
It -- in February of 2002, it turned from being residential to
commercial. The homeowners, of course, were not happy about this,
because at least 75 of them bought into this community believing this
was Phase III, more single-family homes in Pebblebrooke community,
and in most of them being even more expensive because of the privacy
of the preserves that it would back up to.
So the community gathered together and tried to stop that from
happening, and it didn't happen. I mean, they did not stop it, and we're
content that this has happened and this is a done deal, and that's not
what our issue is.
What our issue is, is that the county has asked to put a road and a
gated entrance that would connect us to this retail.
The community has already had to deal with the fact that this isn't
going to be Pebblebrooke Phase III. We've come to terms with that.
Page 11
October 12, 2004
We were also told in this transition, as I interviewed many of my
neighbors, that they were even told that if they did not calm down and
comply with this, that they were going to put multi-family apartment
units in there. So they backed up and, okay, we're happy with
commercial.
And then they were told that, you know, this would be primarily
medical and office space. Well, we've learned that it's not going to be
primarily medical/office space. It's going to be very -- it will have
some of that but it will be very much retail.
We don't expect, as a community, to be able to control what goes
in there. We know that's not our property. We don't expect to be able
to control what hours they keep or even much about what goes on over
there.
We do now know that the retail is coming and that a sports bar
will be there. We're just concerned about the hours -- the way it will
affect our community.
Basically I represent about 200 people that have signed a petition,
and I'd like to submit more names to the names that I have already.
And our concern is that we are so close.
If you can see where --
MR. MUDD: Use the portable mike.
MS. JUSTICE: Oh, I'm sorry. If you can see right in this section,
this home right here --
MR. MUDD: Use this thing right here. Show me the home on
this so everybody --
MS. JUSTICE: See, I belong at home.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you don't. You're doing fine.
MR. MUDD: You're doing fine, just show us where it is so
everybody can see it.
MS. JUSTICE: Okay. All right. This section--
MR. MUDD: Talk into the mike.
MS. JUSTICE: Okay. This home right here is --literally the end
Page 12
October 12, 2004
of that property is 30 feet from the first building, two-story building
that will be going adjacent to them, okay.
We were told that we would have a 30-foot buffer, and I guess we
do, but it is literally 30-foot. There's 15 feet from their property,
there's a wall, and then there's 15 feet from the beginning of that
building.
I just illustrate that so you realize just how close we are to the
activity that's going to be taking place.
What we are asking is that we would like not to have the road and
gate. Weare already a two-gated community. At this time as far as
traffic goes, we can exit the community here off of Pebblebrooke
Drive, which is very conducive to traffic being that it doesn't have
homes alongside of it and there are not children playing.
It's literally about 200 yards before we hit the right-of-way that --
I mean 100 yards before we hit a right-of-way that takes us into
Publix, which is right about here.
And then to exit the shopping centers, we go onto 951, we turn
into our right-of-way, and we go into our 951 entrance. And so we can
visit the shops, exit the shops, all with right turns and not even have to
cross a road.
I understand that there's people on the east side of the community
in this section right over here that I think the county was saying would
probably prefer to just go through to the shopping center this way.
These people are the most adamant about not wanting the gate
and the road. As you can see, even if the gate and the road does come
through, these people probably will never use it. They will continue to
use this road, which is -- which allows us to move quicker and not
have cars, and then scoot right on over to the pop -- the shopping
centers.
So that -- what we're proposing -- and these people are very
unified on it. They have all signed and they're very adamant about it.
They do not want this entrance. They're very content going through
Page 13
October 12, 2004
the community, exiting this way.
At this point we can take a right and left turn on 951. We are
aware that road is going to grow and that our left turn option will be
taken away from us. That's fine. We are a two-gated community. We
can solve that problem by exiting a different way.
So basically what we're asking is that you would consider that the
community has been through quite a bit of change, and we are content
and we've been able to keep our composure and be happy and keep our
children happy, and we are just asking that you allow us to keep our
community as we've come to know it, and that we feel like the gate --
basically we have two gates, and 50 percent of the times they don't
work, but that's okay because they're located in areas that don't
encourage walk-throughs, you know.
We feel like if we -- there is supposed to be a gate there. We feel
like if that gate doesn't work, we're right adjacent to activity that could
be ongoing till two in the morning. We feel like a gate invites or
allows walk-ins where a continued wall that the developer has already
agreed to would not encourage walk-ins.
We feel like the gate opens us up to the retail and connects us to it
where a wall would kind of separate us and let us keep our sense of
community.
We feel like a gate does not protect us from the lights that we're
aware are going to be right there. We feel like a wall kind of secludes
us a little bit more, and we can put landscaping buffer and kind of
separate that.
As you can see, the two entrances -- you have an -- a gate here
and then a proposed gate here, the PUD road. There's literally four
houses that separates the two gates. I mean, if the roads (sic) are not
working, we feel like that this might be a temptation to the comm -- I
mean, if the gates are not -- which they're open during the day. We
feel like it might be a temptation for the community from people in the
area just to kind of turn around, use it as a turnaround.
Page 14
October 12, 2004
And this is a section where a lot of children play, and we'd hate to
see added traffic in the community.
So basically we just want to separate us from the activity, the
lights, the late hours, by allowing the developer to continue a wall.
I do have a letter from him saying that he has no opposition to
this, and I'd like to submit that to you from John DeAngelis, the
developer. And also I do have some more petitions to submit.
And so we're just asking for you to consider wavering (sic) any
fees that would be attached to this amendment and just allow us to
continue the wall and keep our community a bit secluded.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Justice?
MS. JUSTICE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You did a fine job.
MS. JUSTICE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have a homeowners'
association?
MS. JUSTICE: Yes, sir. And I did go before them, and I told
them -- and basically the chairman said, I wish you well, but this is an
issue between the people and the county. And he says, go about -- you
know, I hope it works for you.
So I did go before the association. You know, the -- you know,
the people probably have issues with associations, but that's
insignificant. But, you know, so therefore when I realized that I wasn't
going to be able to -- that they weren't going to become involved but
they weren't obj ective (sic) to it, then I just decided I would try to get
as many people to support it, and they naturally did.
Out of the 200 signatures, I only had four people who wouldn't
sign, and they really probably -- I probably could have talked them
into it, but I didn't. I respect their opinion. I can get more signatures,
and I can represent the community as a whole, if you choose.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, my perspective and what I
Page 15
October 12, 2004
prefer is, since there is a homeowners' association and the homeowners
are in control of the community, I would like your permission for me
to write a letter to the board of directors asking them to take a position
on that, and from that the Board of Commissioners can consider
putting it on a future agenda.
MS. mSTICE: Absolutely, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sounds good to me. How about you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Well, I think you have four nods
on that. Okay--
MS. mSTICE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- so Commissioner Henning has
suggested that you ask your homeowner -- or he's going to write.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll write a letter --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. mSTICE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- asking them to give the Board
of Commissioners guidance on behalf of the community.
MS. mSTICE: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning.
Great suggestion.
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION 2004-327: V A-2004-AR-6067, ROBERT K. AND
RUTH P. GAREE, PROPERTY OWNERS, REQUESTING
VARIANCES IN THE LEL Y COUNTRY CLUB PUD ZONING
DISTRICT (ORDINANCE NO. 84-85, PUD DOCUMENT SECTION
3.4.4.B.) AS FOLLOWS: 1) A 5-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED IS-FOOT, TWO STORY SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO
ALLOW A 10-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO LOT
Page 16
October 12, 2004
13; 2) A 6-FOOT 5-INCH VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15-
FOOT, TWO-STORY SIDE YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW AN 8-
FOOT-7-INCH SIDE YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO LOT 11;
AND 3) A 1-FOOT-11-INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM
WALL HEIGHT OF 6 FEET AS REQUIRED BY LDC SECTION
2.6.11.2.2., TO ALLOW A GARDEN WALL HEIGHT OF 7 FEET
11 INCH ADJACENT TO LOT 13. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED
AT 234 PALMETTO DUNES CIRCLE; FURTHER DESCRIBED
AS LOT 12, PALMETTO DUNES AT LELY COUNTRY CLUB-
AD.OEIED
And now we move on to item 7 A. And with this item, we ask
everyone who will be -- will be speaking to us this morning to please
stand and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any
ex parte to declare?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None for me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: None for me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, one second, please. 7A,
yes, correspondence and staff memos.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
And I have met with the petitioner and spoken to her and also
spoken with staff, and I have that in my file that will be here for public
viewing, if they so care.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, just for the record, this is 7 A. It's
item -- it's Robert K. and Ruth P. Garee, property owners, requesting
variances in the Lely Country Club PUD zoning district, ordinance
number 84-85, PUD document section 3.4.4.B., as follows: Paragraph
one, a 5- foot variance from the required 15- foot two-story side yard
setback to allow to a 10-foot side yard setback adjacent to lot 13;
Page 1 7
,,,_.~._-,."
October 12, 2004
Paragraph 2, a 6-foot, 5-inch variance from the required 15-foot
two-story side yard setback to allow an 8- foot, 7- inch side yard
setback adjacent to lot 11;
And paragraph 3, a I-foot II-inch variance from the maximum
wall height of 6 feet as required by LDC section 2.6.11.2.2 to allow a
garden wall height of 7 foot, 11 inches adjacent to lot 13.
The property is located at 234 Palmetto Dunes Circle, further
described as lot 12, Palmetto Dunes at Lely Country Club in Section
20, Township 50 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Before we go any further, David, do we --
we just need a 3-2 vote on this or -- we don't need a majority,
supermajority, do we?
MR. MUDD: Just a majority.
MR. WEIGEL: Three anything vote will do. Three is all that's
required, yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you very much. Just
wanting to make sure that --
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- you know, we shouldn't put it off till
Commissioner Halas returned.
Okay, fine. Let me call staff up, please, and tell us about this
particular subj ect.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Kay Deselem. I'm a principal planner with the development -- zoning
and development review.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you like to tell the staffs position?
MS. DESELEM: Yeah. I expected the petitioner to go forward
and I gave her some of my stuff, so wait a minute and I'll --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Sorry, Kay. I didn't mean to
catch you off guard.
MS. DESELEM: That's okay. Yes.
Good morning. You have the executive summary in front of you.
Page 18
October 12, 2004
What this comes down to -- and I'm sure the petitioner will want to
talk to you as well -- they're -- they have an existing single-family
single-story home and they want to add a second story to it.
As part of the review of the petition seeking the variances that are
required -- because in this particular subdivision the PUD document
has a different setback for two-story structures than it does for
single-story structures, so they needed to get a variance so that they
could use the actual footprint of the existing house to go up.
And in doing that, we determined that not only do they -- will
they not meet the setback for that second story, the house was placed
on the lot kind of in a skewed fashion, and it doesn't actually meet the
setbacks for the requirement of the single-story that already is there.
So staff did review the petition, and we had to look at both issues.
And we determined that since this is a single-story house surrounded
pretty much by single-story houses -- within the subdivision there's
only two other two-story homes. All the others are single-story.
And we determined that it would be out of character with the
neighborhood to approve the two-story; however, we are
recommending a partial approval of the petition that recognizes the
existing single-story structure so it will bring it into conformity with
the regulations.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Kay, I notice from the report here that you
showed where the two double-story, two-story places are, and they're
right there on the same street, aren't they?
MS. DESELEM: There is one, for lack of a better term,
catty -corner across the street, and the other one is on the same street,
but it's on a much larger lot on a corner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners, do --
MS. DESELEM: But, yes, they are the same street.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- you have any questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'm a little curious -- if I
may. The neighbors that are immediately adjacent to this and the one
Page 19
October 12, 2004
across the street, is there any objection that's coming from any
neighbors?
MS. DESELEM: No, they are not objecting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the --
MS. DESELEM: To the -- the ones that are immediately adjacent
__ there are letters in the file that you got, but the ones that are
immediately adjacent, my understanding is they have no objection.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the letters of objections, are
they coming from neighbors far removed or -- could you give me some
idea whereabouts they are on this map?
MS. DESELEM: Unfortunately, I'm sorry. I really can't tell you.
I don't know exactly where they live. I believe the one person is on --
is on Torrey Pines Circle, if we can kind of zone in on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: On the circle?
THE COURT REPORTER: Could you pull your microphone a
little closer?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He's a little nasaly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I've never been noted for
speaking softy. But I guess for a moment here -- I'm sorry.
If I may, the -- so the immediate neighbors aren't objecting. The
neighbor to the upper part of the screen there in that circle, there's a
neighbor there that's objecting --
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- is that correct?
MS. DESELEM: Yes. The other person that's objecting is
located at 117 Palmetto Dunes Circle. And I must apologize. I don't
know the exact location of that address, but I can tell you that it is on
the same street.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay. A couple other
questions, if I may.
The note in their objection, was it fairly general? In other words,
did they just object, or did they object for particular reasons?
Page 20
October 12, 2004
MS. DESELEM: The -- I can read you the letter, if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it would be beneficial,
you know, for weighing the situation here. I want to do what the
neighborhoods want. You know, basically when you come with
variances, you don't want to rub the neighbors the wrong way. If they
don't object with their neighbor having some variance, then why
should I stand in their way. But if you would, please.
MS. DESELEM: Yes. I'm reading from an August 19th letter
first from Kathy Matson, and she references in this, it says, I
previously sent a letter dated July 16th strongly objecting to the
proposed variance request identified in the above-captioned petition.
And I have enclosed a copy of this prior letter, so ifyou'll-- I'll
go to that prior letter so that -- because that's where the issues are.
I'm dropping down to where she actually goes into the issues.
Although this property is not closely adjacent to mine, I strongly
object to the granting of this variance for several reasons; one, there
are currently two other properties on Palmetto Dunes Circle which are
two-story structures and both have maintained the 15- foot setback
requirement;
Two, to my knowledge there has never been a variance granted of
this magnitude, 6 foot, 3 inches to allow the addition of a second story
or otherwise within Lely Country Club. To grant this variance would
set a very bad precedent with regard to any future requests for
variances of this degree;
Three, it is my understanding that the purpose of the 15- foot
setback for a two-story residence is to protect the privacy of the
adjacent property. I personally would not want a two-story residence
that close to my single-story home. At times the 10- foot setback
between single-story homes is insufficient in terms of privacy and
nOIse;
Four, in my opinion to allow a two-story home to infringe upon
the setbacks could severely impact the value of the adjacent properties.
Page 21
October 12, 2004
By granting the variance request of one property, parens, which would
substantially increase the value of, capital letters, that property, end of
parens, you may be causing a severe detrimental financial impact upon
the adj oining property.
Perhaps the current adjoining property owners do not object to
this variance and the possible future impact it may have on their
property. But once this variance is granted, any future request by
other property owners within the area would be difficult to deny since
the precedent has been set.
I am not willing to sacrifice the future value of my home -- that
sentence is underlined -- should my neighbor decide to add a second
story to his home which would violate the 15- foot setback requirement
and be allowed to do so to the granting of the Garee variance petition.
Five, if this is approved by Collier County, it will substantially
inhibit Lely County (sic) Country Club property owner association
from enforcing any -- the word any is capitalized -- setback
requirement with our covenants. Once a variance of this magnitude is
granted, any future requests for a substantial variance from the
setbacks will already have been the county's blessings.
Please do not approve this variance request. Thank you. Very
sincerely, Kathy J. Matson.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The next question
though. I'll just be just a second more and I'll finish up.
All the neighbors were notified in writing about this particular
item coming up before us; is that correct?
MS. DESELEM: They were notified pursuant to the
requirements of the LDC, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So -- and the immediate
neighbors didn't object. It's not a case of the fact that they weren't
notified. But I'm -- that's going to end what I have to ask you right
now. What I'm going to be looking for or to is possibly -- is there
speakers?
Page 22
October 12, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MS. FILSON : Yes, sir. I have three speakers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'll wait till that point in
time --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: First we'll let the petitioner come up and
present their case, and then we'll call on the speakers. There are two
other speakers besides the petitioner?
MS. FILSON: I have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Three speakers, okay, fine.
The petitioner, will you please come up and state your name, sir.
MR. GAREE: Good morning. My name's Bob Garee. I live at
234 Palmetto Dunes Circle in the Palmetto Dunes subdivision of Lely
Country Club. For the record, I'm employed by Collier County
development as a planning and mechanical inspector.
I'm here today representing myself, my wife Ruth, better known
as Polly. We're requesting a variance to allow to add a second floor to
a portion of our home and extend the front of our garage to the
minimum setback from the street requirements.
We surveyed our immediate neighbors, plus the ones across the
golf course behind our house on Torrey Pines Point and only received
positive comments. I believe you have copies of these in your file.
We took these to the Lely County Club property owners'
association and explained to them what we want to do. After some
discussion, a vote of the board of directors, they agreed to our request
for a variance. We received a letter of support from them in February.
A letter signed by Don W. Kincaid, vice-president, should also be in
your packet. I might add at this point that Mrs. Matson's husband was
there, and he was one of the opposing votes to the variance.
We went next to the county for a preapplication meeting with
Michelle Mosca and Linda Bedtelyon. We paid the $500 fee and
showed them our site plans to the house, the way it is now and what
we want to change it to.
Page 23
October 12, 2004
The Palmetto Dunes PUD documents require a 10- foot side yard
setback for a single-story home and a 15- foot side yard setback for a
two-story home.
We were told staff usually requires a hardship to support a
variance request, explained that our hardship was that the house does
need some major work and updating and we would like to have more
space. Request to be able to do both at the same time. We believe that
our house, when completed, will be an asset to the neighborhood, and
our neighbors expressed the same thought.
We already have two two-story homes in the immediate area.
Some of the homes in our area are getting older, and as they are
remodeled and updated, it only adds to the value of our community.
After our meeting, we were told that our house was built illegally
in 1982 according to the original site plan and permit. We did not
have the çorrect side setback. Our garden wall off the master bath was
taller than was allowed by code, and we'd have to get an after-the- fact
variance at a cost of $4,000 to us.
We didn't feel that we should be penalized for something that was
constructed in 1982, and that it was not up to us to pay for this
correction.
Staff then came back and said that we would be able to come
before the commissioners and ask for that $4,000 fee to be waived,
which was requested and scheduled for your agenda on May 25th.
On the 21 st of May, Susan Murray called and said that after
review, the after-the- fact variance could be done as an administrative
variance or included with the variance for second story under the
standard fee for this variance. She instructed us to cancel our request to
speak under the public petition at the Collier County Commissioners'
meeting on the 25th of May.
The county staff decided we should go ahead with the latter of the
two. So after this delay, we completed the paperwork for this
variance, paid additional fees, completed other things needed and
Page 24
....._~.".._._._'--'--~
October 12, 2004
finally got to the point we are today.
In response to some of the statements that have been made
concerning our variance request, our home will be only 20- foot from
the home construction on lot 13 in lieu of the 25 that would be
required, 10- foot on their lot and 15- foot on ours put a concern that
this reduction will restrict in area to that home.
This home has only two opaque bathroom windows on the side
facing our house. Norm and Elayne Planer own the home and wrote a
letter of approval for us. Mrs. Planer's here today in support of our
vanance.
The second floor addition will not extend to the existing exterior
wall on the side facing lot 11. The 15- foot rule for the portion of
construction that is only one story has not been enforced in the past.
This neighbor also supports our variance.
Our home will still be smaller and farther from the street than
what could be accomplished by a complete demolition and
construction of a new home at all of the minimum setbacks.
One of your other letters of opposition was from a Mr. Chism.
And there are only two that I am aware of; one was Mr. Chism and one
was Mrs. Matson.
To correct staff, Mr. Chism's address is 106 Quail Hollow Court.
Quail Hollow Court is within Lely Country Club. It is not part of
Palmetto Dune subdivision. We know of no objection to anyone on
Torrey Pines.
Mr. Chism wrote a letter of opposition to our variance, which he
signed as president of the association. Some members of the Planning
Commission seemed to give great credence to that letter.
I'd like to advise this board that Mr. Chism's letter is not the
opinion of the property owners' board of directors. His letter's in direct
opposition to the approval we received from the board. I believe you
have a copy of that approval. In addition, Mr. Chism does not live in
the country club Lely -- does live in Lely Country Club, but not within
Page 25
.-'. ,.-.-"
October 12,2004
Palmetto Dunes.
Mrs. Kathy Matson sent two letters in opposition to our variance.
Mrs. Matson and her husband both object to two-story homes and
campaigned against a two-story house put across the street from us at
233 Palmetto Dune Circle.
I don't think that they'd like it any better if we were to tear ours
down and build a new two-story home. It just seems to be a thing with
them that they're against two-story homes in general.
We're not aware of any other letters of opposition. We went up
and down the street, across the golf course, and found only support,
with one person that would not sign for support. I asked if he'd like to
sign as opposition, he said no. He really didn't want to take a position
until the final architectural plans were done.
Staff has recommended that the variance for only the
after-the-fact item's to be approved. The main objection of the new
variance seems to be the mass of the home will be larger than most of
the other homes. While this is true, the total home size will still be
considerably smaller than what could be corrected -- could be
constructed if we elected to demolish the existing home and build a
new home to all the minimum setbacks.
The Planning Commission approved staffs recommendations
with three members supporting a full vari -- our full variance requests.
Some of the negative comments received from that board were, if we
did not like the covenants, we should not have bought there. Another
covenant (sic) was that if we wanted a larger home, we should do the
traditional American thing and move.
Positive comments were that the homeowners should not be
locked out of building on and improving their homes. Other
communities do not differentiate between one- and two-story homes,
and Lely should not either.
We believe that over 30 percent of the homes in the Palmetto
Dunes subdivision do not currently fully comply with the PUD
Page 26
October 12, 2004
requirements and protective covenants. Thirty-seven of the 119 homes
have shingle roofs in lieu of the required tile roofs. Ten of the homes
do not have the approved mailboxes and lamps, and three have garden
walls over 6- foot tall. And this was a casual observance, just a quick
drive around the neighborhood.
While we're not suggesting that any of these infractions require
correction, we also do not feel that it is fair to hold us to a higher
standard than has been enforced in the past.
We believe that properly a designed and constructed addition to
our home will not deteriorate from the appearance or value of any
home within our neighborhood, and therefore request that this board
grant our variance request.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Sir.
Commissioner Henning, would you like to hear the speakers first,
or would you like to ask this gentleman a question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a quick question --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- if you don't mind.
Are you seeking a -- to waive the fees for this variance?
MR. GAREE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. GAREE: We've paid the fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. GAREE: The fees that we -- the May 25th was the $4,000
after-the- fact fee that they were -- told us at one time were going to be
imposed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But you've grouped them all together in
this one petition?
MR. GAREE: Yeah. But we have paid the fees for this petition.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much.
And will you call the speakers, please.
Page 27
~-----'.-
October 12,2004
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. Ted -- Ted DeGroot. He will be
followed by Elayne Planer.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And you each have five minutes.
MR. DeGROOT: Good morning. I'm Ted DeGroot. I live at 231
Palmetto Dunes. And as I like to say, I'm the person probably most
impacted by this modification. I live directly across the street from the
subj ect property. And just for the record, just to the bottom --
MR. MUDD: Right over here, just point to it.
MR. DeGROOT: This is my house, which is right here. The
two-story house that we're talking about is on this lot, and there's
another two-story house on the lot right next to me.
So there are two-story homes -- there's a two-story house right
next door to me, there's going to be a two-story house right across the
street from me, and there's another two-story house within easy sight
of where I live.
I should also tell you that I am a realtor, so I understand the
impact -- the financial impact of having additional stories on houses in
our neighborhood.
Also, I am chairman of a bylaws committee currently rewriting
the bylaws and the covenants for Lely Country Club where this will
take place, and we see that this kind of modification probably is
coming in the future for other homes in Lely Country Club.
And one of the things under consideration within the bylaws
committee writing the regulations may be a new clause dealing with
second-story homes, additions. There are only two lots left in Lely
Country Club, both are on Palmetto Dunes, both are privately owned
by folks who live on the street, by the way.
I am strongly in favor of allowing this to go forward. I believe
that there will be a great advantage in increasing the space available
for homes within Lely Country Club in part because of its location in
relationship to downtown Lely -- or downtown Naples.
Weare -- we are one of the -- well, we are the closest single
Page 28
October 12,2004
community of primarily single-family homes to downtown Naples of
any size. We're the only non-gated community that's basically in our
area at all that's of any size.
The objections to this -- I should also mention that the one
objection is coming from someone who lives on the far side who will
not have any -- building of a second story will not have any impact on
their house. It's looking at it only from the community trying to
maintain green space.
We're fortunate we have a pretty -- pretty much of a -- there's a
lot of green space in Lely Country Club compared with most of the
other communities. So that really is a benefit.
Everything considered and all the impacts that we can see
happening with this home, and personally with all the impacts I see
happening with all the construction going on across the street from me,
I still am very much in favor of adding or approving the addition of a
second-story home on this property.
I would like you to mandate two modifications though, one is that
two of the three sides should have some setback of some kind, should
not be flat. You have two sides you can see on the front of the house.
Two of the three should have some setback.
And secondly, that the rise on the roof be the minimum
acceptable increase in size for drainage and all those things. So it
would not be a flat roof, but it would not be a particularly high-peaked
roof. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Elayne Planer. She will be
followed by your final speaker, Donald Peterman.
MS. PLANER: I'm Elayne Planer, and I, facing the Garee
residence, would be directly on the right. I'm right next to them. And
I am -- very much would like to approve this variance. In my opinion
it would be beneficial to the whole neighborhood, because any
improvement such as they're going to do would certainly improve the
Page 29
._-,--"-_.~
October 12, 2004
value of any home on that street.
And I think as the homes are getting older on that street, each and
every one of us are going to want to, at one time or another, add up or
tear down or build on. And I think all of Naples, they're all doing it,
downtown in Naples, it's proper. They're tearing down and building
up, and I don't see why we should not be able to do that, too, to
improve the ambiance of our neighborhood. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Mr. Donald Peterman.
MR. PETERMAN: My name is Donald Peterman. I'm a
neighbor of the Garees.
MR. MUDD: Speak in the mike, sir.
MR. PETERMAN: I'm a neighbor of the Garees, about 10
houses removed. And I'm just here, just to support them as a neighbor.
I think they should have the variance. They've been very good
neighbors. I know them well. And since they brought -- Lely Country
Club property owners' association has approved this, I don't see why
we should not be for them.
I've looked at other houses that are built as two-story buildings, in
the, I think it's Kings Lake subdivision, that they have added second
stories, and they have been very attractive, and I think it will do the
same thing -- the Garees will do the same thing for us in our Palmetto
Dunes subdivision. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
That's all the public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The public hearing is closed.
