BCC Minutes 10/26/2004 R
October 26, 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, FL October 26, 2004
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the
Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special districts as 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
Jim Coletta
Fred Coyle
Tom Henning
Frank Halas
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Administrator
David Weigel, County Attorney
Patrick White Assistant County Attorney
Jeffrey Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney
Norman Feder, Transportation Services Administrator
Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Coordinator
Page 1
. -, -- .._-,_.._---~~._--~,...........
.,-,-~-,,--_._^.....,.,_._--_..._-->,...-,...'
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
tì"
"',
A"
,
.,' :._:....V~,.., \
.--=
AGENDA
October 26, 2004
9:00 AM
Donna Fiala, Chairman, District 1
Fred W. Coyle, Vice-Chairman, District 4
Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THA T ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1
October 26, 2004
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 AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Bob Townsend, Mayflower Congregational DCC
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 20, 2004 - BCC as Community Redevelopment Agency
C. September 21, 2004 - BCC/Regular Meeting
D. September 23, 2004 - BCC/Budget Hearing Meeting
E. September 24,2004 - BCC/Emergency Meeting-Hurricane Jeanne Briefing
F. September 28,2004 - BCC/Regular Meeting
G. October 6, 2004 - BCC SpeciallValue Adjustment Board
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. 20 Year Attendees
1) John D'Amico, Facilities Management
2
October 26, 2004
B. 30 Year Attendees
1) Elida Valdez, Transportation
2) Edward Hutcheson, Transportation Road Maintenance
3) Curtis Anderson Jr., Transportation Road Maintenance
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation to designate the month of November as Epilepsy Awareness
Month. To be accepted by Gerry Harwick, Case Manager.
B. Proclamation to designate Friday, November 5, 2004 as RONALD
MCDONALD CARE MOBILE DAY. To be accepted by Jules Mijares,
Richard Akin, and Dr. Keith Riley, D.D.S.
C. Proclamation to designate the month of November as Adoption Month in
Collier County. To be accepted on behalf of the Southwest Adoption Task
Force by Debbie Allen, her son Dustin Allen, and Daneille Stewart.
D. Proclamation to designate November 15,2004 American Recycles Day in
Collier County. To be accepted by Denise Kirk, Collier County Recycle
Coordinator.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to Name the Winners of the "What Does Freedom Mean
to You" Art Contest.
B. Recommendation to recognize Adam Brooks, Reference Librarian, Naples
Branch Library as "Employee of the Month" for October 2004.
C. Presentation regarding Status Report from the Collier County Citizens
Corps. To be presented by Carol Pahl, Chairman, Collier County Citizen
Corps Advisory Board.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte
3
October 26, 2004
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDA-03-AR-4227,
Wayne Arnold, representing Bryan W. Paul, requesting a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to PUD rezone for the purpose of amending the
Orangetree PUD to reflect that 616 acres have been rezoned to a new PUD
to be known as the Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD. No other changes are
proposed with this amendment. The subject PUD is located on the northeast
comer of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) and Randall Boulevard in Sections
11, 12, 13, 14,23, and 24, Township 48S, Range 27E. Companion Item:
PUDZ-03-AR-4150.
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. PUDZ-03-AR-4150,
Wayne Arnold, representing Bryan W. Paul, requesting to rezone 616 acres
of the Orangetree Planned Unit Development (PUD) to a new PUD to be
known as the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD permitting a maximum of 1,600
dwelling units; 200,000 square feet of commercial uses allowed in C-l thru
C-5 zoning districts; and, a +90-acre community facility tract permitting
recreational uses, government offices, schools, child care centers, and
commercial excavation. The property is located on the north and south sides
of Oil Well Road (C.R. 858) and approximately one mile east of Immokalee
Road (C.R. 846) in Sections 13, 14, and 24, Township 48S, Range 27E.
Companion Item: PUDA-03-AR-4227.
C. This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. Public Hearing for the 2003 1st Cycle
of GMP Amendments (CPSP-203-11 , Wildlife)
D. This item to be heard immediatelv followio2 Item 8C. Public Hearing for
the 2003 1 st Cycle of Growth Management Plan Amendments (Adoption
Hearing).
E. Adoption of a resolution applying the Annual Mid-Cycle Year Indexing
Adjustments to amend the Road Impact Fee rate schedule, which is Schedule
One of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances (Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance No. 2001-
13, as amended) and providing for a delayed effective date.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Community Character/Smart Growth
Advisory Committee.
4
October 26, 2004
B. Appointment of member to the Code Enforcement Board.
C. Appointment of members to the Historical/Archaeological Preservation
Board.
D. Appointment of member to the Contractors' Licensing Board.
E. Appointment of members to the Affordable Housing Commission.
F. Appointment of member to the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee.
G. Repeal of High Speed Rail Amendment. (Commissioner Henning)
H. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Verbal report from Commissioner
Coletta regarding trip to Poland.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to deny public petition request that the County retain
ownership of Goodland Road (County Road 92-A). (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
B. This item was continued from the September 28, 2004 Meeting to the
October 26,2004 Meeting. Recommendation to adopt a resolution
authorizing condemnation of fee simple interest in the proposed right-of-way
and/or stormwater retention and treatment pond sites, as well as perpetual,
non-exclusive road right-of-way, drainage and utility easements, and
temporary driveway restoration easements, which will be required for the
construction of roadway, drainage and utility improvements to Logan
Boulevard from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road. (Project No.
60166). Estimated fiscal impact: $5,760,000.00. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
C. Recommendation to approve an interlocal service delivery agreement with
the Big Cypress Stewardship District. (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services)
D. Recommendation to Approve a Budget Amendment in the Amount of
$648,775, Project 90502 and Approve the Award of a Bid #04-3667,
Hideaway Beach Renourishment to Weeks Marine, Bid #043667, Hideaway
Beach Renourishment, in the Amount of $2,482,775. (Ron Hovell, Public
5
October 26, 2004
---
Utilities)
E. Recommendation to 1) Approve a Budget Amendment and Tourist
Development Category "A" Grant Application for the Maintenance
Dredging of Wiggins Pass for Fiscal Year 2005, Project 90522, In The
Amount Of $750,000 and 2) Approve and Engineering Services Work Order
under Contract #01-3271, Fixed Term Professional Engineering Services for
Coastal Zone Management Projects, with Humiston & Moore Engineers for
Wiggins Pass Dredging 2005, Project 90522, in the amount of$13,500.
(Ron Hovell, Public Utilities)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. County Attorney Report on Public Beach Pathway Issues Raised by Mr.
James F. Ciolino by Public Petition on September 21,2004.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. Request for discussion with the Board of County Commissioners
regarding the status of the Sheriffs Office 2004/2005 Budget request.
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to provide staff the direction to prepare a
comprehensive Wildlife and Listed Species Management Plan for
presentation in February 2005 rather than November 2004 because of
6
October 26, 2004
delays associated with Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne.
2) Recommendation to approve awarding a contract to M. Jean Rawson
P.A. regarding RFP 04-3705 for "Legal Counsel for Code
Enforcement and Nuisance Abatement Board" (estimated maximum
annual contract amount $15,000.00).
3) Carny-04-AR-6584, Mr. Anthony C. Gnerre, President, of the Naples
Italian American Club, requesting a permit to conduct the annual
Naples Italian American Club Carnival on October 28,29,30 and 31,
2004, at the Naples Italian American Club located at 7035 Airport
Road North.
4) Recommendation to authorize an additional permanent position for
the Environmental Review Section within the Environmental Services
Department of the Community Development and Environmental
Services Division and consulting services designed to improve
efficiencies in the land development review process at a total cost not
to exceed $69,300.
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
acknowledge an error on the recorded plat of Quail West Phase III,
Unit Five, and authorize the Clerk to make notation of this
acknowledgment on the original plat.
6) Recommendation to award RFP 04-3717, in the amount of$29,580, to
James Duncan and Associates, Inc., for consultant services for a Parks
and Recreational Facilities Impact Fee Update Study.
7) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Report on the activities
related to the Job Creation Investment Program and the Advanced
Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program and change the
requirement for quarterly reports to an annual report for each
program.
8) Petition CARNY-2004-AR-6640, Reverend Joseph Spinelli, O.S.A.,
St. Elizabeth Seton Church, Requesting Permit to Conduct a Carnival
from November 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14,2004, on the church property
located at 2760 52nd Terrace SW, Golden Gate City.
7
October 26, 2004
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the acquisition of right-of-way required
for the construction of six-lane improvements to Collier Boulevard
between Davis Boulevard and U.S. 41 - Project No. 60001 -(fiscal
impact: $885,800)
2) This item was continued from the September 28, 2004 Meetin2.
Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by
gift or purchase of fee simple interests in the proposed right-of-way
and/or stormwater retention and treatment pond sites, as well as
perpetual, non-exclusive road right-of-way, drainage and utility
easements, perpetual, non-exclusive slope easements, and temporary
driveway restoration easements, and temporary construction
easements, which will be required for the construction of roadway,
drainage and utility improvements to Logan Boulevard from
Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road. (Project No. 60166).
Estimated fiscal impact: $5,760,000.00.
3) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment for the purchase
of additional cubicle units that are needed for the new Transportation
Services Building in the amount of$61,476.00.
4) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$737,759 for funds from the Federal Transit Administration for the
Collier Area Transit transfer site.
5) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$329,989 for the Florida Department of Transportation State Block
Grant Funds.
6) Recommendation to allow the Transportation Division to advertise
and receive bids for proposed intersection improvements to New
Market Road at Charlotte Street. Estimated fiscal impact is
$575,000.00.
7) Recommendation to accept a check in the amount of $5,251.50 from
Johnson Engineering, Inc. to reimburse the County for administrative
costs incurred with processing avoidable, value-added change orders
to the Goodlette-Frank Road Project (No. 60134).
8
October 26, 2004
8) Recommendation to approve deleting Section B.2.3. items (b) and (d)
and adding item (e) to Section B.2.2 of Schedule B and modifying
Schedule A, Section 5.0, Items A and C of the Standard Professional
Services Agreement for Aim Engineering and Surveying, Inc. for
Vanderbilt Beach Road Project, for Contract issued under 04-3583
"Construction, Engineering and Inspection (CEI) Services for County
Road Projects". No Fiscal Impact. Project No. 63051.
9) Recommendation to authorize and fund the addition of exhibit #2 to
Hansen master contract #033500 for the Transportation Division in
the amount of$257,255.00.
10) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to recognize
revenue received from Heritage Bay, for a sidewalk under payment in
lieu of construction in the amount of $250,000 for the Immokalee
Greenway from CR 951 to two miles east of CR 951.
c. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve a contract amendment, under Contract #
02-3311, "Fixed Term Professional Geographic Information System
Services (GIS)" for Collier County, with Wilsonmiller, Inc., Project
50014, in the amount of$197,239.40.
2) Recommendation to award a contract for Bid No. 04-3679 to
Southwest Utility Systems, Inc. in the amount of $891,225.00 for
installation of a 16-inch Reclaimed Water System Interconnect from
Radio Road to Davis Boulevard, Project Number 74035.
3) Recommendation to award Contract 04-3725, to Better Roads Inc., in
the amount of $235,945, to relocate the entrance road to the South
County Water Reclamation Facility, Project 73949.
4) Recommendation to Waive the Formal Competitive Bid Process to
Participate in a QualServe Self Assessment and Peer Review as part
of Project 72531 and Approve an Agreement between the Collier
County Water-Sewer District and QualServe in an amount not to
exceed $61,600.
9
October 26, 2004
5) Recommendation to amend Professional Engineering Services
Agreement with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. for the South County Regional
Water Treatment Plant, 8 MGD Reverse Osmosis Expansion
(SCRWTP), Contract 00-3119, Work Order # MP-FT-04-03, in the
amount of $600,000, Project 70054.
6) Recommendation to approve Change Order No. I to Work Order No.
UC-030 with Kyle Construction, Inc. for the South County Regional
Water Treatment Plant 4" Force Main Relocation, Contract No. 04-
3535, Project 700201, in the amount of$61,200.
7) Recommendation to reject the one bid received from Zabatt for Bid #
04-3647 and to provide authorization to re-advertise for countywide
purchase and rental of generators.
8) Recommendation to approve a project to interconnect the Tamiami
and Hawthorn Wellfields with a planning-level estimated cost of
$1,560,000 and to approve and authorize the initial phase, which is a
work order under the Annual Contract for Underground Utilities
Contracting Services, RFP 023345, based on an estimated
construction cost not to exceed $750,000, Project 710061.
9) Recommendation to award a work order to complete construction of
Tamiami Well 33 under the Annual Contract for Underground
Utilities Contracting Services, RFP 04-3535, based on an estimated
construction cost not to exceed $615,000, Project 701581, Golden
Gate Wellfield Reliability Improvements.
10) Recommendation to waive formal competition and authorize the
single source purchase of 46 Telemetry-equipped Lift Station Control
Panels for Wastewater Collections in the amount of $204,478.00,
Project 73922.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve an Agreement with the Agency for
Health Care Administration for $2,100,000 for participation in the
Upper Payment Limit Program for services provided on behalf of the
Human Services Department, Health Department, and David
10
October 26, 2004
Lawrence Center to generate an additional $367,500 in Federal
matching funds annually.
2) Recommendation to recognize additional revenue in the amount of
$10,560 in FY 04 and sign the budget amendment to increase Home
and Community Based Services Medicaid Waiver budget.
3) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$10,000 to increase the Older American's Act Title III-B budget and
authorize the Chairman to sign the contract amendment between
Collier County Board of County Commissioners and Senior Solutions
of Southwest Florida D/B/A Area Agency on Aging.
4) Recommendation to approve an Agreement with the Agency for
Health Care Administration for $164,400 to be used as the local
government match for State and Federal funding to operate the
Horizon's Primary Care Clinic.
5) Recommendation to approve the FY 05 Agreement with the David
Lawrence Center, Inc. for $952,000.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Report and ratify staff-approved change orders and changes to work
orders to Board-approved contracts.
2) Recommendation to approve a contract amendment involving contract
No. 01-3290 "Fixed Term Professional Engineering Services". (CPI
increase)
3) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the change in status
of thirteen employment classifications from exempt to non-exempt
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and to receive approval
for the execution of Settlement Agreement and Releases.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and ratify a recommendation to file suit for recovery of
repair/replacement costs incurred by the County in connection with
property damage caused by a third party.
11
October 26, 2004
5) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the Hurricane
Charley Worksite Agreement providing United States Department of
Labor funds under a National Emergency Grant to cover costs of
temporary workers used to clean up after Hurricane Charley.
6) Recommendation to declare certain county-owned property as surplus
and authorize a sale of the surplus property on November 13,2004.
7) Recommendation to approve a sole-source purchase from ESRI for
ArcGIS Server, geographical information systems software for web
services, in the amount of $30,016.46.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to Approve Submission of a Grant Application for
and Resolution in Support of a Florida Department of Environmental
Protection Grant to Contribute to the Renourishment of Marco Island
South Beach.
2) Recommendation to approve a Lease Agreement with East Naples
Fire Control and Rescue District for shared use of future Fire Station
22 at a total cost to the County of $469,530.
3) Recommendation to Approve Submission of an Updated Grant
Application for and Resolution in Support of a Florida Department of
Environmental Protection Grant to Contribute to the Renourishment
of Vanderbilt, Pelican Bay, Park Shore and Naples Beaches.
4) Recommendation to Approve a Budget Amendment to Fund Bond
Remission Payments.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Proclamation to designate November Epilepsy Awareness Month.
2) Commissioner Halas' request for Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
12
October 26, 2004
to attend the Chamber of Commerce celebration of the return of
commercial flights to the Naples Municipal Airport on October 28,
2004. $5.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
3) Commissioner Halas' request for Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
to attend the Chamber's Business After Five at Liberty Bank on
October 21,2004. $5.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas' travel
budget.
4) Commissioner Halas' request for Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
to attend the Naples Airport Authority reception for the Fly Naples
Air Service Program on October 20, 2004. $18.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
5) Commissioner Fiala's request for Board approval for reimbursement
to attend a function serving a valid public purpose. The Commissioner
will be attending the United Arts Council 'Celebrate the Arts Gala
Dinner' on November 20, 2004 at the Naples Beach Hotel; $95.00 to
be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Items to File for Record with Action as Directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners make a
determination of whether the purchases of goods and services
documented in the Detailed Report of Open Purchase Orders serve a
valid public purpose and authorize the expenditure of County funds to
satisfy said purchases. A copy of the Detailed Report is on display in
the County Manager's Office, Collier County Government Center,
3301 East Tamiami Trail, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building,
Naples, Florida.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
13
October 26, 2004
1) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondents, Armando A. Lambert and Algis L. Mados, for Parcel
No. 208 in the amount of $12,000.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Armando A. Lambert, et aI., Case No. 02-2132-CA
(Immokalee Road Project No. 60018).
2) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners Approve an
Agreed Order and Authorize Payment of Expert Fees for Parcels
179/1 79T in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Dr. Francisco
Cortina, et. aI., Case No. 00-0936-CA (Golden Gate Boulevard
Project #63041).
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Waive the
Purchasing Policy as Allowed Under Section VI.G. of the Policy and
Approve a Retention Agreement with the Law Firm of Garvin &
Tripp, P.A., to Represent the County in Complex Litigation Including
Land Use Matters and Further Approve the Opening of a Purchase
Order for the Firm to Defend the County's Interests in the Case of
Century Development, et aI. v. Jeb Bush, et aI. as well as in
Potentially Related Purported Bert Harris Act Claims.
4) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to (a)
Approve Amendment No. I to the Retention Agreement with the Law
Firm of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel & Smith, P.A., and (b)
Specifically Ratify and Authorize the Purchase Order for Services by
the Firm in the Case of Collier County v. United Engineering
Corporation, Inc., Case No. 04-3363-CA and Related Matters.
5) Approve Selection of Firm for RFP 04-3685 "Court Reporting
Services for Collier County"
6) Recommendation That The Board Of County Commissioners
Approve The Settlement In Kelly V. Collier County, Case No.: 02-
4393-Ca, Pursuant To Which The County Would Pay $18,000 And
All Claims Against The County Would Be Released. Said $18,000
Settlement Was Arrived At During Settlement Negotiations And Prior
To Arbitration.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
14
October 26, 2004
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE
QUASIJUDICAL IN NATURE, ALL P ARTICIP ANTS MUST BE SWORN
IN.
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. SE-04-AR-5430 an
Ordinance amending Ordinance 2000-79, the Hammock Park Commerce
Centre PUD to correct a scrivener's error due to an omission of an intended
revision to the legal description contained within the PUD document and to
correct the PUD name within the Ordinance listed as "Hammock Park of
Commerce", which should be "Hammock Park Commerce Centre"; for the
property located at in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. SE-04-AR-5777, an
Ordinance amending Ordinance 04-15, the Terafina Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to correct a scrivener's error resulting from the
unintentional omission of the official zoning map number 86165 in the title
of the transmittal copy of the adopted Ordinance sent to the State
Department of Community Affairs for the property located approximately
one mile north of Immokalee Road (CR 846) in Section 16, Township 48
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. SE-04-AR-5776, an
Ordinance amending Ordinance 04-20, the Calusa Island Village Planned
Unit Development (PUD) to correct a scrivener's error resulting from an
incorrect official zoning map number contained in the title of the transmittal
copy of the adopted Ordinance that was sent to the Department of State for
the property located south of Goodland Drive and east of the Calusa Marina
15
October 26, 2004
in Sections 18 & 19, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Collier County,
Florida.
D. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDEX-2004-AR-
6249 Tamiami Southwest LLC, represented by Chris Hagan, of Johnson
Engineering and Jeff Kannensohn, of Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur,
requesting a two-year extension of the a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) zoning granted by Ordinance No. 99-37, pursuant to LDC Section
2.7.3.4.6 (UDC Section 10.02.13.D) for the Vincenti an PUD. The
property, consisting of 30.7 acres, is located in the southeast quadrant of
the intersection of Southwest Boulevard and U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail), in
Section 32, Township 50 south, Range 26 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.
16
October 26, 2004
October 26, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good morning.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Would everybody take their
seats, please.
Welcome to the Board of County Commissioners' meeting on
October 26th. We welcome all of you here. It's nice to see -- it's nice
to see some children in the audience, isn't it?
Would you all please stand while Reverend Bob Townsend says
the invocation from -- shall I say what your church is? Mayflower
Congregational UCC.
REVEREND TOWNSEND: May we join in prayer. Our
gracious and loving God, we thank you for this opportunity to be
together this morning in this free land in which we live. As we gather
this day, we remember places -- other places in the state, other
counties where they're still suffering from the effects of the hurricanes,
and we ask your blessing to be upon them.
And we're mindful of the men and women from our country who
are serving in Iraq and other places around the world, and we hold up
before you especially this morning those men and women from Collier
County. Bless them and watch over them and care for them.
We offer thanks this day for the young people gathered in this
room and for the work that they have done, as we offer thanks for
those people who have served this county so well for 20 and 30 years.
And we pray this day for wisdom, wisdom and discernment for
the commissioners and those gathered here.
We offer our prayer, we ask your blessing. In the name of our
Creator, Sustainer and Redeemer, amen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Reverend Townsend. And
would this young lady here lead us in the pledge of allegiance. You,
yeah. Come on up to the mic. There you go. And here's our flag.
Thank you.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Page 2
October 26, 2004
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
And now, Commissioners, I'm asking -- let's see, if I get my act
together here.
Do you have any ex parte on the summary agenda, any additions
or corrections to the agenda? Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, everybody. At this
point in time, I don't have any ex parte on the summary agenda, nor do
I have any additions or corrections to the agenda as it is today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner
Fiala. I have no additions and no corrections.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No additions or corrections or
disclosures.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you come back to me?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. You know, I'm doing the same
thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't see them on the change
sheet that I requested.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I have a disclosure as far as 17(D). I
think it's D -- yes, on the Vincentian PUD property. I spoke with their
attorney and I have a little history with that, so I do know a little bit
about that one.