Commissioners, do you have any questions or anything? Well,
I'll tell you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just waiting for your guidance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm waiting for your guidance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I -- seeing that it seems to be
Page 30
--- ^ ..._--~,..-
October 12,2004
something that will please the neighborhood, it will improve their
property values, but most of all because it's an old neighborhood. And
I know in our neighborhood, too, it's -- after a while the houses get so
outdated that their value begins to decrease, and I think this is going to
be great for the neighborhood, great for the improvement of the
neighborhood, and I would like to make a motion to approve the
recommend -- the --
MR. MUDD: Petitioner's request.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- petitioner's request. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a second by Commissioner
Coletta, then I have Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Looking at staff's report on the
variance, will it be harmonious with the general intent and the purpose
of the land development code, in citing that no, it appears the approval
request variance would be out of character for the neighborhood citing
that most of the homes in there are single- fam -- or one-story instead
of two-story.
And I guess I have a concern, even looking at my own
neighborhood, you have a mixture of single -- or single-story and
two-story. Just recently we had somebody build a two-story that --
probably 35-foot high. And I think choices in different heights and
landscaping, colors, and all those things is good for the neighborhood,
you know, my opinion. I'm not sure if we should have all red roofs, all
palm trees in the front, all the same color houses. I think we can
distinct ( sic) ourselves.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I took it from somebody's testimony here
that they feel that way too, being that they're going to address the
bylaw for their property owners' association because they seem to feel
that they need to modernize them as well and add that provision for a
two-story, and that was a big selling point for me.
Commissioner Coyle?
Page 31
October 12, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The -- one of the speakers
mentioned what was happening in the City of Naples, and I'd just like
to expand upon that because I have, you know, of course, personal
experience in what's been going on in the City of Naples.
There has been massive redevelopment there, and as I understand
the residents' presentations here, you'd like to see this entire
community get redeveloped and improved, and I can understand that.
But from a philosophical standpoint, I can tell you that the worst
ways to do that is by granting individual variances. The best way to
do that is to get a community plan. Because once individual variances
of this magnitude are approved, then you're going to have to approve
them for everybody who asks for them.
And what that means is a general reduction in setbacks for any
home, and you've changed the entire character of the community. And
some people, perhaps, would object to that, quite frankly. Even with
the variance the petitioner's requesting, the setback is still larger than it
is in most lots in Naples, so it is a reasonable setback.
The only problem is, is that what the entire community wants and
does the community understand the impact of a decision that we make
today? And so, you know, as everybody knows, I generally do not
vote in favor of variances unless there is a hardship, and my reason for
doing that is that everybody should know when they buy property
what can and cannot be placed there. And to buy it and then come in
and change the rules is, in my opinion, not the proper way to do the
county's business.
But I'm not going to vigorously oppose this. It's not in my district.
You know the community needs better than I do, Madam Chair. But I
would only suggest that if there is an interest of the community in
seeing some redevelopment in their community, that there should be
some standard set of guidelines.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think that's what they're putting together
right now. I think that they realize that they want to go in that
Page 32
October 12, 2004
direction. And as someone -- someone said, they are rewriting them
now to address that same point, because you're absolutely right. I
mean, they do have to have some guidelines.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if that is the case, then I worry
about one additional thing. If they're writing the guidelines, is it better
to wait for this decision until the guidelines are developed by the
community, or would the granting of a fairly substantial variation
influence the guidelines and, thereby, give everyone the position to
argue for similar variances on all of their lots?
So it is a serious concern because the decision you make is going
to affect the character of this community, and whatever the people in
that community want for the character in their community is what they
already have. And it seems to me that -- my preference would be to
wait until the community gets these guidelines set, set some design
standards and some setbacks that are acceptable and then consider it,
but that's -- that's where I'm going.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
approve the petitioner's request by Commissioner Fiala, and a second
by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have that 3-1 vote. Thank you
very much. I know it was a tough decision, Commissioners, but thank
you very much.
Thank you, folks.
We move on now to --
Page 33
October 12, 2004
MR. MUDD: 8A was continued until the 16th -- the 16th of
November.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2004-65: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO THE LEL Y CDD BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS CONSENTING TO LEL Y CDD'S SPECIAL
And that brings us to item 8B, and that's an ordinance of the
Board of County Commissioners to the Lely CDD Board of
Supervisors consenting to Lely CDD's special powers for enhanced
security. And I read a change into the record to start this morning on
this particular item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. The ordinance already read that
way, didn't it?
MR. BRYANT: There was one additional -- Madam Chair,
Commissioners, David Bryant, district council for the Lely CDD.
Mr. White and Mr. Litsinger and I saw that there were several
words that should have been added to the -- to the ordinance, and
we've agreed on that language consistent with the board's approval.
After the word cost and expense, in the fourth line, it should be
added, off-duty Florida highway department officers and private
vendors provide licensed, trained uniform officer to perform security
patrol functions for the Lely Community Development District
provided that such private vendor may not exercise any police powers.
And we've all agreed on that with the board's approval. We
wanted the ordinance to be as it has been for the last 10 years. In the
executive summary you'll see that we specifically talked about the fact
that the LCDD has Florida highway patrol officers off duty working
there.
Page 34
October 12, 2004
As far as the language adding the roads, we have no problem with
that, because as I said earlier, there's never been a desire to gate
anything there.
So with that, I would request that the board approve this if that's
the board's feeling.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let's see. We have to declare a public
hearing, right?
Are there any speakers on this subj ect?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
MR. LITSINGER: Staff is in agreement with the changes that
Mr. Bryant has noted. I also would like to note that clarification that
Wildfire --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Flower.
MR. LIT SINGER: -- Wildflower Way was also added as one of
the roads specifically to not have any gates.
MR. BRYANT: And we have no problem with that, Madam
Chair. And one other thing, I'd like to ask, or thank your staff for
being so helpful in this, specifically Mr. Litsinger and in his office,
Glenn Heath, and Patrick White and Jeff Glathgow (phonetic) in the
county attorney's office. Without their assistance, we wouldn't have
been able to work this out.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
We have no speakers, presentation's are given, public hearing is
closed.
And, Commissioners, do you have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Then I'd like to make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Page 35
___.._ _~__w_
October 12,2004
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MR. BRYANT: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, David. It's great
when you see people working together, staff and petitioners, and come
up on the right side.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, 8C is probably one of those items
that we need to continue until -- until Commissioner Halas gets back
because you need a supermajority for this particular item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we ask the petitioner
whether they want to continue it until Commissioner Halas comes
back.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We'll go forward.
MR. MUDD: You'll go?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We'll go forward.
MR. MUDD: They're ready to go.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, they're going to go for it?
MR. MUDD: The petitioner --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's their dime.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's a good suggestion. It's great that you
asked.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: The petitioner's ready to hear 8C, and this
particular item was continued from the July 27th, 2004, Board of
Page 36
October 12, 2004
County Commissioners meeting. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
It's petition PUDZ-2003-AR-4250, Golden Gate Fire Control and
Rescue District and Waterway Joint Venture IV represented by Karen
Bishop ofPMS, Inc., of Naples, and Richard D. Yovanovich of
Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A., requesting a rezone from the
rural agricultural zoning district to the mixed planned unit
development zoning district to allow development of a fire station --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Mudd, we're going to have to
stop the hearing. We don't have a quorum.
MR. MUDD: I knew we should have continued this item.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did you want to declare a
break?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we okay? Okay. We've got
three commissioners now.
MR. MUDD: Thank you, sir. And I'll-- and I'll go back. They
want to go from rural agricultural zoning district to mixed planned unit
development zoning district to allow development of a fire station with
135-foot high communication tower and a 75-foot high training
facility and 16 single-family attached dwellings, including townhouses
intended for fee simple conveyance, including the platted lot
associated with the residents and the customary accessory uses.
Property is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard, County
Road 951, approximately 340 feet north of Wolf Road in Section 34,
Township 48 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida, consisting
of9.38 plus or minus acres.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Who's going to present
first? Oh, we have to swear everybody in. Sorry.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. MUDD: Any ex parte?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Do any of the
Page 37
October 12, 2004
commissioners have ex parte disclosures to make?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I talked to the petitioner, I've
talked to numerous residents in the area, I've talked to, as early as
today, to Vanderbilt Beach Country society.
I -- little disappointed you're not going to wait for Commissioner
Coyle to -- or Commissioner Halas to return. It may be in your best
interest to do so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Is that it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have ex parte, received some
e-mails, phone calls, and I did talk to the community development
director, administrator, and planning director on this item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Is that it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I have met with the
petitioner, representatives of the fire department, I've also met with
residents who were in opposition to this particular development, and I
have discussed it with staff.
And Commissioner Fiala --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- do you have any ex parte?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, I do. I have also met with the
petitioner, members of the fire board and department, as well as their
attorney and planner, and I've talked with staff, and I have a bunch of
mail that I have in a folder here.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, the petitioner just asked me to
continue this item until Commissioner Halas comes back, if that would
be okay with the board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
Page 38
" -..-.----"
October 12, 2004
MR. MUDD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, then we'll --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we can still stay sworn in, right?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. I think we can still stay sworn in.
This is -- we're going to continue this item until we have five
commissioners on the dais.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2004-66 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE
CREATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE; PROVIDING FOR THE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT,
REVISION, OR MODIFICATION TO THAT ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION AND INCLUSION IN THE
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR
The next item on our agenda is 8D, and that's a consideration of
an ordinance providing for the creation of the Collier County
Administrative Code; providing for the subsequent amendment,
revision, or modification to that administrative code; providing for
conflict and severability; providing for the codification and inclusion
in the code of laws and ordinance; and providing for an effective date.
And Mr. Joe Schmitt will present. Maybe Mr. Joe Schmitt won't
present.
Susan Murray?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we wait till Commissioner
Halas returns?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Boy, I sure wish they wrote this in more
Page 39
_'___ _·...__H__·
October 12, 2004
basic terms. So many things those words could mean.
MR. MUDD: I think we had a -- I think we had a comfort station
issue, and so one item was there, and then -- but I think we found Mr.
Schmitt, and Mr. Schmitt will present item 10D (sic).
MR. SCHMITT: We didn't know they were continuing so
quickly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Listen, we're fast.
MR. WEIGEL: 8D.
MR. SCHMITT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Joe Schmitt, administrator of community development/environmental
servIces.
We're here this morning basically for you to consider an
ordinance that adopts an administrative code. And what it will do is
allow for the comprehensive compilation of these procedures that are
regularly performed by county government in a special administrative
booklet or administrative code and consolidate those kind of staff
functions. Basically the purpose of this is to simplify the process.
What we've done is we relocate sections, selected procedures
from the LDC to the administrative code. This ordinance does nothing
more than creates the process so that we can then build an
administrative code, and they will -- that code will contain the
minimum regulations necessary to add -- amend that code and simplify
any of the instructions provided to the industry.
Basically what -- how did we get there? This drawing basically
shows what happened. And as you well know, we went through the
recodification of the unified -- and I label it here unified land
development code because it will now become the land development
code.
And those administrative procedures that are not land use specific
and land use specific type items to define in the code, the
administrative -- selected administrative functions will be split off into
an administrative code.
Page 40
October 12, 2004
We already have a series of those. Your packet includes many of
the construction type specifications that really have to do with "how
to" after the land use is already approved, and that's how to design
cul-de-sacs, how to design water, all the other type of things.
In the yellow are the issues that were extracted from the old LDC,
the fee and fee schedules, the prescriptive design requirements for
subdivisions, and they include the list as shown, alleys, access,
monuments, sanitary sewage system, and streets. All those cookbook
type design criteria that really do not belong in the land development
code. They belong in the administrative code.
Possible future additions include the "how to" specifications, and
as I note in the underlined, the specifications and design requirements
and procedures to use after the zoning process.
We hope that it would include the utility standards and
procedures, and I put et cetera because it's other -- and other
administrative type functions.
The amendment process and the purpose for this is to allow for an
easier amendment process in regards to amending administrative
procedures rather than land development procedures. And this would
only require a majority vote rather than a supermajority. There's no
requirement for official advertising.
We certainly, because these are industry specific criteria, would
be vetted through the Development Services Advisory Committee,
and, frankly, they would be part of a regular agenda or a consent
agenda item before the BCC, meaning that they would not require a
special evening hearing like the LDC does now, LDC amendments
where you have two hearings before the Planning Commission and
two hearings before the Board of County Commissioners.
With that, do you have any questions? That basically concludes
the presentation. Our recommendation is that the board approve the
proposed ordinance adopting the administrative code for Collier
County, including and -- Exhibit A that contains the initial provisions
Page 41
October 12, 2004
of the Collier County Administrative Code.
And with me today is Mr. Patrick White. Patrick and some of--
and my staff, Russell Webb, have been working well over a year as far
as the amendments to the LDC in regards to -- or the recodification of
the LDC to the unified code, which will become the land development
code, and the creation in the administrative code.
So with that, that concludes my presentation. What are your
questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
MR. WHITE: Just one minor housekeeping matter, if 1 may,
Madam Chair. Assistant county attorney, Patrick White.
There was one change to the provision 2-12, other than that
which was originally in your packets, and it was an error on my part
where it stated first that the county attorney in consultation with the
county manager would make the agenda determinations when, in fact,
it's just the reverse, and the version that we're asking you to approve
today is one that says that the county manager in consultation with the
county attorney would make those recommendations as to where they
go on the agenda, so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have no speakers on this item?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. The public hearing is closed. And
we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a couple of questions of
clarification.
You're putting certain design requirements in the administrative
code?
Page 42
October 12, 2004
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's my understanding the reason for
doing this, it can be more easily changed by staff, but these changes
must all come to the Board of County Commissioners --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- for approval?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. They must come to the Board of County
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, let me remind you of a
change that was made to our land development code earlier this year,
and that was a requirement for sidewalks --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- on both sides of streets and
certain widths and that sort of thing that was kind of controversial, and
I'm not sure all of the commissioners supported all of those changes.
How will that process change with this administrative code?
MR. SCHMITT: That's -- very good question. The -- and I may
need to get some help from Patrick here, but the administrative code
would most likely only deal with how thick the sidewalk would be, the
width of the sidewalk, how far from the curb, those kind of things.
The requirement for the sidewalks, whether they're a frontline arterial
or collectors or those type of things would be land development code
issues. And Patrick --
MR. WHITE: And I think that your division administrator has
precisely defined the line that is the difference between a land
development regulation, which will always remain and must be part of
the land development code, and its implementing process and
standards that are appropriate to put into an administrative code.
We're going to have a learning curve. We had discussions
yesterday with staff in that regard, and the simple answer is, if there's
any doubt, we will leave them in the LDC as opposed to putting them
in the administrative code.
Page 43
October 12, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm merely raising that question
because in this particular administrative code, there are discussions
about the widths of certain things.
MR. WHITE: Yes.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the widths of sidewalks, of
course, was the topic of those discussions we had earlier.
So my question to you is, since you said these changes to the
administrative code will not require public advertisement, certainly the
widths of certain things, like streets and/or sidewalks, will have a
dramatic impact upon property owners and buyers and developers.
And how are they to understand the impact of a change in the
administrative code if it is not publicly advertised?
MR. SCHMITT: It will still be publicly advertised as an agenda
item --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: -- in regards to the agenda for the Board of
County Commissioners, but it will not be advertised in specific terms
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Specifically in the newspaper.
MR. SCHMITT: -- like an LDC amendment. But certainly it's
going to be vetted to the industry. And from a -- regards to the
Development Services Advisory Committee, they're the ones that
really are the implementers of this, and naturally those who monitor
what is going on in regards to coming before the Board of County
Commissioners.
But certainly our position is we will err on the side of, it will be
an LDC amendment. Some of those issues are exactly that. The only
reason it's in the administrative code now, because what was -- what's
in this now that is prescriptive in nature is in the code and has been
extracted, is no longer part of the UDC. And as -- our consultant
extracted these kind of criteria and it's now part of the administrative
Page 44
October 12, 2004
code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The -- when we're talking about
this form that is on page 2 of 4 of this proposed ordinance, is that a
form that is used for the purposes of changing the administrative code,
or is that going to be the way it is presented in our documentation?
MR. WHITE: It's the latter, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right.
MR. WHITE: And there would be --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we will still have an executive
summary, I presume, that will specify the fiscal impact --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- of any of these changes, right?
And so we're not eliminating that process.
MR. SCHMITT: And for the record, the DSAC approved this
concept. They were briefed last week, and they approved the entire
concept. They think it's much more significant an improvement than
what we currently had.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And can we obtain in -- and will
you agree to provide in the executive summaries an assessment of the
potential impact of these changes to the community?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you do that in the executive
summary without great difficulty?
MR. SCHMITT: We will attempt to qualify and quantity the
impact and assess the second and third order effects that that may
have, and that's -- we will attempt to do that, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good.
MR. SCHMITT: In some cases it may be very difficult, but a
sidewalk is a good issue. What's the additional cost or projected
additional cost per -- you know, per foot or whatever. We can -- we
can do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But my concern is that since we're
Page 45
October 12, 2004
doing it through a less demanding process, I would like to at least try
to identify all of those segments of the community that might be
impacted by these changes --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- so that we can communicate with
them in advance, okay? That's really where I'm going with that line of
questioning. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right. I, too, had just a couple
concerns, and that's not for now. I think it's wonderful that we -- we
condense the LDC a little bit and not make it so cumbersome. Right
now I have a lot of faith not only in my fellow commissioners, but in
Mr. Mudd and Mr. Schmitt and Norm Feder. I feel very, very
comfortable with our government as it is, but we can't tell what's going
to happen in the future.
And I sometimes -- I found some concern throughout this as a
new county manager would come onboard and maybe he wouldn't
have the same -- maybe we would discover along the way that maybe
he was a little lost in the job or something, as has happened in the past,
or he had different philosophies, and I would just want to make sure
that if that ever happened, might be -- we would be able to readdress
this.
MR. WHITE: If I may, Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. WHITE: I think the vision is that if you're going to go
ahead and authorize the creation of this administrative code, one of the
first things you're going to see beyond these two pieces we're putting
input today is an amendment that actually would bring forward much
of the process of how the actual administrative code itself would
operate, the structure of it and all of those things.
And that's always been our intention to have that before you, it's
just simply not wanting to bring all of that detail to your consideration
initially if the idea itself was not going to find favor.
Page 46
October 12, 2004
So we've had those discussions. Those concerns you're raising
are exactly the ones we anticipate and I think are being addressed by
what will be the next round of amendments to this administrative code
that will be presented to you before any further substantive additions
of either administrative procedure or any kind of standards are added
into the actual code itself.
So you'll get the kind of rules of operation. They'll be vetted
through the staff, they'll be vetted through the advisory boards that are
appropriate, including the county manager's offices, so that when you
see this work product for your consideration, it should have, hopefully,
all the things in there adequate to address your concerns raised today.
They are valid ones, and I'm glad to hear you're concerned about them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sometimes -- sometimes subjects are
woven into the fabric so that you can't really see what it's going to
come out to look like when the product is finished, and I -- I feel very
comfortable with what we have now, but I think what we're doing
planning for the future. And although I plan on being here 25 more
years, and I'm sure you guys do too, I mean, we have to plan for it
after that.
MR. WHITE: I think Commissioner Coyle and this board
recognized that as part of the LDC readoption process when we first
talked back in June and May about unintended consequences. And in
fact, I'd argue that one of the things that an administrative code does
when it's fully fleshed out and matured, is it contemplates those
consequences in a way that's intended. So I'm hoping we can find
favor with it today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. We have -- oh. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One question. One additional
request of the staff. You say that you have extracted all of this data
from the land development code.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like an affirmative
Page 47
October 12, 2004
statement from staff that there is nothing in this administrative code
which changes the intent of the land development code.
MR. WHITE: I can make that statement on behalf of the staff. I
personally am the one who edited the text that was taken directly from
the LDC, and the only changes that were made were with respect to
formatting and with respect to titles to indicated that it was county
manager or designee, which is the same format we followed for all of
the LDC.
And I had the fact-based piece of the standards reviewed by staff
after the same kind of concern was raised at DSAC last week, and had
it verified that, in fact, what they saw and what you're seeing are the
existing LDC provisions that will be going out of effect on Monday
and hopefully come in effect today as administrative code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second to approve.
And further discussions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
You know, it's 10:24. I think before we get onto the next item,
we're going to take a 10-minute break and let the fingers of our court
reporter get a little rest.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is the next item -- is it 9A?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have Councilman John Sorey
Page 48
October 12,2004
here for that one, so I just wanted to make sure he was aware that we
were going to have that next.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Thank you. It looks like we
have a few people here for that item. Okay.
(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.
Let's see. We move on to item 9A.
Item #9 A
OPPOSING THE CITY OF NAPLES' VESSEL SPEED ZONES-
STAFF TO GATHER INFORMATION ON DATA PERTAINING
TO ISSUE, FORM AN UNBIASED EV ALUA TION AND HAVE
MR. MUDD: And that's -- this item was continued from June
22nd, 2004, BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to consider
resolution opposing the City of Naples vessel speed zones, and this
was at -- asked for by Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, the reason I want
to bring this item forward for board to take action, I have been
following this item, monitoring the city council on this issue. I also
went to a -- it's a public workshop between the Conservancy and the
Marine Industries Association.
It's come to my attention by the discussion, there are certain
actions that the Fish and Wildlife will consider under changing boat
speeds, and this issue being Naples Bay.
The first consideration is safety and welfare, prevention of injury
Page 49
October 12, 2004
to persons or property, being boats and the public.
The second issue is manatee protection. Madam Chair,
Commissioners, what I have witnessed is, the reason for changing the
speed is other issues besides what is laid out by the governance of the
Florida state government.
And I think it's important that all the commissioners understand
this and what the facts are on this issue, and I'm hoping from that the
Board of Commissioners will take action and intervene on behalf of all
the residents and visitors of Collier County, we give certain direction
to our county attorney acting on behalf of the Board of
Commissioners.
There are some speakers, and Councilman Sorey's here. I think
with the public input, the board, I'm hoping, will take action on this
issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do we have a presenter?
MR. MUDD: I think we have -- I think the people have -- the
public has registered to speak. And if there is a presenter, I think that
presentation will come during one of the petitions, from what I
understand, because we did get a CD ROM that we hooked into the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Phil Osborne -- Madam Chair, if
you'll indulge, Phil Osborne on behalf of the Marine Industries
Association -- the Marine Industries Association has some facts on this
issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if we could bring that out to
the public.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you would like him to be like the lead
into this subject before we have the speakers; is that what you'd--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- like to do? Okay, fine.
Mr. Osborne.
MR. OSBORNE: I guess that would be me.
Page 50
October 12, 2004
Thank you, Commissioners, for --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: For the record, you are?
MR. OSBORNE: Oh, for the record, I am Phil Osborne, and I am
representing the Marine Industries Association of Collier County.
And, again, I would like to thank all the commissioners, chairman --
Chairwoman Fiala, for hearing our cause today.
Bear with me. I am technologically challenged so -- I've never
done one of these presentations before, but I understand it's just an
arrow thing, so --
MR. MUDD: That's it.
MR. OSBORNE: Okay, great.
What we've done is we've put together a power point presentation
so that the commissioners have a clear understanding as to what the
State of Florida allows for local municipalities to govern and make
changes on its waterways.
Those three criteria are presented as follows: The first is clearly
for the protection of life, limb, vessel traffic safety, and maritime
property and manatees; one, two, and three.
Clearly, the Uniform Waterway Markers in Florida say that no
boating restricted area be established, continued in effect, or enforced
for the purpose of noise abatement or for the protection of shoreline,
shoreline structures, or upland property from the vessel wake or
shoreline wash.
What that's saying is that property owners, because their
backyards are subj ect to wakes from vessel traffic, cannot -- they can
petition local government to ask for regulation to prevent that, but that
is not one of the criteria that the state allows.
Threat to life and limb is the first, as Commissioner Henning
pointed out. It is important to understand that the accident data that is
available, the compilation from the sheriffs department, city police,
other agencies, clearly shows -- I believe the total number was -- I'm
going to try this. I don't know. This -- yes.
Page 51
October 12, 2004
This chart is going to show the type of vessels that were involved
in accidents. In the first category -- very hard to see, I apologize --
there were a total, I believe, of 20 couple accidents. It is important to
note that as of those 20 couple, there were four accidents considered
for speed zone enhancement in the last 45 months.
Only one of those accidents took place inside of Naples Bay. The
total number of accidents we discussed is in all of Collier County,
okay, which is not up for discussion here, only the area of Naples Bay
that the city chooses to enforce.
In that area there was only one, and -- one, excuse me, that was
involved in an area where vessels were actually underway in the 30
mile an hour zone or what the city refers to as the racetrack area.
The rest of the accidents all took place in fueling situations,
around the dock, as a result of either equipment failure or operator
failure, okay? Only one accident in the last 45 months took place in
the area by which the city wants to govern. That certainly is not
criteria, in our opinion, enough to warrant a change.
The next slide is information that was taken from the Naples Bay
Boat Traffic Study which was conducted by the University of Miami
in 2002 in preparation for the consideration for Hamilton Harbor.
It est -- there are six zone classifications when an area or
waterway is examined, and they range from A -- levels of service A
through levels of service F. And our Naples Bay was examined by this
service -- and don't do this to me. All right.
This one -- this slide points out from marker 32A, which is up at
the Gordon River, down through Naples Landing, across from city
dock, out through to include marker four in the pass.
You'll see that there is an A, B, or C delineation beside each area.
The overwhelming majority of Naples Bay is deemed to be level A or
level B. There is only one area that achieved a level C where volume
is considered on the first portions of higher, okay? And that is in the --
again, the area that they keep referring to as the racetrack.
Page 52
October 12, 2004
I personally have never seen that delineation on any chart.
Nowhere does it say racetrack on there, okay.
So clearly from a traffic study standpoint, it would be -- it would
be very difficult to prove the case.
The last area or criteria is in manatee count. It is important to
note that there have been zero manatee carcasses recovered in the pass
or in this area that they are wanting to restrict since the Manatee
Protection Plan in Collier County was established in 1994. I would
say that that clearly indicates that the plan is working, and an
additional restriction certainly would be unwarranted.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you say that one more time,
please? Let me hear that one more time.
MR. OSBORNE: Yes, ma'am. The studies that have been done
clearly show that since the implementation of the Collier County
Manatee Protection Plan that was approved by the State of Florida in
1994, there have been zero, that's none, manatee carcasses recovered
in this area.
This is merely, in our opinion -- all we're trying to do is give a
clarification of facts. Commissioner Henning is exactly right when he
states that the state agencies that we'll need to put the stamp of
approval on the city's desires are going to get this information, and
they're going to review the same information I just presented to you,
obviously in more detail. But that's the crux of it, okay?
There's no facts to support their cases. If you've gone to the
meetings, we ask for facts. We keep hearing about water quality,
seagrass beds, oyster beds. I don't see anywhere in here where the
state allows for that criteria to be a governing factor in determining
whether or not the county residents and the visitors to the State of
Florida shall be restricted on their -- on their utilization of our
waterways.
You know, I don't -- I don't want to fill this thing with emotion,
but if you've -- if you've attended any of the workshops, it's clearly
Page 53
October 12,2004
peoples' or entities' personal agendas that are driving this issue. It isn't
facts, and it ultimately has to come back for facts.