And I have no additions or corrections to the minutes -- or to the
agenda.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, I do. We didn't do the change sheet
Page 3
October 26, 2004
and we need to get that on the record.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You want to do that first? I mean --
MR. MUDD: It's normally what we do and then you get the ex
parte.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't do anything normally, but--
MR. MUDD: David, do you have any -- do you have any
additions outside what I have on the change sheet, sir?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, no. I think the change sheet and
your instruction will go well. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Agenda changes, Board of County Commissioners
meeting October 26th, 2004. There are two new items on the change
sheet that you don't have in front of you, Commissioners, and that's
because it was a last -- it was a fast-breaking particular change. And
the petitioner came forward and asked that these two particular items
be continued. And it's Item 8(A) and 8(B). And they're both -- they
both have to do with the Orangetree PUD and the Orange Blossom
Ranch PUD. And I'll read them into the record.
Item 8(A) continued to November 16th, 2004 BCC meeting. It's
PUDA-03-AR-4227, Wayne Arnold, representing Brian W. Paul,
requesting a planned unit development, PUD to PUD rezone for the
purpose of amending the Orangetree PUD to reflect that 616 acres
have been rezoned to a new PUD to be known as the Orange Blossom
Ranch PUD. No other changes are proposed with this amendment.
The subject PUD is located at the northeast corner of Immokalee
Road, County Road 846, and Randall Boulevard, in Section 11, 12,
13, 14, 23, 24, Township 48 South, Range 27 East. It's a companion
item to PUDZ-03-AR-4150. And that's at the petitioner's request.
The next item, 8(B) continued to November 16th, 2004 BCC
meeting. And that's PUDZ-03-AR-4150, Wayne Arnold, representing
Brian W. Paul, requesting to rezone 616 acres of the Orangetree
planned unit development to a new PUD to be known as the Orange
Blossom Ranch PUD, permitting a maximum of 1,600 dwelling units,
Page 4
October 26, 2004
200,000 square feet of commercial uses allowed in C-1 through C-5
zoning districts, and a 90-plus acre community facility tract permitting
recreational uses, government offices, schools, child care centers and
commercial excavation.
The property is located on the north and south sides of Oil Well
Road, County Road 858, and approximately one mile east of
Immokalee Road, County Road 846, in Sections 13, 14 and 24,
Township 48 South, Range 27 East. Companion item to
PUDA-03-AR-4227. And that's at the petitioner's request.
The next item is Item 9(B). The executive summary should list
Mr. Moaveni's district as District 4 rather than District 3. And that's at
staff s request.
The next item is to move Item 16(A)(4) to 10(F). And that's a
recommendation to authorize an additional permanent position for the
environmental review section within the environmental services
department of the community development and environmental
services division, and consulting services designed to improve the
efficiencies in the land development review process at a total cost not
to exceed $69,300. And that move was at Commissioner Henning's
request.
The next item is to move Item 16(B)(3) to 10(G). And that's a
recommendation to authorize a budget amendment for the purchase of
additional cubicle units that are needed for the new transportation
services building in the amount of $61,476. And that move was at
Commissioner Coyle's request.
The next item is to move Item 16(C)(2) to 10(H). And that's a
recommendation to award a contract for bid No. 043679 to Southwest
Utility Systems, Inc. in the amount of $891,225 for the installation of
a 16-inch reclaimed water system interconnect from Radio Road to
Davis Boulevard. And that's project No. 74035. And that move was at
Commissioner Henning's request.
The next item is to withdraw Item 16(F)(2). And that's a
Page 5
October 26, 2004
recommendation to approve a lease agreement with East Naples Fire
Control and Rescue District for shared use of future Fire Station 22, at
a total cost to the county of $469,530. And that withdrawal was at
staffs request. We got a little ahead of ourselves.
There's a note at the bottom, and it basically says that Item
17(A), 17(B), 17(C) and 17(D) do not require ex parte disclosure.
Next item, time certain, Item 8(C) to be heard at 1 :00 p.m.,
followed by Item 8(D). And those are basically public hearings for
the 2003 first cycle of the Growth Management Plan amendments.
And that's CPSP-203-11, wildlife. And that's Item 8(C).
And Item 8(D) to be heard immediately following 8(C) is public
hearing for the 2003 first cycle for the Growth Management Plan
amendments. And that's an adoption hearing.
The next item is Item 9(H) to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. And that's a
verbal report from Commissioner Coletta regarding a trip to Poland.
And I believe that Representative Davis will be here to provide some
insight.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I -- Commissioner -- I'm sorry,
Representative Davis is unable to adjust his schedule to be here, from
what I understand, but Tammie Nemecek from the EDC and Fred
Thomas will both be here.
MR. MUDD: The next item is Item 13(A) to be heard at 3:00
p.m. And that's a request for discussion with the Board of County
Commissioners regarding the status of the sheriffs office 2004-2005
budget request.
That's all I have, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'd also like to go back to Item
10(C). I've spoken with Norm Feder on this, and I've spoken with the
representative, Bruce Anderson, and I would like to have this
continued for two weeks. Only two weeks. Do I need to -- how do I
need to go about doing that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Suggestion. Could we possibly
Page 6
October 26, 2004
call Norm Feder up for some guidance on this?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure, sure.
MR. MUDD: It would be continued, if you're going to go do it,
Madam Chair, to the 16th of November, because that will be the next
board meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good. I don't want it continued any later
than that. Norm and I talked about that.
MR. FEDER: Madam Chair, obviously we'll work -- Norman
Feder, transportation administrator, for the record.
We'll work at the board's request. The feeling is we had 90 days
to come back to you with provisions relative to the Big Cypress CDD
and the provisions for transportation.
There's full agreement on the issues of provision of right-of-way,
both on Oil Well and on Immokalee, as well as stormwater. There is
an item that we've been working with them on over this time to make
sure that we maintain an access between Oil Well and Randall as we
feel a need in the future. That is an item I believe is somewhat still in
contention.
My question is what will change over the course of the next two
weeks, as I mentioned to Mr. Anderson. I believe that's an item that
they're not fully supporting but it's an item that we feel as staff that we
need to recommend to you be in that agreement.
And I'm not sure how that would change over the ne,xt two
weeks, but again, of course we will follow whatever direction the
board arrives.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feder, before you go, just a
couple questions.
One, I want you to know that I totally think it's a necessary thing
to have that connector road. But if we did wait two weeks, will we
lose any advantage or any ability to be able to act at the end of two
Page 7
October 26, 2004
weeks as well as we're acting now, or is there anything as far as the
Florida statutes go that limit us?
MR. FEDER: I will defer to your legal staff for advice. I know
Mr. Klatzkow on Mr. Weigel's staffhas dealt with this directly. I'm
not sure that the exact date of the 90 days or the implications there.
I'm not sure that would have any bearing, but I will defer to Mr.
Weigel who may want to try and confirm Mr. Klatzkow to answer
your question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Commissioners. David Weigel,
county attorney.
It's my understanding, and Norman, if you'll stand by to confirm,
but it is my understanding that the 90-day proviso or requirement
exists in the ordinance previously adopted by this board. As we know,
the ordinance has in essence contract qualities itself with the
petitioner, and it's difficult to say that the board and petitioner run into
problems by extending it for three weeks, which would be the next
board meeting, but it is contrary to the provision of the law that exists
right now in the PUD ordinance, which is local law.
It may not be ultimately desirable, but I would have suggested,
would still suggest to you that it's an item that might be heard today,
and to the extent that it's not worked out on the floor, at that point be
continued, but at least a record would be created today of the
discussion, the issues, so that if there is any question that comes up
later from whatever source that has standing to question the actions of
this board and this petitioner, that the attorney office would be able to
show that a good faith attempt was made to comply with the 90-day
requirement of the ordinance that's already in existence.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, David. And I agree, so I'll
withdraw my request and we'll move from there. Thank you for the
very good advice. Appreciate that. Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Henning basically wanted to --
Page 8
October 26, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He was waiting 'tillast. Save the best for
last, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve for the --
today's agenda as amended.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Page 9
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
October 26. 2004
Item 8A continued to the November 16. 2004 BCC Meetina: PUDA-03-AR-4227,
Wayne Arnold, representing Bryan W. Paul, requesting a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to PUD rezone for the purpose of amending the Orangetree
PUD to reflect that 616 acres have been rezoned to a new PUD to be known as the
Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD. No other changes are proposed with this
amendment. The subject PUD is located on the northeast corner of Immokalee
Road (C.R. 846) and Randall Boulevard in Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, and 24,
Township 48S, Range 27E. Companion Item: PUDZ-03-AR-4150. (Petitioner's
request.)
Item 8B continued to the November 16, 2004 BCC Meeting: PUDZ-03-AR-4150,
Wayne Arnold, representing Bryan W. Paul, requesting to rezone 616 acres of the
Orangetree Planned Unit Development (PUD) to a new PUD to be known as the
Orange Blossom Ranch PUD permitting a maximum of 1,600 dwelling units;
200,000 square feet of commercial uses allowed in C-1 thru C-5 zoning districts;
and, a +90-acre community facility tract permitting recreational uses, government
offices, schools, child care centers, and commercial excavation. The property is
located on the north and south sides of Oil Well Road (C.R. 858) and
approximately one mile east of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) in Sections 13, 14, and
24, Township 48S, Range 27E. Companion Item: PUDA-03-AR-4227. (Petitioner's
request.)
Item 9B: Executive Summary should list Mr. Moaveni's district as District 4,
rather than District 3. (Staff request.)
Move Item 16A4 to 10F: Recommendation to authorize an additional permanent
position for the Environmental Review Section within the Environmental Services
Department of the Community Development and Environmental Services Division
and consulting services designed to improve efficiencies in the land development
review process at a total cost not to exceed $69,300. (Commissioner Henning
request.)
Move Item 16B3 to 10G: Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment for
the purchase of additional cubicle units that are needed for the new
Transportation Services Building in the amount of $61,476.00. (Commissioner
Coyle request.)
Move 16C2 to 10H: Recommendation to award a contract for Bid No. 04-3679 to
Southwest Utility Systems, Inc. in the amount of $891,225 for installation of a 16-
inch reclaimed water system interconnect from Radio Road to Davis Boulevard,
Project No. 74035. (Commissioner Henning request.)
Withdraw Item 16F2: Recommendation to approve a lease agreement with East
Naples Fire Control and Rescue District for shared use of future Fire Station 22 at
a total cost to the County of $469,530. (Staff request.)
NOTE: Items 17 A, B, C and D do not require Ex Parte disclosure.
Time Certain Items:
Item BC to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Public Hearing for the 2003 1st Cycle of GMP
Amendments (CPSP-203-11, Wildlife).
Item BD to be heard immediately followina BC: Public Hearing for the 2003 1st
Cycle of Growth Management Plan Amendments (Adoption Hearing).
Item 9H to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Verbal report from Commissioner Coletta
regarding trip to Poland.
Item 13A to be heard at 3:00 p.m. Request for discussion with the Board of
County Commissioners regarding the status of the Sheriff's Office 2004/2005
Budget Request.
October 26, 2004
Items #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F, #2G
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 BCCICRA MEETING,
SEPTEMBER 21,2004 BCC REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER
23, 2004 BCC BUDGET HEARING MEETING, SEPTEMBER 24,
2004 BCC EMERGENCY MEETING-HURRICANE JEANNE
BRIEFING, SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 BCC REGULAR MEETING,
AND THE OCTOBER 6, 2004 BCC SPECIALIV AB MEETING -
AEEROVED AS ~
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the
September 20th, '04 BCC and CRA and September 21 st '04 BCC
regular meeting, September 23rd BCC budget hearing meeting,
September 24th BCC emergency meeting on Hurricane Jeanne
briefing, September 28th, '04 BCC regular meeting and October 6th
BCC Value Adjustment Board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second that motion.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
TURNBACK CHECKS FROM THE TAX COLLECTOR AND
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, before we go to service awards, if I
could interact. It's not often that the tax collector is here with us, the
Page 10
October 26, 2004
honorable Guy Carlton, and it's not often that he's here with a check in
his hand that he'd like to give to the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I saw that spotlight shining on him. No
wonder.
MR. MUDD: And so before he leaves, okay, for some strange
reason he takes the check with him, and Mr. Mitchell is going to make
sure he grabs that check quickly, I'd like to ask the board's indulgence
to ask the tax collector to come to the podium and present a check to
the Board of County Commissioners, with your approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Certainly.
MR. CARLTON: For the record, I'm Guy Carlton, your friendly
tax collector. And Commissioners, you know how big this check has
to be for me to wear a tie?
I know this was a record-setting year for hurricanes, and you
have millions of unbudgeted funds you spent informing and protecting
our citizens. It's also been a record year for your tax office. And
hopefully this turnback of unused fees will help defray some of those
costs.
Total turnback, $7,073,622.17. And the board's portion of that is
$6,352,353.21. I'm sure you have a good place you can spend this
money. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's hear it for six million
dollars.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have to stand for this one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we pass it down?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, Guy, stand there for a picture, would
you, please?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Come on, Guy, we need a
picture.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We'll put it in the post office.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Better have the check in hand, if
Page 11
October 26, 2004
you can wrestle it from Jim.
MR. MUDD: He wants to take it back already.
Commissioners, I'd also like to bring to your attention, Mr. Abe
Skinner is unable to be with us here today, but his turnback is
$1,305,290.97, and the general fund share of that turnback is
$1,230,469 -- excuse me, $1,230,469.04. So it was a pretty good
turnback year for our property appraiser, too, and I just wanted to
bring that to your attention.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. We really
appreciate both of their help meeting our budget.
Item #3
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, that brings us to service awards, employee
and advisory board members. And you usually come down to the
floor for that particular item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We certainly do, and we still will. As
soon as I fix my flag. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, Commissioners, it's with -- our first
recipient is a 20-year recipient. It's John D'Amico from facilities
management.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Boy, that looks like a great team to work
with, huh.
MR. D'AMICO: Fine bunch, fine bunch.
MR. MUDD: Take your picture, right in there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Take one right here, and then your whole
team come up and join us and we'll take another one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They thought that much of you
to come here. Turn it around so they can see you.
Page 12
October 26, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, come on up, guys.
MR. MUDD: Now, ladies and gentlemen, just so you know, this
team that just came up here are the folks that make sure that the
facilities that the county have are maintained properly, that
everything's working, the electricity, the air conditioning. Every day
they're always behind the scenes, they always do an incredible job
making sure everything is maintained, and making sure that they
stretch the taxpayers' dollars as far as they can to make sure that we've
got great facilities all the time that are safe and operational. And they
don't get much credit.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next awardee is the 30-year--
or the 30-year awardees. And the first is Elida Valdez from
transportation.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Now, just so you know, Elida runs the sign shop,
okay, down there. And I watched her the other day with a thing --
with a box cutter in her hand, okay, and I will tell you, she does things
to those metal signs with that box cutter that I don't think anybody else
can do, okay. She does a great job. Just about every sign that you
have in Collier County, she's made. And that's a great job.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next recipient is Edward Hutcheson from the
transportation road maintenance department.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And at long last.
MR. MUDD: And the next awardee is Curtis Anderson, Jr., from
the transportation road maintenance section.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
Page 13
October 26, 2004
RECOGNIZING THE WINNERS OF THE "WHAT DOES
FREEDOM MEAN TO YOU" ART CONTEST-AWARDS
ERESENIED
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, while we're down here, if John Veit would
come up for a second. Let's see if we can't do that presentation first,
because I believe you're going to be on -- you're going to want to do
this on the floor. Instead of going up there to do proclamations before
and then come back down again for the presentations to see the kids
with their artwork, why don't we do it while we're all standing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Look at that tie, will you? He's ready to
vote.
MR. VEIT: I hope Commissioner Coyle isn't deserting me.
For the record, my name's John Veit--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You surprised me so I didn't bring
my materials with me.
MR. VEIT: Park superintendent with Collier County parks and
recreation.
I'm here on behalf of the Freedom Memorial Task Force, and it's
my privilege to introduce the winners of the art contest.
As a brief scenario, in May, the Board of County Commissioners
had put a proclamation together declaring the month of September as
Freedom Month.
As part of that, we are working on a Memorial for Collier County
government. We have put an essay contest together. We are adopting
military units in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are putting a speaker's
group together on "what does freedom mean to me". And anybody
who might be interested, we want to go to the civic organizations and
the schools. And what did I miss? The art contest.
Without further ado, I would like to introduce the young women
-- young men and women who won the contest in certain age
categories. We had a total of 344 entries, so you did really well.
Page 14
October 26, 2004
First I would like to introduce the judges, if they are here. First,
I'll need to find them. Jeanie Keller, are you here? Okay. Do we have
Ann Cauldeman (phonetic) here? Or Tom, her husband? Boy, are
they going to get an e-mail from me.
All right, well, let's -- since I'm not longwinded, let's go ahead
and get through this. I would like to start with the categories of ages
six through nine. I will give the third place, second place and first
place winners. When I call your name, and I hope I don't destroy your
last names, would you please come up and allow the Board of
Commissioners to recognize your efforts.
In third place with the six to nine category, is Michael
Dauphinais. Michael is a recipient of a Caribbean Gardens pass. He
also gets a ribbon. Lighten up, Michael.
Second place goes to Samantha Eisenberg. Congratulations. She
gets a youth annual pool pass with the parks and recreation
department.
And the first prize winner in the categories of six to nine years
old is Valentina Cherednichenko. Did I say that right? Evidently she
wanted to be in school.
Under category ages 10 through 12, the third place winner is
Manuela Blair. Manuela is a recipient of the Caribbean Gardens pass.
Second place goes to Alex Morris.
And first place goes to Arilynn Hesketh. That's right. Thank you.
In categories age 13 through 16 our third place winner is Cody
Belford.
Second place goes to Devin Henderson. Devin is a recipient of a
youth annual pool pass from parks and recreation.
And our first place in the 13 to 16 category is Miranda DeMaio.
On behalf of the Freedom Task Force, we want to thank you, and
we honor you for what you have done. Your pictures are up here.
Don't forget to take your ribbons with you. But you have done a great
service to this community.
Page 15
October 26, 2004
And ladies and gentlemen, I give you your winners.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: John, did you want them to take their
ribbons right off these posters?
MR. VEIT: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Would you all like to come and
get the ribbon off of your particular drawing? We could even take one
more picture of you holding those ribbons.
MR. MUDD: Hold those ribbons up. We're going to get a good
pictures now.
MR. VEIT: Look at all these proud parents.
(Applause.)
MR. VEIT: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's great to see the parents all here, isn't
it, supporting their children?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just wonderful. We have just
experienced the fun part of the meeting, right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it is. Especially when you
have the future voters of Collier County here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe future commissioners of
Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Who knows?
And now on to proclamations. Commissioner Halas.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Good morning. Is Gerry
Page 16
October 26, 2004
Harwick in the audience? Please step forward, Gerry, please. This is
in regards to the Epilepsy Awareness month. And the proclamation
starts off:
WHEREAS, more than 2.5 million people in the United States
have epilepsy, including 160,000 people in the State of Florida; and
WHEREAS, it is estimated that between 70,000 and 129,000 new
cases of epilepsy occurs each year in the United States; and
WHEREAS, epilepsy can affect everyone at any age, at any time;
and
WHEREAS, the lack of education about this disorder has
contributed to age-old myths, superstitions, prejudice; and the stigma
associated with this disorder is sometimes worse than the disorder
itself.
WHEREAS, the goal of the Epilepsy Services Program is to
improve the health, quality of life for all Floridians with epilepsy
through the provisions of essential medical care, case management and
pharmaceuticals to maximum seizure control; through vocational
services to improve employment opportunities; and through
professional and community education to improve understanding of
the challenges faced by the people who have epilepsy.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that November be
designated as Epilepsy Awareness Month.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 26th day of October, 2004 for the
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Donna
Fiala, Chairman.
And I move that we approve this proclamation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 1 7
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You come stand here for us first and then
you can go over to the microphone.
MS. HARWICK: Is it working?
I just wanted to say that we do provide a valuable service to the
residents, to the people with epilepsy in Collier County. There are
about 2,000 in Collier County that have epilepsy. And we help people
with epilepsy who do not have health insurance, so that they can get
the care that they need.
We also are in a program with the sheriffs department to help
prevent brain injury, which is the number one cause of epilepsy and--
through the bicycle helmet program that we do with the sheriffs
department, giving helmets to children who don't have helmets when
they ride their bikes to prevent injury. So I want to thank the sheriffs
department for their support, and they're doing a great job with the
rodeos, so thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, Commissioner Coletta, will you
read the proclamation to Ronald McDonald Care Mobile Day.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner
Fiala, it would be an honor.
Page 18
October 26, 2004
Would Jules Mijares, Richard Akin and Dr. Keith Riley, if
they're in the audience, would they please come up front.
Thank you for coming today. If you'd turn around and face the
audience.
WHEREAS, the Ronald McDonald Care Mobile, donated by
Ronald McDonald House Charities, Incorporated will provide
transportation, medical and dental care for children in need; and
WHEREAS, the program offers numerous benefits and services
to Collier County, including school physicians to new students
entering Collier County School System, vision and hearing exams,
growth and development exams, dental exams and sealants, and
preventive education programs through the Collier County health
department and other community preventive educational groups; and
WHEREAS, the program will provide for the continuing of care
by providing referrals and follow-up service to a pediatrician or
dentist. The program will also help eligible families connect with state
government insurance programs such as Medicaid. The program will
provide clinical and educational material, along with medical and
dental treatments to thousands of medically needy children each year;
and
WHEREAS, the Care Mobile will operate year-round at
numerous locations throughout the county from Naples to Immokalee
and Marco Island to Everglades City, where low income children live
and have activities, such as school, day care sites and preschool,
habitat neighborhoods, festivals and summer camps; and
WHEREAS, the overall outcome will be to medically and dental
underserved children annually, primarily by connecting them to the
ongoing medical and! or dental care; and
WHEREAS, Collier Health Services, Incorporated, and its
children's health network and Ronald McDonald House Charities of
Southwest Florida have partnered to bring the Ronald McDonald Care
Mobile to Collier County to serve these children; and
Page 19
October 26, 2004
WHEREAS, by supporting our children today, we will ensure
their happy and healthy future.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that Friday,
November 5th, 2004 be designated as Ronald McDonald Care Mobile
Day.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 26th day of October, Donna
Fiala, Chairperson.
And I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion to approve and a
second. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How are you? Good to see you again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you like to say a couple
of words?
DR. RILEY: Commissioner Coletta, Madam Chairman and other
Commissioners, on behalf of Richard Akin and Collier Health
Services and the children's health network and Ronald McDonald of
Southwest Florida Charities, thank you for this proclamation.
The mobile care unit did arrive last Thursday. It is here in
Collier County. We will have our launch next week, and should start
seeing children approximately two weeks later. Thank you again.
(Applause.)
Page 20
October 26, 2004
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF
NOVEMBER AS ADOPTION MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY-
AIlO:ITED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now I have the pleasure of reading
the proclamation to designate the month of November as Adoption
Month in Collier County. To be accepted on behalf of the Southwest
Adoption Task Force by Debbie and Dustin Allen, and Terry Iamurri.
Would you come on up? Thank you.
MS. IAMURRI: We got Jim Allen to come up here. He was
being shy this year, and I said the family unit needs you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It does, yeah. There you go. There you
go.
WHEREAS, every child has the right to grow in a secure, loving
family, and adoption is a positive way to build a family; and
WHEREAS, the Adoption Task Force of Southwest Florida is a
collaborative effort of community agencies and individuals to create
and increase awareness of adoption; and
WHEREAS, the Adoption Task Force of Southwest Florida's
purpose is to provide resources and education on the various aspects
of adoption and to promote positive attitudes towards adoption; and
WHEREAS, adoption brings untold benefits to Collier County
residents that are affected by the adoption process. This includes
benefits to birth parents, adoptive parents and the children placed in
adoptive homes, as well as their extended families; and
WHEREAS, crisis pregnancy is a problem in Collier County and
adoption is a positive option that is not always considered, due to a
lack of awareness and education.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the month of
Page 21
October 26, 2004
November, 2004 be designated as Collier County Adoption Month.
And in honor of this event, we encourage citizens, community
agencies, religious organizations, businesses and others to celebrate
adoption and honor the families that grow through adoption.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 26th day of October, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Donna Fiala,
Chairman.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. It's a pleasure to give you
this. I'm so proud of what you do, Terry.
Debbie, you're just wonderful. I'm glad you brought Jim up, too.
Would somebody like to say a couple of words?
MS. IAMURRI: On behalf of the Adoption Task Force, I'm
Theresa Iamurri, for the report's sake.
Thank you for acknowledging Adoption Awareness Month. And
I wanted to let you know as an adoptive parent how much it means to
me to be part of this group and for what it does for my family.
And I wanted to let you know that the Adoption Task Force has
referral and information services, for anyone in the county to contact
us for that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Where can they find you?
MS.IAMURRI: We -- our phone number -- sorry, we have
pamphlets out. We're actually not listed in the Yellow Pages because
Page 22
October 26, 2004
we do a satellite phone. But Planned Parenthood, a number of
agencies that would do anything with adoption have our phone
number.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see. Do you have a website or
anything?
MS. IAMURRI: No, we don't. But thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 15,2004 AS
AMERICAN RECYCLES DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY-
.ADO.ITED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Henning, would you
read the proclamation to designate November 15th as American
Recycles Day in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would love to do that. And I'd
like to call up Denise Kirk, our recycling coordinator for Collier
County. Sure, embarrassing moment.
WHEREAS, American recycles two thousand -- where America
Recycles 2004 is launching its eighth annual campaign to encourage
Americans to recycle and buy recycled products; and
WHEREAS, buying recycled products conserves resources,
reduces water, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and saves
energy; and
WHEREAS, Collier County is working diligently to develop an
integrated solid waste management system to meet the needs of our
citizens, and a strong support of recycling and the beneficial (sic) of
using waste materials as a way to conserve our precious landfill space;
and
Page 23
October 26, 2004
WHEREAS, reducing waste, recycling waste and purchasing
products made from recycled materials are among the easiest and most
effective measures every American can do to conserve our resources
to create a cleaner environment.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that November 15th, 2004
be designated as American Recycling Day in Collier County.
And Collier County wishes to join the rest of America to
maximize the awareness and celebrate this day.
DONE ON THIS ORDER THIS 26th day of October, 2004, and
signed by our leader, Donna Fiala.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Denise, thank you, you make
us really look good. Thanks.
Denise, would you like to say a couple of words?
MS. KIRK: Good morning, Commissioners. We thank you very
much for recognizing the importance of waste reduction and recycling
by recognizing America Recycles Day. Recycling has an important
place in our world, both at home and at work, and we appreciate your
support. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Page 24
October 26, 2004
(Applause.)
Item #5B
RECOGNIZING ADAM BROOKS, REFERENCE LIBRARIAN,
NAPLES BRANCH LIBRARY AS "EMPLOYEE OF THE
MONIIf:.EOR OCTOBER, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now I have the pleasure of
recognizing Adam Brooks, reference library , Naples branch library, as
the employee of the month for October.
I'm glad you brought your team with you. That's wonderful.
Adam has been a dependable member of the library reference
staff for more than two years, and during this time has demonstrated
his abilities as a skilled researcher, team player and program presenter.
Adam's tenacious web and database searching skills are very
impressive. Adam's knowledge of print references sources is also
excellent. Adam continually takes the time to learn how to use new
materials whenever necessary. He is a team player and often goes
above and beyond his duties as a reference librarian to assist his
co-workers in other departments.
Adam finds the work that needs to be done before it is even
assigned and is eager to learn about every aspect of librarianship.
Adam had an opportunity this August to show his true volunteer
spirit as he put his customer skills to use manning the phones for two
days during Hurricane Charley. His calm demeanor and patience with
customers was surely appreciated by those under great stress.
Florida history is Adam's specialty, and the library system has
benefited greatly from his interest in this subject. Though only
required to do one book discussion a year, Adam has done numerous
book discussions on Florida classic titles this year, such as The
Yearling and A Land Remembered, and is beginning to cultivate an
Page 25
October 26, 2004
audience for Florida fiction. This summer alone, Adam volunteered to
do four different Florida programs, including one on Zora Neale
Hurston's book Their Eyes Were Watching God, which is the featured
title for Governor Bush's Read Together Florida initiative. Adam did
these Florida programs throughout the library branches and greatly
added to the summer offerings.
Just recently, Adam gave a very successful lecture slide show in
the Naples historic sites -- or on the Naples historic sites. This was an
original presentation which was -- which has generated a great deal of
interest from the patrons.
Adam's interest in Florida history has led him to join the Florida
Historical Society, and he is also vice-chairman for Collier County's
historical and archeological preservation board. He has been an
excellent representative for the library and has been able to make good
of the use -- good use of the information he learns in these activities
outside the workplace.
Our library is very fortunate to have Adam employed with us.
And I'm hoping to be the first one to shake your hand, Adam. Thank
you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We'd like to give you a little check on
behalf of the county and a plaque. Put it on your wall, something to
be proud of. Tell your guys not to leave, they should have -- stop
those people out there.
And a letter. Thanks.
Pardon me? Oh, your wife works for the county, too? Oh, that's
cool, it's a family affair.
MR. MUDD: Take a picture.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Adam, would you like to say a couple of
words? You don't have to if you don't want to.
MR. BROOKS: I just wanted to thank the EOM committee and
my supervisor for nominating me. And I appreciate the honor. Thank
Page 26
October 26, 2004
you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Adam.
(Applause. )
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now is Carol Pahl in the audience?
Oh, there you go.
Item #5C
STATUS REPORT FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY CITIZENS
MR. MUDD: The next item is presentation, it's C. It's a
presentation regarding the status report from the Collier County
Citizens Corps, presented by Carol Pahl, chairman of the Collier
County Citizens Corps advisory board.
MS. PAHL: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I
am Carol Pahl, chairman of the Collier County Citizen Corps advisory
board.
This morning it is my pleasure to present a short summary of the
written status report you requested from us back in July of this year.
As you know, the Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Board
was established by Ordinance 02-56 in November of2002.
Under this ordinance, its purpose was to provide the emergency
preparedness coordination and advice to the Board of County
Commissioners in response to the 2001 9/11 attack on our country.
The advisory board is comprised of 21 existing disaster volunteer
organizations, as well as the county's first responders. Their focus
revolves around the National Citizen Corps mission tenets of
education, training and increasing voluntary service.
The board has met monthly since December of 2002 and has
made substantial improvements regarding emergency preparedness
and disaster response procedures and processes within this
Page 27
October 26, 2004
community.
Among other initiatives, the committee has worked on a
consolidated information guide for the county, the county local
disaster mitigation strategy, numerous hurricane and disaster
preparedness seminars. It has advertised and sponsored training and
exercises across the spectrum of disaster and emergency preparedness
at both local and national level and increased cross-training between
groups like community emergency response teams, medical reserve,
neighborhood watch and the American Red Cross.
Additionally, the board has provided orientation briefings and
tours aimed at familiarizing each other with the capabilities of the
structures and organizations in order to better prepare and respond to
potential need in the county.
During the 2002-2003 calendar year, over $17,000 in grant
funding was obtained for administrative and preparedness
enhancement funding, most of which was utilized for training and
preparedness activities.
Through coordination with the Collier County grant coordination
office, the citizen corps has obtained several additional grants for their
member organizations, which were enhanced or supported by their
j oint affiliation.
Hurricane Charley saw each member organization participate at a
better-coordinated and effective level because of the work that has
been done by this group.
In closing, I would like to state that the citizen corps advisory
board has made dramatic improvements to the county's disaster
preparedness. However, there is more to do. The written report -- and
there are copies in the hall for everyone -- the written report provides a
summary of the accomplishments and participation by each member
organization to date, as well as our vision for the future.
Thank you for your time this morning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Carol. Thanks you for all
Page 28
October 26, 2004
you're doing.
MS. P AHL: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now we're on to public petitions.
Sue, do we have any public petitions or --
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am, we don't have any public petitions.
There's nothing under 6; 7, board of zoning appeals, there is nothing.
8(A) and 8(B) have been continued until 16 November. 8(C) and (D)
have a time certain of 1 :00 p.m. this afternoon.
Item #8E
RESOLUTION 2004-336: APPLYING THE ANNUAL MID-CYCLE
YEAR INDEXING ADmSTMENTS TO AMEND THE ROAD
IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, WHICH IS SCHEDULE ONE
OF APPENDIX "A" OF CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES (COLLIER
COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE NO.
2001-13, AS AMENDED) AND PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED
That brings us to 8(E). And it's an adoption of a resolution
applying the annual mid-cycle year indexing adjustments to amend the
road impact fee rate schedule, which is Schedule 1 of Appendix A of
Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, and
in brackets, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance
No. 200113, as amended, and providing for a delayed effective date.
And Amy Patterson, your impact fee coordinator, will present.
MS. PATTERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name
is Amy Patterson, impact fee manager, for the record.
And one thing I just wanted to get on the record before I answer
Page 29
October 26, 2004
your questions, and because of timing this isn't reflected in your
executive summary. We did bring this item to the productivity
committee last Wednesday and received their unanimous approval for
implementing this indexing increase.
Other than that, I do have about a four-slide power point
presentation, if you'd like me to go through that. I do -- I have a
handout. This is basically the same thing that we did at this time last
year, which is a set methodology for increasing our road impact fee.
It's based on some numbers that we get from the Collier County
property appraiser's based on the increases in property value, the just
value changes less new construction, and some set components that
are provided to us by the Florida Department of Transportation. It's
applied across the board.
We've also been to the development services advisory committee,
so everybody's been well aware of this increase and its
implementation.
So I'll take your questions, or if you'd like me to go through the
slides, it's --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, let's see if we have any speakers on
this subject, on 8(E)?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No speakers?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle, and a second by Commissioner Halas. Any
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 30
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks. Great presentation.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2004-337: APPOINTING CHRISTOPHER
SHUCART AND JOSEPH D. GAMMONS TO THE COMMUNITY
CHARACTER/SMART GROWTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE -
.ADO.EI.ED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next item is 9(A), and that's
appointment of members to the community character/smart growth
advisory committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion to approve the
committee's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Page 31
October 26, 2004
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2004-338: APPOINTING RICHARD
KRAENBRINGTOTHE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD-
.A.IlliITED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9(B), and that's
appointment of a member to the code enforcement board.
MS. FILSON: There are two applicants for this one and one
vacancy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's got a coin?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I was reading all the back-up
material on this, and Richard Kraenbring had a very good background
and looked like he would be perfect on this committee.
I notice that the other gentleman, Ardavan, has also applied for
another committee and has been recommended, so I would suggest
that we -- we --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Make it a motion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, make a motion to accept Richard
Kraenbring. I'm sorry if I'm slaughtering the name.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Page 32
October 26, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2004-339: APPOINTING ELIZABETH M.
PERDICHIZZI AND ARDA VAN MOA VENI TO THE
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD -
ADOEIED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 9(C) and it's appointment of
members of the historical archeological preservation board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to accept the committee
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, all those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2004-340: APPOINTING LEE HORN TO THE
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 9(D), and it's
appointment of a member to the contractors' licensing board.
Page 33
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Lee Horn.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All those in favor, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2004-341: APPOINTING DR. SAMUEL J. DURSO,
RE-APPOINTING WILLIAM RAYBURN CADWALLADER AND
APPOINTING MICHELLE ELLIS HARRISON AS AN
ALTERNATE - A DO.ITED
MR. MUDD: The next item is Item 9(E) and it's appointment of
members to the affordable housing commission.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know what I'd -- I'd like to first
suggest before we move any further on this. There were three
wonderful candidates here.
Also, I noticed -- I did a little bit of homework on this particular
item and I noticed that they have not had a quorum at many of their
meetings, and I wanted to ask the county attorney, can we create an
alternate position so that the alternate could then step into a voting
place when there is no quorum?
MR. WEIGEL: The answer is yes. And this committee exists by
ordinance, as do so many committees that the county has. And in fact,
Page 34
October 26, 2004
I've been reviewing this pursuant to other commissioner inquiry in
regard to reporting to you generally, the board as a whole, reporting to
you that the mechanisms that you might wish to consider for both a
committee such as this one and others similarly for the utilization of
alternate members.
It does require -- in this particular case, it would require a change
to the ordinance to allow for that. I'm not sure if this one applies, but I
know in some of our committees, there are people that are appointed
with particular expertise or experience that are listed in the ordinance
under categories. And that's something to be reckoned with and can be
reckoned with, so that an alternate who might not be an engineer may
still be able to, if the board desires, participate based on lack of
quorum in the absent engineer appointee's slot, if that happened to be
the case. That's just an example I'm just picking out of the air.
So I'm prepared and in fact working on this right now in regard to
this particular item and any desire that you may have.
I would recommend to the board that if you wish to give county
attorney direction with a little bit of specificity, anyway, we could
craft and draft the ordinance to bring it back to you to effectively
implement the change you may be looking for here, the flexibility
you're looking for.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we can create this. What I
wanted to do was take the committee recommendations, and yet I
hated to turn our back on such a wonderful candidate as Sam Durso.
So I thought if we could create an alternate position, then that would
allow Mr. Durso not only to sit in on this committee, but then to
participate in it whenever they have space. And I'm sure he can even
offer his wisdom throughout the meetings.
Y .?
es, Slr.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chair and Commissioners, I would
suggest if Mr. Durso is of like mind, that he, as any member of the
public, of course, can participate at these open sunshine meetings.
Page 35
October 26, 2004
But to the extent that the board has endorsed him for what would
appear to be a future appointment, he could certainly attend, have the
flavor of the meetings, if he's not already been in attendance in those,
going into it, so that if and when he is appointed, he will have the
ability to vote in an official capacity, but that he conceivably could be
invited to share his expertise as a member of the public, even in the
near term there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So Commissioner Coyle and then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning was first.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, Commissioner Henning first, I'm
sorry .
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we need to give direction to
bring the ordinance back for amendment?
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think you need a motion
on that, you just need a majority of the board, and I'm all in favor of
that.
And I'll make a motion that we appoint Sam Durso and William
Rayburn to the position and create the alternate position for Michelle
Harrison.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle and then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would support that motion,
and I can't think of anyone better qualified than Sam Durso to serve on
this committee. However, I know that there have been some questions
raised about potential conflicts of interest. And I believe that an
argument can be made that Dr. Durso, although it's a nonprofit
organization, he does a wonderful job with the community and
nobody would ever accuse him of doing anything irregular, it sets a
precedent for having people on advisory boards who can advise the
Page 36
October 26, 2004
Collier County Commission to allocate funds which they themselves
might receive and expend.
So I think we have to be very careful about how we proceed with
that. And I would merely ask that the county attorney look into that
issue, not because of Dr. Durso, but because the potential exists in
other advisory boards also and we need to have a consistent policy
with respect to this.
And so I would just add that caveat to the discussion that has
been going on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I go along with that
nomination also. And I believe that, knowing Sam Durso, that this
person is of high integrity and I'm sure that he would put himself --
would not put himself in a position whereby that there would be any
conflict of interest. And because of the fact that he's done so much for
the citizens here of Collier County who are not as fortunate as many of
us are.
So I think that you're absolutely right, Commissioner Coyle, but I
also think that the gentleman is of high enough integrity that he
realizes when he should get involved and when he shouldn't get
involved in regards to recusing himself on an issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. And I think we all agree that, you
know, nobody could ever be more honest than Sam Durso, nor could
they have higher integrity. That isn't the point at all. Because most of
the money that we have coming into Collier County for affordable
housing goes to Habitat for Humanity. And because there are also
three people already on this board that represent Habitat in one form
or another, they're going to have now four members voting, and I
would just hate to see some other agency or organization who also is
building homes feel that somehow the vote is skewed toward Habitat.
Not that anybody would purposely do that, I just know that.
I just wanted to kind of keep Sam -- you know, perception, that's
Page 37
October 26,2004
what we always talk about, perception. I just wanted to make sure that
the perception wasn't -- that the committee was weighted.
But Commissioners, if that's how you feel, I will go along with
that. So I will now call for the vote.
All those in favor of Ray Cadwallader and Sam Durso as regular
committee members and Michelle Harrison as an alternate, please say
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I oppose it only because that's not
the committee's recommendation. But I generally like to accept
committees' recommendations for this. But I'm in the minority.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, you're not -- well, yes, you are in the
minority, but I also have to agree and -- I mean, I would never turn my
back on Sam Durso, but I feel in this case I would like to see the roles
reversed. But I will go along with the majority.
So then we have a 3-2 vote on that. Commissioner Halas,
Commission --
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am, I think It was 4-1.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We need a 4-1 ?
MR. MUDD: No, it was 4-1, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm a no.
MR. MUDD: Oh. Now it's 3-2, you're right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm so sorry. Excuse me. Yeah, I'm a
no. Excuse me.
Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner
Henning for. And Commissioner Coyle and myself, not any slight at
all to Sam Durso. He knows I'm very much in favor of him. And so is
Commissioner Coyle, but oppose this particular -- this particular
alternate position in the way its motioned.
Page 38
October 26,2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next item.
Item #9F
MOTION TO READVERTISE APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE
MR. MUDD: The next item is No. 9(F), and that's appointment
of member to public vehicle advisory committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, I make a motion
that we readvertise this position. This person does not fit the category
for which we are seeking vacancies.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye, please.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. We will readvertise.
Item #9G
MR. MUDD: The next item is No. 9(G), and that's a repeal of
the high speed rail amendment, and that's at Commissioner Henning's
request.
Page 39
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, members of the
board, you have to pardon me for bringing this up again, but I just feel
it's such an important issue for the taxpayers of Southwest Florida.
The high speed rail amendment was passed in 2000 -- 2002, but
there wasn't a fiscal statement attached to it. N ow that we know that
the first leg of this amendment is going to cost 25 to $30 billion,
knowing that the chief financial officer can only bond a certain
amount of tax dollars for transportation items, or any item in the State
of Florida, I'm fearful, and I know that the improvements that we want
to get done here in Southwest Florida, they're going to be off the table,
like the Marco Island bridge, the improvements of Davis Boulevard,
82 in Lee County to -- up into Hendry County, the bypass, 1-75
widening; those proj ects will be killed unless we repeal the high speed
rail amendment.
So I urge my colleagues and the citizens in the State of Florida to
vote yes for Amendment 6 to repeal the high speed rail in the State of
Florida. That's all I have to say.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it.
And vote to save Caribbean Gardens.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. There you go.
What about your pass to Caribbean Gardens, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. We'll--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We don't need to vote on this or anything,
but I appreciate both of your comments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for the press being here
this morning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And any further comments from our other
commissioners? Thank you very much.
Now we move on to -
Item #10A
Page 40
October 26, 2004
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY A PUBLIC PETITION
REQUEST THAT THE COUNTY RETAIN OWNERSHIP OF
GOODLAND...ROAD (COllliIY.ROAD 92-A) - AEEROVED
MR. MUDD: Item lO(A). And that's a recommendation to deny
the public petition request for the county-retained ownership of the
Goodland Road. That's County Road 92 Alpha. And Norm Feder,
administrator for transportation services, will present.