We need your help. We have -- we have put together, I think, an
effective campaign to present our case to the city on a number of
occasions. This is certainly a top that keeps rearing its heads, as it has
over the past 15 to 20 years. We have presented this case, and to no
avail.
So we need your help, and that's what we're here asking for you
today. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: Five.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Would you call them, please?
MS. FILSON: First speaker is Nicole Ryan. She will be followed
by Allen Walburn.
MS. RYAN: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
Just to set this issue up with a bit of perspective, the area that is
under consideration is within the City of Naples. There are no
proposed changes in the Gordon River, and there are no proposed
changes in Dollar Bay outside of the City of Naples.
Collier County already has regulations for vessel speed, so what
we're looking at is a stretch of Naples Bay.
And a bit of history on how we got to where we are today.
Slowing boats down in the bay has been a concern, and the problems
with fast moving boats has been a problem for many, many years. But
this proposal came about with the Conservancy settlement agreement
over the Hamilton Harbor Marina proj ect.
There was recognition that something needed to be done in the
bay because there were going to be well over 300 new boats added to
the four corners area from marker 22 out through the pass.
Collier Enterprises agreed to support slowing boats down from 22
out through the pass, and this was something we thought we had
Page 54
October 12, 2004
agreement on with the Marine Industries Association until they backed
out of that -- that agreement. So this is how we got here today, and
Hamilton Harbor was really what led us here.
The proposal that has been passed at first reading at the city
council is to slow the entire bay down from marker 32 out through the
pass for weekends and holidays, 10 to 6 slow speed minimum wake,
and then to slow boats down from marker 22 out through the pass,
making that slow speed minimum every day from 10 until 6, and this
is supportable by facts.
There have been eight serious accidents in the bay since 2000,
and we have the accident reports. Six of these happened on weekends
and holidays, and all of them happened in areas where speed zones are
30 miles an hour or in those transitional speed zone areas.
So this shows exactly where those eight accidents occurred. I'm
not quite sure, perhaps there's a different opinion on what constitutes a
serious accident. But these are the eight accidents that have happened
since 2000.
So there is justification for slowing the boats down, especially in
the racetrack area for weekends and holidays, which is what city
council did pass on the first reading.
These boating accidents give you the evidence, and they give the
city and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission the evidence
and justification needed to slow boats down.
Manatees. Between 1987 and 2003, three manatees have died in
the area where slow speed minimum wake was passed on first reading.
This is according to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Atlas of Marine Resources.
And one of these was in 1999, which is after the 1994 Manatee
Protection Plan date.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: When were the other ones? Were the
other ones all before 1994?
MS. RYAN: 1991 and 1989. And also you have to remember
Page 55
October 12,2004
that oftentimes when a manatee is hit, they're not immediately dead
and found. Oftentimes they will drift, but that shows that three have
been found in the area where slow speed zones have been passed at
first reading. And manatees use this area. Manatees have been
sighted.
This shows -- the majority of this picture is Dollar Bay, but you
can see up at the top in the Naples Bay area manatee sightings have
been found, and this information is from the Department of
Environmental Protection.
Under Florida statutes, a local government may regulate boat
speeds where there's evidence that supports the conclusion that
manatees inhabit an area on a regular basis. There is data to show this.
Manatees inhabit this area. Manatees die in this area. One reason
why manatees come in, there are seagrasses -- some seagrasses in the
Gordon Pass area, and then down into Naples Bay, so they're coming
into the bay for a food source.
Looking at potential impacts on the commercial boating industry.
The city did a very thorough and controlled study of how much
additional time it would take to get out to the pass with slowing the
boats down. The worst-case scenario for what city council has passed
on first reading is about a 10-minute difference in additional time.
And the proposal that was passed on first reading is more lenient
than what was proposed in May. So city council and everyone is
compromising to try to get something that everyone can live with.
A final point that I would like to make is, in the executive
summary under consideration it states that the increased vessel speed
zones do not guarantee the safety of manatees, boaters, or residents.
Unfortunately, there are no guarantees in life. But the Fish and
Wildlife Commission and the city council do not need to wait for a
body count in order to impose slower speed zones. It will make it
safer for boaters, people, manatees, and everyone to enjoy the bay.
Thank you.
Page 56
October 12, 2004
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Allen Walburn. He will be
followed by Vincent Mollo.
MR. WALBURN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Allen Walburn. I live at 925 8th Avenue South. I have been involved
in this issue for in excess of 20 years.
Regardless of what you mayor may not hear today, this is
nothing but a boaters' rights issue versus a property rights issue. It has
been from the get-go, and it continues today.
Most of the people that you will hear speak today will be
repairing property owners that live along Naples Bay, and state
statutes require repairing property owners to defend their property
from normal vessel wakes and boat traffic.
Now, they would try to dress this issue up in manatees and
environmental issues, safety issues, that sort of thing. We're here to
try to give you some facts. We'll put the facts before you today, and
then you judge for yourself whether this is a boaters' issue or a safety
issue or an environmental issue or a manatee issue.
First, I want to thank you all for taking the time to listen to this
and let us make some clear and concise presentations to you so that
you can base your decision on fact and not rhetoric.
We spoke numerous times to the council. Mayor Barnett
championed a compromise issue last week that was shot down. Clark
Russell put forth a compromise issue that is harmful to the boaters, but
more importantly it's harmful to the intellect of any reasonable, logical
thinking person.
There's no rhyme or reason for what they imposed versus another
section of the bay. They want to make it idle speed or slow speed
seven days in front of Mr. Russell's neighborhood, but yet in other
areas of the bay they say it's not as bad.
Do the manatees come up to marker 22 and then stop? Do the
boats quit killing people, you know, once they get past 22? There's no
rhyme or reason for what they did.
Page 57
October 12, 2004
There's no fact -- factual data out there, but yet they imposed this
subjectively, and it harms people, and what it does, it emboldens our
opponents to come back next week and say, you didn't get our
neighborhood. We need to have our neighborhood protected, until the
ultimate goal is to make Naples Bay a private waterway for the
repairing property owners to use primarily.
It's a sovereign state, bottom land, owned by the State of Florida.
It's a federal channel, as you well know, that was developed by the
Corps of Engineers for the use of all parties, not just Naples residents,
but city residents, county residents, state residents, and people that live
all over the country.
So for one local entity to impose unwarranted speed sanctions
hurts the vast majority of the residents, so that's what we're here to
hope that you guys can address.
Now, I just want to make a couple of things very clear. Ms. Ryan
is a paid political advocate for the Conservancy. She's here to do a
job. I'm here to tell you in real world, real terms, what we actually live
with.
And for anybody to think that these additional speed zones that
they're proposing are only going to institute maybe 5 or 10 minutes up
and down the bay are wrong. They need to ride in some boats, do
real-case scenarios, and you'll see that the speeds that they're
advocating are not right.
The accident reports, she's just got her facts wrong. Here they are
right here. I'm going to submit them for the record. There's 25
accidents in all of incorporated Naples since the year 2000 began. Of
those only four accidents occurred in a speed zone that was in excess
of slow speed. There are four accidents in 30 mile an hour speed
zones.
Keep in mind that all the other areas of Collier County and
Naples Bay are slow speed or idle speed zones. Four -- of the 25 in
five years, 25 accidents, only four outside of restricted speed zone
Page 58
October 12, 2004
areas, and only two of those were really congestion related. One of
them was a boat hitting a channel marker.
There's only three accidents that required medical attention.
You'll hear anecdotal evidence about stories where people don't report
them. Well, they're in violation of statutes, both state and federal, if
they have accidents and don't report them. You're required by law to
report these. So anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it. It has to be
documented case history if you're going to use accident reports.
The state imposed manatee protection zones down in the
Fakahatchee Strand down at Port of the Isles (sic) a number of years
ago, before they imposed those sanctions, there was a viable marina, a
viable resort, and a viable commercial and charter boat operation there.
That is all gone. It is gone. It's abandoned. That entire commercial
entity is defunct.
That's what's going to happen to Naples Bay. It's not going to
happen tomorrow, but every day people will either get frustrated
because they lose a trip here, they lose a trip there.
Ask yourself, would you want to charter a boat and spend an
extra 30 or 40 minutes on a trip getting out of Naples Bay when you
can go to Marco or you can go to some other entity and be out in the
ocean in 10 minutes? It's just common-sense logic, folks.
If they have the data, we ask you to ask them to present it to you
and make your decision based on the data. We suggest that they're
going to have to create data post-vote to substantiate their application
that goes before the State of Florida.
I suppose I'm supposed to sit down now. Thank you so very
much, and we really appreciate your support. Okay. There's the
accident record. Look for yourself and see where they are and when
they happened.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Vincent Mollo. He will be
followed by Kit Sawyer.
MR. MOLLO: I'll get -- good morning, ·council. I'm not here on
Page 59
October 12,2004
anybody's side. I'm just here looking at the abuse of power that the
City of Naples is conducting.
If you take the time to look at the tapes and what is said at these
meetings, I would wonder how many people from the Conservancy or
Save the Manatee would get up under oath and be asked specific
questions and testify the way they testify at these meetings.
Here we are talking about the specific time. We're doing it right --
she did it right here, okay? Oh, there's been no accident. There's been
four accidents. Well, it turns out it's going back to 1989. It's not
today.
The City of Naples -- Mr. Russell, at the joint meeting with you
people, said, oh, the idiot factor comes out on the weekend. Is that
what he thinks the people that work all week and the only time they
get to go out on the bay is on the weekends, so they're the idiots?
What -- how is that?
Where does the city get off going into deals with the
Conservancy? That's my water, okay? That's my bay. How do they
make a deal? How do they make a deal with Hamilton Harbor and the
Conservancy? That's public property. That should not be done.
It's an abuse of power, and I would ask maybe somebody turn
around and get an injunction against this thing and have it heard before
an absolute -- have it heard before the state where it takes out all the
times and the manatees and all the special interest groups that are in
this town, okay?
It's who's in this town, runs this town. And it hasn't changed. I've
been here 10 years, and I've been sick for 10 years seeing the way
things are done, and this was just like the final straw. And it doesn't
make a difference to me whether it takes me an hour to get to the pass
or 10 minutes to get to the pass. It's not the time. It's not the -- it's the
process that they're trying to stuff down people's throats.
That's all I've got. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Kit Sawyer. He'll be followed
Page 60
October 12, 2004
by John -- oh, Councilman Sorey would like to go last -- by Frank
Donahue.
MR. SAWYER: Hi. My name's Kit Sawyer. Legal name's
Carson Preston Sawyer, Jr. My family's been here for a long time.
My family and I, we bought a piece of property on Bayshore, put
a deposit in '97, finally built, moved in in -- May 5th, year and a half
ago, '03. Hoping to expand, grow. There's not a lot of marina's in
town. I've been in this business since '74. My family's always
commercial fished and everything, and this is the avenue that I took.
And I knew that I had idle speeds out -- out to the bay for my
customers and stuff. I bought off of Bayshore. It's better than being
all the way up inland, so I really felt that this was something that
would work for me, and eventually I'd like to buy some more property
and maybe get into boat rentals so that, you know, the public could
come rent boats or, you know, wouldn't have so far to run to get out.
With this happening here, it will be harder for me to make a
business in the boat rentals for people to rent for half a day. I mean,
half the time they're going to be idling back and forth.
F or my customers for service work, what they call the racetrack,
that's not very far from me. I could do my runs there. It's less
hazardous from a mechanics -- if we can run right here than have to go
out to the pass or down further, it's less costly for my customers.
I basically really need your help here. There's no other way
around this. I was very ashamed when I went to the city council
meetings and listened to them throw it on the wall and see what stuck.
When they -- when it was finally brought up that, you know,
lower the racetrack down to 20 miles an hour, I knew right then and
there that these people did not know anything what they were talking
about. When you put any boat on a 20 mile an hour plane, you're
creating a lot more damage.
I just need somebody to look at this, and I need your-guys' help.
And thank you very much, me and my family.
Page 61
October 12,2004
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Frank Donahue. He will be
followed by John Shepard.
MR. DONAHUE: Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to
speak. My name is Frank Donahue. I'm vice president of the Marine
Industries Association for the State of Florida. I'm also one of the
founders of the Marine Industries of Collier County, and a long-time
boater, 32 years in the recreational boating industry in this town.
I wanted to throw my support for both the state and our local
organization behind Mr. Henning in his appeal to your body to support
us in opposing these oppressive speed limits. I worked on the original
Manatee Protection Plan, I'm on the present Manatee Protection Plan
Rewrite Committee, and I also worked on the present speed zones in
the city, so I'm very familiar with the activities going on.
This -- we proposed a -- or worked with the mayor to get a speed
limit that we could live with, 10 to 6 on weekends and holidays, and
that didn't pass, so now we have this seven day a week section from
Hamilton Harbor out to the pass.
The Marine Industries Association feels that, yes, we may need a
speed limit restriction at Hamilton Harbor only when it's built, and it's
a long ways from built. It's two and a half, three years before we're
going to start seeing boats running in and out of there at the capacity
they're talking about. And that should be addressed at that time.
We also -- I wanted to bring up the point about the accident data.
The accident data that the Marine Industries of Florida and Collier
County uses is compiled by the Florida Office of Boating and
Waterways, a state agency.
It compiles its accident data from every city and county
municipality in the state, and that's where our data comes from. I don't
know where theirs is originating from.
And another issue that's been thrown in our face many times,
Marine Industries of Collier County, is that, yes, we did have
discussions with Hamilton Harbor and the Conservancy about speed
Page 62
October 12, 2004
limits on the bay, but they were discussions only. No agreements were
ever reached on this.
The next thing we knew, we were being cascaded in the press that
we failed to abide by an agreement. There was never any agreement.
And lastly, I'd like to say Marine Industries Association supports
a clean, environmentally friendly boating atmosphere. We want to see
safe boating. We promote boater education, we promote manatee
protection. We don't want to see people hurt on the bay. We also
want to see common sense prevail on the issue.
We feel that the weekends and holiday speed limits as originally
proposed will work, will control and eliminate the racetrack issue, and
the rest of the speed zones they're trying to impose seven days a week
are overly restrictive for that area.
And as I say, I boat for recreation and business on that river for
the last 32 years, and I've watched it grow. I watch what happens, and
I know during the week, there's no traffic to cause a problem there.
So I hope that the commission can support opposing the city on
this issue. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Shepard. He will be
followed by your final speaker, Councilman John Sorey.
MR. SHEPARD: Good morning, Commissioners. John Shepard.
I live at 2361 Clipper Way. That's right up the river from the Gordon
River Bridge. It's not on most of these maps here, but Abe Skinner
knows where it's at, and my taxes keep going up, and -- and that's a big
Issue.
You know, they sit here and they say it's only going to add 20
more minutes to getting out, well, it already takes me 45 minutes to get
to the pass as it is now. You keep adding on to that, now it takes an
hour to get out, thus the property values is going to be going down in
my neighborhood because of those issues.
I've been living up there for three years now, and I have yet to see
a manatee. And I came from Alabama. I've seen -- Alabama's had
Page 63
October 12, 2004
more UFO sightings than manatee sightings in this particular area right
here that we're discussing.
On the safety issue, one thing they don't discuss is, they've got all
these slow speeds and these new changes, but they don't discuss the
pucker factor. And I go out there all the time, and they do not have a
single change into the main area where I see -- and I go out on a
regular basis.
I also own a charter boat business, just for myself -- and it's right
. there in the pass itself as you head out to the Gulf. The very last
segment where the idle speed ends, and then you go fast, to me that's
the most dangerous part of the whole -- the whole situation. It's not
even addressed.
And so I ask you to look at the common-sense approach from
property values, total speed, time going down there. You know,
there's no pucker factor going -- you know, if you're not smart enough
to drive a boat and back off on the throttle at the las -- you know, when
you need to, you don't need to be driving a boat, okay.
People know when to go fast and when to go slow, okay? That's
why we have the law enforcement people here. They do a great job
out there enforcing these rules.
But you need to look at the certain areas that they're not even
addressing, and obviously it's protect people's property in that area and
not the people's up the river or elsewhere. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Councilman John Sorey.
COUNCILMAN SOREY: Good morning. For the record, John
F. Sorey, 220 Gulf Shore Boulevard North in Naples, and I'm speaking
here as an individual. I'm not representing city council.
And I do appreciate the opportunity to be here today and
comment on boat speeds in Naples Bay, and I understand the concerns
of the commissioners, I understand the concerns that we've heard
individually open here today.
I thought we had an excellent joint meeting with you on October
Page 64
October 12, 2004
the 4th, and there is a lot of emotion about this. We've had several
public meetings. I've had numerous phone calls, hundreds of emails,
and several individual meetings with concerned parties, and I have
listened to all concerned.
This is the file of letters and emails since we started this issue.
And I can assure you that the great majority of the people that have
taken the time to voice their opinion are for reducing the boat speed.
There's been a lot of comments made about special interests, and
I find this amazing that the charter boat representatives and the marine
industries want to cast everyone else as a special interest.
We deal, you deal, I deal, as a city council member, every day
with special interests. Everyone is a special interest. My
responsibility, your responsibility, is to look at all of this data, all of
this input, all of these special interests, and make the best decision for
all the citizens of Collier County.
What we passed on October the 6th at first reading was much less
restrictive both in scope and in time than what we originally had.
Now, you heard some comments about 20 miles per hour. I agree, that
was a bad element in the original motion, and I think we convinced
everyone that that was bad. That was taken out.
You heard comments about testing the boats. During the week
there is an area to test the boat that will not be a problem. The
racetrack -- and it didn't get the name racetrack just coincidentally. It
got the name racetrack because that's, indeed, what it is.
I've been out there. I know a number of you boat. If you go out
there during weekends, holidays, or during the season, then you can
see an accident waiting for a place to happen.
All parties had agreed to part of this motion, and that was, as
you've heard today by the marine industry, that was on weekends and
holidays, however, the majority of city council felt like the area from
marker 22 to the Gulf -- and if you remember when the chart was up
here, because of the narrow aspect -- that's the narrowest part of the
Page 65
October 12, 2004
bay, that they're continuing safety and manatee issues, and we required
additional speed restrictions.
And the state is going to determine whether the data is correct or
not. I think we can justify our position and feel that the accident data,
the citations, and the manatee deaths will result in approval.
Another thing that's been talked a lot about that I want to just take
one quick minute to look at -- and I respect Commissioner Henning's
comments, and I understand his concerns, but the health of Naples Bay
has been brought into this issue.
And I agree that boat speeds does not have a major impact on the
bay, but I think what we're doing -- what you're doing as a county
commission, what we're doing as a city to reduce the discharge from
the Naples sewer plant to zero, to model the property flow from the
Golden Gate Canal, and then working with the Big Cypress Basin to
divert excess water, thus reducing stratification, capturing and treating
the first inch of rainfall to avoid polluted stormwater going into the
bay -- and we appreciate what you're doing in that effort because
county water goes into the bay as well as city water.
Map and historic habitat and restoring seagrass and oyster beds,
and this is also underway. Riprapping all seawalls and banks, and this
is a comment that the marine industry has made, and I agree, that's
something I think we should require, and I'm dedicated to try to make
that happen.
Spoil island habitat and conducting water samples to have the bay
designated an impaired waterway so that we can get state and federal
assistance. That's what we're doing to the bay. So it's not a bay issue
versus a boaters' issue. That's just not correct.
I hope the commission will support the City of Naples in our
decision trying to protect all the citizens of Naples Bay and give the
process an opportunity to work. If we're not able to convince the
regulators that this is a valid speed zone change, there won't be a
change.
Page 66
October 12, 2004
But for the county commission to get involved in this issue with
an opposition of this direction, I think, is inappropriate, and that gets
us back to where we've been. I had hoped we had made progress on
disagreeing with one another and look forward to your decision not to
proceed in this direction. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That is your final speaker, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. The -- just want to
thank the councilman for being here today, and I agree that the City of
Naples -- I'm glad to hear that they're working on their effluence issues
on helping to restore the bay, and the boating speed has nothing to do
with the restoration of the bay.
As far as -- I don't know of a commissioner, anybody, a boater,
city councilman, county commissioners, that want to put harms way to
the manatee. The fact is, the manatee deaths in the Naples Bay are not
attributed to boats, okay, so that is the fact. And the fact is, just
because a not- for-profit organization made a dope deal with the
developer doesn't mean it's good for the citizens in Collier County.
The issue is the facts, and the facts are the level of service, the
manatee boat death -- or the manatee and accidents due to boats is not
there.
So I'm going to go ahead and make a motion that we ask the
county attorney on behalf -- and I do have a special interest, it's the
citizens of Collier County, including the City of Naples, to enjoy the
bay and the estuaries and all the waterways in Collier County -- that
we do direct the county attorney to -- any changes that the city wants
to do on the bay is fact and not emotions, like Commissioner Sorey --
Councilman Sorey said.
The changes, what is proposed on this first reading and what I
understand, is not a -- the first reading of the new motion was not
advertised properly so there will be another first reading. I just want to
Page 67
October 12, 2004
get ahead on this issue so when the council does come forward with
their final decision on there, it's based on fact and not emotions or a --
not a property right issue.
And the facts are as laid out in today's proceedings. That's my
motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you want the county attorney to
verify; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second on that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. If I may?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I applaud you,
Commissioner Henning, for bringing this forward for all the citizens of
Collier County, and you're doing it in a fair and equitable way, and
you want it based on science, and I understand where you're coming
from.
This does have an effect on the county. It's not a city issue totally
of their own. You've got to remember, if we put impediments in the
way of our boaters, then where are they going to go? They're going to
go to county facilities, which are already overloaded.
We have made provisions for future boat ramps to be built. We
have based our ability to be able to supply the demand out there in
future years based upon what the City of Naples is doing, too. Their
part of the equation. We're in this like a family.
In families we've got to settle these minor little differences in
ways that are going to benefit all our children in the family.
And so once again, Commissioner Henning, it's a pleasure to
second your motion, and I think you're doing a wonderful job for the
community.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it's -- well, it's surprising to
me that two groups can take essentially the same information, the
Page 68
October 12, 2004
citations and the manatee deaths, and arrive at different conclusions.
And I think that the decision must be based upon facts and science and
not emotion.
And I would ask that as part of the motion we direct staff to
collect the information and provide us an assessment, which I hope
will be unbiased, as to whether or not there is a safety problem on the
bay, whether or not there have been substantial manatee deaths.
I am reluctant to take information that is presented in this hearing
because, quite frankly, I have heard hyperbole on both sides, and I
don't believe all of it on both sides.
So, you know, I'd like to have as independent a study as we can
get without going out and hiring a consultant, I don't support that. But
before we reach a conclusion that one side or the other is correct, let's
at least examine the data ourselves. Let's look at the accident reports.
We discussed this at our workshop. We talked about how some
of the information that was being presented was irrelevant. I'd like to
determine if it really is irrelevant. I'd like for somebody to take a look
at that. So my, my -- let me say that I think that course of action is in
the best interest of everybody.
I -- I cannot imagine that the city council would want to proceed
without a good, solid foundation for their decisions, and I can't
imagine that the marine industry or the Conservancy or any of the
other interested groups would want tó proceed without having the facts
clearly presented.
And so I would -- I would very strongly support a clear
presentation of the facts, and I would like to see that be the first thing
we do before we take any action beyond that. But that's my reaction to
this process.
It clearly must be based on fact, and I don't think that we have
received a factual analysis from either side on this process yet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I support it as well. I think that we're not
going against city council at all. We're not testing their vote or
Page 69
October 12, 2004
anything. What we're doing is saying we need to gather the facts.
We're not trying to tell the city what to do one way or another. We
just want to make sure that all the facts are presented without any
emotion involved and without any skewing involved, and I totally
support that. And so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll amend my motion to include
to direct staff to study the three legs of the Florida Administration
Code on dealing with boat speed, and that has to do with, you know,
level of service, the traffic out there, accidents, and manatee deaths
due to boat -- boat and manatee issues. Now--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just in that area?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's what the criteria is
for changing, altering boat speeds up, down, or whatever. The -- what
I heard Commissioner Coy Ie said is, and then present that back to the
board.
Now, my concern is, I don't think the City of Naples is going to
wait for that. So I will include, direct staff to compile that information
on best available data. And if the city council is willing to put off the
decision until that is presented, I'll include it. If not, I think that that
information should be presented to the county attorney for his
preparation on behalf of the citizens and the Board of Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you were amending your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And do you --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I amend my second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And before the end of this, before
we vote, I'm going to ask you to repeat your motion, if you would,
please.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think that's a wise approach.
Clearly, I understand that your intent is to -- is to make sure that we try
to get the information on which to base a position as quickly as
Page 70
October 12, 2004
possible.
If the city moves forward, however, and presents this to the Fish
and Wildlife Service for approval, I presume the intent of your motion
would be to notify the service that we are not in agreement with that
process until such data has been gathered and a position developed. I
think that's the intent of your motion; am I right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me -- let me restate the
motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Direct our staff to gather the
data pertaining to the three legs of the Florida Administration Code on
changing -- altering boat speed, best available data, to present to the
board or council, if the council's willing to see the facts, and if not,
present it to the county attorney for basing their case on -- for the
citizens and the Board of Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,
and also directing the county attorney to represent the citizens of
Collier County and the Board of Commissioners in fighting any more
restrictive boat speeds within the City of Naples, and in this particular
case, would be Naples Bay, Gordon Pass, and parts of Dollar Bay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You have two separate motions there. I
didn't hear that second part before.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that part got me confused,
too.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. If I could just express my
concern. My concern is that until we get what is hopefully an
unbiased evaluation by our staff of the data, we won't be in a position
to draw a conclusion with respect to what decisions are correct with
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could --
Page 71
October 12,2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you want me to include in the
motion that -- ask the state, in this case, the Fish and Wildlife, to hold
off any decision until the board presents fact?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Essentially yes, but let me see if I
can find a better way to do that for your consideration. First of all, I
think we should notify the city council that we are going to be taking
this action and ask --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and ask that they delay the
implementation until such time as we have been able to collect and
analyze the data. Hopefully it will not be long.
And then if the city council were to refuse to do that and they
move forward with getting approval, then I would expect that -- that
we would notify the Fish and Wildlife Service that we will be taking a
position on this, but we would wish the final decision be delayed until
we can present them the information.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I guess I've got to ask the
county manager, do we have staff to -- if it has the knowledge and
education to collect this and compile it?
MR. MUDD: Well, we've got the -- we've got the staff that can
collect the data. I'm not -- you're not asking us to go out there and
develop data or whatever, you're asking us to take a look at what exists
on level of service, take a look at boater safety and accidents on the
bay over a series of years, and you're asking us to take a look at
manatee deaths over a series of years, and we can collect that data
from the appropriate state and local authorities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Does everybody understand the
Page 72
October 12, 2004
motion. Do you understand the motion? It's okay? All right.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
(Applause.)