MS. FILSON: And Madam Chairman, I have one speaker on
this item as well.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, I also need to bring to the board's
attention that I have received three e-mails overnight, and I'll just put
their names on the record. They sent them to me. And these were
residents from, best I can tell, from Goodland. One was Jim Inglis,
another from Jeannie Brennan, and another from Carlo Nuccio. And
they are all in favor of the county retaining ownership of 92 Alpha.
And I'll put these on the record.
MR. FEDER: Madam Chair, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator, for the record.
Just about two years ago we came to you with an interlocal
agreement we established for the City of Marco Island that essentially
provided for a million a year gas tax to be provided to the City of
Marco Island, with them taking over all the remaining roadways on
the island itself.
At that time there were some concerns raised by the residents in
Goodland, which is county residents, about 92A being given over as
part of that agreement. And they requested at that time that for a
period of two years that the county retain ownership.
We've modified the agreement with the City of Marco Island to
reflect that and proceeded.
With that two-year provision about up right now, there was a
Page 41
October 26, 2004
public petition made to you here in a previous board meeting
requesting that in fact that be extended, possibly for another two-year
period, noting that in the last year, the City of Marco Island had
provided good maintenance but that the concern was that that remain
in county ownership.
Since that public hearing, the county, county manager's office
and others have contacted, first of all, the City of Marco Island in
discussions with them, because obviously we have a two-way contract
or interlocal agreement. They expressed that they felt they were living
up to the provisions of the original agreement, that in fact they were
providing good maintenance on 92A, and that there was no reason not
to follow through and transfer over that ownership to them.
The associations out in Goodland were contacted. You have in
your record, basically, although there's been some subsequent
correspondence from one of the nine, I think, but basically you had a
vote that said that they did in fact want to allow it to go over to Marco
Island for ownership.
Since that time, as the County Manager has pointed out to you,
there have been some letters that have come in, again requesting that
the county continue to maintain.
We have an agreement, we established that two years ago.
There's no reason to feel that the City of Marco Island has not lived up
to their end of that agreement, and so staffs recommendation, in spite
of some of the concerns, is that in fact we do transfer ownership and
follow through on the agreement as it was structured two years ago.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, just for the record one more time,
that person that retracted her vote -- in the Tom Cowles letter he said
that all nine of his directors. On October 25th, I received an e-mail,
and you received it yesterday -- I made sure all the commissioners had
a copy -- from Deborah Klosik, that basically said yes, she voted for it
and then she basically said she wants to draw her vote and opposed it.
So it isn't unanimous from all the nine directors from the Goodland
Page 42
October 26, 2004
Civic Association.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I also received six e-mails myself, asking
-- and I notice that we have the city manager, Bill Moss, in our
audience.
And I'm wondering, Bill, would you like to make a comment?
MR. MOSS: Not unless it's required.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, it's not required. I just thought we
would love to welcome you here. We're happy to see you with us.
And I think Faye Biles was here, but I don't see her anymore.
Okay. Well, maybe she'll be coming back.
And we do have a speaker.
MS. FILSON: Are you ready for the speaker, ma'am?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, first I was going to see if Bill Moss
wanted to say anything, but he does not. And so would you call our
speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: Connie Stegall-Fullmer.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How's Ed doing?
MS. FULLMER: Much better. He comes home today. Thanks
for asking.
Connie Fullmer. And I'm here representing the Goodland
Preservation Coalition. And I first of all want to thank all of you for
hearing our petition on September 14th to ask you to put this on as an
agenda item.
It's an area that is of much concern to most of the people in
Goodland. And Mike Barbush came up and talked before you on the
14th of September about the ownership of the road.
Before going into the kind of history -- well, this is history -- I
wanted to give you a little bit of a visual so you'll know what we're
talking about.
This is an overhead projection of -- the request for this is not
regarding -- or not approaching the interlocal agreement with any
concern about maintenance of the road, about the funding that was
Page 43
October 26, 2004
agreed to in the interlocal agreement two years ago. Mr. Mudd and
Mr. Moss sat down at the negotiating table and came up with an idea
about how they could help Marco City out with funding because of
their spending cap.
They decided -- the county decided and you all voted that you
would pass over a million dollars a year for 15 years to help them with
road maintenance. And in that they threw in the Goodland Drive,
CR92A as one of the roads to be maintained, because it's a road that
happened to fall within the new city limit borders.
So our historic road that was always Goodland Drive to us, our
road access, was thrown into the pot.
We have no objection with the city continuing to do the
maintenance of the road, to continue to get the funding to do the
maintenance of the road. Our issue, our petition was strictly about
ownership. That's our concern.
The road is our historic road. As you enter the Goodland Drive
off of 92, you'll see a history marker there and it says Goodland
Village access road. It was named -- the area was named by the first
settler, Johnny Roberts. Goodland was built on Calusa shell mounds
by the early settlers, the Calusa Indians.
The clam shell access road was built almost single-handedly by
the pioneer Harry Pettit in 1940. The reason that he built that road
was at the time the County Commissioners told him -- told Harry that
if he would build a road coming out through the mangrove swamps
out to 92 that the school bus would come down and pick up his kids,
instead of him having to row by boat up to Marco, to Caxambas.
So that was how that access road was built. And the reason it's
winding is because he went from Calusa shell mound to Calusa shell
mound to get the shells to build the road. That road's historically
important to us because of that. It's always been our only road coming
in and out of Goodland.
This issue -- petition is about ownership, nothing else. The -- so
Page 44
October 26, 2004
the historical aspect of it is very important to us.
In this picture it gives you a nice aerial view. This one was taken
some number of years ago. But it shows you, coming in over 92, over
the Goodland bridge, the new Goodland bridge, and right here is the
roadway that we're talking about. It's all mangroves through here.
Out this way is mangrove swamp that's now state-owned
mangrove area that was deeded over to the State of Florida as part of
the Deltona settlement. Over here the road comes in off of 92 right
through here. You see there's no development along here. There's a
very small mangrove buffer to the -- on the exit lane of the road, and
on the other side of that mangrove buffer is the Marco River. So
there's no opportunity for any development along that road.
The issue is not a concern about development. There was some
concern about this request being a method of controlling Marco City
development coming down into Goodland. It's not about that. They
cannot develop because of mangrove estuaries in state-owned land.
Has nothing to do with the concern about development. And
that's one of the things that Mr. Moss had expressed a concern about,
but it's not about that.
The -- one other picture that I wanted to show you is one of your
county appraiser's aerial maps that shows the Village of Goodland
right here.
This is the little winding road that we're talking about right
through here that accesses our road. There's no opportunity for
development. There's 100-wide -- a 100- foot wide road easement
going in and out of the village, and again, so no development can
occur.
Our request is that you retain ownership of the road.
Commissioner Fiala asked me a couple of weeks ago, Connie, what is
the real reason for your request for ownership of this road, for the
county to keep the land, to retain the deed for the road?
You know, oftentimes all of you commissioners receive
Page 45
October 26, 2004
responses and questions from people to do things and then find later
that there's a hidden agenda. There is no hidden agenda about this,
ladies and gentlemen. It's about our road, it's about land that the
county owns. It's a county-owned land. Turn the maintenance over,
leave the maintenance over with the city. Continue to give them the
money that they need to help do their road maintenance. We don't care
about that. Our petition is about ownership.
We're asking you -- right now the county taxpayers have agreed a
couple of years ago to be taxed for conservation land. They're being
taxed to buy land, to preserve land, and here we're talking about
giving land away, giving land over to another municipality. It's land
that our road sits on. It's county-owned land and we're county
constituents at the end of that road. We're asking you to keep the
ownership of the road. There's no legal requirement that you turn
ownership over to the City of Marco Island. It's subject to your
decision. The--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Connie, I'm going to have to ask you to
wind up. And I hate to do that, but--
MS. FULLMER: Okay, I will. But I want to say just one more
real quick thing.
A couple of years ago, in December of 2002, in the Everglades
Echo, there was an article that was headed up, Burns Road Resurfaces.
Out in Mr. Coletta's district there was concern on Burns Lake Road, a
road that goes off of the Tamiami Trail down -- that's in the Big
Cypress Preserve that accesses families at the end of that road. And
Mr. Coletta was asked about it, and people didn't want the -- the Big
Cypress Preserve wanted that road turned over to them. Those people
at the end of that access road didn't want the county to turn the
ownership of the road over. And so there was a lot of discussion
about it.
And Mr. Mudd in fact said that those are still taxpayers, even if
there are only a few of them, and they need the roads and access to
Page 46
October 26, 2004
them. We're not just going to turn them over. It ain't gonna happen.
Well, that's what we're asking you to do here. There's no reason
to transfer ownership. Yes, an interlocal agreement was crafted two
years ago. Goodlanders weren't consulted their opinion about it at the
time. We're just asking you now -- the decision really wasn't right at
that time. It's not right now either. Asking to you keep the ownership
of the road. It's county-owned land. Doesn't have to by law be turned
over. We're asking you to keep it.
We're county constituents. We're not trying to step on the toes of
anybody in Marco City. And they don't stand to benefit from the
ownership of the road. They don't lose by keeping -- they don't --
their situation doesn't change regarding the ownership. Their main
concern is money. And that's fine, let them continue to get the money,
let them continue to be responsible for the maintenance. Keep the
ownership of the road, that's what we're asking.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Connie.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This would be for the county
attorney.
In regards to the land surrounding the road, that would still be in
the ownership of the county; is that correct? And all we're doing is
just turning over the road for the -- to Marco; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe that's correct. Your county manager
may want to further address that question, but that is my
understanding. We're talking about the road. We're not talking about
county-owned property to which we're title holder apart from the road.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the interlocal agreement that we
made was to -- first of all, when Marco became a municipality back in
'97, I believe, and I'm not -- I wasn't here at the time, the county had
some commitments to do to their roads. And when that happened,
those commitments didn't -- we didn't hold up to the commitments that
we had on the particular item.
Page 47
October 26, 2004
To try to at least balance how impact fees are collected within the
two municipalities that collect impact fees for the county, we tried to
standardize the impact fee issue and make it equal, so that Naples
received impact fees at a certain rate and so did Marco Island. And we
were successful in doing that.
By turning over the road maintenance and the roads, the county
roads, 92 and 92 Alpha, that reside within the City of Marco Island to
Marco, we were able to work a deal where we neutralized or at least
made similar impact fee arrangements with Marco Island as we had
with the City of Naples, and we were able to provide the City of
Marco some monetary compensation for maintaining those roads and
at the same time try to make amends to the commitments that we
reneged on, okay, when they became a city.
I don't like to say it like that, but they're not suing us or anything
like that. We tried to be -- and we tried to make things right. And by
turning over the two roads, they picked up a maintenance requirement
that the county didn't have, so we didn't have to expend dollars in
order to do it, and they were willing to, for a million dollars a year for
15 years and then forever ever after that, we won't pay them any more
money after a IS-year period, to maintain those roads for posterity.
And so that was the arrangement that was made. We thought at
the time it was a good arrangement.
When making that arrangement, Ms. Fullmer and Mr. Barbush, I
believe, were very vocal, and that's why the arrangement had an
extension for two years, because there was a move afoot, and I believe
it was genuine on the part of Ms. Fullmer and Mr. Barbush, that they
were going to try to de-annex that area, 92 Alpha, from the City of
Marco Island so that it could retain with the county and, in particular,
be part of the Goodland heritage as far as ownership was concerned. I
don't believe that the de-annexation movement went anything past that
as far as moving it to Tallahassee.
But that's where we are today.
Page 48
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, I also have a
question for Don (sic) Feder, head of transportation department.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Norm Feder?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Norm Feder, excuse me.
The level of maintenance on that particular road, is it -- does it
meet the standards or exceed the standards of the county?
MR. FEDER: Yes. The City of Marco Island is maintaining the
roads. I believe Connie, who I've had the opportunity to work with
over this period of time and respect, will tell you that at least in the
last year in particular, they're doing a good job of maintaining.
One of the issues that we have as well that you need to consider,
and I appreciate both Connie's and the Goodland residents' concerns.
If the area will not be developed -- and I thought that was one of the
major concerns, I'm being told now it isn't -- is that if we retain
ownership, we also retain liability. And that's something I need to
make you aware of. If in fact it is to be maintained as it has been by
the City of Marco Island, owning the road in ownership only puts us
in the position of potential liability if there's any claims or any actions
or issues out there relative to that level of maintenance or anything
else.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that would fall on the
responsibility of the City of Marco Island then; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: If it gets transferred of ownership over to them
then they retain both maintenance and ownership and liability. And if
it's not to be developed, which I had understood was the issue of
concern, then I'm not sure why we wouldn't advocate turning it over to
the city at this time and encourage them to make sure they maintain.
We're still going to be out there as a county, I'm sure, always
advocating for the folks in Goodland.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, I make a motion we
accept the staff's recommendation.
Page 49
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle to accept staffs recommendation and a second by
Commissioner Henning. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a brief comment that I can't
let go unanswered.
The comparison to Burns Road was a little off the mark. The
concern is the Big Cypress and the controls that they put into place as
far as access to the road. And if it came into their control, it's very
likely they would gate it and access would be limited for the property
owners that still have holdings on that.
I don't think it's quite the same as Marco. I mean, there are some
similarities. But I just wanted to get that on the record.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
I feel like I'm torn between two of my children. It's really tough.
I can understand Goodland's concerns, because it's the only road that
leads into the county-owned Village of Goodland. And yet Marco,
because the lines were drawn rather peculiarly where the City of
Marco goes down this, catches the road and then comes back here, it's
part of the City of Marco. So I'm really torn between the two.
But I think we have a great enough working relationship with
Marco that if any problems seem to start coming up that we're aware
of, and of course they need to -- they know that we would protect
Goodland in any way we can because they have a tremendous
historical value, and they're even -- they even brought the houses in
Goodland across the water, if you remember, from Caxambas, because
-- for the people to live there.
But anyway, so it's very difficult for me, but I call for the vote.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 50
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Unanimous.
I'm sorry. I really wanted to take care of you, but I can't do it
both.
Okay. We are going to take a 10-minute break.
(A recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
I think we can get 1 D(B) in before we go to the 11 :00 time
certain, eh?
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2004-342: AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF
FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN THE PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
AND/OR STORMW A TER RETENTION AND TREATMENT
POND SITES, AS WELL AS PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE
ROAD RIGHT -OF- WAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS, AND TEMPORARY DRIVEWAY RESTORATION
EASEMENTS, WHICH WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS TO LOGAN BOULEVARD FROM
V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD TO IMMOKALEE ROAD AT AN
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. 10(B). This item was continued
Page 51
October 26, 2004
from the September 28th, 2004 meeting to the October 26th, 2004
meeting. It's a recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing
condemnation fee simple interest in the proposed right-of-way and/or
stormwater retention and treatment pond sites, as well as perpetual
non-exclusive road right-of-way, drainage and utility easements and
temporary driveway restoration easements which will be required for
the construction of roadway drainage and utility improvements to
Logan Boulevard from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road.
It's project No. 60166. Estimated fiscal impact is $5,760,000. And
Mr. Kevin Hendricks from the transportation division will present.
MR. HENDRICKS: Commissioners, good morning. We have a
power point presentation to show you the impact of this project on the
affected property. And we have with us Mr. Frank Cardo, from
Anderson and Carr, our real estate appraisers, who developed the
estimates' full compensation for the property owners.
We have also Walt Gilcher, from Hole Montes, our engineering
design consultant for the project, in case you have any questions.
Obviously this is a serious matter any time private property is
condemned or sought to be condemned for public purposes.
Can we go through the alignment this way? Here we go.
As you can see, the road comes up from Vanderbilt through the
Island Walk development and past Saturnia Lakes, and then it impacts
property owned by Mr. Cullen Walker, who operates a business called
Workaholics Landscape Management. And also clips a corner of a
property owned by Daniel Peck, trustee.
A little more in-depth look at the property that we may have to
condemn. Hopefully we can work a settlement out.
Your agenda package has some attachments that I'm sure you've
read thoroughly, and they explore the various alternates. At least three
different alternate alignments for the road were considered and five
different alternate locations for the stormwater retention and treatment
pond. And we sat down with Mr. Walker and his attorney to explore
Page 52
October 26, 2004
each of these alternates and find out which ones had the least impact
on the property. Also other factors were taken into consideration,
such as cost and environmental impact.
There's a close-up of where the intersection will be. We had to
align the road so that it would line up with Cypress Boulevard to the
north. Cypress Boulevard. That's why we have an S curve in there.
You can see the Walker property consists of 31.2 acres, and we're
basically cutting it in half. A little bit more remains on the east side
after the road goes through than does on the west.
And you can see the land uses are laid out here. At the present
they're zoned agricultural, at least the part that's being required is
zoned agricultural, with a highest and best use for residential
development at four units an acre. And a small portion of the Walker
property is also zoned estates.
Here's a good visual depiction of the width of the road up through
the Walker property.
The total take is 11.68 acres from Walker alone, and roughly a
third of an acre from Mr. Peck.
This visual shows the various operations that are take -- we've
got a graded road, there are storage trailers that need to be relocated.
There's a storage maintenance building, a pole barn, which the
right-of-way would go right through.
And down there at the south, the red square is a house and office
with the whole stand of trees that are being grown for resale around
the house, and that's where the stormwater retention pond is going to
go.
Are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- Halas -- oh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor by
Page 53
-.--
October 26, 2004
Commissioner Henning, and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
For discussion. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. As representative of the
transportation department, how close do you feel that we are to
closing this deal without having to go through condemnation?
MR. HENDRICKS: I do believe we'll have to go through the
actual hearing whereby -- well, we may reach a stipulated final
judgment. But I do believe we'll have to file suit because that's just
the way the attorney representing Mr. Walker does things. He wants
the property to be taken by the government first, then he'll negotiate a
settlement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I just checked to see if we have speakers.
We don't have any speakers.
Okay. I have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning, a
second by Commissioner Coyle. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That passes 5-0.
Item #9H
VERBAL REPORT FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would make a recommendation
Page 54
October 26, 2004
that we go back to item 9(H), which is an 11 :00 p.m. time certain, and
that is this item to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. It's a verbal report from
Commissioner Coletta and party to -- regarding their trip to Poland.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we have a timer on this?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I want to know ifhe's going to give
the report in Polish.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Start with an hour and a half
and start working backwards.
MS. FILSON: I have three presenters. Do you want me to time
those?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MS. FILSON: The first one's Tammie Nemecek.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, just a --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let him give his report and then they can
present, please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just very briefly. To be honest
with you, I'm going to be turning this over to Tammie Nemecek. She
has the report prepared as far as the pictures go and a more detailed
description.
But I want to extend my sincere appreciation to this commission
to let me be a part of this delegation to Poland. As you may know, in
the recent past we have had the members of the Polish business
community, government and educational institutions come to the
Immokalee area to visit and to see the potentials, and we're very
excited about what they saw.
Last May we had the opportunity to be able to go to Washington
D.C. and sign a memorandum of cooperative understanding. All this
is moving towards the final event of being able to have new industry
here in Immokalee and Collier County and Immokalee.
And Tammie Nemecek put together a program for Poland that
was mind boggling, to say the least. It was a very interesting trip, but
I'll tell you, it was extremely demanding. I think we met everyone
Page 55
October 26, 2004
that was comparable to a governor, to council representatives,
economic development authorities, chambers of commerce. We were
on the go probably 10 hours a day covering the whole country.
It was quite a remarkable trip and I could see a lot of positive
things coming out of it. But without further ado so we keep this thing
moving and get to lunch by 1 :00 or 2:00, I'm going to turn this over to
Tammie Nemecek.
MS. NEMECEK: Good morning, Commissioners, Madam
Chairman.
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to allow Commissioner
Coletta to come with us on this trade mission. It was an important
step for Collier County, an important step for Poland, and really was
our opportunity to lay the groundwork for future job creation on both
sides of the pond.
And I'm going to go through just a presentation real quick. And
really, as we talked before about this trade mission and how this all
came about, talking about the company, Sky truck, and Lance McLean,
the owner of the company, and his relationship with Poland -- and this
has been a long-term relationship that he's been working on
developing with Poland, specifically with the PZL Mielec factory.
In March of 2004, Sky truck received their FAA certification,
which opened the doors to sales in the United States. And just looking
at Lance and the Sky truck plane right there.
But what we're talking about here for Florida Tradeport and for
the community of Immokalee and Collier County in its entirety is
really attracting manufacturing, aviation, distribution types of
companies to the Florida Tradeport, and this provides an opportunity
for companies in Poland to access the Americas; talking about
Canada, u.s. and Latin American markets.
And through our incentive programs that the Board of County
Commissioners approved in 2003, and the strategic location of the
Florida Tradeport to Latin American and Canadian and U. S. markets,
Page 56
October 26, 2004
we really do have an opportunity here to be successful.
And again, Commissioner Coletta talked about how this all
began, and really with the Polish officials' visit with regards to
Sky truck. The warm welcome, the outreach from the community, the
public sector, the private sector outreach between the Florida
Tradeport and Poland provided the groundwork for us to establish this
memorandum of cooperation with Poland, providing a win/win
situation for both Poland and Florida, and again resulting in job
creation for both areas.
And what we're talking about is Partners for Prosperity. Florida
as a gateway to the Americas, and Poland as a gateway to the
European Union, focusing on business, education, international trade,
research and development opportunities.
The trade mission to Poland started out at the Naples Airport. It's
a 10-day trade mission by a delegation from Collier County that
included state, local and business interests. We were fortunate enough
to have Theresa Stahl from the Naples Daily News with us along this
trip, which I think captured more so than any of us ever could the true
essence of the trade mission and the opportunities there in Poland.
Visiting six cities, going from Warsaw and the capital to Gdansk,
which is in the Pomeranian region, Mielec, which is where the factory
is for Sky truck, Krakow, N owy Targ and Zakopane up in the
mountains, talking about tourism.