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: County attorney wants to weigh
In.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yes, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: I believe the motion in its final form discussed,
considered, the notification of city council of what we are about to do
here, and so I just wanted to make clear who would be notifying city
council, whether we'd prepare -- county manager, county attorney,
prepare a letter for you, Ms. Chairman, to send, or a letter from the
county attorney, letter from the county manager. Just the format--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: David, we can barely hear you.
Can you speak into that --
MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me. I'll get my microphone closer.
The question I had was in regard to notifying the city council of
what we are to do here with the request for them to delay as we jointly
compile and report on the information is, who would make that
notification, if it'd be a letter from the chairman that the county
attorney, county manager will be happy to help with, or a letter from
either of our offices. Someone, it appears, is going to make that
notification based upon the resolution. I just want to make it clear on
the record who would.
Page 73
October 12, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you have a recommendation?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. I think that a letter from the chairman with
the assistance of the county manager and county attorney in the
drafting would be the way to go.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I would just like to make one
observation for --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did we settle that first; do you think that's
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that agreeable with the commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's great.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Appropriate levels.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to make a statement
for the benefit of those people who might be watching these
proceedings. I've received a lot of email on this issue, and a lot of it
seems to make the assumption that the decision is being based, that is
the speed zones, are being implemented because it is the
environmentally sound thing to do for water quality and other issues in
Naples Bay.
And I -- I wholeheartedly support restoration of Naples Bay, and
I'm sure every commissioner on this board does, but that is not a
permissible reason for implementing speed zone restrictions, and so
this is purely a legal issue.
There are certain prescribed reasons for implementing speed
zones, and we must comply with the law. And water quality is not one
of them. So we -- when we are saying we want to collect data and
analyze it, we're not saying we don't want to participate in the
restoration of Naples Bay, because clearly we do, and I think
everybody who uses Naples Bay feels that same way.
So I just want people to understand what the real issues are. It
Page 74
--
October 12, 2004
has nothing to do with the restoration of Naples Bay or the
improvement of water quality. That is not one of the reasons that
speed zones can be implemented.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, every time I read one of those
letters I kind of discount it because we're not talking about water
quality when you're talking about speed.
And Councilman Sorey stated really how they are changing the
quality of water, which has to do with how much -- how much polluted
water is dumped into Naples Bay, which is one of the big things. And
then the other things he suggested as well, and they're working on that.
And that has nothing to do with speed. And it always surprises me
that anybody would write that in a letter.
So anyway, I just wanted --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And they're told that --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that's the reason.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Anyway, we have voted on that.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, we have a time certain.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, we do. I just wanted to say one more
time, I thank Councilman Sorey for being here. We really respect
your opinion. We just thought we would add a few things just kind of
maybe to clear up some thought process from some people who may
be --
COUNCILMAN SOREY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Okay.
Item #14A
APPROVING THE CONTRACT FOR AN EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT
AllIHORITY - A -eER OVED
Page 75
October 12, 2004
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that is item number 14A, and that's
to approve the contract for an executive director for the Collier County
Airport Authority, and I believe Mr. Gene Schmidt will present, the
interim Airport Authority director, soon to be former if you vote on
this correctly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I guess you're happy about that.
MR. SCHMIDT: I'm going to introduce myself as the almost to
become the former executive director of the Collier County Airport
Authority.
Chairman Fiala, Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Coyle,
Commissioner Henning, it does give me great pleasure today to bring
to you and before you our selection as the new executive director of
the Collier County Airport Authority.
I have been part of the selection committee. It was chaired by Mr.
Doyle, whom you all know, and Mr. Price. And as Mr. Doyle is
unable to be here today, I was asked to step in and do the introduction
for you.
We had a vast selection of people to pick from, and I'm pleased to
tell you that the lady that we picked as our recommendation is the
most qualified and one of the best qualified people that I have ever
seen in this business, and I've been in the business for almost 60 years.
For example, she has a BA in business administration and
aviation -- master's in aviation aerospace operations. She spent four
years in the military. She has 14 years of airport experience. She was
at the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport in Arizona. She's been at the--
served at the Austin-Bergstrom Texas Airport, the Marathon Airport,
and she now comes to us from the Las Cruces International Airport in
New Mexico. I'd like to at this time introduce Theresa Cook.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think, Mr. Schmidt, you forgot
the Marathon --
MR. SCHMIDT: I mentioned that, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He mentioned that? Okay.
Page 76
October 12, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Were you at Marathon at the same
time PBA was in there?
MS. COOK: No, I was not.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. COOK: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name, for the
record, is Theresa Cook, and it brings me great pleasure to be here.
I had the opportunity to meet with several of you yesterday.
Unfortunately, I didn't get the opportunity to meet with Commissioner
Coyle. Hopefully in the future. And I hope that you'll approve the
contract so I have the ability to work with the county and the
community and the economic development folks to improve the
facilities -- the airport facilities in the community and do some positive
growth and development.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to approve the
contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a few seconds onboard here
too. I'll choose Commissioner Coletta. I think I heard you first.
So we have a motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by
Commissioner Coletta, to approve the contract.
Sue?
MS. FILSON: If I may, may I ask a question regarding the
Airport Authority? As you know, Mr. Schmidt took a leave of
absence as a member of that. Now, will he automatically be back as a
member, or do you want me to advertise for that vacancy now?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I would think he'd automatically go back.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think you left that vacancy open
based on my comments when he became the interim director to leave it
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
Page 77
October 12, 2004
MR. MUDD: -- to leave it open until he gave up those duties.
This contract is effective in December, and when that happens, I
would assume that Mr. Schmidt would fill in in his particular position
that he left it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What's his preference? You would
like to do that, Gene?
MR. SCHMIDT: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's part of my second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Okay. And part of my first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My second second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Welcome onboard.
MS. COOK: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. SCHMITT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Gene. Great job.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2004-328 DECLARING 2 VACANCIES ON THE
HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD- ADOPTED 4/0
(COMMlSSIONERBAJ ,AS OUT)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would bring us back to item
9B, which is a recommendation to declare two vacancies on the
Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
Page 78
October 12, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala -- or
Commissioner Coyle, excuse me.
Yes?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Comment?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, I just wanted to
mention that Carlos Aviles is -- the reason why he is not available __
and he's the chair of this committee -- is that he's been serving in the
u.S. Military several times now, through different parts of the world
and also during the hurricane issues that we've run up against with the
Reserves, and that's the reason why he hasn't been available.
And I'm sure that at that point in time when his life settles down
and he returns to his duties in the sheriffs department, that he'd like to
reapply for this position, and I'm sure this commission will keep an
open mind to bringing him back aboard.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for putting that on the record,
Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #10A
Page 79
October 12, 2004
AMEND PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH METCALF & EDDY, INC. FOR THE
SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT, 8
MGD REVERSE OSMOSIS (SCRWTP)-APPROVED 4/0
(COMMlSS.ION.ER.HA ,A S OlIT)
MR. MUDD: The next item is lOA, and that's to amend a
Professional Engineering Services Agreement with Metcalf & Eddy,
Inc., for the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant, eight
million gallon a day reverse osmosis, contract 98-2891 in the amount
of 1. -- no, excuse me -- $1,924,500. It's project 70054.
And Mr. Roy Anderson, the director of engineering for the public
utilities division, will present.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. This is a
contract to -- this is to extend the Metcalf & Eddy contract associated
with the South County Water Treatment Plant in keeping with the
schedule that we've approved for the construction contract.
As you'll recall, the driving factor in the proj ect at the present
time is to have water by the end of December this year, we are on
track to do that, followed by final completion of the project by May
1st of2005.
In terms of a brief project history, we -- as you recall we -- the
board gave notice of termination to the previous contractor on July
27th, 2004. We hired a new contractor on September 28th, 2004, at
the board meeting.
The last extension to the Metcalf & Eddy construction services
agreement provided for services through Jan -- through June 1st of
2004. So now it's necessary to extend those services in keeping with
the construction contract of Wharton-Smith for final completion in __
May 1st of2005.
The terms of the contract are the total price of$1,924,500, which
Page 80
October 12, 2004
is made up of construction management, construction administration
services, and construction observation services. These levels of fees
have been reviewed thoroughly by myself, by Malcolm Pirnie, our
independent consultant, and we've vetted those thoroughly, and this is
a reasonable cost for the services provided.
Give a summary of the contract. The original contract for design
and initial construction services was 3.9 million. There have been
amendments to date associated with the time extensions of the
contract. And this latest amendment number four is 1.9 for a total
overall of $7.5 million.
Our recommendation is to approve this level of service and to
also -- and execute a budget amendment to provide that funding. To
provide an overall picture of the funding, we've -- of the project status,
we've previously -- the previous contract and construction program
had a total overall cost of 37.4 million.
That's associated with UEC work, had they completed, and the
new contract, the new construction, the total cost is 46.7 million, for a
difference of 9.3 million, but we do have an offset of retainage of
900,000, which changes the increase to 8.4 million, and that's basically
what this slide summarizes.
So that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any
questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think Commissioner Henning has one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Anderson, the Metcalf/Eddy
contract, does it have unit prices in -- you know, like -- in this case, for
administrative services and the oversight?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. It's got a combination of fees. It does
have hourly costs, daily costs, and those items have been thoroughly
reviewed by the clerk's office as well as our staff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what you're asking
correlates with the contract that we have?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, absolutely.
Page 81
October 12,2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not an item that I enjoy
approving, but I guess because of the -- what has happened with the
original contractor, it's something that we get to do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I agree. The one thing I
think -- I guess it's appropriate to mention our recourse in this
particular case. But this has been a terrible experience with the
contractor.
I know that you and other staff have been struggling with this
contractor for a long, long time trying to get this work finished, and it
just wasn't happening, and I think your decision to terminate is a sound
one. I'm glad you reached that decision. It's going to cost us some
extra money, but at least we now have assurances that the facility will
be brought online by the end of this year, for constructive operation at
least.
And we will be pursuing recovery from this contractor of excess
costs. It's my understanding that that's what we will be doing.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're not just going to let this
slide.
MR. ANDERSON: No, we're not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're moving ahead to get it done
quickly with another contractor, and then we will evaluate our courses
of action against the primary contractor, the old contractor afterwards.
Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any further discussion?
Page 82
October 12, 2004
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson.
I think we can --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- catch one more in there.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. I think get all the way through this, I
hope.
Item #10B
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 150 REMOTE
TRANSMITTING UNITS FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS-
AEEROVED
This brings us to item lOB, which is a recommendation to
authorize the purchase of 150 remote transmitting units for wastewater
collection telemetry for the amount of $950,525. It's project 73922.
And Mr. Dennis McGee out of engineering department and
public utilities will present. And that's Mr. Jim McGee's son, by the
way, just so you know, there's a family resemblance. Jim used to work
for us and then retired. .
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, thanks.
MR. McGEE: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
F or the record, my name is Dennis McGee. I'm the
instrumentation and SCADA project manager for Collier County
Page 83
-_. .----_... -____4..__._~·
October 12, 2004
Public Utilities Engineering Department.
This presentation relates to agenda item lOB as described by Mr.
Mudd.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you tell everybody what SCADA
means, just so they understand?
MR. McGEE: Yes, ma'am. SCADA is an acronym; it stands for
supervisory control and data acquisition. It's the instrumentation
systems that control and monitor all our -- excuse me.
SCADA is an acronym; it stands for supervisory control and data
acquisition. It's a system of instrumentation that provides for all the
control and monitoring and automation of our facilities, both locally
and from remote sites, okay.
The purpose of this project is pretty much self-explanatory. It's to
equip all of our wastewater collections lift stations with telemetry. It's
a multiple year project providing for control and monitoring of station
parameters.
This monitoring and control takes place at a centralized control
center at the county's collections facility, which is located on Shirley
Street.
With the telemetry units in place, the wastewater collections
system has more visibility and overall control, and our operators are
more capable of responding to station outages and other emergencies.
The net byproduct of all this is that the public safety and health is not
jeopardized.
This project is consistent with the 2003 Wastewater Master Plan
update as adopted by the board previously on May 25th of 2004 as
agenda item 10C. It is also consistent with the Wastewater Capital
Budget Funds as approved by the board on September 23rd, 2004.
At the time of its conception in 2001, this project was budgeted to
equip with telemetry the approximately 530 lift stations that were at
the time not under telemetry control and monitoring. Full-scale
implementation with 100 percent build-out is to be achieved by fiscal
Page 84
October 12, 2004
year '06.
This is a slide showing photos basically of what a typical
wastewater lift station equipped with telemetry looks like. Three basic
elements involved with it. The pump controller unit and the radio are
contained within control cabinets, and the antenna is mounted adjacent
to the control panel mounting. Locations of these lift stations are
throughout the county.
The budget for this project over the five-year span is $6.5 million.
To date we have purchased approximately 530 lift stations worth of
telemetry at a total cost of 3.8 million. This gives us an average per
unit cost of just over 7 -- or 7,000 per unit.
The new proposal is for 150 units and projects favorable cost
presentations on it. The county continues to benefit from cost
advantages by purchasing in large scale with volume discounts and
price list lock-ins that we've procured through our vendor.
One note to make on this, however, is unlike previous years, this
telemetry purchase is somewhat dissimilar to previous in that it doesn't
provide for full installation. County staff and purchasing is negotiating
the fulfillment of the remainder of those. It's a case by case basis that
hasn't afforded us the ability to just come in and just do a complete
installation through the services of data flow, so we're having to look
at procurement of electrical installation and additional control features
that we'll need on this.
This next slide is basically a pie chart showing the progress to
date. As you can see, for any of you who mayor may not have seen
previously previous versions of this, there's no more white areas,
which means, conceivably, we will reach our goal as much as a year in
advance, if things go as projected this year. The hashed blue portion
in the upper left-hand corner of the pie chart is our projection for fiscal
year 2005.
And this is just another way of representing the same information.
This slide shows quantities as opposed to percentages of total and also
Page 85
October 12, 2004
gives another depiction of our typical lift station.
So based on the executive summary, staff recommends -- excuse
me -- recommends authorizing the purchase order of the provision and
partial installation of 150 units from Data Flow Systems in the amount
of $950,525 for wastewater collection's telemetry.
I'm prepared to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to go ahead and make
a motion to approve, but I have a question.
MR. McGEE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner
Henning and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Manpower. What is the
potential saving of putting all these lift stations on automation?
MR. McGEE: Well, it cannot be overstated how much it
improves, not only just manpower from a total manning perspective,
but how able they are to -- able to conduct and efficiently operate their
systems.
We have approximately 680 lift stations now in this county, and
the controls are such that the automatic operation is normal, but
beyond that even we're able to examine repair issues, preventative
maintenance, station outages, power outages, and employ our
manpower workforce accordingly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was going to be my question.
I had asked that staff be sure to address that in the presentation today.
But yesterday in talking with Jim DeLony, I joked with him about
saying, if you -- if you automate all this stuff, you can eliminate all the
people involved, and of course that's not true.
But he did tell me that he thought that they could certainly deal
with the future growth with a lot fewer people, that is, without -- with
Page 86
October 12,2004
the addition of a lot few people, okay.
So hopefully, there is -- there are cost savings that offset this
investment, and I think it is a good investment, and not only will it
help you respond more quickly to problems that occur because you can
detect them more quickly and dispatch people to repair them more
quickly, but it will help you deal with the business in the future and the
growth with fewer additions to staff, hopefully. Is that a fair
assessment?
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, public utilities
administrator. Well, let me give you two answers.
First of all, obviously anytime we can focus specifically on
preventive measures, which this system provides, as opposed to the
inefficiencies associated with reaction, that's cost savings, both in
terms of staff and dollars.
Most importantly though, this system provides more assurance
with regard to staying in compliance with regard to the rules
associated with spillage and handling of wastewater flow system-wide.
And that, for sure, is a cost savings.
And the fact that we've got these preventative tools with us that
give us the ticklers, the warnings, the indicators, we're better able to
manage the resources that we need -- we have to address the problems
as we find them in the system proactively and quickly that this
telemetry allows us to do.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, let me add just a little bit to kind
of give you an idea, because I was there when we were doing the
manual business, when the little red light was --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was flowing through the streets.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. When the little red light was on blinking,
the alarm was going off, and the neighbors were calling and the stuff
was coming through either the manhole or of the top pump station, and
then -- and then you had to get everybody out there.
First of all, you have to report that spill to the Florida Department
Page 87
October 12,2004
of Environmental Protection, and that gets to Mr. DeLony's second
item, and then you start monitoring how many of those you have, and
then they start figuring out if you're going to be under a consent order
or not with fines.
Then you basically send your force out there for that spill. And,
oh, by the way, it's the local neighbors that are calling you on the
alarm, because that's what it was there for. It was supposed to be a
visual and an audio so the neighbors have self-confidence that they
live next to a pump station that overflows on a regular basis, so they're
not real happy.
And, oh, by the way, it stinks for a while until the crew can get
out there and they can lime the site.
Now, when you have that issue with the pump station, then
you've got to pump it out, and then you've got to figure out why it got
to the state that it was in.
So on a manual basis that means your crews with pumper trucks
have got to go to the one north and south to figure out if we've got a
clog someplace, then you've got to snake the area through to figure all
that stuff out, and you waste a lot of time doing that.
Now they've got an automated way to figure out if the stations to
the north and the south or the entire system going to the plant has an
issue and it's caused it to back up someplace else, so they can get at it,
so they can apply the manpower, they can apply the pumper trucks
that need to be there, not just ones that need to -- you need to send out
just to make sure to see if you've got the leaks.
So, in essence, you do save staff, you do save equipment expense
because you don't have to get that extra truck or those extra -- two
trucks to go out there and do a little bit of -- and we talked about
Kentucky Windage before, but you're just kind of testing it, and you're
doing it by hand and by rote, and you have no automated way to
determine. Now you do, and it saves us significantly.
And I will tell you the number of consent orders from sites and
Page 88
October 12, 2004
things like that, and spills, that have gone down tremendously over the
last couple of years based on the equipping of these particular sites.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any further discussion or questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MR. DeLONY: Thank you.
MR. McGEE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We'll finish up with 10C then, and then
we can move on, because this should be real quick.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. And I -- Commissioner Halas
basically said he'll be back right after one o'clock, so he'll be here for
continued item, number 8C.
Item #10C
TERMINATING CONTRACT # 02-3317 WITH HENDERSON,
YOUNG AND COMPANY RELATIVE TO THE FIRE
PROTECTION IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY, WAIVER OF
THE FORMAL COMPETITION PROCESS AND SOLICITATION
OF PROPOSALS TO SELECT A NEW CONSULTANT TO
And this is item 10C, and it used to be 16A24, and it's basically a
recommendation to terminate contract 023317 with Henderson Young
Page 89
October 12, 2004
and Company relative to the fire protection impact fee update study,
waiver of the formal competition process and solicitation of proposals
to select a new consultant to update the fire protection impact fee. The
estimated amount not to exceed $50,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Fiala asked to move this. And Ms.
Amy Patterson from community development's environmental
services, your impact fee coordinator, is here to present.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And before you make a presentation,
Amy, I just wanted to ask on the record here -- because I found some
confusion -- we already have a motion to approve and second (sic), by
the way.
I just found some confusion as I was reading about the fiscal
impact, and it says here that we are going to be paying the company
that we're letting go $21,000. The contract was originally for 38,
which would leave us, what, 17,000, but then it says later on in here
that the cost of the study is estimated not to exceed $50,000, and I
didn't know whether that was for the new company, which would then
make it about, what --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 78,000.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- yeah, 78,000 more than what it was
originally supposed to be. I just wanted to have you tell me for sure
what the real amount is here so there's no confusion on my part and
possibly somebody else's.
MS. PATTERSON: Sure. Amy Patterson, impact fee manager
for the record.
The hard cost that we know of is the $21,668 that we're going to
pay to Henderson Young and Company for services rendered to us,
and those are actual costs associated to documents that have been
provided to us.
Now, those documents that he's provided data that's been
collected and put into table form and into some draft study materials
Page 90
October 12, 2004
will be provided to the new consultant when selected, which should
significantly reduce the average study cost that we normally pay. So
that $50,000 --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we got something for 21,000?
MS. PATTERSON: Correct. We actually have physical
materials for the $21,000, and that's all information that we'll provide
to the new consultant.
And on average now what we're seeing is these contracts are
coming in somewhere between 30- and $40,000, but until we actually
sit down and write a scope of services, including in that we have a
good part of this work done, we couldn't estimate the cost of that new
contract, but that new contract we know -- that's why we have that
$50,000 in there, but we could back the $21,000 off, and you're still at
about $30,000.
So that's the only reason that we're above the original 38,224,
that's 2002 dollars, instead of 2004 dollars, which is what we're
dealing with now.
So there may be a marginal net increase in the actual cost when
all is said and done, but no, $70,000 is not what we're looking at as a
final total cost of the study.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So this 50,000 isn't what you're
going to pay the new guy or an estimated amount to pay the new guy,
even though we had budgeted originally 38; this is what you expect
the total cost to be --
MR. BAKER: The 50 -- Dennie Baker, for the record.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- backing out the 21,000?
MR. BAKER: The 50,000, Commissioner, is a not-to-exceed
amount. As Amy said, we expect it to come in __
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Backing out the 21,000 and that $50,000
as well?
MR. BAKER: The 21 may not be dollar for dollar reduction, but
we do expect it to come in significantly lower than the $50,000.
Page 91
October 12, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. Just -- Amy Patterson, one more
time -- just so you know, we're doing a parks update, which would be
similarly situated to this one. It's actually coming on the next agenda.
That contract came in for $29,000 bid for the consultant with some
additional tasks beyond what we're asking for in fire, so the 50,000 is
more than we expect this to come in at.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. In my head I was just adding up
the 50,000 and then the 21,000, getting 71,000 and figured, that's an
awful lot for what we considered to be a $38,000 job, and made me a
little bit nervous.
But as long as commissioners all feel comfortable with it now
that I've brought it to light and you've explained it a little bit more for
us to understand, we have a motion by Commissioner Henning (sic), a
second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any further discussion?
All those in fav -- yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: May I make a recommendation? When they finally
do get this particular contract done, by memo, let you know what it
came in at, okay --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd really like that. That'd make me a lot
more comfortable. Thank you.
Thanks. Thank you for that suggestion.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We are going to lunch. See you at about
Page 92
, - --_._-..-....~---_._-
October 12, 2004
MR. MUDD: Ten after one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Ten after one, okay.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, would you please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. And welcome
back to the afternoon session of the Collier County Commission on
October 12th.
And shall we move forward?
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're already sworn in and we already
declared our ex parte; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I didn't.
MR. MUDD: Is there anybody that wants to speak on item 8C?
And Commissioner Halas still has to do it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I want to let everybody know
out here in the commission that I've met with the petitioner, I have
received email from residents in the area, and all this information is in
my pack, so I just want to make sure that I got my ex parte here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, thank you very much, Commissioner
Halas.
MR. MUDD: Is there anyone else in this room that wants to
speak on this item that hasn't been sworn in earlier this morning? If
you haven't been sworn in and want to speak, just stand up and the
clerk's representative will swear you in.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2004-67 PETITION PUDZ-2003-AR-4250:
GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT
Page 93
October 12, 2004
AND WATERWAYS JOINT VENTURE IV, REPRESENTED BY
KAREN BISHOP, OF PMS, INC. OF NAPLES, AND RICHARD D.
YOV ANOVICH, OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN AND JOHNSON,
P.A., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE RURAL
AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE MIXED
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT,
TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A FIRE STATION WITH A
135-FOOT HIGH COMMUNICATION TOWER AND A 75-FOOT
HIGH TRAINING FACILITY, AND SIXTEEN (16) SINGLE-
FAMIL Y ATTACHED DWELLINGS (INCLUDING
TOWNHOUSES INTENDED FOR FEE SIMPLE CONVEYANCE
INCLUDING THE PLATTED LOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE
RESIDENCE) AND CUSTOMARY ACCESSORY USES.
PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD (C.R. 951), APPROXIMATELY 340 FEET NORTH
OF WOLFE ROAD, IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING
OF 91R± ACRRS- AJ20EIED W/CHANGRS
None being seen, this is item 8C, and this has to do with the
zoning of the Golden Gate -- excuse me -- the Golden Gate Fire
Control and Rescue District and Waterways Joint Venture IV PUD.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner.
We are here today to discuss a fire station, fire training facility,
and a communication tower, for a parcel of property located on Collier
Boulevard just north of Vanderbilt Beach Road.
The chief will go into a greater detailed presentation about what
we're proposing on the site and give you a brief history of how we got
to where we are.
I just wanted to share with the commission that this was really a
collaborative effort between the developer of Summit Place and the
Page 94
October 12, 2004
fire station to work together to come up with a location that would be a
win-win situation for the residents of Summit Place, Island Walk,
Vanderbilt Country Club, and the fire district, to work out a good
location that would meet everyone's needs.
The fire station had a 20-acre site that basically was right behind
Summit Place and would have interrupted the lives of a great number
of people in Summit Place if the fire station had been developed on the
original site. Recognizing that that probably wasn't the best for
everybody, both the developer and the fire district worked together.
I think what we've come up with is something that is a win-win,
as I said, for everybody. It certainly is how I would think the county
would want things to work where the developer takes into
consideration the needs of essential services. And as much as we sing
the praises of our people who provide services that we need, at times
it's difficult to find places to house them to provide those services, and
I think that's one of the circumstances we have today.
As Collier County becomes more and more populated, it's
difficult to find locations to put firefighters and emergency personnel
and even, you know, water and sewer plants where we're not going to
be in someone's backyard.
The chief will take you through a greater detailed presentation,
but I think we have, through the PUD document, made our proj ect
compatible with our neighbors, and it will work with our neighbors,
and we certainly will not be affecting their property values or affecting
their lifestyle with what we are proposing.
And with that, I'll turn it over to the chief, and we'll be happy to
answer any questions you may have after we go through the
presentation.
CHIEF PETERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Don
Peterson, fire chief for the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue
District.
The -- just as a general overview for you, for those that aren't
Page 95
October 12, 2004
familiar, we are a district of about 103 square miles that we serve over
45,000 residents in the fire district. We include two high schools,
intermediate schools, middle schools, elementary schools, and as you
have heard lately, the school board is working on building some
additional schools in the county, and a lot of those are going to end up
in the Golden Gate Fire District.
We've got over 300 buildings three stories or taller, and there's
more coming on the way . We have a staff of 48 paid firefighters
onboard, along with the inspection bureau.
To give you a general overview of the district, Station 73 is the
one that we're discussing here. Station 70 is our current home
headquarters on Golden Gate Parkway. That's a joint facility with the
county, EMS, and the sheriffs department started in there originally.
Station 71 is right behind the library on Golden Gate Boulevard, and
Station 72 is the Davis and 951 intersection we just recently opened.