And just to go through some of the pictures, looking at the
history, the culture, the business opportunities. And friendship in their
country is a very strong statement. What we talked a lot about was
making friendships with those individuals which results in business
opportunities for the future.
Planes, trains, automobiles and hovercrafts, which I think is an
exciting opportunity for us here in Collier County. And you can see,
our cars are a bit bigger here in the United States than they are in
Poland. And Gene Schmidt in one of the airplanes out at the airport in
Page 57
October 26, 2004
Nowy Targ.
And again, you can see with these pictures, business meetings,
business opportunities, and an opportunity actually to understand the
cultural aspect of the Polish community, which I think was -- first and
foremost, the thing that we had to do is understand the culture of their
society, which gave us a true appreciation for the country itself.
We had an opportunity to present a proclamation that was done
by the Board of County Commissioners to the representatives with the
Gdansk business club. And Commissioner Coletta had that
opportunity to read that proclamation and present them with an
official copy. And again, at the bottom right corner, we were actually
followed by the media over in Poland which had a story on us in the
N owy Targ region. And this was a great opportunity as well.
This is the airplane that will be at the Florida Tradeport, we're
hoping within about a month. You can see Chris Lombardo and
Lance McLean standing on top of their aircraft. And I loved the way
that Theresa Stahl described that in the newspaper, where their arms
were outreached and they were king of the world.
So I think that is an opportunity for the Florida Tradeport in
Immokalee to really act as king of the world for the Sky truck project.
Talking about trade mission success, Vitarich Laboratories,
which was a company here located in Collier County, participated in
the trade mission.
May I go on? I'll hurry up.
And the great opportunity with that is really they were that
success story that we're promoting as far as Poland as the entryway to
the European Union. They've identified a distributor over in Poland
that can distribute their products and maybe an actual acquisition of
that company.
Sky truck, their relationship was strengthened. We also talked
about the establishment of additional facility for a maintenance facility
at the Florida Tradeport; Florida Gulf Coast University with a
Page 58
October 26, 2004
cooperative agreement with the University of Gdansk; the Malopolska
region, which is where Krakow is located, there is a possibility of an
additional memorandum of cooperation being established with that
regIon.
We're also talking about pen pal programs with our grade school
students here in Collier County and the grade school students in
Poland to have a kid-to-kid program.
Aviation Institute in Warsaw is looking for opportunities to train
pilots here in the Florida Tradeport. And also on the tourism site, the
Nova Targ airport is looking to develop some tourist related
opportunities, which we have some folks in our delegation that were
working on that as well.
And again, looking back at our -- moving in the right direction
here, official signing of the memoranda of cooperation was in May.
We did the Tradeport delegation to Poland in October. And we're
looking to bring a trade mission from Poland to Collier County in
April of 2005. And hopefully we can give them just a small, small
portion of the wonderful trip that they provided to us.
And again, moving in the right direction for Sky truck with their
sales. And Chris Lombardo is here, so I'm sure he can talk to you a
little bit about that and how successful that opportunity is going. And
again, what we're talking about is creating jobs. And new construction
at the Florida Tradeport will begin here shortly with the facility, a
12,000 square foot facility which will house the Sky truck. It will be
the anchor venture between Poland and Florida and will open the
doors to many, many more opportunities.
So again, our future prosperity, identifying U. S. companies that
want to do business in Poland, identifying Polish companies that want
to do business here, student exchange programs, research and
development cooperation. Internship programs was a big thing that
came out of our discussions with them as far as providing
opportunities for u.s. and Poland students to interchange with our
Page 59
October 26, 2004
business community. And I thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks. Great report. Any questions?
MS. FILSON: The next--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Sorry. The next speaker is Fred Thomas. He will
be followed by Gene Schmidt.
MR. THOMAS: Jak sie masz.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the Commission. The
presence of Jim Coletta, local official, lent credibility to the whole
mission, made it possible for us to develop the kind of relationships
that I think will be very fruitful in the future.
Tammie Nemecek mentioned something that I want to
reemphasize. The Polish people are very friendly, very sincere type of
folks that want to do business on a handshake, so friendship is first.
Getting to like you is first, and then doing business with you is second.
And we had an opportunity, they've had an opportunity to come
to our country a couple of times. We've had a chance to go around
them and they were very welcoming, very welcoming. And the
credibility that Commissioner Coletta and Representative Davis
provided made it easy for the rest of us to have some credibility in
what we were trying to do.
Poland was a surprise to me. It's a very young population, a very
advanced community. When I landed in Warsaw, I felt like I was back
in New York, okay, that's the only way I can describe it. Vibrant,
exciting, full of young people doing great things.
And I'm going to just mention two little innovations that they
have over there that we don't know anything about over here. You go
into a hotel, you get your little magnetic key to go to your room. You
go up to your room, you open your door. You look for the light key,
nothing works. Dummy, stick the key in the door, by the door, and all
the lights turn on. That means when you take the key to go out, what
happens? All the lights go out. Something simple, saves energy.
Page 60
October 26, 2004
D'uh.
Another little thing they had for 20 zlotes, which is about $7.00
American, you can buy a phone card. Thirty minutes local, about 15
minutes international call. Take that phone card in any public phone
in Poland, stick it in. Polish comes up. Whoa, I don't know what to
do now. Saw some flags, I hit the flags, English appeared. Then the
English says put in your country code. I don't know if anybody knows
-- here knows what the country code is.
I happened to ask a teenager going by, "What do they mean by
country code?" He said, "You're from America, right?" I said, "Yes."
"Put in 001, dial your area code and your number," and my wife
answered the phone quicker than I just said it. Can't do that here.
There's a lot of interesting opportunities there. Poland is a place
to go on tour -- for tourists for vacation. If you go to the North
Carolina hills in the summertime, you'd have more fun in Poland
during the summertime. And the Polish folks would have a lot of fun
coming here. And I think we're going to be opening some doors
through some exchange tourism.
We need to all work on one little problem that we have, and that
is: We were able to go to Poland on passports. They should be able to
come here on passports, but they've got to wait three months for a visa
unless they're business persons. I'm going to make it my business to
try to get with our government to develop a sister city relationship so
anybody from Poland that wants to tour, that's going to make his final
destination Southwest International or the Florida Tradeport, where
they can clear customs and come with an immediate visa. And that
would help bring in the tourism.
With that kind of exchange, we can become their window to the
western hemisphere, and they can become our window to the
European Union. We need to keep up the good work.
I want to thank Tammie Nemecek and everybody involved in this
tour, because it was an outstanding opportunity to bridge some new
Page 61
October 26, 2004
gaps that needs to be continued to be cultivated. Thank you very
much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Gene Schmidt. He will be
followed by your final speaker, Chris Lombardo.
MR. SCHMIDT: Good afternoon. I don't know how I can
improve at all on what's already been said, so I won't spend a lot of
time echoing what they have said.
But just as a side note, I just wanted to mention that, as you
know, prior to our trip to Poland, we had had two visits from -- with
the Polish visitors and delegation. On the first occasion, we met with
these people at the Immokalee Airport, we took them for airplane rides
and we introduced them to the airport.
On the second occasion, we went to Washington, Commissioner
Coletta came with us and we had a great signing of our agreement
with them at the Polish Embassy and it was a marvelous opportunity
to get to know these people a little better.
When we first went to the -- had our first meeting with them at
the Immokalee Airport, I invited my wife to come with us and she
made great friends with the interpreter and with others with that group.
So when it came time for us to go to Poland, she said, "I've got to go."
And I said, "Well, you're going to have to pay your own way." She
got out her checkbook and wrote out a check right away. And we had
a marvelous time.
And on behalf of my wife, I'd like to thank you all for the support
that you gave us and the continued support that I know you're going to
be giving. And on behalf of the Airport Authority and the Airport
Authority board, thank you so much for having me to go along also. It
was a great experience.
MS. FILSON: Final speaker is Chris Lombardo.
MR. LOMBARDO: Dzien dobry.
I want to take a moment and thank all of you for having
Commissioner Coletta come with us and tell you how much that
Page 62
October 26, 2004
helped us across the board. Also, having Representative Mike Davis
with us was an amazing thing.
When Lance and I started off on this adventure 10, 12 years ago,
we had no concept of where it was going to lead.
A few years ago when we suggested to the various members of
the Polish government and industry that they should do a trade
mission to Collier County that we sponsored, we were hopeful that
they would take us up on that opportunity, particularly since we told
them come in the wintertime. Poland is not the friendliest place in
January. And they gladly came.
At that time we suggested to the EDC that it would be wonderful
if we could return that favor by doing a trade mission to Poland,
because, as Fred so artfully put it, friendship comes first over there,
and they want to know that they're dealing with a friendly
environment.
We had no idea that the EDC in Collier County would accept this
concept as graciously and as enthusiastically as they did. And quite
frankly, I want you to know your commissioner worked extremely
hard. We had meetings that started with breakfast meetings at 7 :00 in
the morning and ended with evening meetings, one meeting ending
somewhere around 1 :00 in the morning. And the next day having to
get up and either go into another meeting or hop on a train or a plane.
I mean, we literally crossed from the Baltic Sea to the Carpathian
mountains, the entire length of Poland.
Thirty-eight million people live in Poland. And the thing that we
find amazing is Poland loves America and Poland knows all about
America, but America knows virtually nothing about Poland. Your
impressions of what Poland is are probably incorrect.
Poland was the industrial hub for the Soviet Union. Poland also
had a significant sense of self worth and freedom, which is why they
were the first country to forcefully remove themselves from the Soviet
Union. They look to us as a tremendous ally.r
Page 63
October 26, 2004
I have heard time and time again that they would rather be the
51 st state than a member of the EU, if they could possibly work that
out. And in fact, they will proudly tell you that they are the most
American country on earth, bar none, which is an interesting statement
in and of itself.
They want a relationship with America. They want a --
particularly want a relationship with Southwest Florida. We know
that for a fact. We have enjoyed tremendous success. Sky truck is
considered right now one of the most successful offset programs in
Poland. An offset program is a trade program between the United
States and Poland.
We were able over the past several years to achieve the FAA
certification for our Sky truck aircraft, which is manufactured in
Mielec, Poland, an aircraft factory that's been in existence since 1929.
But unfortunately, since the collapse, the Soviet Union had significant
problems because they don't have a big customer anymore.
In March of 2004, we were able to achieve our FAA certification.
On April 1 st I got a call from the president of the factory, and he said
to me, "How many planes have you sold?" And we said, "None." And
he said, "Oh, this is a disaster." And I said, "No, no. You've got to be
patient. We've had less than a week to try to sell planes. "
On May 1 st he called me and he said, "How many planes have
you sold?" And I said, "None." And he said, "Oh, oh, what are we
going to do?" And I said, "No, you've got to remain calm."
I'm proud to tell you that on October 1 st, when we arrived for our
economic trade mission, part of the message we delivered them was
contracts for seven aircraft. That's substantial. As we sit here right
now, we are negotiating the sale of our eighth aircraft.
Now, to explain how important that is to this factory, last year
this factory produced six planes. Six planes. So selling eight aircraft
in less than five months is a major accomplishment.
Now, mind you, back in the Eighties, when the Soviet Union was
Page 64
October 26, 2004
still buying aircraft from that factory, they produced 365 planes. And
so they've got a ways to go.
But what we've been able to achieve is by bringing other
businesses to Poland, we've been able to show Poland that there is an
interest. Poland manufactures great products. They are looking for
accessways to market their products. They don't like marketing. They
would rather just be the manufacturers. They want partners with
marketers. They want to get into the Americas, literally from the top
of America all the way down to the bottom of South America.
They need access points. They need assistance with marketing,
they need assistance with packaging, they need assistance with final
assembling. And that's the concept that we delivered to Poland, which
is to bring our aircraft in an incomplete format to here to Collier
County, to Immokalee for finishing. And then we'll handle the
finishing and the marketing.
We've delivered that same concept to Vitarich for nutraceuticals.
And I'm proud to say that as I'm sitting here right now today, we are
in the process of wrapping up our first contract for Vitarich with a
nutraceutical company in Poland to do exactly that.
And I'll be quick.
We have -- right now I have contacts with a roofing company, a
company that manufactures roofing materials in Poland, a company
that manufactures -- they're mining explosives that they want to be
able to sell in South America, two pharmaceutical companies, and a
company that does digital productions, Young Digital Poland, who are
all looking for accessways to America.
This is a huge opportunity for Collier County, this is a huge
opportunity for Poland, and this is a hug opportunity for Immokalee.
We think it's a great marriage.
We have worked tirelessly to continue to pursue this, and I
appreciate all the support that you've given us in that regard, and
hopefully we'll be giving you regular updates on the success.
Page 65
-;-~~.".~,--'........,..,.. .'.
October 26,2004
But I just want you to know one thing from a numbers
standpoint. In 2003, Sky truck Company's revenues were zero. In
2004, Sky truck's revenues will be zero. In 2005, when we start
delivery of our first aircraft by the end of the year, our revenues will
be no less than $32 million. And that is a significant statement for a
small company that has put a tremendous amount of energy into this.
And we intend on delivering that product to Immokalee.
And the last thing I'm going to tell you is, one of the things we
achieved, because of the presence of Representative Mike Davis and
the presence of Commissioner Colette is the industrial development
agency, which is known as the ARP, was so impressed with our
commitment from Collier County that they asked us if they could
enter into a joint venture with Sky truck to develop an aircraft
maintenance facility in Immokalee.
Poland manufactures more than just the Sky truck, they do aircraft
in the form of helicopters, in the form of large aircraft. There is not an
aircraft maintenance facility for Polish aircraft in the entire Americas.
And what they want is a joint venture with us to develop that right in
Immokalee. That's a huge achievement.
So thank you again. I guess Dziekuj e is what we would say.
Thank you for your support. And hopefully this is the beginning of a
long and successful trail.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Chris.
And I'd also like to recognize Representative Mike Davis. Mike,
would you stand up? Did you want to say a couple of words?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ask a politician if they want to
say a couple of words?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you, Commissioner
Henning. What a warm greeting that was. Wait a minute, my clock's
running here.
You all know me and you know I'll be brief.
It was certainly a pleasure for me to go along on the trade
Page 66
October 26, 2004
mission to Poland with my colleague, your fellow board member, my
good friends, Jim Coletta.
And I think what Chris just said I think occurred to us, that our
presence very often required that the Polish people we were meeting
with, that they would send people of the same political stature as us,
which really, I think, elevated the discussions and provided a lot of
credibility to the trade delegation. We were proud to be a part of that.
And for me, having Gary Schuman (phonetic) along from
Enterprise Florida, it was a great learning opportunity for me and the
great job that Enterprise Florida does. And also to -- for me to work to
help Enterprise Florida focus on the Immokalee community and all the
great opportunities that are going on there. We continue to have those
discussions and are currently discussing a trade mission with the
Governor in February to Columbia that might provide some additional
opportunities for the Immokalee community.
So good things get started in a small way sometimes, but I think
we've started a really good thing here, and it's going forward. And I
know the folks that Commissioner Coletta and I represent in the
greater Immokalee area are looking forward to the opportunities it will
bring in the way of jobs and business entrepreneurship. So thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks, Mike.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that concludes it, unless
there's some questions from the Commission.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You did a good job.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. It was enjoyable.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Excellent presentation by all of you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I want to thank the EDC for
all the time and effort they put into this, too. It was really beneficial.
And I hope that some day that the fruits of all their labor come to pass
out there in Immokalee at the Florida Tradeport.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, it will. You can just feel it in the
Page 67
October 26, 2004
air, can't you? And I love the -- you were right, Tammie, I loved the
reporter's comments in the newspaper. She'd even have "postcard
from Poland". I read them every day because it made me feel like I
could take a glimpse of what Poland looked like.
Anyway, enough talking. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Item #10C
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN
INTERLOCAL SERVICE DELIVERY AGREEMENT WITH THE
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to 10(C), which is a
recommendation to approve an interlocal service delivery agreement
with the Big Cypress Stewardship District. And Mr. Norman Feder,
the transportation services administrator, will present.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, again, for the record, Norman
Feder, transportation administrator.
We discussed this briefly at the beginning of the meeting. We
had, in the special district that's been set up, a provision within 90
days, which actually is tomorrow, that there be an agreement on the
transportation provisions of this special district.
Essentially what you have in front you is a recommendation that
represents discussions over that period of time with the representatives
of the special district that provides for, first of all, additional
right-of-way, another 100 feet to go to a 200-foot wide corridor on Oil
Well, plus retention to be handled on the district's property, as well as
additional right-of-way on Immokalee Road, and again the retention to
be held, all of that without impact feè credits.
I believe, and you'll hear shortly, I'm sure, from the agents of the
special district that there's no debate on those four issues, if you will,
those two sections of road and the stormwater.
Page 68
October 26, 2004
What you do have as well in that package is a provision that there
be a set-aside of right-of-way for a future connection between Oil
Well and Randall Roads, out in the area. And our concern is that as we
look at the development, Ave Maria, this special district, other
development that you have coming forward, one that's been postponed
from today's agenda, that we have more and more demands along that
Oil Well corridor.
But we have definite restrictions on the west end as we approach
Immokalee Road. In particular we have now a high school and a
middle school, and very close development in that area and
commercial at the corner of Oil Well and Immokalee.
With that in mind, what we find is that as we go to address those
demands in the future, we're going to have to have connections
between Oil Well and Randall and improvements to Randall if in fact
we're going to meet those demands in the future.
So what we've asked for in this case is a connecting road between
Oil Well and Randall. We haven't prescribed where that is within the
district, allowing them to work around their development plans, but
trying to ensure that we don't lose that opportunity.
Additionally, in that case we have noted that we're ready to
provide impact fee credits for that right-of-way.
With the situation that we have, the 90 days expiring tomorrow,
it's at least staffs recommendation -- you may want to speak to legal
as well, and I know that Jeff Klatzkow's here to speak to it -- that in
fact if the board concurs in what staff is presenting or seeks to modify,
in any event, that the board take action to present that for execution by
the special district.
As I understand it, the special district has to notice meetings, and
they can speak to you about their requirements, before they could even
execute this. So I'm already outside of the 90-day window, in any
event.
But I think it's important that within that period of time, in fact,
Page 69
--"""'-^---~""'-""-""'- -. -'-~
~-'-
October 26,2004
or the 90 days of the board's position and what we're requesting of the
special district to actually implement under this agreement be
established and submitted for then the special district to take action.
And that's at least staffs recommendation to you, is that those
five items be included, that you take action today and ask that the
special district move as quickly as possible to do their noticing, take
action and bring that back to this board, hopefully executed consist
with what you present to them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The land that we're talking
about for the interconnect between Randall and Oil Well Road, what
we're asking for is the right-of-way but we're not being specific at this
time; I mean, that's something that's still fluid?
MR. FEDER: That's correct. What we would hope to do is
allow them to consider their development plans, if they want to use it
on the edge of their property, let's say for illustration, on the west side
of their property, so that it doesn't impact some of their development
plans. If they wanted to make it internal to their property and do
something almost like Vineyards Boulevard and develop off of it.
We're not trying to prescribe that, because we don't know exactly what
they plan to develop there or how they plan to develop the property.
We're only trying to make sure that we don't face the situation where
we have no connect between Oil Well and Randall in the future.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As a follow-up to that, Mr.
Feder, we're not boxing the developer in at this -- so we're not boxing
him in at this point in time with the fact that it's going to be anyone
particular place; we are going to take consideration for what their
development's going to be, number one.
And number two, with -- the choices that they're looking, I think,
is whether it's not going to be done or not be done. And that's not
Page 70
October 26,2004
acceptable. To me this is an interconnect that's got to take place, and
it's some time in the future, to be able to meet the needs that's going to
take place out there.
It's not an option whether it's going to be done or not be done, it's
got to be done. Where it's going to be is up for negotiations, and I
understand you correctly that the negotiations will continue for the
exact placement.
MR. FEDER: That is correct. What we're asking you to do here
and asking you to approve, and I'll defer, but is essentially to require
them within their development plans to provide for a good connection,
not something that's 400 left turns, but a good connection from Oil
Well to Randall. Exactly how they build that into their plans, we're
just putting them on notice that we're asking them to build that into
their plans, and we will pay for that right-of-way with impact fee
credits.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Norm, in regard to
negotiating with the landowners out there, in regards to exactly how
we're going to design the road, will you be able to work with the
landowners out there in regards to saying, as you brought up, that we
don't want to have a road that has a number of turns in it, that it's more
or less a sweeping curves or it's designed in such a way is that it meets
the current road and hopefully the future standards of road building?
MR. FEDER: Yes, Commissioner. And essentially I think you'll
hear from the property owner that, as they've said to me, or at least
their agent, there are other times that you're going to see this project,
you'll have opportunity for input. We agree with that. And once they
come forward with their plans, we can work out the specifics that's
something that meets their needs and meets the public's needs.
Obviously, the second being my major concern.
But what we're trying to do here is make sure that everything is
on notice that there will be that provision.
Page 71
October 26, 2004
I've just been advised by legal that I should refer to that as an
option to buy also. And if I could, I'll ask that you give me a chance to
defer to Jeff Klatzkow to go through that part of the agreement that he
worked out with the agents for the developer.
MR. KLATZKOW: For the record, JeffKlatzkow, county
attorney's office.
The way the agreement is structured is that we have a loosely
defined right-of-way that we're setting forth, giving the county the
option to purchase it, all the while being able to negotiate with the
district a better connection that services both them and us.
But at the end of the day, if the district refuses to give us an
appropriate connector, we will have that option to purchase so that we
don't lose this opportunity now. I know in the past in this county
we've lost opportunities with roads because we haven't moved quick
enough. The idea here is we're reserving aright -of- way connector.
We think it's good for the district, we think it's good for the public.
If the district wishes to work with us on a different system that
suits their needs that's appropriate to our needs also, we're more than
happy to do that as well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just hope that the landowner
realizes that we're going to also have a college out in that area and that
we're anticipating probably around 20,000 people when the college
comes up and running. And of course we need to make sure that we
don't impact the people around Orangetree and around that area, that
that interconnect is very, very important for our future transportation
plans here in Collier County, especially out in that area.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And let me add that I just -- I totally agree
with you, and I'm just so glad that we've all learned by previous
mistakes in years gone by. I just am so proud of you, Norm, that
you're making sure that we have this interconnect now before we have
to go through all of that hassle of arguing about it.
Commissioner Coyle?
Page 72
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you just give me the bottom
line? What is it that we're disagreeing about and what progress have
you made in getting agreement?
MR. FEDER: We have been discussing over this period of the
90 days -- and I will defer to the landowner -- but I believe they have a
concern with any provision or requirement, as I said, to have them
allow us to buy or to work with them on establishing a direct
connection between Oil Well and Randall, noting that they're not sure
how that would fit in their development plans.
Our position is there needs to be one. We need to have the
option to purchase if we can't agree. We'll work with you in your
development plans, but in the final analysis we need to make sure that
one of a number of connections between Oil Well and Randall is
available, acknowledging that we've got to move the traffic that's
going to be coming off of this development, Ave Maria and other
development in the area between the two roads, not to adversely affect
the schools and development, particularly on Oil Well at the western
end.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about the stewardship credit
issue?
MR. FEDER: That's a non-issue in this issue. We're defining
under here just the provisions for the special district as provided
within 90 days to decide the transportation issues.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a non-issue to you. Is it an
issue to the landowner?
MR. FEDER: I believe it is an issue to the landowner, but as I'm
understanding it, it's not necessarily one to be addressed as part of this
item.
MR. KLATZKOW: I believe they took it off the table for this
agreement, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So that's been resolved.
Our only issue that has not been resolved is the interconnect road?
Page 73
October 26, 2004
MR. KLATZKOW: That is the primary issue, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, here's my real concern: This
was a special act by the legislature that established the 90-day
requirement. I don't believe we have the authority to grant an
extension of a deadline established by the legislature as a special act.
So I am concerned that no progress has been made in reaching
agreement for this thing -- for this disagreement, and that we are --
you are relying entirely upon our willingness to delay this to permit it
to be resolved.
MR. KLATZKOW: We're not asking for a delay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. I was the only one that asked,
because it was brought to my attention that that might solve the
problem. You guys said no, we don't want to do that, so that's why
we're discussing it now. It was never our people that --
MR. FEDER: Commissioner Coyle, if I could. I appreciate --
you're right, it would have been nice to have had this back to you after
30 days. We've been trying to work through this issue to get
agreement. We're bringing it to you today, one day before the 90 days
is up, noting that the county needs to take action.
But it's our understanding now as we find that it has to be the
special district through noticing to take action, a white kind (phonetic).
So it is our recommendation that the county take action today,
hopefully consistent with staffs recommendation of all the issues in
there, and that we request that the special district go back, do their
noticing and hopefully concur and sign off on this as well and bring it
to the board.
But yes, that will be after the 90-day period, but the county will
have taken its action within 90 days as to what we're looking for to be
in that agreement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Didn't the 90-day provision specify
that we would have to agree upon a final version within that period of
time?
Page 74
October 26, 2004
MR. KLATZKOW: The enabling act, as it were, required that
we get into an agreement, but it also allowed the parties to modify that
agreement and amend it as time went on.
So that to answer your question, we don't need a final agreement,
we just need an agreement that as development proceeds and time
goes on the parties can sit down and develop over time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But an agreement requires two
parties to agree.
MR. KLATZKOW: I can't force them, sir. I can only give them
a draft and remind them that they have 90 days as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I guess I'd like to hear from
the landowners and see if we can resolve this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have three speakers, and I believe that
includes them.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Nancy Payton.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, Nancy.
MS. FILSON: She'll be followed by Bruce Anderson.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife.
I'm not one of the official parties. If you'd prefer to have me
wait, or I can have my say now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, go ahead.
MS. PAYTON: Very good. Nancy Payton, representing the
Florida Wildlife Federation. I guess I represent the public that only
gets to comment on this on the 89th day with a 90-day deadline.
And I wanted to talk about one specific issue, and you probably
can guess what it is.
Although Collier County, Collier Enterprises, Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Florida Wildlife
Federation have been working cooperatively and very effectively to
identify appropriate locations for wildlife crossings and other
environmental enhancements along Oil Well Road and Immokalee
Road, to us it's important to formalize the need for those
Page 75
October 26, 2004
environmental enhancements in this interlocal agreement.
And the whole idea is to get these considerations in there in the
very early planning process so people know all along the way that the
crossings and other enhancements are needed. And I'm only doing it
because, you know, it's best to get it in writing.
Oil Well Road and Immokalee Road both cross Camp Keais
Strand stewardship lands. An initial report by the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission that will be finalized in early 2005
and was done at the request of Collier County and the support of
Collier County shows that the west side of Camp Keais Strand is the
north-south panther corridor for panthers traveling to and from Crew
lands to the Panther Refuge, Fakahatchee Strand and other
conservation lands in the south. So they're going to be crossing Oil
Well Road and Camp Keais Strand.
It's very important that we have those crossings and they are
acknowledged as a need in any document that deals with road
improvements or other aspects of Oil Well Road and Camp Keais
Strand.
So I ask -- and I haven't gotten any opposition from the county or
from Collier Enterprises to this request to have environmental
enhancement wildlife crossings and the needs referenced in this
document. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bruce Anderson. He will be
followed by Tom Conrecode.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Bruce Anderson, on behalf of Collier Enterprises, Incorporated, the
landowner.
As you've heard, most of the terms of the agreement have been
hammered out, with my client donating 100 foot of right-of-way along
Immokalee and Oil Well Roads, and agreeing to accept drainage, if
necessary, outside the right-of-way.
All of this is without impact fee credits. The value of the land is
Page 76
October 26, 2004
millions of dollars, millions of dollars that won't have to be raised with
higher impact fees or taxes.
Collier Enterprises, Incorporated will be added as a party to this
agreement, along with the special district and the county, since Collier
Enterprises actually owns the land that is sought to be conveyed.
Our main area of non-agreement at this time is about a possible
bypass road to connect Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road in a
future location not yet determined by the county.
Just like the county, my client has not yet determined its future
plans for the lands it owns. It hopes to submit development
applications in the next 12 months, at which time both the county and
my client will know more about each one's future plans. That's the
time all parties can make informed decisions, not throw darts at a map
on the wall.
The parties can sign an agreement on the matters that all can
agree on, but neither the county resolution nor the special act say
anything about a bypass road. It takes the agreement of all parties to
have an agreement, but there is no agreement on the bypass. Two of
the three parties to an agreement have not reached an agreement on
that issue.
My suggestion is, and follow-up to what your own attorney said,
is we ought to sign an agreement on the points that there is an
agreement on, and those matters that there is not agreement on can be
the subject of a future amendment to the agreement approved today.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Tom Conrecode.
MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, for the record, Tom
Conrecode of Collier Enterprises.
I'd like to go back a year and remind you of the process we went
through in getting the board to endorse the creation of the special
district out there for the goals that we had identified.
There were a couple of conditions that the county had placed on
Page 77
October 26, 2004
the landowners in going along with the creation of that special district,
and they were: The provision for road right-of-way along Livingston
-- or not Livingston -- along Oil Well Road and along Immokalee
Road. And that we would also accept the drainage within that
donation of right-of-way to provide for stormwater treatment along
those roads.
A year ago we sought to pin those down and define what those
road corridors would be. And staff was unable to do it because they
don't know where those roads are going to be expanded in the future to
six lanes.
Here we are a year later, thinking that 90 days after the creation
of the district we would be in a better position to define that. We still
aren't. We've agreed to 100 feet on the north side of Oil Well Road
and 100 feet on the south side of Immokalee Road; however, the
county is reserving a right to flip that at any point in the future. We
would like to pin that flipping -- flip-flopping around down so that we
can go forward with land plans and agricultural and all the other uses
that we have out there. So just a little reminder on that.
The next issue is we've been working on the regional
transportation network out in the Eastern Collier lands area, and have
proposed no less than 12 proj ects, which include a connection between
Randall and Oil Well Road.
And it feels as though when we're trying to reach agreement on
exactly what the resolution of the county commission was a year ago,
exactly what the special act created, that we're now being held hostage
and extorted for an additional take that isn't necessary at this point.
It's only not necessary because we haven't and the county staff have
not identified what the best location for that connection will be. We
have identified at least four of those, and I could show you the maps
of exactly what we're talking about.
We understand the constraints at Oil Well and Immokalee Road.
We understand how they need to be addressed and aligned with the
Page 78
October 26, 2004
needs of Randall. It's just not appropriate to be in this agreement.
Now, in terms of the 90 days, if we agreed on the 100 foot
conveyance for Oil Well Road and Immokalee Road exactly as you
called for it in your resolution, exactly as the special act calls for it,
this would be done, there wouldn't be an argument, there wouldn't
even be a discussion today. It would be on your consent agreement.
But we can't reach agreement on that. We've reached agreement on
that, but it's the idea of including something else, one more take in the
process that's holding this thing up.
But I think everybody has worked hard to reach agreement on
what was intended in the original 90-day time frame. What we
haven't been able to reach agreement on is the additional ask, the
additional take.
Now, the county will have plenty of opportunities to do that in
the future. We're not doing anything with the land but farming it
today. At some point in the future when we come back with a zoning
action before this county commission, staff will have the opportunity
again to go after that road and many, many more to serve the needs of
the area.
We're working very closely with your staff on the long-range
planning of road improvements. Like I mentioned, 12 that we've
identified in conjunction with them.
So I would ask for you to direct staff to reach agreement on the
points that were called for a year ago, move that agreement forward,
we'll get it approved by the district board, and then the other issues we
continue to negotiate on and resolve that and many others as the
commission sees fit.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My understanding, that the
legislature gave you 90 days to rectify this situation; is that correct?
MR. CONRECODE: No. The county commission, in its
resolution and then in the special act in agreement with the resolution,
Page 79
October 26, 2004
said that we would reach an interlocal agreement with the county
commission, between the district board and the county commission,
within 90 days.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And I'd really like --
MR. CONRECODE: On those two road segments, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I would really like to see what
we can do to negotiate that. What's happened in the past is we've put
off things and it's ended up that the right-of-way, the best course of the
right-of-way ended up being developed or being included in
somebody's plans.
I think what we really need to do is look at all of the people in
Collier County and how we're going to move traffic in the future. And
I think that's the most important thing right now. And I would really
hope that Collier Enterprises would work very closely with the county
in regards to establishing the right-of-way that we need for the present
time or in the future. To me that's very, very important.
MR. CONRECODE: And we are --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Especially with that -- with the
advent of all of that population that's going to be out there in Eastern
Collier County, and with the advent of that college that's coming on
line, to me that's the most important part of the whole equation.
MR. CONRECODE: And I agree, Commissioner. And we're in
complete agreement at this point on Immokalee Road and Oil Well
Road. What we haven't been able to agree on is the connection
between Randall and Oil Well Road. The reason is is that nobody has
been able to study it.
And I'll tell you what's going to happen. Instead of having the
best solution to that problem, we're going to have a road that's forced
to be located within a quarter mile of another road and you're going to
have a double intersection, just like you have here in the urban areas,
that solves a problem improperly.
Ifwe take the time and agree to work together, work on a
Page 80
October 26, 2004
solution that solves that interconnection, we're going to come up with
a better solution that serves all the transportation public in Collier
County .
Now, why is that important? You have the right of eminent
domain forever. We have the ability to do interlocal agreements
between the special district and the county commission forever.
There's nothing that precludes us from doing it the right way, as
opposed to forcing us to do it the wrong way.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to -- I'm looking out for
the taxpayers, so it don't end up to be -- the end result is that the
landowner ends up digging more money out of our coffers than really
needs to be taken, if we can get something and address the problem
right now at this point in time.
MR. CONRECODE: But the proper time to do that,
Commissioner, if I may, is when we come in for a rezone and you
have another opportunity to come after it and ask for that at that time,
as supposed to now.
We can resolve the issues of the resolution and the special act
right now today, without dealing with the interconnect.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Conrecode, I've got to be
honest with you, I don't agree with you. The logic that we're talking
about doesn't make any sense at all. What we're asking for is the right
to be able to work with you in the future. We want to nail that down.
We want to be firm with the fact that we realize that an interconnect is
most likely going to be needed.
We still have the right to negotiate with you. We still have the
right to decide that what you're saying is completely correct and not to
do it. But I don't want to lose this opportunity, and I want the record
to be very strong the fact that if we're going to have development,
we're going to have the roads to support it. And I'll have wait until
you close the public hearings portion.
Page 81
October 26, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Looking on the county
appraiser's website, at the end of Webber, it's all wooded. And I see
some farmlands -- I'm sorry, the end of Randall is wooded and I see
farmlands to the north, to the south, to the east. Is that wetlands, any
sensitivity towards that?
MR. CONRECODE: Well, it's really difficult to tell from this
map.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess my concern is, are we
demanding something that can't be delivered under what the
agreement was, is to protect natural habitat? I mean, that was a real
issue. And I guess if we make that argument in this agreement, you
must have that interconnection, then we kind of failed what we really
set out to do, and that is to protect the environment.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, right now you're dealing with
farmland. But please be assured that what we're asking for is the
ability to acquire, if we have to, a corridor, but more specifically to
work as the development plans come forward and to make sure it
includes both what is needed for the development of this property and
a connection.
If we should find, and as was relayed -- and this close to the
election, I hate to be characterized as a flip-flop or anything to do with
holding hostage. But what I will tell you is if we find that in fact there
is no viable opportunity for that, we're not going to require it, because
I'm not going to pay impact fee credits for it, for the public.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You answered my question
then.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any further discussion,
Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
Page 82
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion to
support staff recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So Commissioner Coletta makes a
motion to support staff recommendations, and the second is by
Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion? Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we need to pursue the staff
recommendations just a moment. Staff is recommending what, that we
approve an agreement for what has been agreed on, or that we
acknowledge that there is no agreement?
MR. FEDER: Weare asking you to submit for consideration by
the special district -- which by the way, they couldn't act today
anyway, as they advised me, they have to notice twice, go through the
process. So there's no action specifically.
It's unilateral action to bring to them an agreement that we're
asking them, the special district and the landowner to execute, which
would include the provisions that have been agreed to already, as well
as this one issue that we've been discussing, and that is the provision
for an option for the county to come in and purchase, if in fact we do
not through the process, which is the way we would seek to pursue it,
have the opportunity working with them in their development plans to
establish a connection between Oil Well and Randall.
If in fact none can be found, because we are going to give impact
fee credits for that, we would not pursue it. But we're trying to make
sure that in this process we are not excluded for the option to have a
connection between Oil Well and Randall, if one is viable.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I need to pursue with Mr.
Conrecode then that issue.
Are you willing to agree to the possibility of an interconnect
there and nothing more? I mean, are you -- I sense from the staff what
they're saying is they're merely trying to make a reservation for a
Page 83
October 26, 2004
potential interconnect rather than trying to identify the exact location
right now.
Would you be able to accept an arrangement where you would
agree to discuss and provide the opportunity for the county to
purchase an interconnect there, based upon your ultimate PUD?
MR. CONRECODE: Commissioner, we were the ones that came
up with the idea of an interconnect to solve the congestion problem at
Oil Well and Immokalee Road. And the interconnect with Randall is
a great idea.
Our point is, and if you look at this map, there's a five-mile area
where that interconnect needs to occur. By getting a commitment
from us for the right-of-way, it eliminates staff looking at the other
five miles for the best connection. So it creates more of a problem.
I think what we can do is resolve the issues of your resolution
and the special act in one agreement and then continue to work on this
and many, many other road projects that we're talking with your staff
and working on the planning of today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What will be the effect then if we
forward this to the special district for consideration at the present
time?
MR. CONRECODE: I can't predict what their action will be. I
know they're trying to comply with the requirements of the resolution
of the special act. I don't know what throwing this extra piece in will
do. We have to still notice that meeting and they'll have to have a
public meeting on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I really need to get to the
bottom of what the staffs concern is here. You're concerned that if
you don't have it in this agreement, that you might be deprived of it in
the future; is that essentially it?
MR. FEDER: That is correct. Plus this is one of a number of
interconnections that we see as needed in the future, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Within that five-mile stretch?
Page 84
October 26, 2004
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, is there some way to bridge
this gap? Is there some way that the district can give the county some
assurance that the opportunity will be provided for the county to
purchase some property --
MR. FEDER: We went --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute.
-- consistent with your ultimate site planning needs? Is that a
possibility?
MR. CONRECODE: Very much a possibility. And that's the
right way to approach this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if we were to revise the motion
so that it would say that we support those elements that have been
mutually agreed by both parties, but we want to add to this a statement
that you would provide the opportunity for the county to purchase a
link to Randall Road, consistent with your final site plan design, is
that a fair --
MR. CONRECODE: That would be fair to suggest that of the
landowner, that that discussion be entertained as part of the zoning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And how does the staff feel about
that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, the reason that the option to
purchase is in the agreement is so that the county has that as a viable
option on a going forward basis. People change.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, all I'm suggesting, though, is
that option to purchase that you've identified here in this executive
summary does not identify a location.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, it does. In a very broad sense. There
will be an exhibit attached to it that will in a very broad sense identify
where it's going.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, how can you do that
without interfering with the landowner's ability to put together an
Page 85
October 26, 2004
effective site development plan?
MR. KLATZKOW: We wish the landowner to put together an
effective site development plan and to sit down with us so that
everybody can agree on a proper connection between the two roads.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you can't do that now because
his site plan doesn't exist.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: His site plan isn't going to exist for
some time.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's right. But if we don't put this in this
agreement, sir, we lose all leverage we have to ever get that. We're
just simply relying on their good faith to actually come back and give
it to us.
N ow again, this isn't a PUD we're talking about, this is an
independent special district, all right? I mean, we're not -- I mean, so
there's other fiduciary obligations that they have, there are other issues
that they have.
And quite frankly, I keep talking to the landowners here, but I
never talk to the district itself. And they are two separate entities here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where is that diagram which shows
your proposed location for the interconnect?
MR. KLATZKOW: Hasn't been prepared yet, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, now, you see the problem.
You haven't prepared a proposed location, so the landowner doesn't
know what it is you're proposing.
MR. KLATZKOW: Sir, when we sat down with them, we drew
it out right there and then --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But you're asking us to
make a decision. It's not drawn out for us.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's not, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay? So how do you ask
somebody to agree to something when you haven't even provided it in
Page 86
October 26, 2004
writing to us to vote on or for them to consider?
I understand the confusion. I would be very reluctant also to
agree to something that is uncertain.
And it just appears to me that this is a relatively thing to resolve.
All you've got to do is to spend a few minutes sitting down and
agreeing on the parameters of the right. We're granted rights all the
time to do certain things without having them surveyed on the ground
in advance.
MR. FEDER: Understood, Commissioner. And it was
discussed. But I think the key issue here is we did not want to, nor do
we want to even standing in front of you here today, prescribe a
corridor we're going to purchase.
We were simply with that option trying to make sure that we sat
at the table and in fact in the development plans there was a provision
for an interconnection unless all the parties decide that that's not
possible, because I'm going to give impact fee credits for it, that we
get in that position that in fact with whatever their development
orientation is -- we don't know what's being developed, how it's being
developed and the like and won't know that for some time.
So the issue was to make sure that we have a right to establish a
corridor between the two in general purposes.
Now, having said that, we want to work with them and their
development plan, have something designed that works for them and
that we will give them impact fee credits. But we don't want to
preclude our ability to get a corridor between Oil Well and Randall.
But no, you cannot define today -- I could make it easy. I'm
going to go down the west side of their property. I'm not likely to do
that, but I can make that statement. But if I've got at least some
provision here of an option to purchase a corridor across their
property, that more so brings the issue to the table to do what I think
all parties want.
And we've worked well with them, I don't want to mislead
Page 87
October 26, 2004
anyone in this discussion to think the 90 days have been futile or we
haven't worked with them and are continuing to work with them. But
we do need to make sure that our rights are protected out there, and
that's all we're trying to do, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But I'm suggesting to you
that with just a little bit of flexibility, it seems to me you can reach an
agreement right here in the next 15 minutes.
The representative of the landowner has said that they will be
willing to grant you an option to purchase property across their
property for an interconnect, subject to their final site plan design.
Now, you're suggesting that you're willing to do that, because
you want to work with them in their site plan.
MR. FEDER: I am fine on that, but I think I'm hearing
something from the attorneys, so I need to ask them to respond.
But I appreciate what you're saying. I'm fine with that. That's
what we're trying to get to, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And I think you both look
like you're in agreement.
MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White.
I think the point is that if that's what's desired by both this board
and in fact by the landowner, then that ought to be what the option is
that we include at this time in the present agreement.
And I think that that's something that is factually possible, the
idea that you would define a box within which that actual right-of-way
purchase would be made. And I think that's what the exhibit that was
going to be attached contemplated.
And at this point, I believe that the concern you're raising has
been addressed, and I'm not sure to what extent it may not still be met
from Mr. Conrecode's perspective. And I'll ask him to address that.
But it seems that what we're talking about is contemplated by the
option that's on the table.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's what we have the motion on
Page 88
October 26, 2004
the floor for; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right? Okay.
MR. CONRECODE: Well, what you have on the floor is the
county's unilateral agreement, some of the points of which we've
agreed to and some that we haven't. And my point is why can't we
take the specific items that you directed? This county commission
and the special act directed, we're in agreement on 100 percent of that.