The project is approximately three-quarters of a mile -- it's on the
west side of Collier, approximately three-quarter mile north of
Vanderbilt Beach Road. The zoning process does encumber a 9.4 plus
or minus parcel. The fire district itself only owns five acres of that 9.4.
This was a conceptual drawing that we've had on the project. It
gives you an idea of the administrative building, the operations
building, and the training facility in the background with the parking in
the front of the -- in front of the project.
This is a general overview of, as you're aware, that north end of
Vanderbilt. Immokalee Road has pretty much had their PUDs let on
almost every piece up there. As recently -- a couple three weeks ago
you had some industrial park presentation in that area.
So we're just trying to identify what we identified in '98, there
was a lot of commercial activity occurring in this area, and we needed
to do something.
This was the -- what we ended up with at the culmination. We
attempted to try to get 10 acres right across the street. If you're
Page 96
October 12, 2004
familiar with where Oaks Farms used to be, the organic farm, we tried
to buy 10 acres. We ended up on the opposite side of the street with a
20-acre parcel.
The yellow line that comes off of951 was the original access we
had to this 20 acres. Now, of the 20 acres, we knew we had
approximately five acres of that that was actually buildable. The rest
of it, the only way we could use it, we knew we had to off-site mitigate
it somehow.
After we purchased it, we continued to lease for cattle. When we
originally bought it, cattle was being pastured on everything from
Wolf Road up to the nursery in there.
2001 continues, that nothing had changed in the area, individual
property owners. We maintained the 20 acres and still have the access.
2002, we had worked -- the project was brought forth to you, and
the access became an issue for our 20 acres. The access was moved to
the north side, right next to Golden Gate Nursery, because the -- we
felt that -- and the fire commission felt that it was the best proj ect -- or
best move for the community to get that road out of the middle.
It did pose some problems in 2003. The 20 acres sat back
approximately 1,500 feet from 951, made a long driveway for us
basically. There were still concerns about going in and out,
responding to the calls with the community because we knew
residential was going to be right on top of that access road.
2004, we -- and this shows you the early stages of Summit Place
being constructed and how that original 20 acres, if we had stayed on
that 20 acres, would have been impacted there.
This is another aerial to give you an idea of the station site
relation. Vanderbilt Country Club is across the street from us before.
The Wolf Road is on our southern side.
This gives you an aerial view. You're looking from the east back
to the west. In the upper part of the photo you see Island Walk and all
of the projects off of Immokalee Road and the wooded area. Golden
Page 97
October 12, 2004
Gate Nursery is still on the right-hand side, and our station site would
be on the left-hand side.
This, again, is identifying for you the 20 acres we bought
originally, our access road, identified Golden Gate Nursery. We
moved our access to the north side of the fence line. And as you can
see, there were houses that ended up being put in that. And we worked
out the agreement to -- in exchange for the 20 acres to move to the
front on 951.
This gives you an idea of, the layout as the project as presented to
you does include 16 housing units, which as I mentioned, is totally
separate from us. The pink area is the area that we're dealing with
today.
Our site drainage is all interconnected with the project. We're
able to build on the entire five acres.
The station project we're proposing is a new main headquarters
for us. It has an operational station as well to it, which is a separate
building, and the training facility would be the third building in the
back part of the project as well as a communications tower for the site.
This drawing identifies some of the projects around. But on the
bottom of the station proj ect, it also shows the road that was added a
few months ago that -- with the developers that, working with
transportation several months trying to get our access issues worked
out, the six-laning of951 project came along, and there were issues
with retention areas for the drainage of the six-laning project.
Vanderbilt Country Club had concerns of access for them as well.
We had a meeting in December of 2003 with transportation,
Vanderbilt Country Club, fire district, and worked out the access
issues, median access. They were able to keep their turns, back
entrance to the project without it being a problem, and the end result
was the access to Wolf Road was going to be added to our project.
The county has a retention project right on the corner of Wolf
Road and 951 for the six-laning, and eventually the Wolf Road gets
Page 98
October 12, 2004
tied into the commercial proj ect. That entire corner of Vanderbilt and
951 will-- eventually will become a major intersection there.
Some of the obstacles that we were working through since we
originally started, FPL added the transmission line down 951. The
power lines are approximately 93 feet high. You've heard a lot of
issues with that power line.
This is a little farther shot standing in front of Summit Place. One
of the items we were not aware of, but the power lines going in affects
the communications tower. We've found out just in the last couple of
days of how that impacts, and I'll share that in a few minutes with you.
This is another shot looking at Summit Place currently, and
identifies there's currently a cell tower user. It used to be the truck
repair shop site, which is now going to be the new school on the north
side of the project. Approximately 200 feet, conventional type of
tower.
Originally -- and we brought the petition forward to you. We
proposed a maximum of 150 feet. It was 135 feet. This shows you the
tower we currently have on Golden Gate Parkway.
What we've -- and we shared with you today some information
we obtained last night from the contractor. The project brought forth
-- and we've requested they continue to move forward because any
other delays are detrimental to us -- is to proceed with the request for a
135-foot stealth type of tower.
We provided you a report that I received last night that identifies
from the vendor. We had hired from -- as a result of the Planning
Commission meeting, they had requested that we qualify the height of
135 feet.
We had shared with them that part of that concern was we were
not that deep into the design process; we were only dealing with
rezoning of the property. But the board went forward, contracted it
out, and the end result was the engineer has identified 150 feet.
But we wanted to share that with you today so there's--
Page 99
October 12, 2004
everybody is aware that we need to move forward with the permitting.
We'll move forward because the tower was going to be on the back
part of the project anyway, but come forward with you for a
modification on the tower, and it has been -- we wanted to share that
with you today.
This gives you an idea of the site drawing and the impact of the
tower where it was currently proposed in a fall zone. It, for the most
part, does fall on all of our project, and where it does cross the
southern property line is the retention pond for the six-laning of951.
So it's not normally a public area. It's strictly retention pond.
This is a -- gives you an idea of some of the residential homes.
We had -- during the public meeting process, we had some folks object
to the height of the tower in relation to where their properties were,
and we just wanted to show you that in most cases they're over 1,000
feet from the proposed tower where some of the residents were. And
the cell tower that's existing today on the old truck shop site was much
closer to them.
This gives you an idea of the buffer. And part of the -- part of the
PUD we've asked for, the variance code calls for a six-foot block wall
to be installed between us and any other neighboring property.
In working with Summit Place from the beginning, the board
identified, as well as the original developer, that potentially putting in
green space would be good for everyone. It could provide us some
sound buffer, it provides green space instead of the concrete wall. It
would be landscaped, trees planted on it.
And as that maturing six foot average height, plus the trees on top
of that initially, within about a year you'd have about 16 feet to 17 feet
as the project matures. But in place of the block wall around
everybody, we'd ask to try to put the grass and green buffer.
Also since the -- out of the Planning Commission, we've tried to
give you a visualization of what you're going to look at.
The drawing that -- the photo that you see here is taken on the
Page 100
October 12, 2004
north end of the pond on your left. Where you see the construction
occurring is the clubhouse area. And this would give you an idea --
the lake is approximately 1,000 feet long, plus or minus.
Then there's a -- where the building is straight ahead of you is in
there, plus their yard. But in general, from a computerization
capability, we've tried to identify to you what that -- on the north side
of the project, the folks would be looking at coming to the south.
On the same hand, we've attempted to look -- as you're looking
here at the individual on the sidewalk, you're looking to the southeast.
You're inside Summit Place project, and we've attempted to show what
-- the vegetation, the six-foot high berm, and the training facility, as
well as the flagpole if you're actually standing on that street. So we
tried -- and that was one of the reasons we tried to show a green buffer
as being potentially better for the neighbor separation.
During the many discussions that everyone has had, it's come up
with the North Naples training facility. One of the reasons that we
show this photograph and has come up along the process was the one
we'd recommended, or we've been looking at is a concrete brick
veneer type of finish.
Some folks have commented that's ugly, some like the brick. A
couple of things we're trying to show here. One is that with lighter
color on a training facility, it's like anything, you use it a lot, it gets
dirty. It becomes a high maintenance issue.
One of the things we tried to look at with brick, get a little darker
color, you're not always out there repainting, cleaning, those types of
things. Again, trying to be respectable to the neighbors and anybody
that comes on site, that we try to maintain and keep a quality-looking
facility.
The other item that comes in with this, we do support the training
facility. We send people up, and personnel, to this facility. It's located
off of -- just next to Veterans Park on Immokalee Road.
It's becoming an increasing challenge to be able to send our
Page 101
October 12, 2004
people out of the district to another district. Even though it may only
be six miles away, transportation capabilities along Immokalee Road,
Veterans, 951, currently today is an extreme challenge, as you know.
And getting in an expeditious manner back to the district to
maintain the proper level of service has become an extreme problem,
and that's one of the reasons for asking for another -- for a training
facility here is to try to help bridge that gap of sending people out of
the district, not being available for calls, having to bring overtime in to
cover that area and maintain proper -- proper coverage.
This was one of the vendors that we've been looking at. It was a
suggested type of facility. Once again, it's a brick type of finish. Brick
comes in many different colors. We hadn't really made a final
determination on it, but with this little darker color, you can repel off
the side, you can abuse the side a little more than you could with a
lighter color.
This is one of the things that we can easily say that you won't see
at the facility. Right from the beginning, we've been going uphill, that
a training facility is associated with this type of smoke. It's a --
petroleum-related. A lot of times when you see Melaleuca, you end up
generating this type of smoke.
Now, because of the size of the facility, environmental standards
that we have to meet, we cannot do this type of training whatsoever.
We're not burning cars, we're not burning buildings, we're not burning
pallets. We're not able to burn this type of petroleum product outside
the building at all.
This is one of the vendors we've been looking at to install inside
the training facility, and this is natural-gas fired, or you can fire it by
LP gas. It's oversized barbecue type of burners, gets extremely hot,
computer controlled. The inside of the ro -- the facility is lined with
insulators so you don't destroy the integrity of your facility, but you're
able to monitor the training and control the training.
You've seen over the last year to two years there are becoming
Page 102
October 12, 2004
more and more deaths associated with fire training. One of the ways
to prevent that is being able to monitor temperatures remotely and
control the activities that are going on inside.
Some of the devices they simulate, bedroom, kitchens, as well as
living room type couch fires. So it's -- we no longer drag the pallets in,
no longer drag the tires in. It's strictly a clean burning operation.
We added this right from the beginning. It's been important to the
district to be part of the neighbors. We want to be friends of the
neighbors. When we did Station 72 on Davis and Beck Boulevard, the
family that Beck Boulevard was named after, their father had passed
away, and they had his fire equipment, and we installed it in the lobby
of the fire station.
We've always identified that the neighbors around us are
important. We respect what their concerns are, their opinions, and we
made -- in this case the family became part of that station.
The -- probably the last piece I can share with you before we
move on is that when we started the project, we were one of multiple
owners of property around us, and right from the beginning we had
other vendors that had come in and talked to us about moving. They
tried to buy the property up to do some other proj ects, and Summit
Place ended up being the one that put it together as a package.
We've worked with county staff right from the beginning. They
were going to move us from the retention site; they were going to
move us to the south; they were going to move us to the truck stop site.
We've -- we've participated in many meetings, and we've participated
about as far as we can, I think.
On -- the end result of that was the private industry side was able
to move forward quicker. We've shared with everybody very much in
the open what our intent was in the area. And in trying to move us,
private money was able to move quicker than what we were able to
move forward with.
So we share that it's fully intended to be a clean site. The
Page 103
October 12,2004
hurricanes have identified increased need for hardened facilities.
We've run into some concerns and issues of building a hardened
facility. Is it beautiful or is it ugly? We need a functional facility.
We certainly want to make it look nice, but not going to the
extreme of spending too much money. It needs to be functional when
the winds blow, and that's what we're attempting to look for here, try
to make it compact.
There would be oth -- open to other agencies in the county,
emergency services. We've shared everything since day one with the
other fire districts, EMS, as well as law enforcement.
There's some uses, repelling capabilities, tactical activities that
law enforcement can do in the facility . We've intended from the
beginning to share that activity.
But, again, they're not going to be able to do the dirty type of
activities that is associated with a lot of training facilities.
I would share with you that it does not override the need for a
larger training facility that potentially includes a driving course and
some other activities, drafting areas, and associated activities.
What we're attempting to do is bridge with this facility, as a
package, a lot of our weekly, monthly, daily training issues and needs.
Some of those are at night, some are on the weekend. Weare a
combination paid and volunteer department, so we are not always able
to have everybody Monday through Friday, eight to five. There are
some weekend times and weeknights, and that includes sur training for
the sur people out there as well.
So with that, if you have any questions, be glad to -- be glad to
answer those.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. We have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That ends our presentation. Is staff
going to give a presentation; do you know?
MR. MUDD: Not unless you have any questions, ma'am.
Page 104
October 12,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Would you call the speakers,
please.
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. The first speaker is Len Stout. He
will be followed by Bob Galasso.
MR. STOUT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Len Stout. The Planning Commission heard this petition
on August 19th.
In preparation for this hearing, county staff was very concerned,
as we were, would this proj ect be compatible with the surrounding
residential communities?
After careful deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 9-0 in
support of the following issues. I refer to the revised county staff
report dated September 2nd.
Page 15 they talk about permitted uses. There will be a fire
station, fire marshal's office, EMS facility, fire prevention office, a
sheriffs office, a property tax assessor's office, and a place for voters
to cast their ballots. That's okay.
Permitted accessory uses, page 15. This is a 135-foot
communication tower. The staff report indicates the actual height will
be limited to that required for fire department use only.
The fire district is required to provide RF calculations to support
the essential service use height. This will be required at SDP
submittal.
At the Planning Commission meeting, the fire district did indicate
though that the 135-foot height would be redundant coverage, just in
case one of their other towers went out.
Considering these uses are the only ones permitted, at one time
the district did propose a 225-seat auditorium. When reviewing the
permitted uses, I didn't see this auditorium listed.
If it is, perhaps someone would clarify where it is listed in the
staff report. If it is permitted, will its use be limited to community
meetings or will this auditorium be rented out for weddings, dances,
Page 105
October 12,2004
and other noise-generating functions?
By this 9-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the 75-foot tower
requested by the fire district was not approved, 9-0. We appreciate the
county staff and the Planning Commission deciding not to support this
use, which is so incompatible with the residential nature of the
surrounding communities. I respectfully request your support of this
decision by the Planning Commission.
Considering the obj ections of the residents, a complete lack of
support by county staff, a 9-0 vote by the Planning Commission, and
the claim by the fire district that they want to be a good neighbor to the
community, I'm somewhat surprised that they continue to seek
approval for this training tower.
This is a perfect opportunity for all the fire districts of Collier
County to combine their support in the building of one training tower
in an undeveloped area to be used by all firefighters of the county.
There's absolutely no need for every fire district to have their very own
training tower.
And as far as Immokalee Road being busy , Vanderbilt Beach
Road is going to be a six-lane thoroughfare. There's a station on
Golden Gate Parkway on Coronado. All they've got to do is go right
down Livingston Road. Good six-lane turnpike almost.
Three to four million dollars for a training tower. Let's spend
these impact fees wisely. I still can't understand why this county has
one Board of County Commissioners, one sheriffs department, one
EMS department, one school board, yet we have all these separate fire
districts attempting to duplicate what already exists in an adjacent
district.
Landscape buffer and berms, page 21. It calls for a Type C buffer
and the petitioner will provide an upgraded version. This we
appreciate. We do have a concern. The berm will only -- they talk
about a six-foot berm, but the staff report said it's going to be only
three to five feet high, so I'd like a clarification there.
Page 106
October 12, 2004
And the planted trees will either be eight or 10 feet tall on 30- foot
centers. So the maximum height will only be 15 feet with a 40-foot
building right on the other side.
We would propose a berm of 10 feet, measured from the street
service of Summit Place Circle, but there's an issue there because a
berm five feet high has a 4-to-1 slope, so that's a 20-foot slope. So
they probably wouldn't have enough room for a 10- foot berm because
that would be a 40- foot slope.
So I would propose keeping this same six-foot berm as they
proposed, but, perhaps, instead of planting eight-foot, 10- foot trees,
plant 15- or 20- foot trees.
Put interface zoning to the north. This is how the fire district
interfaces with Summit Place. It discusses development agreements
between the fire districts and Waterways Joint Venture for the
perpetual maintenance of common facilities. We would appreciate a
clarification on this item.
After Waterways turns Summit Place over to the homeowners
and since the berm is located on fire district property, who is
responsible for the monthly maintenance, grass cutting, trimming,
watering, and so forth?
And also -- 30 seconds.
Also, will there be any utility charges of the fire district, water,
sewer, garbage, passed on to the homeowners of Summit Place?
But -- thank you for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. STOUT: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Bob Galasso.
MR. GALASSO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Bob Galasso, for the record. He's actually covered most of the stuff
that I was going to cover about the berm.
The only other thing I'd like to add to that is, we'd like t~ -- if
there's going to be a berm there, that is be a closed berm with no
Page 107
October 12, 2004
access into the property. You know, it just doesn't make any sense if
you're going to put up a berm and you put a hole in it, it doesn't -- it
doesn't do its job, and there's no need for access between the fire
department and our properties.
Now, I want to discuss one more thing about the 410 homeowners
in Summit Place being responsible to pay the monthly utility bills. 1'11
refer you to the county staff report dated August 2nd, 2004, page 11,
item 2-11.
And I quote, the amended and reinstated real estate exchange
agreement between Waterways Venture and Golden Gate Fire District
articulates the development commitments for the construction, the
perpetual maintenance of the common facilities between the two
adjacent developments.
Our understanding is that the homeowners of Summit Place are
going to be responsible to pay for the fire department's monthly bills
for their water, their sewer, and their garbage collection, and
maintaining the berm. Nowhere in our budget does it call for anything
like that, not in the budget that we received when we purchased our
properties. We request that the Golden Gate Fire Department be
responsible for these utilities.
And at last, I'd like to discuss a statement made by the Golden
Gate Civic Association. Most of those who are opposing the towers
are investors and have declined the developer's offer to buy them back
with interest.
I'm not an investor, and I do not want to sell. I do, however, want
to preserve the character of Summit Place as a residential community.
What the fire district is alluding to is, hey, if you don't like our
75-foot training tower or 135-foot communication tower, to get you
off our backs, we'll buy you off.
North Naples Fire District has a perfectly good training tower
now that's seldom used, and it's only six miles from Summit Place.
Now, the fire chief has indicated congestion on Immokalee Road
Page 108
October 12, 2004
may cause a delay in reaching his location. No problem. Vanderbilt
Beach Road will be a six-laned thoroughfare. The chief will have easy
access to the seldomly used training tower.
Here's a suggestion. Have all the fire districts support the
building of one really tall fire tower in an undeveloped area for the fire
district's use. That will allow for night training and would also more
effectively utilize the spending of huge piles of the impact fees that are
rolling in.
Let's use these impact fees wisely. Build one training tower to be
used for all the firefighters in Collier County. Building a training
tower next to Summit Place is so inappropriate and not compatible in a
residential area.
And I thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No other speakers?
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Madam Chairman.
MS. DESELEM: Excuse me?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, Ms. -- Kay needs to put something
on the record.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: Thank you, yes. For the record, my name is
Kay Deselem. I'm a principal planner with the zoning and land
development review department.
First of all, I have a couple letters that came in. These were --
one was provided by a gentleman that was here this morning that could
not stay for the meeting. He did voice his support of the proj ect in its
entirety .
I have another from the -- this apparently was sent to you as well.
It's dated October 4th. It was sent to all the commissioners, and it's
from Island Walk, supporting the petition. Another one came --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, it doesn't -- it doesn't only -- it
doesn't say supporting. In that last line down there someplace it says --
Page 109
October 12, 2004
wait a minute. Where did I see that? I thought it said, but they didn't
support the tower.
MS. DESELEM: I'm reading from a letter -- or I'm looking at
letter dated October 4, and this is from -- it's signed by about seven
different people.
And it says, we, the undersigned residents of the Island Walk
community, so it's from certain residents. I don't know that its from
Island Walk per se, any residential homeowners' association or
anything of the like. It's signed by one, two, three, four, five, six,
seven persons. I can read it into the record if you'd like.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, that's all right.
MS. DESELEM: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right.
MR. MUDD: It's on the visualizer right now.
MS. DESELEM: There's another letter that was handed to me
today. This is from the Collier County Fire Chiefs' Association signed
by Jim McEvoy, president, and this, in essence, is also in support of
the entire proposal before you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's all of our speakers. Oh, I'm
sorry. I have to close --
MS. DESELEM: I still wanted to --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- the public hearing, but I'll --
MS. DESELEM: I wanted to make a brief presentation, if I may.
I think I need to clarify that we've got it down to only one outstanding
Issue.
F or the record, staff is reporting the location of the fire station at
this location. We believe it's appropriate and compatible. Staff,
however, is not supporting the training facility. That's the only thing
that's still in contention.
We've come to agreement on all the deviation requests, we've
come to agreement on the training tower -- I'm sorry, the
communication tower at 135 feet, which is what was advertised, with
Page 110
October 12, 2004
the limitations that were adopted, and is included -- are included in the
staff PUD document.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: With the limitations meaning they could
only use it for fire communications?
MS. DESELEM: They're allowed to rent space below what they
need, so that incorporates the idea that we should share tower space.
We don't want to proliferate towers all over the county.
If there is space available that can be rented, they can rent things
underneath, that is below the height maximum that they need for the
fire station use; however, they can't increase the height of that
communication tower above and beyond what the fire station needs to
accommodate any commercial entity.
We're trying to understand and make it clear that the purpose of
that communication tower is for the public use. That's the primary
purpose of it.
And I also wanted to mention that the main reason why staff is
not supporting it, it being the training tower, is the issue of
compatibility. We believe that the training tower is inappropriate at
this location.
And I know there's been discussion back and forth, and I wanted
to make it understood that we evaluated this location only for the fire
training facility. That's not to say there aren't other locations in
Golden Gate that could be used.
We had to look at this site as it relates to what's around it. We
couldn't take into consideration what it may cost above and beyond to
locate a training facility elsewhere. We looked at this particular site
alone.
We don't believe that the orientation of the facility on the site is
appropriate given that it's proposed to be the closest building near the
residential uses. As the PUD document's written, it could be within 60
feet of a residential use.
We believe that the noise, light, and glare potential of this use on
Page 111
October 12, 2004
the neighbors is inappropriate because it's incompatible. There's the
potential for users outside not only of Golden Gate Estates to use this
facility, there's no limitations to keep them from having it as
something -- having all kinds of persons coming in for all kinds of
training outside of Collier County as well, and that was not considered
in the traffic assessment, that was not considered in anything that was
submitted initially, and I think that we need to, you know, take that
into consideration.
This site is not appropriate for that scope of a training facility.
There are no limitations, like I said.
And right now the limitations that we have gotten from the
petitioner, they've agreed to certain hours of operation. They've
agreed to basically seven days a week, and they've also agreed to some
limitations of nighttime use; however, staffs not confident that those
limitations are appropriate to make the use compatible.
And the only thing that I would ask is if you do decide to approve
this, that you give us the opportunity to look over and, perhaps, add
some conditions or you consider some limitations for the uses that are
proposed and the hours of operation that could actually be available to
the use on the site.
And with that, I would note that we have provided to you findings
of fact in support of that recommendation, and they do find the project
incompatible as far as that training facility site.
So you may need to make other findings of fact if you -- pardon
me -- if you vote otherwise.
And with that, I have nothing further. If you have questions, I'd
be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: First I'd like to close the public hearing.
And then -- and then we have three commissioners, and I'm afraid I
don't see who --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Halas, Coyle, and myself.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay, fine.
Page 112
October 12, 2004
Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Henning, and then
Commissioner Coletta.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Madam Chairman, do we not get to
respond to the comments from the staff and also to the public? It's
customary that we would be provided an opportunity to rebut. I mean,
unless you're telling us we're not allowed to do that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry. I thought you already gave
your presentation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Typically we make a presentation, staff
goes, the public goes, and then we wind up with the rebuttal because
there are things, obviously, we can't respond to that we don't know are
going to be said.
So I'm hoping that I could have just a couple of minutes --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Five minutes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- to respond. That's more than enough
time. Thank you.
I just want to hit a couple of the high points. First of all, you
have to take into consideration, when we first looked at this site, we
were in the middle of nowhere, and things move pretty quickly, and
finding a place that's in the middle of nowhere, frankly, probably
doesn't exist anymore in Collier County.
We have looked at going to an industrial park. We were
suggested to go to the White Lake Industrial Park down by the landfill,
and that's going to cost, you know, to get a five-acre site, to do a
training site, that's going to cost a million, $850,000 to go ahead and
do this.
So it's expensive to relocated this, considering when we first
started this endeavor, we did attempt to locate ourselves in the middle
of nowhere to make sure we were not affecting our neighbors.
We did work with the developers in that area to locate our
facility, including the training tower, in a manner that would be
compatible and not affect property values and people's enjoyment of
Page 113
October 12,2004
their property.
And, frankly, we just disagree with your staff conclusion about
compatibility. We have come up with a buffer of 40-feet in width.
We're talking about a berm that's going to be six feet, on top of that
there's going to be plantings of another six feet, plus trees.
We've shown you through the exhibit that basically most, if not
all, of the facilities are gone from the visual eye based upon the
buffering we're discussing. You will see some of the fire training
facility, no question. But as far as the rest of the site, you will not see
it.
We have also proposed -- and I don't think that this has been
brought out, that the height would be 65 feet as measured from actual
height, that would be the top of the railing. It would be a 50-foot
building as far as act -- as far as the LDC definition of height. We
think that is in keeping with the communities around us.
We have also proposed hours -- limited hours of operation.
We've talked about doing nine a.m. to five p.m. seven days a week.
That should not affect anybody's sleep patterns. I would think that
most of us are up and about doing our business by nine o'clock in the
mornIng.
And we're also stopping at five p.m. when most people are
coming home from work or from school and we should not be
interrupting their dinner hours.
We did request that we be permitted to do some nighttime
training. It would be limited to three times per week, and we would
have to stop by 10. Again, a reasonable hour for people's normal sleep
patterns to go to bed.
And, again, we're not talking seven days a week at night. We're
talking three days a week at night, and there is no training facility in
Collier County that you can train at night.
The North Naples Fire Department's training tower prohibits
nighttime training, so we don't have an opportunity to train in the
Page 114
October 12, 2004
county at night.
Weare not saddling the people of Summit Place with our water
and sewer bill. I don't know where they came up with that idea. We
pay our own water bill. We pay our own sewer bill. Yes, they're
required to pay for the maintenance of the berm. That was part of the
deal that was negotiated when the property was exchanged.
And the cost of maintaining the berm is in the budget. It's already
in the budget, a part of what was disclosed to the residents. So they're
already -- they're already paying for it in their assessments.
So they're not -- they're not paying our water bill. They're not
paying our sewer bill. I wanted to just make sure that that's addressed
right away.
There are going to be no outside loud speakers in conjunction
with our training facility. Again, I don't know what else we could do.
Everything's internal. Light and glare from this? There's going to be
no light and glare from our training facility. Everything's inside. I
don't know where the light and glare from county staff is coming from.
I think we have -- we have done what we can to make sure this is
compatible. The hour -- limited hours of operation, everything being
internal to the building, no loud speakers, we've addressed that. If you
want to limit who can use this -- we frankly thought we were being
good stewards of all taxpayers' money by providing a tower that can
be utilized by other fire districts and other emergency responders.
I mean, if that's an issue, well, then, you know, we need to take
that under consideration, but we didn't see the need to duplicate
servIces.
We think that we have done a good job. We started this process
before anybody was around us. The Hibiscus PUD, when it came
through in 2002, was fully aware of the 20-acre site that the fire
district already owned.
When Mr. -- when Waterways purchased the Hibiscus PUD, they
worked with the fire district to move it closer to 951 and reducing the
Page 115
October 12, 2004
expenses of constructing that station. I think you want to encourage
the developing community to work with essential services to make
sure that this works out for everybody's benefit.
We disagree with your staff as far as compatibility goes. We
think we've gone a long way to show that we are compatible and that
-- we would hope that with all the concessions that we've made, that
the board can support our proposal for everything including the tower,
training tower.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. This is for staff. We just
heard that they would like to increase the size of the tower from 135
feet to 150 feet, and my feeling is that I don't think they have any data
here. I don't see anybody here to substantiate that they need to raise
the tower.
I would think if they needed to raise the tower because of
communication problems, that they would have brought somebody
here in regards to radio frequency propagation, especially when it
deals with transmissions from the fire station. So I feel that maybe this
is for commercial use and not for the public concerns here.
The other thing I'm concerned about is some of the deals that
were -- maybe that's not a good way of putting it.
Some of the -- some of the negotiations -- that's probably the
better way of saying it. Some of the negotiations that were carried out
in regards to the fire district and with the developers had nothing to do
with the residents that are presently there or the residents that are
going to be there in the future.
Good example would be Wolf Creek, and I'm very concerned
about that. We're at, I think, at the total build-out of that whole
general graphic area where I think we're looking at something -- and
you can correct me if I'm wrong -- close to 11,000 homes.
And I feel that one of the things that the position -- the person
Page 116
October 12, 2004
that's representing the fire district said, that it was going to be about
$1.8 million if they went down to White -- White Lake area to build a
tower.
It seems to me that if all the fire districts got together, that that
would only end up to be -- if you've got six districts, including the city
and Marco, that you could come up with a nice fire tower down there,
if you divided the cost equally, to about $230,000 apiece, and that
might suffice as far as a nice training tower for everybody to use
instead of being in a residential area. So those are the concerns that I
have.
I think that the fire station's needed. I also think the EMS station
is needed. But I have questions about the tower height and I also feel
that -- or not the tower height, the communication tower height I have
a problem with if it exceeds 135 feet, and definitely I don't -- I do not
feel that we need a training tower in a residential area.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have further disclosures.
During the discussion with transportation and the fire district to
find another site to assist the transportation on their stormwater
district, I was involved in that, and that was some time ago, and I think
it was even before the petition for Summit Place, Hibiscus, or
whatever you want to call it.
I was involved in the 20-acre site as a fire commissioner back in
the '90s, which I voted against. I didn't think the district should buy
swampland, and that's what I viewed this land -- but I was on the
losing end, as sometimes that comes to happen.
There is a -- let's see. Our EMS station in Golden Gate Estates,
do you remember that fire tower, Kay? Was you involved in that? Or
not the fire tower, but the communication tower?
MS. DESELEM: No, I was not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. If I remember right -- and
I did some research recently -- they asked for something like 145 feet,
Page 11 7
October 12, 2004
and they received 145 feet. They asked for not limiting it to -- for the
EMS's use. Actually it was a request of the private industry to locate it
there, co-locate for the EMS. So you don't remember any of that?
MS. DESELEM: No, but the -- I'm familiar kind of with what
you're talking about --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: -- because those discussions came out when we
were meeting with applicants and going over the different issues with
the tower.
And this particular site, they're proposing to have a private
contractor actually put the tower in as well, and we would also allow
the commercial entities to participate with this tower. And like I
explained earlier, they would be limited to anything below what the
maximum is needed by the EMS or essential service facilities in
general, that emergency type use, the public use.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was that consistent with our
EMS department's application?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, as far as I know, everything has been
consistent, because I worked with different staff members when we
discovered all that and tried to make it consistent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you don't remember --
MS. DESELEM: And as far as 150 -- I don't remember the
height exactly and I don't have all the pertinent details. But in
speaking with other staff members, we've tried to keep this closely
aligned with what approval was granted for the other similar training
tower -- or communication towers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you don't remember what
this one was?
MS. DESELEM: No, sir, I do not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The fire training tower
would be like putting a jail facility there, right?
MS. DESELEM: Well, that's your characterization. I hesitate --
Page 118
October 12, 2004
I well--
,
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we're talking about
compatibility of government facilities, would that be a good
comparable?
MS. DESELEM: Well, that raises safety issues because you
have, perhaps, convicted felons and the escape issues of such. So
that's a little bit different. It's just a matter of the intensity of the use
that's here.
You know, if they say they're not going to have loud speakers, I
don't -- you know, but if they have spotlights and that kind of thing,
you know, there's definitely some impact that could be created from
that use. But I don't know that that's an exact close parallel to say a
jail.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So your concern -- your concern
is glare, noise, and--
MS. DESELEM: Yeah, glare, oise (sic), yeah, right. Glare,
noise, and odor. I don't know what odor there is. My understanding
is, it's very limited --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that's your compatibility
Issue --
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- with it? But we don't know
what kind of affects with odors or anything like that, but that's what
we're basing it on --
MS. DESELEM: And for example, the noise. These fire trucks
are big. I don't know what noise is exactly associated with this use.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: But I would assume that they're going to be
dragging hoses and having guys out there and, you know,
commanding and telling them -- I'm not a firefighter, but I briefly saw
an example of what the training facility was used for when we were in
Lee County, and that was a daytime operation, and they had fire hoses
Page 119
October 12, 2004
out there shooting, you know, water a good distance.
And these -- it took three or four guys to hold onto this hose, it
was so strong. So I can only imagine from that that there would be
noises with these guys communicating back and forth.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, being a former fire
commissioner, the day-to-day operation of a fire station would be the
lights, testing the lights, the horns, the pumps on the trucks, and all
that. Just what you described is what's going to happen just with a
regular fire station. Are you aware of that?
MS. DESELEM: I would just think that it would be increased
beyond and above what would be in a normal fire station, especially in
light of the fact that they could bring other staff -- they could bring the
sheriff, they could bring the sheriff from any other county, they can
bring anybody , SWAT teams, whatever they want, to practice.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Isn't it great that government
agencies work together?
MS. DESELEM: And I think that's great. But, again, I just don't
think that use is appropriate at this location.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Like a jail facility?
MS. DESELEM: Well, I -- like I said, I don't know that that's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: An electrical transmission
facility? Transmission -- you know, I mean, like Florida Power and
Light has a transmission station, would be similar.
MS. DESELEM: Those are actually pretty quiet neighbors
because they aren't manned and someone only comes to visit those
very sporadically throughout the day. So those actually are pretty
quiet neighbors. I mean, I don't know what it does to your TV
reception by any stretch of the imagination or anything like that.
But yeah, as far as compatibility and neighbors and noise, odor,
they're pretty quiet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But those things with the fire
station, I'm telling you, exist anyways.
Page 120
-_.~.~-
October 12, 2004
MS. DESELEM: To some extent, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what we're saying is we
shouldn't have a fire station near or around any community. And the
reality is, it's an essential service, and that's the problem.
You know, we need landfills, we need roads to get to the landfill.
You know, I -- we still have the City of Naples running their trucks
down Golden Gate Parkway to get to that landfill. We need
excavation pits, we need fire stations. We need jails. We need
facilities to protect the public. So I don't know where the
compatibility -- where we're going to put all this stuff.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, don't go away.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you can stay here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think first what we need to do
is to look at what's been done right, and I commend the Golden Gate
Fire Department and their commissioners for stepping up to the plate a
number of times to try to make it compatible for the residents in the
area. I know it's a pain in the neck. The demands seem to shift with
the wind as time goes along, and as more people move in, it becomes
more and more difficult.
But it's the responsibility of elected officials to meet the
requirements of the residents. That's why we're put into office, we're
to be the oversight. And you did an admirable job of coming to the
plate with the switch of property several times, the picking up the
additional fees, and I think you need to be recognized for that.
It was remarkable, and you did come to the plate, you recognized
that there were certain needs that had to be met.
Commissioner Henning's completely right, there is a need for fire
stations. There's absolutely no doubt about it. They're needed from
one end of the county to the other, and we're -- through our land
Page 121
October 12, 2004
development code, we've been moving forward with a -- rules that
would allow us to be able to locate them in all parts of the county.
And I remember working with a number with your -- a number of
people on that particular direction that we're going with the land
development code; however, there's -- it still doesn't mean that there's
a license to go out there and do as we please to do without questions
being made.
And I do have -- I do have some concerns, and I do have some
questions that remain on the whole thing.
And first I'd like to say one thing, the tower that we're talking
about, the communication towers. Contained within a flagpole it looks
very nice. I'm not impressed with the one that we've got down at the
Golden Gate Fire Station on the Parkway. It's beautiful till you get to
the top and it's got that silly little antenna that sticks up at a weird
angle, and a flag that was beat to death, you know. I wished it was a
little bit better.
If we could come up with an antenna that was a little bit higher,
with the flagpole part, self-contained, I don't think it would be a great
detriment to the neighborhood. It would probably be a plus, especially
if the flag was maintained and lit at night. It would add a certain
dimension to the whole neighborhood and the whole world.
But that little antenna on the top is ugly as anything. It just -- it
just takes away from the appearance of it.
I don't have a problem with the height. I do have a problem with
the antenna on the top. And I don't know which direction the rest of
my commissioners would want to go with that.
Since you're standing right there, Chief, let me ask you this. Is
there going to be an antenna on top of this flagpole sticking up like the
one at the Golden Gate Parkway station?
CHIEF PETERSON: The one on the Parkway, the hurricanes
took that down for us.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we could thank God for
Page 122
October 12, 2004
one thing.
CHIEF PETERSON: If I could share with you on the tower issue
that -- I did get this last night is why you doesn't get this sooner. The
Professional Communications Consultants, Inc., the board did go out
and have an initial study done and an analysis of the tower height, and
one of the reasons that they come back through that analysis and
identified 150 feet was needed was because of the 93- foot tower lines
that are running on 951 there. So we've provided this for you that
identifies the analysis that does quantify the 135 plus the 150 was
needed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I agree with you, Chief. If
it's necessary to be able to have a tower as 150 feet, if it's
self-contained totally being within a flag pole itself --
CHIEF PETERSON: That's where--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and it's well lit, I don't have a
problem with that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But the antenna, did you get an answer to
that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The antenna would not be on the
top of the flagpole?
CHIEF PETERSON: Correct. And what the -- what the
professionals having been sharing with us is they're having trouble
getting the antennas small enough to be able to fit inside that stealth.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But find a way to do it, it would
be the way to do it. We're talking about people that have to live with
this sight forever.
CHIEF PETERSON: Currently the school board puts these mona
(phonetic) poles up there, concrete mona pole. They have a small
antenna on them. The -- in regards to the Golden Gate Parkway
station, that was totally done on the commercial side. Commercial
folks approached the county. We're on that tower.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's a mistake that was
Page 123
October 12, 2004
made on their part. They'll have the public to answer to on it. It
doesn't make it right because one entity of government feels they don't
have the responsibility to go back to the citizens and make these things
meet the requirements to the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
The cost is a one-time cost. But once you get past that, you've
got good working relationships forever with the neighbors.
I don't know which direction we're going to go on the tower. But
like I said, I don't have a problem with the height of it as long as it's
contained. I do have a problem with the antenna on top of it that sticks
up over and above. It's just so unsightly, it doesn't belong there.
Second thing is the berm itself that we're talking about. Can you
give me another example in this great county of ours where a
government entity puts something on their property as far as an
enhancement to the property itself with a berm and plantings and then
charges the residents that are going to live there for the maintenance of
it?
I can understand the developer paying a one-time cost, but how
can we charge these residents that are there forever to maintain a berm
on your property?
CHIEF PETERSON: It was the intent of the berm to enhance the
neighbors. Instead of putting up six-foot concrete block wall, put up
some green space that had green plantings to it, there was room there
on our side of the berm and part of the exchange price for the 20 acres
for the five acres, in order to be able to make it equitable for the
taxpayers. The fire commissioners looked at those different things, the
drainage issues, the landscape berm, instead of having a block wall
there.
We'd have to come before you for a variance. My understanding,
the land development code only allows six feet, so the question would
be, how high do we put the block wall up. We'd have to ask for a
variance for that.
We were attempting to provide as well as green space, that green
Page 124
October 12, 2004
buffer would help with the noise issue. With a concrete block wall, it's
nonporous, sound bounces off of it and potentially can enhance it,
bounce it from the wall into the building, and from the building back
into the proj ect. So we tried to identify sound absorption as being an
Issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Going back to my original
question.
CHIEF PETERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you give me an example
that's out there?
CHIEF PETERSON: No, I could not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It doesn't exist. And all the
people that come in after this and live in Summit Place, they're going
to be saddled with this particular cost from now on out. I hope this
isn't a new direction that government is going towards.
Why can't the developer just pony up on that money now and
collect it off the new people that are coming in for a one-time. cost to
get the berm built, get the trees put on it and irrigation put into place,
enough money to be able to cover that cost, rather than saying that's up
to the residents that move there?
The next thing we're going to be doing is putting berms up to the
benefit of other people and then charging the residents that live in the
area. That's called an MSTU. We normally let people vote on it.
No -- and I'm sorry if I sound like I'm coming down tough. I'm
having a hard time understanding this, and I don't mean to be critical
of the deal you came up with. I just don't understand how it's going to
work in the long run.
CHIEF PETERSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I'm sure Mr. Yovanovich
has got an explanation that will be second to none.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll try to live up to that.
First of all, you need to understand that the actual construction of
Page 125
~_..---..._,...-,-_.,-" - ,,-
-->--
October 12,2004
the berm is being paid for by the developer. We're just talking about
the maintenance of the plantings, and that's in the budget already.
Everybody who bought into -- into Summit Place understood that a
portion of their assessment will go to maintaining the buffer that the
developer paid for. That's typical.
I mean, the buffers in front of the roads, I mean, the developer
pays for it and the maintenance is passed on to the owners within the
development.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got to interrupt you,
Richard. The buffer that's along the road, is that buffer on the
right-of-way -- or does it belong to the county and the county's road--
road where the county owns land, or is it on the right-of-way that's still
owned by the property association itself?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's owned by the association.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. Now does this
association, will they own the buffer within your perimeter?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They will have -- well, Commissioner,
you have to go back to, what would they have gotten if we had put in
the standard buffer? It would have been a 15- foot wide buffer with a
six-foot wall. The developer said, I want to upgrade -- first of all, I
want to talk to you about trading this parcel in the back with a
five-acre piece in the front.
And in order to make that work for the district economically, they
didn't want to get saddled with building this big berm and having to
maintain this big berm. They would built the 15- foot berm with
six - foot high wall, which would not have been satisfactory to the
community of Summit Place.
So to get the enhanced berm that we worked through with the
developer and the district, it became an expense for the developer, and
the ongoing maintenance became an expense for the community to
have an increased buffer over what would have been there under the
land development code.
Page 126
October 12, 2004
So the residents are getting the benefit of this increased buffer,
and they're just paying for the maintenance. They're not paying for
anything else related to that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear you. Once again, Mr.
Y ovanovich, there isn't another example where this has ever been done
before. I think this is a new direction that possibly government's going
towards, and it really bothers me.
And -- well, finally West (sic) Lake, if you wanted to locate your
tower at West Lake, I think was to quoted, $1.8 million to be able __
CHAIRMAN FIALA: White Lake?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: White Lakes, $1.8 million. Of
course the cost being responsible (sic), people with the public's money,
they gave it serious thought, I'm sure. But $1.8 million is a
tremendous amount of money to be spent to put up a fire tower for
training. And I agree with you --
CHIEF PETERSON: That's just the dirt.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The dirt, right, very value
property. We're going to build some very beautiful industrial in there
for our residents to be able to work in and to be able to benefit from.
But let's go back to it. The cost is the main factor, undoubtedly,
also the location. Once more, why can't we, the county, come up with
some sort of deal where we give you next to nothing in cost __
hopefully we could do it for free, if we could -- at the landfill which is
pretty close to your district as far as where it could be reached and
everything, to build a facility that could be shared by everybody and
bring down the cost to every -- the taxpayers, not in Golden Gate __
only in Golden Gate, but in the rest of the districts in the area that wish
to participate? Why is that not a viable alternative, and get this out of
the residential area?
CHIEF PETERSON: We've been working on this since 1998,
and I would share with you, Commissioner, nobody has -- nobody has
participated in the process.
Page 127
October 12, 2004
The more we've tried to include people in the process, the more
we have been delayed on the process. Could we physically go into the
landfill? Probably. There's some environmental issues though I would
share with you there that -- with gases and monitoring different
situations there.
And I've shared with the Planning Commission that I cannot be
more open with the board than -- you won't find a more open fire chief
in the county, I'd share with you. Anywhere along the process we
have always kept this open. We have always identified on every site
plan, the training tower was there.
We had seven members of the Vanderbilt Country Club board of
directors that were with us. You know, this required an emergency
meeting because of the transportation issues, and we've tried to hide
nothing from anybody.
But I would share with you, every time we try to bring additional
folks onboard, the process becomes very problematic, just as this has
become. We've lost a lot of time, and we got to the point where
actually we needed to move on and be able to try to do something.
And I don't know what your answer is. We've tried to bring
others into it. We offered the facility at no charge. We got beat up
with the Planning Commission why we would not charge for people to
come in. We're attempting to be good government.
If you want the block wall, there is a contractual agreement with
the developer and the fire commission that if it's the direction of the
board that you want a six-foot block wall in there, I certainly can take
that to them, get rid of the green space, if that's holding this up.
But it is a contractual agreement, so I would share, we've
attempted to enhance the community and not detract from the
community. So what -- I would just ask, whatever you'd like us to do,
we've been trying to do it since '99, so please share with us __
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I go back to what I
originally said, you are doing a wonderful job in trying to reach out to
Page 128
<'---
October 12, 2004
the public, and I know this is very difficult. And to have someone
question you, I hope it doesn't offend you. I think you're above
reproach. I have always respected you greatly, and I will always
respect you.
CHIEF PETERSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've done an admirable job as
fire chief.
I do have some other questions, but I'm going to turn it back over
to you for the other commissioners, and I'll come back with the rest of
MS. DESELEM: If I may clarify an issue that might help get on
the way. The 135-foot tall communication tower versus 150-foot tall
communication tower, this particular petition was only advertised to
135 feet. At this point the only thing you can act on is that 135-foot
tall tower.
And the chief has said, and we've talked and it came up at the
CCPC as well. They can either continue this and come back,
readvertise it, or they can come in later and amend the PUD to seek
that higher communication tower. And the chief, when he made his
presentation, that's what he was saying. He knew he could only go to
135 feet now, but he wanted everybody to know that it was their
proposal to eventually go to 150 feet. So I just wanted to make you
understand where you were on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 1'11 just take a shot at a question, and then
Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle.
Just one fast question. Somebody mentioned 225-seat
auditorium. Is that also in the plan?
MS. DESELEM: I didn't get into the actual building design and
what's in the building. We looked at the uses. And if that is a portion
of the interior of the building and it would function as an accessory use
to the permitted uses, we didn't get into that at this point as far as what
Page 129
October 12, 2004
was actually inside the building.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Chief, do you have a 225-seat
auditorium in there?
CHIEF PETERSON: I'm not sure we'd call it an auditorium. It's
a room large enough to be divided into three separate rooms with
sliding partitions. They're not fixed seating. It's a large room for a
training room because of the training activities as well as, we had
indicated before, public meetings.
Our station at Station 71 currently holds about 100 people. And
on a monthly basis we have civic organizations and different
organizations that come in and meet, that knew that was going to be
part of the community needs up there also.
There is no place really for large groups to get together, but the
maximum capacity that's on the end of the administrative building has
its own separate bathrooms, so if we needed to separate that, it could
stand alone, and that was the intent, to have meetings and training
sessions in that room.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see. So actually if it's a -- even while
you're carrying on your regular fire duties, you could be renting that
out to a neighborhood community or something for 225 people to
come in, right? That'd be a lot of extra traffic is what I'm talking
about, a lot of extra traffic generated.
CHIEF PETERSON: Certainly that option would be there, but
because of the emergency services related activity, we've focused on
what those needs are from a governmental side. It's not intended to
have weddings or anything like that. That's governmental type of uses.
The emergency services first. And in the case -- and I'm trying to
think of some of the other meetings that we've had __
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we're not talking like music or
entertainment --
CHIEF PETERSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- or anything like that that would be very
Page 130
October 12, 2004
noisy?
CHIEF PETERSON: No. The commissioners had public
meetings of -- group meetings of the folks that live in the Estates, and
it has been strictly governmental use, none for profit -- not a
profit-making entity, is what I was looking for.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This -- getting back to this berm.
Was the berm basically negotiated between the developer and the fire
district so that the developer could also include an additional 16 units
or so in that area --
CHIEF PETERSON: That was not --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- adjacent to your property to the
north?
CHIEF PETERSON: The berm was intended to provide that
buffer between us and the residential units.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I mean before the additional
units were put in there, that's why the buffer -- the discussion of the
buffer came up; is that -- is that right or not? Am I wrong in that?
CHIEF PETERSON: Well, the -- actually it's a 9.24 acre parcel,
I think, plus or minus. What was attempting to be identified was the
drainage site issues, that we could build on five entire acres.
The lake was intended to be dug right in the back to provide the
fill that was needed for the facility. During our process, county
ordinance was changed for the slopes of the lakes that now today does
not allow us to have the entire fill we needed out of that lake.
But that piece of property, the nine plus acres, was originally
intended to accommodate our site fill and issues. The housing, we did
not -- that's not what the fire district -- we needed that as -- provide the
space, the fill, and the other activity, and that's what was for sale next
door was that nine plus or minus acre parcel.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But getting back to the
Page 131
October 12, 2004
berm. So as it stands as of today, unless we can sway your thinking,
that it's the responsibility of the people who are moving into Summit
Place, it's going to be their responsibility for the maintenance and
upkeep of this berm; is that correct?
CHIEF PETERSON: Contractually, that's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And who decided on that; was that
a distinction --
CHIEF PETERSON: The fire commission and the developer.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the developer and the fire, but
not the -- it was nothing that was drawn up or discussed with the
neighborhood or the people that live in that location?
CHIEF PETERSON: At the time that arrangement was made,
there were -- there were no units sold. This was the -- the developer
was buying up the individual parcels to make this one large parcel. So
when that arrangement was made, that there was -- to my knowledge,
there were no actual homeowners in there. That was the preliminary
stage of the developer buying it up, and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, this seems to be quite a
burden on the homeowners if it belongs to the -- on your side of the
property, wouldn't you think?
CHIEF PETERSON: As I -- if this is going to be a major point,
I'll be glad to take it back --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That and the training tower, I think,
are major points, with me anyway.
CHIEF PETERSON : We can cer -- because it's contractual, it
does need to go back to our fire commission and the developer. And if
it's a recommendation of the board that we do away with that, I would
-- I'm certainly willing to take that to them. The question would be is,
how high do you want the block wall that goes in there? And again, we
did that with the best interest of everybody with the green space there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm thinking maybe if you
had the berm and the vegetation as you stated but something other than
Page 132
.~--
October 12,2004
burdening the -- I mean, they're taxpayers also, and they're being
saddled with this, so I'm concerned about that.
CHIEF PETERSON: I'll take back that -- my understanding is
you want the block wall and--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: If I can just jump in as far as that goes.
One of the things you're talking about, the berm and the landscaping,
one of the things that I've been terribly disappointed about is we get
these promises of the nice thick berm to protect the people and absorb
the sound, and when we come out, we see these sniveling trees that are
the cheapest that you can find.
They say they'll grow in in a year. Four years later, five years
later, half of them have died, and the people are stuck with what's left.
So I don't have a lot of confidence anymore in the lush berm that they
promise when it doesn't appear.
Let's see. Next we have Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I really don't know what else
you could have done here. I think it's extraordinary that the fire
department and the developer have cooperated so well in getting this
process put together, and I think it's amazing that the fire department
has agreed to be switched from site to site just to get some community
services there. It just proves to you that no good deed goes
unpunished.
But, you know, I understand that the developer has notified all of
the prospective purchasers in the neighborhood that it's part of the
covenants and that they understood there was a fire department going
in there, but let's look at it for a moment from the residents' standpoint.
And there's no way you could have forecast this. I think you did
everything you possibly could have done.
But looking at it from a resident's standpoint, sure, there's a fire
department going in there. I understand that. But what I didn't
understand was it was going to have this tower and it was going to
have training at night and on the weekend and it was going to invite
Page 133
October 12, 2004
people in from other districts to do training and that there was going to
be an auditorium and that there was going to be additional traffic from
people coming there to use that.
So I can understand the residents' concerns about this and, quite
frankly, I don't count four votes to support it as it's currently proposed,
unfortunately. There are some obstacles remaining here.
And then one of the things that I didn't understand when I talked
with you was this utilization, broad utilization of the training tower
and the weekends and evening hours and things of that nature.
And I'm wondering if there is any way that we can reach a
compromise with you that will not delay you and help deal with the
frustrations you've been faced with in the past.
Can we as a Board of County Commissioners direct staff to
provide you with some property somewhere at no charge or very
nominal charge that could be used for training for all fire departments
in Collier County to the extent they needed it?
And what could you get away with on site then? If we could
transfer a lot of that intensive training to some other location, what
would be the minimum that you could -- you could live with for this
site we're talking about now?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me just jump in here and say, as long
as you're talking about a cooperative effort for a training tower,
possibly there would also be on that same site that's remote something
that also handles the maintenance of the vehicles so that, you know, it
would be a consolidated effort for all fire departments to have their
maintenance and their fire training on one piece of property, and it
would save the taxpayers a lot of money to have everybody working
together in that one place.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just don't know how that works
with their ability to be ready to fight a fire if something happens at that
point in time. You don't want to be too far away from that station with
your equipment --
Page 134
October 12, 2004
CHIEF PETERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- for very long periods of time. I
don't know how that would work, but certainly it's -- I would
appreciate your response to that.
CHIEF PETERSON: As far as a minimum size for a training
site, without calculating it out, we know we'd need probably at least
five acres to do something. Now, whether that was just the tower and
other pieces to that, I'm not sure, because there's site retention
requirements that would fit in there, that would be part of that acreage.