We can solve that today.
The issue is when's the -- when's the appropriate time to identify
some future corridor they want to purchase? The county can do that it
at any time, even after homes are built out there, although we don't
want to do that.
The appropriate time is when there's a zoning change requested
of the county. The county has all the power and the authority; that's
the appropriate time to enter into this. And we're willing to work with
the county and talk with the county on that and many other corridors
that the county puts into its long-range plan. We've identified many of
those.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, I'm not going to
change my motion. I have to be assured of the fact that this road is --
that we're going to have all the leverage we need to get it in. I don't
want to give up one iota of our strength that we have at this time to be
able to assure the road is going to go in.
We're still directing staff to go back and work with them.
They're going to be doing that. But I'm not going to -- my motion's
not going to change, it's going to remain as it is.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My second's remaining.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. We have a motion on the
floor and a second. We've -- looks like we've completed our
Page 89
October 26, 2004
discussion. I call for the vote.
All those in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a unanimous 5-0. Thank
you.
And with that, we'll break for lunch. We'll see you back here at
1 :03 for our 1 :00 time certain.
(A luncheon recess was taken)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Now we move on to item number 8C and D with a time certain of
one o'clock.
Item #8C
PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE 2003 1 ST CYCLE OF GMP
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. Item number 8C, this number to be
heard at one p.m. It's a public hearing for the 2003 first cycle of the
growth management plan amendments, CPSP-203-11 (sic), and it has
wildlife next to it.
And Mr. David Weeks from long-range planning, community
development, will present.
MR. WEEKS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I
Page 90
October 26, 2004
am David Weeks, planning manager in the comprehensive planning
department.
I'd first like to do a brief overview of the comprehensive plan
amendment process before we get into the specific petition. As you're
aware, I believe both of these next two items are part of the annual
cycle of amendments to our growth management plan.
First just to let you know that this is a legislative process, not
quasijudicial, so there is no requirement to disclose ex parte
communications or to swear in the participants.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But we do need a 4 -- a 4-1 vote?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, a supermajority.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, ma'am.
There is a sign-up sheet in the hallway right outside of this room
on the table. This is the, what's called a Notice of Intent, courtesy
notice. This is for any interested person that would like to have the
Department of Community Affairs in Tallahassee notify them when
they're going to issue their Notice of Intent to determine these
amendments that you adopt today, whether or not they are in
compliance with state statutes or not in compliance with state statutes.
Again, it's a courtesy notice and it's something we're required to
provide the opportunity for citizens to sign up on.
The other thing I want to note is that, as you're aware, you have
been provided a separate binder for these growth management plan
amendments, and I would respectfully ask that you utilize that as we're
going through the presentation as opposed to the electronic version or
the other version.
One of the things in particular it has is it has all of the
information, including the -- all of the backup information and the
supporting information supplied by the petitioners. So if there's any
reason to refer to that, it will be all within that particular binder.
And speaking of those binders, at the conclusion of the hearing,
Page 91
October 26, 2004
we would ask that you would leave those with Sue Filson or some
other appropriate person in your office so that we could pick those up
tomorrow and reuse them when we send them up to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs and other review agencies.
The first item is a separate petition but the second is the batch of
amendments. There is a total of about 10. And the protocol as usual
will be that for the private sector petitions the petitioner will go first,
followed by a brief staff presentation.
The staff presented -- staff-initiated amendments or
county-initiated amendments, of course, will be presented by staff,
will be brief as possible. You have seen these before at the transmittal
hearing. This is the adoption hearing. This is your final action on
these amendments. It does require, again, a supermajority vote, 4-1,
and your action today is either going to be adopt these amendments as
you see them, adopt them with changes, or not adopt them.
And with those preliminary comments out of the way, Madam
Chair, I'll go back to the specific petition at hand.
And this is a very small and simple petition. This is the wildlife
portion of the growth management plan amendments for this cycle. It's
amendment to the conservation and coastal management element,
policy 7.1.2(2), and the rural land stewardship area overlay of the
future land use element, policy 5.53, simply to ensure that the two of
those provisions are interpreted and applied in the same manner. It's
simply to make them mesh, if you will. And that's all I have to
present.
There have been no changes since you saw this at the transmittal
hearing, and we have received no correspondence on this particular
item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do we have any speakers on this
item?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. I have six speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Page 92
October 26, 2004
MS. FILSON: Brad Cornell. He will be followed by Rich
Y ovanovich.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Brad Cornell
here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society, and thank you for
the opportunity to speak on this particular adoption of a growth
management plan amendment relative to the wildlife policies that
we've all heard several times and looked at numerous times.
I want to stand here and support the adoption of the amendments
relative to the wildlife policies that were transmitted and are now
before you for adoption.
I think that the state and federal government don't always see the
Collier perspective in protecting our listed species, and I want to also
point out that there are some serious problems particularly in the
federal process for protecting listed species, and I think this
underscores a need for local governments, in particular, to address
some of these shortcomings, and I'll give a couple examples.
One is isolated wetlands. The federal government, because of the
Swank ruling in the Supreme Court no longer claims isolated
wetlands, and the Army Corps of Engineers tends to go along with
that ruling and, thus, we have a problem for birds like -- or wildlife
species like wood storks that depend on isolated wetlands for foraging,
and this is a serious problem. And so if we don't have the federal
nexus, then we've got to have some sort of a local fill-in for that.
And I also want to point out that uplands species, if there are no
wetlands on a project, pose a problem for getting the fish -- u.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service involved to review a listed species concern on
upland proj ects. So we've got those two particular issues that are --
come to mind very quickly.
However, I do want to step back and say that what we really need
are some comprehensive policies. This glitch amendment is not -- is
not the be-all and end-all of wildlife policies for Collier County, and I
think we all recognized that in the transmittal hearings, and I want to
Page 93
October 26, 2004
reemphasize that, the stakeholder process that you established at that
time is going very well, and I think that it's being -- it's a very
productive process.
There's a lot of good information, ideas on the table. It's
non-adversarial, for the most part, and we've got developers,
environmental communities, citizens, all sitting at the table, and this is
a big table, and there's a lot of people showing up at these meetings,
and I think it's a very good process.
And I want to commend staff, and particularly Bill Lorenz, for
organizing these meetings. I think he's done an excellent job. We've
got the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission in there giving us advice and laying out
some options for all of us to consider, and I think this process needs to
continue.
And I would like to support just the general concept of
comprehensive policies management plans for our listed species here
in Collier County to address the shortcomings of the federal process
and to also do right by these species here in Collier County.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Rich Yovanovich. He'll be
followed by Tom -- Tom Conrecode.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of Signature Communities.
I wanted to briefly go back to how we got to where we are and
the overall scheme of listed species protection in Collier County. You
know, originally we had the order that came down from the governor
and cabinet, and they talked about how we needed to address listed
species, and that order specifically talked about dealing with areas
other than the urban area.
The DCA really wanted us to take a landscaping approach to how
we -- how we make sure that development is compatible with listed
species, and that's how we ended up with sending lands and how we
Page 94
October 26, 2004
ended up with the eastern lands regulations, that's why we have
NRP As in the urban area, and that's why we have conservation areas
in the NRP A area.
We have done the landscaping approach that the Department of
Communities Affairs wanted us to do.
After the landscaping approach was accomplished, the
Department of Community Affairs said it was okay to rely on the
permitting process of the state and federal agencies, and that's what
the county has historically done, has relied upon the state and federal
agencies for very good reasons, none -- the least of which is the fact
that they actually have the scientific expertise to address these issues.
The comprehensive plan language that is currently in place
recognizes that the county should follow and utilize the
recommendations of the agencies within the state and the federal
governments that actually know what they're doing. Your staff has
told you in past occasions that they really do not have the expertise to
address these issues.
So the plan that is in place actually addresses the issues we need.
If there needs to be any clarification -- and I don't necessarily believe
that there needs to be clarification -- the clarification should be that the
county government will honor state and federal permits that are issued
that deal with these very specific topics.
Now, I understand that there might be some people who might
want to change that because they're worried about the state and federal
governments don't really look out for Collier County panthers, Collier
County eagles; but keeping in mind that, really, these animals and
birds don't really know where the county boundaries are, we probably
need to come up with a regional approach to this, Southwest Florida to
address these issues if that's really an issue.
Right now your comprehensive plan specifically says in policy
13.1.1 of the conservation element that there will be no unnecessary
duplication of existing regional, state, and federal permitting
Page 95
October 26, 2004
programs. That is why, today, the county has applied and used the
state and federal permitting process.
If you're going to change that, the comprehensive plan talks
about very specific procedures that you must follow to do that.
Now, we've started that process by forming the stakeholder group
that Brad was talking about. If you're going to come up with specific
regulations that need to address specific species in Collier County, we
need to work through that process with this stakeholders' group and
come up with a reasonable fiscally responsible process for dealing
with these listed species.
The proposed change that you're being asked to make today
doesn't do that. What that -- the change basically throws the whole
system into chaos. It becomes a politicized process instead of a
scientifically-based process.
You may -- if one project gets an incidental take permit that you
might like, and another proj ect gets an incidental that you don't like, if
your goal is to not honor incidental take permits, you should reject
both projects.
But I don't think that's what you want to do. I think you want to
come up with a process that will allow you to work through in coming
up with a reasonable approach to all of these projects.
The county's got a lot of projects that it wants to build, roadways,
water and sewer plants. You may have environmental issues related to
that. And if you take a hard-line approach to where thou shall not ever
get an incidental take permit, you may be jeopardizing the county's
own process.
What we're suggesting is that you leave the language as it is or
clarify to say you're going to honor state and federal permits, and then
continue on with the stakeholder group.
Let the stakeholder group come back with specific regulations
that tell you how we want to deal with the eagle issue, tell you exactly
what it's going to costs to do that, and then change the comprehensive
Page 96
October 26, 2004
plan after we've done all that analysis, and not go with the stopgap
approach that really doesn't give us any certainty in the process. It
becomes ambiguous.
You don't know whether your project's permits are going to be
honored or whether your permit's not going to be honored. So we
think we should go forward with the approach the county has always
taken, and let's continue on with the stakeholder group.
If you have any other questions, I'll be happy to any questions.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Tom Conrecode. He will be
followed by Doug Fee.
MR. CONRECODE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Tom Conrecode with Collier Enterprises, and thank you for
the opportunity to speak. I'll be very brief.
I think you and a lot of other folks have already invested a great
deal of time and effort into the wildlife issues task force work. To do
anything premature, as this is asking you to do, short circuits that
process, and it really tells them that the effort in the interest of all
those folks who have participated in that process is being disregarded.
So we would ask you to just table this. Let's rely on the work of
the task force, let's come up with great solutions that can be
implemented in due order.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Doug Fee. He'll be followed by
Nicole Ryan.
MR. FEE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Doug Fee. I'm here representing North Bay Civic
Association.
I want to start out by reading a couple of paragraphs from your
2003 annual report, and I think it spells out very well.
It says here, one of the fastest growing counties in the nation,
Collier County, lays claim to a population of 300,000 and covers some
2,000 square miles of land.
Page 97
October 26, 2004
On a daily basis, county government's 2,000 employees in five
divisions and 39 departments strive to surpass the expectations of
residents, visitors, by providing quality service, facilities, programs,
events, and initiatives.
Aspiring to answer the needs of a dynamic and diverse
community, county government constantly addresses the challenge of
striving a balance between protection of our coveted natural resources
and abundant wildlife with the demands of growth and prosperity.
North Bay Civic is here to express support for the transmitted
language of the 7.1.2.3. And I know this is the adoption hearing. I
also want to point out briefly, you have an environmental advisory
council. And on December 23rd, 2003, about a year ago, they voted--
and I'll read this real quick. Position paper on Collier County having a
listed species policy:
Whereas, the State of Florida is encouraging Collier County to
direct harmful activities away from environmentally valuable areas,
including valuable plant and animal habitat;
Whereas, depending on the agencies to review environmental
issues, may cause such problems as taking three to six months for
review, local action may not trigger agency review. Agency decisions
may be in conflict with other agencies or with Collier County wishes;
Whereas, there seems to be a lack of standardization and that the
decisions may not be applicable to Southwest Florida nor as protective
as desired.
Therefore, be it known that the Collier County Environmental
Advisory Council encourages the Collier County Board of
Commissioners to adopt a Collier County listed species list and
written policies for wildlife protection in the management of species
population,
And that's my comment. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Nicole Ryan. She will be followed by Joe
Moreland.
Page 98
October 26, 2004
MS. RYAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Nicole Ryan here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And the Conservancy is urging you to adopt the listed species
amendments that are before you today. Most importantly these
amendments will clarify currently conflicting language in the growth
plan, make the currently inconsistent CCME policy 1.7.2, paragraph 3,
consistent with other areas of goal 7 and other parts of the growth
management plan.
The Conservancy, along with representatives from other
environmental groups, the development community, consultants,
homeowners' associations, and individuals that are concerned about
the issue, continue to participate in the listed species stakeholders'
group.
We hope that many of the issues dealing with the county's
ultimate role in the future enlisted species protection will be resolved
through input from stakeholders, through review from the EAC and
planning commission, and ultimately with your approval.
What the adoption of this glitch amendment will do is allow for
internal consistency within our growth plan. Currently CCME policy
7.1.23, the first sentence is in direct conflict with the second sentence.
The first sentence says that the county's consideration of
recommendations from state and federal agencies must be consistent
with all applicable GMP policies; therefore, letters of technical
assistance and recommendations must be weighed as to their
consistency with the growth plan.
However, the second sentence then turns around and contradicts
this first sentence by implying that the county must accept these letters
and recommendations even if they're inconsistent with the growth
plan. This creates what the Conservancy believes is an internal
inconsistency, which is problematic and needs to be fixed.
We believe the remedy is what was approved at transmittal,
simply eliminating the second sentence.
Page 99
October 26, 2004
If adopted today, the result will be that staff will continue to
apply listed species regulations in the growth plan, look at agency
letters of recommendations when they're provided in order to
determine if they are consistent with our growth plan.
This is simply a review to determine consistency. It would not
go into the science of a particular listed species, nor would it debate
whether state or federal agency science is correct.
Review would simply examine whether the agency determination
is consistent. It would not require the county to hire additional staff to
do this, staff that has specific expertise in particular listed species, so
there's not a concern about a fiscal burden.
Adoption of these glitch amendments will not create the burden
upon the single-family homeowner because this portion of the GMP
does not apply to them, for example, residents in Golden Gate Estates,
nor does it apply to the eastern lands.
The county's role for specific protection measures on specific
species will come in the future through the stakeholders' group,
through EAC review, through planning commission review, and
ultimately by your approval.
But the first step that needs to be made is that the growth plan
needs to be internally consistent, and that can be done by adoption of
the glitch amendments today. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Joe Moreland. He will be followed by your final
speaker, Russell Tuff.
MR. MORELAND: Thank you, Madam Chairman,
Commissioners. I'm Joe Moreland, and I am speaking on behalf of the
Environmental Conservancy on this issue. My comments are quite
short.
We have not taken a formal position on this particular issue, but I
do want to express the support of the board with respect to standing
behind the rationale submitted by the Conservancy . We would support
that and urge you to give it your serious consideration. Thank you.
Page 100
October 26, 2004
MS. FILSON: He's your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Russell Tuff isn't a speaker?
MS. FILSON: No. He's going to speak on the next issue. He
changed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
Okay. Commissioners -- oh, we have Commissioner Henning
waiting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Mudd, the -- if we adopt
this language as written, how would it affect Collier Boulevard north
of Immokalee Road?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I can't tell you right now, because
we don't know what all the aspects are as we go through the
permitting. I mean, we have a plan that basically takes a look at
where it's going to go.
And you've seen the -- I call it the pitchfork plan. You know, it
basically stems up, and it's got a line that Collier and Logan meet up
there, and then they go into Lee County. But we don't know all the
environmental impacts yet. We're still working on designs and things
like that, the concepts. So it's undetermined at this time, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about Wilson Boulevard,
south?
MR. MUDD: Sir, I'd have to say the same thing. We don't know
all the impacts as far as Wilson's going to go. There's still -- I think
there was six or seven alternatives that were laid out for the Wilson
Extension south, and I believe the consultant for the quarry is trying to
hone that down into about three alternatives to share that fact with the
public.
But, again, it's undetermined because I can't tell you exactly
where that alignment's going to go and what the impacts are going to
be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about our future
wastewater plans or potable water plans?
Page 101
October 26, 2004
MR. MUDD: You have the same issue, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And we already deal
with the manatee protection. Would there be any other issues about
beach access or boating access or other listed species?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I mean, let's talk about Tigertail Beach.
You know, there's been talk about having it -- a bridge to go on out
there, and there was just an article in the paper about making sure that
it is -- it is a bird -- a bird haven, a sanctuary . You've got the plover
that's out there.
You have -- you have issues with a -- which is a beach that's been
dedicated with parking and whatnot for access, and because of nature,
it's kind of sanding in. There's a sand bar, and the lagoon is now
totally enclosed. And so we have some issues with listed species that
are out there using the out -- the outside sand bar for habitat.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about -- the listed species
in Collier County, do we know of any particular listed species that's
been on the decline for the past decade?
MR. MUDD: Sir, I'm not an expert in that. I'd have to go over to
talk to Bill Lorenz on that to have -- to defer that question to him, sir.
MR. LORENZ: The question, do we know of any listed species
that are in decline?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, in the last decade.
MR. LORENZ: In the last decade? I don't know specifically.
We rely upon the listing agencies, which would be U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Services and the Florida freshwater -- Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Through their listing process, they would identify those species
that would either be in decline or, perhaps, be in better shape so they
would then start to be D listed, so they go through that process. Then
we rely upon that information for our listed species list.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one more question. The--
it's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that the Florida
Page 102
October 26,2004
panther is on the -- is growing in Collier County . Wouldn't the federal
agency look at the overall population of the Florida panther
throughout Southwest Flor -- or south -- southern United States, to
take it off or leave it on the A list?
MR. LORENZ: Well, I'm not -- I'm not aware of whether it's
declining or increasing. The--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's just what I read in the
Naples Daily News.
MR. LORENZ: The spec -- the criteria for which those agencies
will identify that, they have a whole set of scientific criteria by which
they will make those recommendations. So again, we simply defer to
their expertise and their adoption of those requirements.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The only question I
have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Bill, this basically just -- the listed
species would not affect anybody in the Golden Gate area nor, my
understanding, eastern lands? That's under a different jurisdiction; is
that correct?
MR. LORENZ: That's correct. For North Golden Gate Estates
we have -- they were -- single-family residents in North Golden Gate
Estates are exempted from those policies that are listed in the wildlife
-- for the wildlife surveys and EIS provisions, et cetera.
And, again, the eastern lands have their own requirements.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. LORENZ: However, there is a policy that's somewhat
broad and it says that all development must conform to federal and
state requirements. But we -- but for single-family residents, we don't
get involved with their -- the review process for listed species or EIS
provisions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So basically this amendment that
we're addressing right now basically just affects the urban area, is that
Page 103
October 26, 2004
correct, along the coastlines?
MR. LORENZ: Well, it would affect the -- it would affect the
urban area, it would affect the rural fringe mixed-use districts. The
easiest way to say it is, it would not affect, let's say, North Golden
Gate Estates, the platted estates, single-family -- single-family
residents, nor would it aff -- well, there are some amendments in the --
for the eastern lands you see that there is some change to that
amendment, but they are governed by their own regulations as well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Getting back to one of the
questions that Commissioner Henning was concerned about, and that's
in regards to, presently the lands that the county is acquiring to
address future water plants and sewer plants, do you foresee any
problem in regards to -- is there any conflict with this amendment?
MR. LORENZ: Well, the -- the requirement -- there's two issues
there. First off, if a particular project requires a county permit or a
county approval, we will be reviewing those proj ects under these
provIsIons.
And this provision here would -- of course, we would accept the
federal and state letters of technical assistants and recommendation as
long as they are consistent with other provisions of the growth
management plan. So to that degree that we have a proj ect that will
come into the county for permitting and approval, that -- we have
applied this language to those projects.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One last question I have. In
regards to the county acquiring lands, do they do a particular study
prior to acquiring lands to find -- see what kind of impacts there may
be in regards -- before they acquire the land for any particular county
proj ects?
MR. LORENZ: Are you -- you're speaking -- you're speaking
about county departments such as utilities --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
MR. LORENZ: -- road, transportation?
Page 104
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
MR. LORENZ: I'd like to defer that to one of the individuals
who are responsible for those programs.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would think that we would have
something of that nature, but I'd like to hear from a staff member in
regards to acquiring this property.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think Mr. DeLony is readying himself.
MR. DeLONY: Good afternoon.
Thanks, Bill.
For the record, Jim DeLony. I was just reviewing in my mind
some of the steps we took with regard to the purchase of the 216 acres.
We did take a look at that property and did what would be a level -- a
very low level look at the potential for listed species impacts or habitat
on that piece of property. And what was attractive about that, that
there wasn't any.
Had there been, there would have been significant dol--
significant dollars that would have to be either put aside or acres put
aside for mitigation or for preservation of those impacts, should there
have been listed species or wetlands or any other of the issues that are
part of the permitting process.
We would have tackled those as they appeared as we would
begin to do the site development planning and permitting for that land
use with the agencies, with Bill and his folks, on a specific basis like
Mr. Mudd outlined with you, sir, in asking about the roads.
But on the fronting, you just try to -- you look at it and you try to
make the best assessment of how much of the acres are usable in terms
of the need that you're buying the property for, in this case a water --
wastewater plant, and then from there you know you'll get into the
details of those impacts or that mitigation or that preservation strategy
that would be part of that project in specific during the review process
or the design process.
Did I answer your question, sir?