So from a specific size, I'm not able to qualify that for you.
I would share in general that all fire districts have that problem of
shipping their people out of their district to do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHIEF PETERSON: There's been a lot of discussions with the
maintenance facility potentially, and we've even tried to pursue that,
and we found nobody that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wants to do it, huh?
CHIEF PETERSON: Well, not necessary to do it, but especially
the acreage around the landfill has been a mysterious fluid situation
that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's suppose we took the
uncertainty out of that situation and we, today, took action to provide
you with some guarantee that you would have some land or facility to
develop a training facility for all of the fire departments who wish to
use it, including the City of Naples if they wanted to participate,
because we have the same kinds of objections in the City of Naples, of
course, to fire training towers.
But I'm -- I don't think I phrased my question quite as clearly as I
should. My concern is not what you--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's clear to me, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I says, it's clear to me.
Page 135
October 12,2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, okay. But--
CHIEF PETERSON: Let me try to help you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But no, let me go back.
CHIEF PETERSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not asking you to forecast what
you would need at some other site. I'm merely saying that there must
be some amount of training that you would prefer to conduct on site at
your location, at your current location, or your planned location.
If we could provide a training tower somewhere else and remove
the training tower as an objection by the neighbors, is there some
training, basic training, that you would like to retain on that site, and if
so, tell us what it is so we can try to evaluate the potential impact on
the community.
CHIEF PETERSON: The room, conference room.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHIEF PETERSON: That was originally intended, because we
knew just our department size requires a room to facility at least 100
people at different times where we run into with volunteers coming in
and training and the sur community, that we didn't see that as an
auditorium, but that's a physical use.
Other than that, our immediate need is to be able to get the rest of
the facility underway. The vacated property that the training tower
would have taken, if we're able to use that in an asphalt or a concrete
service and not have to keep it as a grass service, that would allow us
physical abilities to do different things with the trucks.
We're not going to be elevated with that, but hose activities and
use the existing building to do ladder activities. There's different
things we could do on the ground.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And those are things you'll do
anyway at all fire stations.
CHIEF PETERSON: All fire stations, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So those won't be out of the
Page 136
October 12, 2004
ordinary?
CHIEF PETERSON: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So, County Manager, is it -- is it
placing an unreasonable burden on the county or your staff if we were
to direct, as part of this, this action today, to find some property,
suitable property for the fire departments to build a training tower?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we'll take a look. There was some
-- you know, the thing about the landfill, you've got to make sure that
you're zoned. Under the rural fringe, that land could only be used for
certain things. We've got to make sure that if we're talking about that
particular area, that it fits within the GMP that we sent forward.
We can go look for that and -- but you're going to have to find
some kind of land that's close enough in, you know, so that East
Naples and Golden Gate and everybody else can use it without going
way out there in order to -- and we can take a look at __
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, some of them have their
training facilities already at their site --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Only one, I think. North Naples.
MR. MUDD: You've got North and you've got the City of
Naples.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Two, those two, yeah.
Okay.
But remember that what we're talking about here, the original
proposal is to have some of those -- some of the facilities that don't
have training towers to travel to the chiefs station, and that involves a
considerable amount of travel for some people already.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's not as if we're dramatically
adding to the travel time, but yes, there would be travel time, and I
understand.
Now, can we do that on a time frame that is not likely to delay the
chief in getting his facility going? I don't want to complicate his life
Page 137
October 12, 2004
any more than it's been complicated already.
MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, if you're not going to -- if
you're not going to approve the PUD with the training tower on it, he's
pretty well going to do what he can do on that PUD with what he has,
and we'll work the training tower piece off-line to see if we can't come
up with a piece of property someplace rural enough where it won't get
in anybody's way.
But I will tell you, if we find that piece of land, we're not going to
wait long to come back to this board, because God only knows ifit
will be surrounded by residential before we get the training tower
done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, that's right.
MR. MUDD: And we'll go as fast as we can, any then everybody
will know it's already on site.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it's important that they have a
training facility, and that's another consideration. And we don't want
to wait until the chief has finished with his current facility construction
and then tell him about a training facility somewhere.
If we could run these on parallel tracks, then it might solve his
problem and solve the neighbors' problem and solve a lot of problems
for other fire department districts, and -- because it gives them a place
to go to train without having a concern about disturbing neighbors and
being non -- or be inconsistent with, incompatible with the
neighborhood.
CHIEF PETERSON: Couple of things if I could share with you
too, we're probably a year to two years in the process once we identify
new property because of the environmental impact studies, the wetland
mitigation, if there's any, all of that type of an analysis.
So we're looking realistically to -- even if we said here tomorrow,
that we're probably two years out type of thing. But we certainly
appreciate the board's consideration, that -- if you don't approve that,
we certainly very wholeheartedly ask for your support in the
Page 138
October 12, 2004
endeavors, impact fees, and all of the associated costs that we'll have
to put another site, that we're able to do something. But we do need to
get the rest of the facility moving.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, in view of your willingness to
work with everybody on this thing in the past, I'll give you my
personal commitment I'll do everything I can to help you get this thing
rolling without a lot of interference, if we can -- if we can separate
these two things now, and I'd be willing to make a motion to approve
your facility in accordance with the -- you don't want me to do that
yet? Okay. I won't do that yet. He doesn't want to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 1'11 put Commissioner Henning before the
other guys here, because it seems he has something to add.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me ask my colleagues
something. Siting of schools, high schools, are we going to start
removing football fields from the site being a part of a use? Because,
County Manager, ever been to a football game, ever hear those horns?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that loud? Is that compatible
to a neighborhood? But yet we want to locate schools in
neighborhoods.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're addressing a question to
us or you're just --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. What are we going to do
with that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd be happy to answer that.
We've got it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With a park -- a bus garage over
there at Orangetree when we had to.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We need the needs of the
residents as best we can, and we make compromises.
Page 139
October 12, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. What about the -- what
about a j ail next to --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We've got one, thank you, right in my
own community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next to the Glades?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What about mine? I've got one,
too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that next to the Glades?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It is next to the Glades.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I appreciate trying to do
whatever we can for the residents, and I think we should. But we also
need to think about how it affects the taxpayers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right, exactly, and I think that's where
we're all coming from, Commissioner Henning. You know, I think
Chief has been -- I really commend you on how open and honest and
up front you've been about this whole thing, because you've really
tried to tell us all of the pitfalls. You've been straight up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I can't tell you how much I admire
you for doing that. A lot of people --
CHIEF PETERSON: Thank you, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- aren't that way when they come in front
of us. Anyway, you have been, and you've said also, all during your
deliberation, that you've tried to work with the other fire stations and
they just haven't come onboard.
I think that that's a thing that we must start doing, is talking about
the taxpayers. All the fire services need to build one tremendous fire
station and pitch in on that. Rather than raise the tax, the millage rate,
they could all share in the cost and all share in the use of, as well as, as
I said before, maintenance facility. And you reaffirmed that you'd been
trying to get people to get together with one maintenance facility for
all of the vehicles that are used within the fire services, and I think it's
Page 140
--,'--.- .'^,"..~"."..._,--""
October 12, 2004
a great idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Since I wasn't finished with my
question, I'll --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. But you said taxpayers, so I had to
. .
Jump In.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great, great, because--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Being chairman, I get to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The -- if we have one
central facility, how does that serve the taxpayer when there's a fire in
a district or a call for a response in a district, and they must travel to
that?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They're not going from the fire tower
though.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. When you have a call --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean, that's a training facility, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean, we're not asking --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And firefighters -- firefighters
work three days a week, or two days a week, 24 hours a day, so those
are the ones that are training that are going to be the ones on call.
Now, mind you, they're not going to empty out one fire station to do
that --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- but if it's an accident or
something, they're going to -- they'll have somebody there to respond
to it. But if it's a structural fire, you have a -- many responding to that.
So it is going to be people in the training, but I can see that --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think respectfully that sounds a little bit
lame. I think that it's better for the taxpayer to all--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, I'm just
speaking from experience, that's all.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I don't think that many people are
Page 141
October 12, 2004
always going to be at the training station when there's a call for fire,
but I would guess that they could get there from there anyway, you
know, especially if it's located somewhere like the landfill where they
can -- you know, like centrally located.
But let me get out of that -- and I'm sorry. I shouldn't have
jumped in there, but I took my privilege.
Commissioner Coletta?
CHIEF PETERSON: Madam Chair?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's been --let me be honest with
you. At this point in time, I know that Golden Gate doesn't have a
training tower, neither does Corkscrew or Immokalee --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Or East Naples.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- or East Naples, and they make
do with the other towers, and I know that you've set up a tremendous
network of support throughout the system so that when you're on
training, you have backups that's ready to respond in a moment's
notice.
It's going to be a physical impossibility to build a training tower
at every fire department, so that argument really doesn't wash. It
doesn't work.
I understand what Commissioner Fiala's saying. I don't want to
sound disrespectful to Commissioner Henning in all the time he's spent
as a fire commissioner, but I just don't see that as a criteria.
Although I just want to bring up, I do agree with you about the
berm. I think that after listening to you, what you said and explained
and you worked it out, the notification that went to the residents, I
think the berm would probably be the best thing for them. The cost, I
imagine, will be minimal when you start to divide it up amongst all the
households. Am I correct on that, Chief?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Coletta, I just talked to
Mr. Stout. He's not concerned about the cost of maintenance of the
berm --
Page 142
October 12, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- at this point.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I'm not concerned either,
and sorry that I dragged you through the whole process. When
anything new hits the board, we're always going to question it.
If you ever want to come back at a future time and you want to
get a variance to raise the communication tower, I will not be opposed
to it, not if it's the beautiful edifice that you put -- they put up in other
places in the area.
I do go along with the majority of the commissioners here as far
as the facility itself for training goes. I'm really not excited about it. I
do commend you for running -- having a public auditorium that you're
going to have for the civic associations.
As you may know at that end of the county, we don't have that
many facilities, especially when you get out in the outlying reaches.
And the Golden Gate Fire Department has been most gracious in
giving room to civic associations to meet at the 13th Street station, and
so that says a lot for them too, and I commend you for that.
There's one thing though I'm going to bring up, and it's probably
going to be upsetting to the people at Summit Place, and that's the
access from Summit Place to the fire department area, to be able to go
through a walk through area.
I believe in this access. I know that there's a lot of people that are
concerned about it, but if we don't have some interconnectivity, people
on bicycles or kids that might want to be to get from one place to the
other -- fire stations are not dangerous places. They're places that
children run at the time of danger when their lives are threatened.
They know they can go to a fire station to seek safety from whatever
may be threatening them.
To isolate the fire station from the community, I think, would be
a serious mistake. And I hope that when it comes time we endorse that
walkway through there, a place that pedestrians and bicycles would be
Page 143
October 12, 2004
able to go through to be able to go back and forth.
Other than that, I appreciate your patience, and I hope that I didn't
do anything to upset you too much.
CHIEF PETERSON: No, sir. If I may, our intent today was
purely to get a PUD approved. It was not our intent to do something
else, consolidation, or anything else.
There are -- each fire organization has different needs in the
community. Each community is different. There's more intensity--
we've got 100 some miles, some communities are only 40 some miles.
There's a lot of different needs there.
The training situation that -- people that are training at those
facilities are responsible for carrying out emergency responses in the
rest of the county. They're not on an off-duty per see So anybody that's
there is there logistically, so we're -- I want to share with you, we're
only intended to be the rezone situation here for the facility that --
whether it's maintenance or other training issues, there's certainly
another piece to that, and so we're just here for what we brought to you
this morning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas and then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'd just like to say that I'm in
favor of the EMS section. I'm also in favor of the fire station, and I
know that the -- in the North Naples fire district over by Veterans
Park, they also have basically the same type of accommodations that
you're speaking of that you're going to have at this fire station, and that
is where you have a meeting place for different homeowner groups,
and I think that's great.
At that, 1'd like to make a motion that we approve the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's my motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sorry.
Sorry, it's his motion. He had already begun, so can I --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can help him with it.
Page 144
October 12, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm sorry if I stepped on
some body's toes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, you didn't step on their toes. I
stepped on his toes because I interrupted to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- call on more people.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So listen carefully. You could second it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, he might not like it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Go ahead, Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 1'11 make a motion that we approve
consistent with the staff and the Planning Commission
recommendations, which would be the elimination of the fire training
facility and limiting the communication tower to a stealth flagpole
design with a maximum height of 135 feet, and also to direct staff to
identify some property that can be used for a centralized training
facility for all fire departments in Collier County.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, when you say -- when you say
identify, I'm going to identify. There's going to be a price to that land
someplace, okay? If it's in the back of the landfill, that's an enterprise
fund. So if you're going to donate it, you're going to do it out of ad
valorem and pay that enterprise fund. That isn't just a donation that
you get. So it's not free. We will try to find land that is --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Reasonable.
MR. MUDD: -- reasonable, okay? And we will give it a
concerted effort in order to do so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there any way to divide the price
of the land among all --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I'm going to have a chiefs' meeting here
real soon.
Page 145
October 12, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And Chief Peterson and I talked about this before.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right.
MR. MUDD: And I'm going to try to get an idea on this
particular piece of property. And then we will -- and then we will talk
about it at that meeting and see if we can't work through this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or it can come from fire protection
impact fee?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. This is a growth issue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, would you like to
second that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to second that, but I'd like to
ask the county attorney, did we cover all the bases on this before we
make the -- finish up the motion?
MR. WEIGEL: Boy, have you.
Yes, you have actually, Commissioner, and I would suggest
however, that -- to the motion maker, that, in fact, that you would
sever the directive to staff to go forward relating to finding separate --
separate solution and answer for the training facility, and that the vote
on this agenda item be purely in regard to the motion to approve with
the definitions and restrictions that you put in there, and then as a
follow-up, either by motion or by direction to staff, to follow up on the
item regarding to checking the inventory, coming back with a report,
and working with fire chiefs relating to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree to sever the guidance to the
staff from the motion to approve consistent with the CCPC
recommendation.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 1'11 second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Great.
Page 146
October 12, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Does that -- does that meet your --
MR. WEIGEL: That's just fine, that's just fine. And to
Commissioner Halas, yes, I think then that everything is addressed
with this item that needs to be at this point.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question, is the motion -- I
assume that it covers such things as the berm as indicated on here and
also the cut-through for the residents to be able to get to -- one area to
another.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It deals only with the approval of
the petition itself --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- with the elimination of the fire
training facility and limiting the communication tower to a maximum
height of 135 feet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I don't mean to interrupt
you, but I see Mr. Y ovanovich nodding his head up and down that it
already includes -- the petition includes it.
MR. YO V ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That satisfies my question.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have the motion on the floor
by Commissioner Coy Ie, a second by Commissioner Halas, who
wanted to make it a motion himself first. And I apologize.
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.
Page 147
October 12, 2004
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That passes 5-0. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Chief, I'd like to say again, thanks a lot for
all you've done for this and --
CHIEF PETERSON: You're welcome. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- we really appreciate it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, the guidance to the staff was
the second thing. Do we need to vote on that or is that --
MR. MUDD: No, if I can get just three nods. I've got two
already. Okay, I've got four, five. We'll go work it out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we're going to get involved--
my perspective, if we're going to get involved in fire issues, we ought
to be a fire department, more than one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What does that mean?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if we're going to get in the
fire business by providing land for this facility, then why aren't we -- I
think that's -- all I'm saying is, that's the fire department's business and
not the Board of Commissioners' business. That's all.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it's a Board of
Commissioners' business to help the fire departments in any way we
can to provide for the health, safety and welfare for the people of
Collier County --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: For the taxpayers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They've done it for us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the -- and I'm not sure if
we did that today, but that's fine.
CHIEF PETERSON: Madam Chair, if I may, I think maybe to
help facilitate, what I would -- if you could leave it with us, with the
county manager and myself to help facilitate this, and whatever we can
come up with, we'll bring it back to you and facilitate it that way,
Page 148
October 12, 2004
because there are a lot of convoluted issues there that I think got your
direction. We'll work with the county manager to facilitate that.
Thank you again.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. I'd like to wish the county manager
good luck in getting all of the fire chiefs to work together on this.
That's -- that will be challenging, won't it?
Good luck. Thank you.
And with that, we're going to take a 10-minute break.
(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. I think we're on to the public
comments portion of our agenda. Do we --
MS. FILSON: I have no public speakers, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pardon me?
MS. FILSON: I have no public speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No public speakers.
So we'll move on then to county attorney's report.
Item #12
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The only thing to report right now is I've got people working in
the office with me, around me, so we can report to you at the next
board meeting relating to beaches and beach access. As you had
requested, that should be coming back at the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. At the next meeting in
October?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, that's right.
Page 149
October 12, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
Do we have any other constitutional officers in the room who
would like to have a portion of this agenda?
I think Jim Mitchell has left. I would have given him space.
And then we're on to our county manager.
Item #15
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, first thing I'd like to make sure that the
board is knowledgeable about, and this is a sad moment to announce,
but Mary Frances Cruz, who was the first woman elected to Collier
County Commission, she passed away in the latter part of September.
There was a -- there was a notice in the paper, and things like
that. But it happened after we had our last meeting in September, and
I want to make sure that we don't let that go by and -- her passing,
without some kind of notice with the contributions that she basically
had to Collier County.
And she did -- and she basically did serve the county with great
pride and dignity. And, you know, if you'll look at the commission--
or the Naples Daily News article, there was -- there was a little bit
about Commissioner Coletta, and she kind of took him underneath her
wIng --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I didn't know that.
MR. MUDD: -- to get him to aspire to what he is today, and
maybe for future -- future heights.
But she did some great things for Collier County, and she moved
to Ocala in her latter years. And her sudden death, indeed, is a sad day
for us in this community, and we mark that passing with great sorrow,
and I wanted to make sure that her family knew that she's in our
thoughts and prayers.
Page 150
October 12, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: The next item -- well, I have two contentious
items, and -- what the heck.
First is a letter that I received today, and I need to get your -- and
it's addressed to you, ma'am, and I don't even believe you had an
opportunity to see this yet. It's probably in your in-box.
But it's a letter to you from Sheriff Hunter that's basically asking,
pursuant to Florida Statute 30.49(4), the board is required to give
written notice of its budget action to the sheriff and identify in such
notice the specific guidance amended, modified, increased, or reduced.
Please advise our office of all changes to the 2004/2005 budget
request.
Thank you for your prompt response.
I would -- I would suggest to the board that I, myself, Mr.
Smykowski, and the county attorney's office will start working on this
particular item with great diligence and speed and have a proposal to
you at the next board meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about the county's request for
information from the sheriffs department?
MR. MUDD: I have not received it yet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Should we not wait until we get
that information before we try to start preparing a list of things that
have been -- that we would recommend changing in the budget?
MR. MUDD: I'm going to ask Mr. Weigel. I mean, I've talked to
David about this particular item. When does the identification of the
cuts need to be made, and, you know, I said, do we do this before the
appeal is announced or do we do it after the sheriff announces the
appeal? There's nothing in the statute that specifies the time, but Mr.
Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Jim. I haven't seen the letter yet, and
I don't know that it uses the appeal word necessarily or not.
Page 151
October 12, 2004
But in any event, the board -- it is appropriate for the Board of
County Commissioners to indicate generally where the cut is.
If we should get -- I would suggest that if we, the county, were to
get information from the sheriff in the meantime which assists
generally and/or specifically in some of our dialogue with him in that
regard, that's fine. But I think that we can and should go ahead -- and
Jim Mudd and I, and Mr. Smykowski, and work toward providing a
submittal for you to review at the next board meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, my question is, how can we
do that if we really don't have all the information we need in order to
complete an effective review?
MR. WEIGEL: The answer -- the answer is, is that the response
that you will probably give with the recommendations of us three will
be a general response coming out of one of five or six pies, generally,
if you break the sheriffs budget up into pies.
And I didn't bring my statutes down with me, but one area is
personnel, another one is capital expenditures, and there are two or
three others, obviously, that are kind of similar but different that way,
and that may be -- that may well be the designation that you'll be
making and not going with any great specificity, which I recall from
the budget hearing discussion that this board was not going to look to
define with ultimate specificity where the sheriff would be making any
changes or reductions in his expenditure course over the course of the
next year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I've got to tell you, I've still
got a problem with this. Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't want to play games with this
thing. You know, if the sheriff asks for a response to something, I
think we ought to give it to him. We ask for information, I think he
ought to give it to us.
And I think in order to make the best possible judgment we can
Page 152
October 12, 2004
make and to provide him the best possible guidance concerning our
decision-making on the budget, we need to have certain things
clarified. We need to understand why $4 million was budgeted this
past year for overtime but $8 million was spent.
And we need to know that so that we can make a decision as to
whether or not the $6 million that's budgeted for overtime next year is
reasonable. And I don't understand how we can go and give the sheriff
a meaningful response unless we have that information.
MR. WEIGEL: I agree with you, and I think that the response
that you give will be more meaningful based upon the information
that's provided you.
Nevertheless, there is a statutory requirement, at least particularly
upon his request being made, for a response of the board to be
provided. And from that standpoint, he'll be assisted, I think, to some
degree by the degree and depth of information that he should provide
you and data, and to the extent that he mayor may not provide that, or
does, will assist you in a response of one kind or another.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, is there some statutory
obligation with respect to the sheriff giving us the information we have
asked for?
MR. WEIGEL: No, not that I have seen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A public records request does not
have a date?
MR. WEIGEL: A public records request is certainly a viable
option. A request for specific information to be compiled is a different
thing, and that has the option of responding or not. If we ask for data
that he has, then he can provide that
MR. MUDD: Let me interject for a second.
MR. WEIGEL: Sure.
MR. MUDD: I asked the sheriff for a Freedom of Information
Act for specific information right after the last budget hearing was
over, so that's out there, and that information has not been received.
Page 153
October 12, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So let me go back to my other
question. The Freedom of Infonnation Act request, is there a date at
which that must be replied to?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, yeah. There isn't a specific date under--
it's the public records act in Florida. Freedom of Infonnation Act is
really the federal vernacular. But in any event, it's supposed to be
reasonable time to respond, and the reasonability is based upon the
ability to assimilate and provide the materials, so there could be
questions of noncompliance that come forward if there were other --
unless there were other circumstances that the sheriff were to provide
in that regard for not complying with the requests so far.
But it is a separate matter from the 30.49, Florida statute, sheriffs
budget statute that talks in tenns of the board making -- when it makes
a reduction to the proposed requested budget of the sheriff to provide
where, and it's a general where, that reduction is to be made.
And so the sheriff is looking for at least a round peg in one of the
five or six round holes that are there if there can be further specificity,
and Mr. Smykowski and Mr. Mudd and I will certainly advise you at
that meeting, anything further you might do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I need to pursue this just a
little bit further. Now, I can understand where we might indicate to
the sheriff where we have some concern about the budgeted amounts
of money, and I think we ought to specify those to the extent we can.
But I hope you're not telling us that we are telling the sheriff
where he's supposed to take the money from. In other words, if we say
to the sheriff, we think that your overtime budget is excessive in view
of your full staffing position, and we recommend a reduction, is he
then obligated to reduce his staff in order to make up that shortage, or
can he take it from someplace else?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, he would -- he would take it -- the
reduction of what he requested would be allocated to one of the five or
six categories. And, again, it's personnel capital, capital expenditures,
Page 154
October 12, 2004
there's op -- some other operating expenditure category, and he can
request, and he, therefore, would need to respond as to one of those
categories, or a combination of categories if we felt that that was
appropriate for him to administer the reduction from what he originally
requested.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I still feel very uneasy about
giving somebody a response to questions that we can't answer because
we haven't been given the information, and that bothers me a lot --
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- because if this -- if this does go
to an appeal to Tallahassee, I think we have an obligation to be
absolutely accurate and complete in all of our responses to the sheriff,
and to go off half-cocked and saying, well, based upon what we know
right now, this is where I think we ought to reduce the money, only to
find out maybe at some later point in time when we finally get the
information we requested, that those amounts of money were
reasonable and the potential overages were somewhere else.
And that puts us in a very, very difficult position with respect to
arguing about the budget amounts. So I'm really very concerned about
proceeding on a basis that I don't think is very well thought out.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I wouldn't suggest for a moment that
anyone has operated or been half-cocked or about to go off
half-cocked in this regard. But the budget hearings have come and
have now gone, and the board had to make decisions based upon
information that was before it, or in the fact that information was
unsatisfactory for them to allocate to the extent that the request was
made.
And the board, with or without additional information, will be in
a position, I think, to make an allocation with at least a -- call it a
topical degree of specificity in a category or categories, or that -- or
more, depending on more information that the sheriff may provide
post-hearing.
Page 155
October 12, 2004
But in any event, if there should be an appeal -- and again, I've
not seen a letter that the sheriff has transmitted. But if there should be
an appeal later on, I think that the point that you're making today is not
only a relevant point for this body but is a relevant point for the
administration commission that would be hearing it at that point later
as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Can we send a follow-up
request to get some information?
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely. Typically that's what's done in
public records requests. If you don't hear right away a courtesy
response saying we're working on it, bear with us, we've got to go to
our files, whatever, then a follow-up is absolutely appropriate.
So with Jim's coordination, I look forward to assist in any way to
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: -- get another message out today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I think we need to get -- set
the record straight here, being that I'm out of the public sector, and I
think Commissioner Coyle was probably out of the public sector, most
of us were, where we worked for large corporations at one time.
My understand is that, first of all, the sheriff gave us a budget
request, and I don't know how much clearer I can make of that, and
normally almost any department had -- in a major corporation, will
come up with a budget request. That doesn't mean that they're going to
get every bit of money that they ask for.
The sheriff should have managerial skills whereby he knows best
where to put that money and the resources that need to be put. And
I'm sick and tired of him telling us how he wants us to operate his
department.
We made it very clear on this dais that we weren't here to micro
manage his shop. He ended up with a $14 million and some odd
Page 156
October 12, 2004
change increase over last year's budget. He did not get a budget -- his
budget was not cut from the previous year. He just did not receive the
full amount of money that he requested.
And we felt as county commissioners that we also had other
commitments that needed to be taken care of by -- for safety and
health and welfare of this community.
So I hope that with this added information that we hope to get
from the sheriff, that maybe he can give us an ORC chart, and we
maybe can take a look at his middle management area, and I think
maybe that may be an area that he may also have to address.
But he has the managerial skills to go ahead and make out --
figure out what he needs to do to get the job done and get his mission
accomplished.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other comments, Commissioners?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I will send an additional full-year request
over to figure out what the status of the first one is, which you -- but,
again, I will tell you, there is a Florida statute, and it's 30.49(4), that
requires when the board does not give a sheriff the budget that he
requests, you must be able to tell him where those cuts in the general
areas needs to be at. That's a Florida statute.
And so we will -- we will work -- once I ask for the additional
full-year, we will work diligently over the next week or so in order to
come up with a recommended plan for you, and I'll bring it up at the
next board meeting so that you can either agree or disagree with it, and
we can get this thing moving and satisfy the Florida statutes in this
regard.
The next item is another item that Commissioner Fiala received.
And I'm -- ma'am, I'm not taking away your thunder, but I want to
make sure that everybody knows that we haven't not received this nor
are we trying to decide what to do.
It's a letter to Commissioner Fiala from the Mayor, Bill Barnett,
of the City of Naples. It basically says that -- that the city council
Page 157
October 12, 2004
voted to discontinue the Chapter 164 dispute resolution proceeding
concerning the Golden Gate Overpass.
At the same meeting, the council unanimously voted to request
that the county dismiss the pending administrative challenge to the
city's comprehensive plan, which we basically put to challenge into the
comprehensive plan because we believe that that comprehensive plan
amendment was directed against the overpass. And if the county did
not challenge that particular comprehensive plan, it would have
weakened our case if the city challenged the overpass, the Golden
Gate Overpass, in court.
I believe, based on conversations that I've had with each one of
the commissioners, that we would like to dismiss that challenge to the
comprehensive plan; however, in talking with the county attorney's
office -- and David, I'm going to put you on the hot seat again. There
was a motion that was also filed by the city's attorney that the county
would pick up the legal expenses for the city; am I correct, David?
Help me here a little bit, if you would.
MR. WEIGEL: You're close. The council for the city, city
attorney, had gone forward and filed a motion for costs on the -- that
they had incurred from the division of administrative hearings suit that
we had relating to the comprehensive plan, their comprehensive plan
amendment.
We, of course, felt that what we filed was not only appropriate
but was very important. And although the result that came from the
hearing judge wasn't one that we are agreed with completely, we did
find some kernels of goodness that came from that in the opinion.
We don't believe that the efforts that were mounted by the county
were frivolous and don't believe for a moment that it's something that
we should -- we, the county -- should pay for by order of the court, the
attorney fees and costs that the city expended in helping us have to go
through this procedure in the first place by what we thought was an
action of the city that -- in the original amendment that was -- had the
Page 158
October 12, 2004
Golden Gate Overpass subliminally written into it.
In any event, we have not heard, my office nor apparently Jim at
this point working with the city manager, have not heard that their
council will, in fact, withdraw their request to the court to have us pay
for their court fees and costs, attorney fees and costs.
And so with that in mind, Jim, I think the next thing you were
about to say -- and here's where you correct me -- is that we not
dismiss our -- potentially we recommend that we not dismiss our
action until we get clarity and dismissal of what they were pretending
to do here with attorney fees and costs.
MR. MUDD: Not only was that close, but it was dead on. The
response that I would recommend is the staff draft, with the help of the
county attorney's office, draft a response back to the mayor saying we
would be glad to dismiss our administrative challenge to the city's
comprehensive plan pending your withdrawal --
MR. WEIGEL: Withdrawal.
MR. MUDD: -- of your motion for attorneys' expenses in that
particular action.
And with that, I think we've got that done. I think I have three
nods.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, good.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Four nods.
That's all I have, ma'am. I said I could have a couple actions that
would be a little dicey. That's it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Glad that Commissioner Coletta
made it back safely.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Never would have if you didn't
give me the can of sardines. That made all the difference in the world.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
Page 159
October 12, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say I'm sorry I missed
all the fun today, or most of the fun today, that I was involved with the
Supervisor of Elections in going through a logic and accuracy test of
randomly chosen machines. In fact, it was a total of 24 voting
machines.
And I can say that Collier County's in great shape for the
upcoming general election. And I feel that we're going to have a great
turnout of people here that are going to elect the next president of the
United States and that we shouldn't have any glitches in the system.
I also would like to say happy birthday to my fellow
commissioner, Jim Coletta, and I think also we need to keep our
Mayor Bonnie MacKenzie in our prayers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand that she's ill, and -- so
I think all of us need to have her in our prayers.
And with that, it's been a great day, and as usual, it's great to
serve as a county commissioner here in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a lighter note, if I may. I'd
like to send a special thanks to my administrative aide, Nancy Rozak
for making the most delicious chocolate cake I've ever had in my life
for my birthday, and I want my wife to know that I ate a very small
piece. But very good. It was good, and I was good, too.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
And 1'11 wind it up with saying that I've been delighted to read all
about your trip in Poland. The Naples Daily News had really good
coverage, and not only that, but they've give us a postcard from Poland
each day and tell us a little bit about Poland itself or about something
that they saw.
Page 160
October 12, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But they never mentioned Jim's
name. Was he really there?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I had a hard time catching up
with them. I did towards the end.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It sounded like a great trip and the
beginning of something really good for an economic boost to not only
the Immokalee area, but to Collier County as well. And it sounds like
the Polish people are wonderful.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They are. It's a remarkable
country .
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I wish that maybe sometime you could tell
us all about your trip. Yes?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, very much so. In fact, I was
going to see if --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not tonight.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I only need about an hour and a
half. But I was wondering if I might possibly make a brief report to
the commission at the next meeting. There wasn't enough time to
prepare it for this meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd really like that, and I'm going to step
out on a limb and say that I'll speak for everybody. I'd like to hear a
report --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and be able to even ask you a couple
questions --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'd love it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- I'm sure we all would, about the trip and
about the people and about future plans.
Commissioner Halas is chomping at the bit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's providing we can keep
Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Coy Ie under control so that
the meetings don't carry on long periods of time.
Page 161
October 12, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to get the timer out next
time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Ever notice when he uses the time, he's
always really quiet?
Anyway, I will wind this up by saying I'm glad you had such a
great trip.
Commissioners, it's been a great day.
And with that, I'll say, meeting is adjourned.
***** Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Coletta and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR ISLAND WALK PHASE I-A - WI RELEASE OF
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR ISLAND WALK PHASE 1-B- WI RELEASE OF
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR ISLAND WALK PHASE 3-A- WlRELEASE OF
Page 162
October 12, 2004
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR ISLAND WALK PHASE 3-B- WI RELEASE OF
Item #16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR ISLAND WALK PHASE 3-B- WI RELEASE OF
Item #16A6
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR ISLAND WALK PHASE 6-A- WI RELEASE OF
Item #16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR ISLAND WALK PHASE 6-B- WI RELEASE OF
Item #16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR VISTA POINTE AT THE VINEYARDS- WI
RELEASE OF THE (UPS) UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECIlRITY
Item #16A9
Page 163
October 12, 2004
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR THE DUNES PHASE 2-B- WI RELEASE OF
Item #16A10
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "NAPLES WALK UNIT
TWO" - W /SlJfllLAIIONS
Item #16A11
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF 1.14 ACRES
UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
Item #16A12
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF 1.59 ACRES
UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
Item #16A13
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
MEDITERRA, PARCEL 104- WI RELEASE OF THE (UPS)
Item #16A14
APPROVE FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "MADISON
PARK, PHASE ONE", AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Page 164
October 12, 2004
AND THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY- WI
STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARY
Item #16A15
ACCEPTANCE OF THE FINAL REPORT AND FINDINGS OF
THE IMMOKALEE HOUSING CONDITION INVENTORY AND
TO CLOSE OUT THE IMMOKALEE HOUSING INITIATIVE - AS
Item #16A16
CP-2004-04: PETITION CARNY-2004-AR-6512, PEG RUBY,
SPECIAL EVENTS COORDINATOR, COLLIER COUNTY PARKS
AND RECREATION, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT
THE ANNUAL OCTOBER FEST CARNIVAL ON OCTOBER 22,
23 AND 24, 2004, AT THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY
CENTER LOCATED AT 4701 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY-
WIWAIVER OF THE OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE AND SURETY
BOND
Item #16A17
CP-2004-05: PETITION CARNY-2004-AR-6513, PEG RUBY,
SPECIAL EVENTS COORDINATOR, COLLIER COUNTY PARKS
AND RECREATION, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT
THE ANNUAL FALL FEST CARNIVAL ON OCTOBER 28, 29, 30
AND 31, 2004, AT THE EAGLE LAKES COMMUNITY PARK
LOCATED AT 11565 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST-W/WAIVEROF
THE OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE AND SURETY BOND
Page 165
October 12, 2004
Item #16A18
CP 2004-06: PETITION CARNY-2004-AR-6514, PEG RUBY,
SPECIAL EVENTS COORDINATOR, COLLIER COUNTY
PARKS AND RECREATION, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO
CONDUCT THE ANNUAL COUNTRY JAMBOREE CARNIVAL
ON MARCH 11,12, AND 13,2005, IN THE VINEYARDS
COMMUNITY PARK AT 6231 ARBOR BOULEV ARD-
W/WAIVER OF THE OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE AND SURETY
BOND
Item #16A19
CP 2004-07: PETITION CARNY-2004-AR-6515, PEG RUBY,
SPECIAL EVENTS COORDINATOR, COLLIER COUNTY PARKS
AND RECREATION, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT
THE ANNUAL SNOWFEST CARNIVAL ON DECEMBER 4 AND
5,2004, AT THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY PARK
LOCATED AT 3300 SANTA BARBARA BOULEV ARD-
W /wAIVER OF THE OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE AND SURETY
BOND
Item #16A20
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR INDIGO LAKES, UNIT 5-W/RELEASE OF THE
Item #16A21
RESOLUTION 2004-318: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Page 166
.'--
October 12, 2004
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "IBIS COVE PHASE 2A", THE
ROADW A Y AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIV A TEL Y MAINT AINED- W/RELEASE OF THE
Item #16A22
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR VILLA VISTANA-W/RELEASE OF THE (UPS)
Item #16A23
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR VILLA FLORENZA AT THE VINEY ARDS-
W/RELEASE OF THE (UPS) UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECIlRITy
Item #16A24- Moved to Item #10C
Item #16B1
CHANGE ORDER NO.1 TO CONTRACT #03-3483-"EQUIPMENT
NOISE BARRIER WALL" FOR $129,160 WITH NR
CONTRACTORS, INC. FOR AN ADDITIONAL 100 FEET OF
EQUIPMENT NOISE BARRIER WALL, THEREBY REDUCING
NOISE LEVELS AT OR BELOW 60 DECIBELS, FOR THE DAVIS
BOULEVARD ROAD MAINTENANCE FACILITY-AS DETAILED
Item #16B2- Withdrawn
Page 167
--,-,-
October 12, 2004
THE DELETION OF SECTION B.2.3, ITEMS (B) AND (D) OF
SCHEDULE B OF THE STANDARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT FOR AIM ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING,
INC. FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PROJECT, FOR A
CONTRACT ISSUED UNDER 04-3583 "CONSTRUCTION,
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION (CEI) SERVICES FOR
"
Item #16B3
AWARD BID #04-3707 "LELY GOLF ESTATES MSTU
IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPE" TO COMMERCIAL LAND
MAINTENANCE, INC. FOR $113,311.80 (WHICH INCLUDES 5%
CONTINGENCY) FOR THE RENOV A TIONS OF IRRIGATION
AND LANDSCAPE MEDIANS 3,4,6-10 WITHIN THE MSTU- AS
Item #16B4
A THREE (3) MONTH EXTENSION, DUE TO THE DELA YED
WIDENING OF IMMOKALEE ROAD, TO BID #99-2955
"IMMOKALEE ROAD GROUND MAINTENANCE SERVICE" TO
COMMERCIAL LAND MAINTENANCE, INC. IN THE
Item #16B5
A DECLARATION SETTING ASIDE A PORTION OF COUNTY-
OWNED LANDS FOR V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD AND
LOGAN BOULEVARD ROADWAY, SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE
Page 168
"~~-<..-._,-
October 12, 2004
Item #16B6
A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,069
TO SUBAQUEOUS SERVICES, INC. AND ALLOCATE $4,407
(10% OF THE CONSTRUCTION COST) FOR CONTINGENCY
PURPOSES TO DREDGE THE OUTFALL AT NAPLES PARK IN
THE V ANDERBIL T LAGOON, TO REMOVE SEDIMENT DUE
TO CONSTRUCTION (PROJECT NUMBER 51004 BID NO. 04-
3104 )
Item #16B7
THE USE OF TRANSIT ENHANCEMENT FUNDS (313) FOR THE
PURCHASE OF TWO NEW TRANSIT BUSES THROUGH GILLIG
CORPORATION UNDER FLORIDA PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
ASSOCIATION/HARLINE CONTRACT NO. 2003-07-01,
TROLLEY DECAL WRAPS AND NECESSARY EQUIPMENT, IN
THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $573,000- AS DETAILED IN
Item #16C1
RESOLUTION 2004-319/ CWS 2004-03: APPROVING THE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HARDSHIP DEFERRALS FOR
CERTAIN SEWER SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 2004 TAX
YEAR, AT A FISCAL IMPACT OF $1,281.95- AS DETAILED IN
Item #16C2
RESOLUTION 2004-320: SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN THAT
WERE HELD AGAINST STEVEN E. METZ, DAMON CRAIG
Page 169
October 12, 2004
SIZEMORE AND SAMUEL C. FOGGIN FOR SOLID WASTE
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS
RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN
FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
Item #16C3
RESOLUTION 2004-321: SATISFACTION OF LIEN HELD
AGAINST STEVEN E. METZ FOR A SOLID WASTE
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS
RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL
FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
Item #16C4
RESOLUTION 2004-322: SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN HELD
AGAINST STEVEN E. METZ AND RUBEN UDASCO FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED
IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
Item # 16C5
RESOLUTION 2004-323: SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN HELD
AGAINST THOMAS A. CONNER, GERALD D. JOLLY AND
RAMON A. PEREZ FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED
PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR
THE 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
Page 170
---.~""
October 12, 2004
Item #16C6
RESOLUTION 2004-324: SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN HELD
AGAINST GERALD D. JOLLY, STEVEN E. METZ AND
RELIANCE PROPERTIES LTD FOR SOLID WASTE
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS
RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN
FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
Item #16C7
SATISFACTION OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND
AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATER AND/OR
SEWER IMPACT FEE WITH J. ROBERT AND VIRGINIA G.
BAILEY
Item #16C8
SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF CLAIM OF LIEN AND
PAYMENT IN FULL FROM BEVERLY ANN COLEMAN AND
STANLEY W. WHITE~ JR. FOR SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
IMP ACLEER
Item #16C9
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR BID #04-3719 TO SANTIS
ENGINEERING, INC., FOR INSTALLATION SERVICES
RELATED TO THE WATER DISTRIBUTION RADIO
TELEMETRY SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION IN THE AMOUNT
Page 171
October 12, 2004
Item #16C10-CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 26,2004 BCC Meeting
THE RAW WATER TRANSMISSION PROJECT TO
INTERCONNECT THE T AMIAMI AND HAWTHORN
WELLFIELDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,500,000 AND
AUTHORIZE THE INITIAL PHASE, WHICH IS A WORK ORDER
UNDER THE ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES CONTRACTING SERVICES, RFP 02-3345, BASED ON
AN ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST NOT TO EXCEED
$690,000 (PROJECT NO. 710061)- AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16E1
AWARD BID RECEIVED UNDER BID S04-3708 FOR THE SALE
OF ONE (SURPLUS) 1992 32-FOOT REGAL BOAT FROM THE
ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE DEPARTMENT TO BRYAN C. DURKIN
Item #16E2
AWARD BID NO. 04-3701, FOR ELECTRICAL PARTS AND
SUPPLIES TO BE USED BY VARIOUS COUNTY
DEPARTMENTS FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS,
TO GRA YBAR ELECTRICAL, INC. AS PRIMARY VENDOR,
REXEL CONSOLIDATED, AS SECONDARY VENDOR, AND
HUGHES SUPPLY, INC AS TERTIARY VENDOR FOR AN
ESTIMATED DOLLAH.AMOUNT OF $100,000- AS DETAILED
Page 1 72
.. __··_M___._
October 12, 2004
Item #16F1
A TOURISM AGREE}\¡IENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
BEST SHOT, INC. FOR (VIDEO TAPE) STOCK FOOTAGE
USAGE OF SCENES OF NAPLES, MARCO ISLAND AND THE
EVERGLADES WHICH WERE SHOT DURING THE WEEK OF
FEBRUARY 23-27, 2004 FOR THE COUNTY'S ADVERTISING
Item #16F2
RATIFY THE EXTENSION OF CONTRACT NO. 03-3537
BETWEEN PARADISE ADVERTISING AND MARKETING, INC.
AND COLLIER COUNTY, FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 FOR MARKETING, AND
ADVERTISING COLLIER COUNTY AS A TOURISM
DESTINATION- AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SlIMMARY
Item #16F3
BUDGET AMEND}\¡IENT: ISLES OF CAPRI #04-538, ISLES OF
CAPRI #05-001, AND A GENERAL FUND BUDGET
AMENDMENT #05-011 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SlIMMARY
Item #16F4
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT
APPLICATIONS TO REGISTER SERVICE MARKS WITH THE
UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE AND THE
STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS TO
Page 173
-..--." .~._,.-- .,~.,_._.,",~..-
October 12, 2004
PRESERVE THE COUNTY'S ADVERTISING LOGOS, PHRASES
AND SLOGANS FOR A TOTAL COST OF $1,267.50- AS
Item #16F5
THE TRANSFER OF TWO (2) EXISTING FULL-TIME
POSITIONS, AN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT AND A
PUBLIC INFORMA TH)N COORDINATOR/TRAINER, FROM
THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO
THE BUREAU OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND APPROVE
THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $108,000- AS
Item #16H1
REQUEST PAYMENT FOR COMMISSIONER FIALA TO
ATTEND THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL'S
"ADDRESSING THE REGIONAL AGENDA" CONFERENCE ON
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2004 AT THE HARBORSIDE EVENT
CENTER IN FORT M'YERS, AT A COST OF $35.00 TO BE PAID
N::j ,
Item #16H2
REQUEST PAYMENT FOR COMMISSIONER HENNING TO
ATTEND THE GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
"WAKE UP NAPLES BREAKFAST" ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2004
AT THE HILTON HOTEL AND TOWERS, AT A COST OF $20.00
TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL
BIIDGEJ
Page 174
October 12, 2004
Item #16H3
REQUEST PAYMENT FOR COMMISSIONER HALAS TO
ATTEND THE ECONC)MIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL &
GATES MCVEY GROUND BREAKING CEREMONY FOR THE
NORTH NAPLES RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY PARK AT 16979
OLD US 41 ROAD IN NAPLES ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2004, AT A
COST OF $8.50 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS'S
IR A vELBI.IDGEI
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS C()RRESPONDENCE- FILED AND/OR
REEERREJ)-
The following n1iscellaneoµs correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Conlill issioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 175
-.'----~-_.,---,.~--~-
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
. October 12,2004
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1: Certificate of Correction: NEED MOTION authorizing the Chairman to sign Certificate
of Correction to the tax rolls as presented by the Property Appraiser's Office.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
2. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
1. North Naples Fire Control & Rescue District - Copy of the Annual
Financial Report for the FY ended 9-30-03; Copy of the District's Audi
for the FY ended 9-30-03; Copy of at he Budget fore the FY ending
September 30,2005, along with resolutions 04-028 and 04-029; Copy of
the District Map; Registered office and agent form; 2004-2005 schedule of
meetings; Copy of the Public Facilities Report; and Copy of the District's
Five Year Plan.
2. Wentworth Estates Community Development District - FY 2005 Meeting
Dates
3. Quarry Community Development District - FY 2005 Meeting Dates
4. Tuscany Reserve Community Development District - FY 2005 Meeting
Dates FY 2005 Meeting Dates
5. Mediterra South Community Development District - FY 2005 Meeting
Dates
6. Naples Herita¡ze Community Development District - FY 2005 Meeting
Dates
7. Heritage Greens Community Development District - FY 2005 Meeting
Dates
8. Fiddler's Creek Community Development District #2 - FY 2005 Meeting
Dates
9. Fiddler's Creek Community Development District - FY 2005 Meeting
Dates.
10. Big Cypress Stewardship District - FY 2005 Meeting Dates
H:Data/Format
~"_~.____ '0. ,
B. Minutes:
1. Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes - Minutes for August 18. 2004.
2. Historical & Archaeological Preservation Board - Agenda for September
22, 2004; Minutes of August 18, 2004.
3. Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. -Agenda for September 21, 2004;
Minutes of August 17,2004.
4. Collier County Contractor's Licensing: Board - Agenda for September 15,
2004
5. Lelv Golf Estates Beautification M.S.T.U. -Agenda for September 16,
2004; Minutes of August 19, 2004. Special Meeting Minutes for August
30,2004
6. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee - Agenda for
September 13,2004; Minutes of August 9,2004.
7. Development Services Advisory Committee - Minutes of September 1,
2004
a) Budget and Operations Sub-Committee - Minutes of August 25,
2004
8. Community Character/Smart Growth Advisorv Committee - Agenda and
Minutes of May 12,2004; Agenda and Minutes of June 9, 2004, informal,
no quorum; Agenda and Minutes of June 30, 2004. informal and no
quorum: and Agenda and Minutes of August 11, 2004.
9. Collier County Pelican Bay Services - Agenda for September 1,2004;
Minutes of August 4, 2004.
a) Clam Bay Sub-Committee - Minutes of August 4,2004.
b) Budget Sub-Committee - Agenda for September 15, 2004; Minutes
of July 21, 2004.
10. Coastal Advisory Committee - Minutes of July 16, 2004.
11. Environmental Advisory Council- September 30. 2004.
12. Collier Countv Planning Commission - Agenda for September 16, 2004.
13. Lelv Communitý Development District - Minutes of June 16,2004: July
21, 2004, and August 18, 2004. Notice of Meetings for FY 2005.
H:Data/F ormat
---_....--
14. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for September 15,2004;
Minutes of August 18, 2004.
C. Other:
1) Caribbean Gardens Blue Ribbon Committee - Minutes of July 1,2004, July 8,
2004, July 16, 2004, and July 21, 2004 (sub-committee meeting).
2) Guy L. Carlton, Collier County Tax Collector - Recapitulation of the 2003
Tax Roll for Collier County, Florida (DOR Forms 502 and 503).
H:DatalFormat
October 12, 2004
Item #16J1
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE PURCHASES OF GOODS
AND SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED REPORT
OF OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE AND AUTI-IORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF COUNTY
FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID PURCHASES FOR THE PERIOD OF
Item #16K1
MEDIATION SETTLEMENT IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED LEE W
TUTTLE V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 02-4085-CA FOR A
TOTAL SETTLEMENT WITH TERMS OF $28,000- AS
-,
-;
Item #16K2
THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 122 AND 722 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V ROBERT G. SCHUBRING, ET.AL.,
CASE NO. 02-1949-CA (GOODLETTE ROAD PROJECT 60134)-
$6,061.25 TO THE PAULICH, SLACK & WOLFF, P.A. TRUST
ACCOllNT
Item #16K3
THE STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING AND THE STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE ACQUISITION OF
PARCEL NO. 136 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY
V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NAPLES, ET AL., CASE NO. 04-
3587-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT 66042)- PAYMENT OF
Page 176
""--
'"'··4_.'__...··......'"'''~
~_M_'__"~"' ._._.._"__.._,".,.-..."',. _..~-
October 12, 2004
Item #16K4
AN AGREED ORDER AND AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF EXPERT
FEES AND COSTS FOR PARCEL NO. 110 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. NORTHSIDE CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, ET. AL., CASE NO. 00-0136-CA (PINE' RIDGE ROAD
PROJECT 60111)- PAYMENT OF $228,140.00 TO THE RUDEN,
MCCLOSKY, SMITl-I, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A. TRUST
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2004-63: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING ORDINANCE 04-22,
THE BALMORAL PUD TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR
WITHIN SECTION 1.2- THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE
ORDINANCE TO THE BALMORAL PUD FOR PROPERTY THAT
IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD (C.R.
881) AND THE WEST SIDE OF WHIPPOORWILL LANE, IN
SECTION 8, TOWNSI-IJP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
~A
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2004-64: PETITION RZ-2004-AR-5876,
COMMERCE CENTER AT NAPLES LLC REPRESENTED BY
ROBERT J. MULHEIZE OF RWA, INCORPORATED,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL
(C-5) AND INDUSTRIAL (I) ZONING DISTRICTS TO THE
HEAVY COMMERCIAL (C-5) ZONING DISTRICT. THE
Page 1 77
_.-.-,.. .--.... .-- ~-_.."._'~...-."-.~ .....-,."
October 12, 2004
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3400 RADIO ROAD, IN
SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2004-325: PETITION A VPLAT2004-AR6172 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUN CE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE 20 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE
EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE REAR OF TRACTS 30
THROUGH 32, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "TOLLGATE
COMMERCIAL CENTER PHASE THREE" AS RECORDED IN
PLAT BOOK 22, PAGES 95 THROUGH 100, PUBLIC RECORDS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 35,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTIL RANGE 26 EAST AND IN SECTION 2,
IO~50S0~26RAST
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 04-BAIZ-Ol: APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO
THE FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 ADOPTED BUDGET- AS
Item #17E
RESOLUTION 2004-326: PETITION PE-2004-AR-6093,
DOUGALL MCCORIZLE, OF THE LUTGERT COMPANIES,
REPRESENTED BY \\1 ^ YNE ARNOLD, AICP, OF Q. GRADY
MINOR ASSOCIATES, REQUESTING A PARKING EXEMPTION
TO ALLOW OFF-SITE PARKING ON TWO LOTS ZONED
RESIDENTIAL MULTI -F AMIL Y (RMF -6) TO SERVE PROPOSED
GENERAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE USES, ON A PARCEL
Page 178
._.~~_.__._-~..._,,-_.,_._.._...,.-.-_.,_.-
-"~'--'--'-'-~'---'''-~"-~^'-
October 12,2004
ZONED GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-4), WHICH IS
CONTIGUOUS TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES. ACCESS TO
THE PARKING LOT WILL BE FROM THE COMMERCIAL
PARCEL OR THE EXISTING 20-FOOT WIDE PUBLIC ALLEY.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 4817-4819 WEST
ALHAMBRA CIRCLE AND 1013-1015 NORTH ALHAMBRA
CIRCLE IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25
FAST, COLLIER CO~A
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3 :39 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~)~
DONN~ FIALA, Chairman
f:!1 ,. ". ".
..., () . \;~. I ,'J if:) .
ATTES¡f~.······:"·~.
"-'~' '. (fl "
-':'~ .(/:...., .. " C J '. '. ..t"~: ~:~
~~~OL
.. IG~f· . ......~. . . , cLÊIÚc"
. ~/>/'" ....,~ \,·'f~.,,,
, . .~.. ß U .'¡,t. ~ ..
Attest IS to" a.Î11WA' S
1191lt... 0111,.
Page 179
-.....,
October 12, 2004
These minutes approved by the Board on
presented V'" or as corrected
, as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 180
.."---r--.--....-. .--.-.---... ..-----.-..--.--"..-.....