Page 105
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe you did. I think that
you're -- when you -- in conclusion, with all your comments that you
made, is that you try to do the thing -- the right thing, you like to go
out there and assess the property, find out what kind of impacts are
there so that we address any concerns in regards to how much it's
going to cost taxpayers.
So I think, what -- isn't that what you basically said is that you
use prudence in regards to buying land, that you're not going to have a
large impact in the wildlife part of it or wetlands?
MR. DeLONY: Obviously if your goal in developing the
property is for use not compatible with the preservation or the
continued use of that land for habitat, you want to avoid it, because
then you're into that business as well as the other business --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
MR. DeLONY: -- whether it be a road or whether it be a water
plant, or whatever, which would mean unlike -- not unlike in my view
-- any developer or anyone who wanted to use that property for some
other use than is there. And that's that rub between your intended
highest and best use and that which is prescribed by state and federal
law.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. My question is for
Mr. Lorenz.
Sir, help me with this a little bit. Listed species, that's the -- that
includes plants, too, or just animals?
MR. LORENZ: Well, we have been focusing on animals, but
there are -- there is a listed species list for plants as well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And this thing would include
that if necessary, right?
MR. LORENZ: That's correct. If an agency --
Page 106
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. LORENZ: -- if there was a habitat that has a listed plant on
that habitat, that we would then receive the technical assistance from
those agencies as well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And do you know how many
listed species there are in Florida, or actually Collier County -- Collier
County?
MR. LORENZ: I don't have an exact count, but the listed species
list for animals that we have is probably about two dozen, in that
order.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And plants, probably
everything from the gopher tortoise right on through; there's a large
number of them, also, correct?
MR. LORENZ: I believe there's a larger number of plants that
would be listed than animals.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So -- and also, too, as time goes
along, some items might be removed from the list, but most likely
some items would be added to that list, so that number could grow?
MR. LORENZ: Correct. It could go either up or down.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. So this would be
open-ended. We would -- we'd have no idea the depth of what we're
getting into. I mean, if we opened it up, this thing could continue to
be something where eventually a listed species could be anything from
a -- unlikely, but a dandelion to a gray squirrel, if conditions were
right. I mean, that's going to the other extremes, I agree.
But the thing is is that there's numerous listed species, and when
we get right down to it, if we're going to use this as a tool to try to plan
our development, in effect, I think what we're doing is we're saying we
come up with -- we finally came up with a tool that we can stop
development, that we can stop roads from going in, stop public
utilities from taking place.
It's just a little -- it's quite broad, the brush that we're painting
Page 107
October 26, 2004
with. That's my own personal opinion from what I see. I have great
fears on this. Right now we have all sorts of control measures in
effect from wetland mitigation to how far away you have to place your
house, how far away -- when you have a development, you have to
have certain -- so much in green areas, you have to have special
permits just to remove brush.
We have numerous controls in place. And I'm not saying we've
got too many. But what I am saying is, I've got great concerns on that.
And I do have one more question, if I may, but it would be for
Joe Schmitt.
Mr. Lorenz, thank you so much.
Mr. Schmitt.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. For the record, Joe Schmitt, community
development/ environmental services administrator.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If we did pass this today,
eventually the enforcement on this is going to fall on your shoulders;
is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, yes. To answer your question, yes, but
it's on my shoulders today. The way it is written, there is an
inconsistency in the wording and -- so either way, I have to interpret
it. The inconsistency we deal with, and we've been dealing with for
several years, which, basically, we revert to the state and federal
agencIes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But going the other way--
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- Mr. Schmitt, where all of a
sudden we take on the responsibilities over and above the state and the
federal agencies for all listed species, do you see an enforcement
problem?
MR. SCHMITT: Not with this proposal, because all this
proposal does is remove the inconsistency. When we come back in
January, part of your packet today was a request to defer the
Page 108
October 26, 2004
stakeholders' group to come back in January with a program that
would basically expand our listed species program. Yes, that, in fact,
probably would add more time in the review process or whatever. We
haven't sorted that out yet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where--
MR. SCHMITT: This proposal was only to deal with the interim
solution, and that was to remove the inconsistency in the language,
and that's what's before you today. So your choice is, you leave it as
is and we operate as we have in the past and deal and wrestle with that
inconsistency, or -- we had got two different options that you-all voted
on. We came back with this one based on your guidance.
And frankly, it does remove the inconsistency, but then it also
places more burden on the county staff to sort out the federal
guidance, and then whether or not growth should be directed against --
or directed away from potential impacts.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that brings up a very good
question. Do you currently have the trained staff available that could
be able to do this?
MR. SCHMITT: To review listed species type of activities in
regards to the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
MR. SCHMITT: No. I mean, we would -- we defer to the state
and federal agencies in regards to comments from --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What would it require for us to
be up to speed to be able to do this at a local level?
MR. SCHMITT: Again, given the -- what's proposed today, not
much, because all today the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where this can lead to?
MR. SCHMITT: But when we come back in February, I owe
you that answer in regards to what's going to be proposed and what
that is going to cost in regards to implementation within the county.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But not regarding this?
Page 109
October 26, 2004
MR. SCHMITT: Not as part of this. This would probably add--
it puts more of a burden, frankly, on staffs shoulders in regards to
weighing the decisions of the state and federal agencies and then
applying the growth management rules that currently exist.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have Commissioner Henning
next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I just want to remind the
board and Commissioner Halas that the decision we just made for
Logan Boulevard Extension, it had an S curve in there. It had an S
curve in there not because of listed species or wetlands. It had an S
curve in there for alignment.
And, you know, just months ago, that we had to pay some
mitigation for Immokalee Road for widening because of impacts. We
had to pay for Livingston Road widening to the tune of a million
dollars, if I remember right.
So it is going to -- the decisions -- this decision is going to impact
the capital improvements that we make in Collier County, and that
might be a good thing for the community.
But I am not going to vote for something to protect a listed
species that I don't need -- know that it needs to be protected. And to
expand upon that, if we have a listed species in Collier County that is
on the decline, I think it's our obligation to protect that listed species,
but nobody has answered to me, you know, what's broken here. I
haven't seen anything broken yet.
So once we have that information I think we can make a more
sound decision for the community, and I will make that decision at
that time. But to adopt this, I don't think, is good for the community.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we do have fewer
velocoraptors now than we had in the past.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Fewer what?
Page 110
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Velocoraptors. I remember
those.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You remember those. They were
here when I moved here. But there are two issues here, and I need to
clarify them, because, quite frankly, in my mind, it doesn't make any
difference what we do with this. And I'll get to that in just a minute,
but let me first put it in context.
When we decided to make this change in language sometime
back, at the same time we decided to create the stakeholders' group to
come up with a comprehensive management plan for listed species.
This language is clearly intended only to bridge the gap from
today until the time that we get that comprehensive plan done, which
hopefully will be three to four months. So I think it leads us to the
wrong conclusion if we think we're developing something that has
long-term implications, because it doesn't. It's going to last for a few
months, and then we're going to have to come back and revise it in
accordance with our listed species management plan.
So I -- the other point that has to be made is, and I'm on record as
having said this at the time -- and I hope the other commissioners are
in agreement, because it is our traditional way of dealing with
changes. If we make a change to our procedures or our growth
management plan, we do not retroactively apply that to developments
that have already been approved or are in the process of review.
So what we have then is language that will -- will prevail only for
a very short period of time; it will not be applicable to any
developments that are already underway or approved. And so I
suggest to you, it really doesn't make much difference what we do
with it.
But -- now let's go to the language itself, because I do need--
need to get a better understanding. My interpretation of the language
is different from the interpretation of others, and I'll read it and try to
tell you what my interpretation is.
Page 111
October 26, 2004
It says, the county shall, consistent with the applicable GMP po
-- growth management plan's policies, consider and utilize
recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
It does not say we're obligated to accept them nor that we should
implement them unmodified. It says, we will merely consider and
utilize the recommendations and letters of technical assistance.
Now, if we have nothing more than that sentence in this
paragraph, it seems to me that it provides this commission sufficient
flexibility to take that data that is given to us and then we make our
own decisions. That is my interpretation of that.
And if that, in fact, is the interpretation of the majority of this --
of this board, then the removal of the last sentence is irrelevant,
because we still have the right to make a decision, merely taking into
consideration the recommendations and letters of technical assistance
from U.S. and Florida Fish and Wildlife Service.
So it appears to me to give us the flexibility that we're all looking
for, and I think all the arguments the commissioners have made are
good arguments. You don't want to get into a position where you just
close down the ability of the government or anybody else to
development property if it is done reasonably and in conformance
with our plans.
So I -- I would be willing to support sending this language, or
implementing this language with the changes suggested by our
Tallahassee counsel and by our staff, but if the majority of counsel --
of this commission does not wish to do that, I have no argument with
that either because I think the language gives us the flexibility to do
what we want to do.
Now, David, am I incorrect from a legal standpoint? Say no.
MR. WEIGEL: No. I was going to say it sounds pretty good to
me. Ms. Student may have a little additional comment, but I follow
your logic.
Page 112
October 26, 2004
MS. STUDENT: Yes. For the record, I think that log -- you
know, that is logical.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's logical?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, there are other lawyers on
the other side who don't agree with me but -- I mean, Mr. Y ovanovich
doesn't agree with me, but who cares?
MS. STUDENT: There's one thing that I want to point out that I
understand from staff. If a proj ect is in process and we have a new
compo plan amendment and if the compo plan amendment has not yet
been applied to the proj ect, then the new plan will be applied to that
project, even though it's in the review process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. As I understand, that depends
upon where it is in process.
MS. STUDENT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you have a procedure for
making that determination?
MS. STUDENT: Well, I would have to defer to environmental
folks because I -- where I can see this happening is in the SDP process
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. STUDENT: -- for example, and traditionally our office--
unless there is a question about something, we don't get involved in
the daily routine of that. So I'd have to defer to staff, but --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it's not an arbitrary process?
.MS. STUDENT: I beg your pardon?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not an arbitrary determination;
it's a determination based upon precedent and procedure?
MS. STUDENT: It's based upon where it is when the new
amendment language comes into effect.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me summarize here, and
I'll try to be brief. Number one, any change made to this language will
not apply to any development that has already been approved?
Page 113
October 26, 2004
MS. STUDENT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It will not apply to any
development that meets our requirements for constructive submission
that is in the process, and, furthermore, the language gives us the
flexibility, the commissioners, the flexibility to take recommendations
and letters of technical assistance from the fish and wildlife service as
advisory only in reaching our final decision?
MS. STUDENT: I think -- and I generally agree with that, but I
think what it does is, you have to look at the recommendations from
the agency in light of the applicable GMP policies --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: GMP policies.
MS. STUDENT: -- or the overlay policies and find the match,
you know, where they're consistent with one another, and that's what
we would apply.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: That's my interpretation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that would be my position,
too.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And you've been eloquent, by the
way. And I totally agree with everything you've said because this
gives us the opportunity to be flexible, yet it gives staff -- it removes
the inconsistency in that policy. For them, it helps them along. We
get to deal with each situation on its own merits, and I -- I need to be
able to do that.
Commissioner. Yeah, Commissioner Halas. I had to get in there
someplace. Nobody gave me a chance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh. I'm concerned that the LDC
code and the GMP are not put together -- are not in unison here; is that
correct? We've still got to -- we still have a conflict here in regards to
the growth management plan versus the LDC.
MR. SCHMITT: No, Commissioner. The conflict is in the
language itself that is currently in the GMP, and I'm going to go back
Page 114
October 26, 2004
to it because -- that's the language in the -- currently in the growth
management plan, as it exists.
The line that has got the line through is the language that was
recommended to be taken out because it basically conflicted with the
first sentence of the -- of the language -- existing language. So that --
but this is not in conflict with the land development code. There just
-- it's an inconsistency that currently exists within the growth
management plan.
If I could, Madam Chair, I need to make sure for the record --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
MR. SCHMITT: -- to clarify a statement made by Commissioner
Coyle so that we understand that there really is not what I would call
specific protection of projects in the pipeline like there would be for
an LDC. So you would have to make some kind of a motion to -- to
have some kind of an effected date -- effective date, because if you
were in review today and you were going to the planning commission
next week and we were -- if you adopt this today, we have to use
today's adoption before the planning commission next week and -- to
deem whether or not it's consistent with the growth management plan
unless there's some kind of a retroactive application.
So it -- there is some applicability here because today would be
the effective date because it would be adopted today.
Well, we have a staff argument here, because county attorney is
going to opine differently.
MS. STUDENT: Okay. This is not an LDC amendment. This is
a comprehensive plan amendment, and there's language in the
ordinance that says that it becomes effective once DCA determines
that it's compliant, plus the 21 days for someone to come in and
challenge the amendment, and it references that statutory section. It
used to be that it was effective, you know, when we adopted it, but
that was changed a number of years ago.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay, yeah. I stand corrected. She's right.
Page 115
October 26, 2004
Because it would be the date this is really logged into the state record.
So, in fact -- but we still would apply it to projects review up until this
is recorded.
MS. STUDENT: Well, it would be up until we receive our
notice of being in compliance by DCA.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
MS. STUDENT: The law tells us -- that's why we don't have a
planning in progress rule because under the law, compo plan isn't the
compo plan until it becomes legally effective. It doesn't become
legally effective until DCA finds it in compliance and there's no
challenge, and there's a 21-day period, if found in compliance, for an
intervener to challenge it, and that could result in another
administrative hearing, and it could go on and on. So it's just different
than a regular ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's see if we can simplify this.
Mr. Schmitt's first stated concern, I think, is still valid.
MR. SCHMITT: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We don't have a procedure for
dealing with this. It doesn't become effective today, but it becomes
effective soon.
MR. SCHMITT: Soon, 21 days.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what you don't want to do --
and to use a simplified example -- is you don't want someone to have
spent tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars designing
a home and then make a growth management plan change that makes
their design irrelevant, which means they've spent a lot of money
doing something under our prior procedures, but now that has been
wasted and we require that they start over again. We don't want to
place people in that kind of a position.
So my question to you is, how can we treat people most fairly in
the application of this growth management plan change? When it
does become effective, what -- what proj ects might logically be
Page 116
October 26, 2004
considered grandfathered consistent with our historical practice?
MR. SCHMITT: I mean, I have to defer to county attorney.
MS. STUDENT: I would have to defer --
MR. SCHMITT: We were just discussing about 80 days.
MS. STUDENT: I would have to defer to staff about historical
practice because I'm not involved in the daily routine of reviewing site
development plans, for example. But again, it takes about 80 days
from when we adopt and send it to DCA to know that we're in the safe
zone.
We can't apply this compo plan until it becomes legally effective,
and it won't become legally effective for 80 days. So we can't say
well, you know, we'll apply it as of today because it's not legally
effective yet. And the state law, as I stated, tells us you can't apply it
. until then.
So it would make, I guess, some kind of sense to -- I mean,
theoretically under the law, if they haven't gotten their final approval
yet, all development orders have to be consistent with the compo plan.
So absent some language in the plan to the contrary, theoretically, if
they hadn't gotten their site development plan approval and there was
a change, they would have to make that consistent with the plan.
And I understand your concern that they've gone through this
whole entire process and they're at the end of the line just short of
final approval and, bingo, we've got this new compo plan amendment,
and the inequity of, you know, making them go back and having to
retrofit. And that's usually handled by crafting some language in the
plan that as of a, you know, certain time period, they would -- you
know, after which that time period, they'd have to adhere to the new
plan, and --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that we won't -- don't belabor
this issue now, can we say for our purposes here, so the board can
make a final determination, can we say that, that if the board approves
this language in whatever format today, that the staff will be working
Page 11 7
October 26, 2004
on a procedure to assure fair implementation of this whenever it does
become effective? And you will have 80 days, roughly, to get that
done; is that a fair assignment?
MS. STUDENT: I think that gives us latitude to be able to deal
with this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then you've answered my
question. I understand.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just to make a point here. Again,
this wouldn't pertain -- a lot of this wouldn't -- the language wouldn't
pertain to single-family --
MR. SCHMITT: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Just to make it clear,
because I think Commissioner Coyle made a statement that if
someone was in the process of building a home and so on. This was --
this does not basically concern a single-family residence in regards to
this; is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: Right. I took that just as an example. But, no,
it would not apply to a single-family home.
But Commissioner Coyle, if I could recommend, if that's the way
you want to go, we would just establish on the record an
implementation date, say, 1 Mayor sometime in the future that we
would certainly provide a line in the sand that this would be applied
versus not, and that's the safest way to go.
And I'd defer to the county attorney. I would look at something
-- we were just discussing and 80 -- that 21 days, by the time it gets
done through the bureaucratic process, turns more like 80 days. So if
we said -- picked a date anything prior -- after 1 May, 2005, this -- if
you were to adopt this change, it would apply.
But certainly, to follow up with Commissioner Coyle's other
statement, we will be back in February with -- with discussions in
general on how we're going to deal with this entire issue in Collier
Page 118
October 26, 2004
County in regards to listed species.
And certainly on the table would be if you want to change this
again. But in the meantime, we would continue to apply this rule as
changed until we have another GMP amendment cycle.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, you're finished?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I haven't had --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The question that I have as a
follow-up, the stakeholders' group, are we going to be -- are the
stakeholder groups going to be able to work together to come up with
the language to get rid of this conflict?
MR. LORENZ: The stakeholders' group will be providing a
conceptual plan for the board. We're scheduling that workshop in
February. We should have a plan completed in January.
That's a conceptual plan. That's a set of recommendations. We
want to go in these directions with regard to our listed species policies
for the wildlife management plan that Commissioner Coyle speaks of.
At that point there, perhaps, could be some language that could
be translated into the growth management plan, but I wouldn't
necessarily hold off for it -- we're actually going to be presenting the
actual amended language to the growth management plan at that point.
We would then come to the board to get the board's direction to
say, yes, that seems to be a good direction, continue with that
direction, and develop the language for, as Joe Schmitt said, the next
available growth management amendment cycle.
Then once you're in the growth management amendment cycle,
obviously it takes several-- nine months, about, to get through that
whole cycle. So you're probably still a good year away from a set of
language that would replace the glitch language.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I guess what I'm trying to
say is, what we're trying to do is come to some kind of resolution on
this to address this so we get rid of this conflict that's there so it's very
Page 119
October 26, 2004
clear and everybody has a well -- a good understanding of exactly
what we're trying to get across, okay? And I think this has carried on
way too long, and I think we need to get moving and find out the right
language to move on with this process.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Mr. Lorenz, let's
approach this a little bit differently. Let's go the what if. What if we
didn't approve it today, what would be the consequence?
MR. LORENZ: If you didn't approve this today, we would have
a policy that's internally inconsistent with itself.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What does that mean?
MR. LORENZ: That means that, as pointed out, that first
sentence says that the county shall, consistent with applicable GMP
policies, consider, et cetera, et cetera, and then the second sentence
says that it is recognized that those recommendations would make --
would be consistent with the plan.
Back in your March 23rd workshop with the Carlton Fields
attorney, Martha Chumbler, she said that if you did not change this
policy, you would have that -- you would still have an internal
inconsistency and you still could be subject to legal arguments as to,
what does it exactly mean.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And between now and the
stakeholders' finding, who would benefit from this supposed
inconsistency?
MR. LORENZ: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, who would be
the benefit -- who would be the winners and who would be the losers
if this stayed the way it is? Is there something happening out there
that we should be aware of that this could be -- this particular wording
could be detrimental to the best interest of the public?
MR. LORENZ: Well, I think -- I think what you need to look at
Page 120
October 26, 2004
is the wording -- the impacts of this option to the language that you're
currently considering. The response on -- to your question is that we
will review these recommendations to the other growth management
plan policies and objectives. We have to make a finding of
consistency.
The language that we're currently operating and our current
procedures is, we're not identifying consistency with the agency's
recommendations. We simply had took their recommendations and
said that we will apply those recommendations to the projects,
whatever those recommendations are.
So that's the -- that's -- I'm painting the two -- I'm contrasting the
two policies.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're doing a great job of
explaining it. The only problem is, is I'm asking you what time it is,
and you're telling me how the clock works, and you're doing a good
job of it, there's no doubt about it.
What I want to know is what is the repercussions between now
and the time that the committee comes back? Will there be developers
that can run rampant? Is there a possibility that this county might be
sued? Is there something that may happen that's tremendously
detrimental to the wildlife out there? What possibly could go wrong
with this if we were not to approve it?
MR. LORENZ: Well, the definition of wrong is a policy
decision. I can tell you what -- the way staff would apply the policy.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wrong dollar (sic) sends
people's lives --
MR. LORENZ: The policies -- the policies that staff would
apply would be that we would -- with the existing -- with the existing
policy, we would take exactly what the recommendations are from the
agencies and apply them to the proj ect.
MR. SCHMITT: Let me put this in simple terms.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you--
Page 121
October 26, 2004
MR. SCHMITT: We would continue to operate--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- sir. I appreciate that.
MR. SCHMITT: Bill's a great guy, but--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. He's a little too educated.
MR. SCHMITT: We would continue to operate the way we have
been, and we're -- basically could be exposed legally if somebody
wants -- well, if somebody wants to challenge the inconsistency in the
language.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And who would that be? Would
that be the developmental community or the environmental
community?
MR. SCHMITT: It depends on the rule -- if -- the ruling. But
most likely it would be, I would guess, the environmental community
would say, county, your policy is inconsistent, you're allowing this
development to go on, and render a lawsuit or file a lawsuit. But we
would continue to operate it as we have been. This, Bill, has been the
language since '97, '98?
MR. LORENZ: Whoa, no. 2002.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay, 2002. So I'll go back to that again.
That's basically -- we would just continue to have both those
paragraphs in. I'll go back to this sentence here. That's where the -- in
yellow is where the one wording is inconsistent with the other.
We would continue to operate, most likely defer to state and
federal agencies and their expertise. So if somebody had a state or
federal permit, it would most likely, in most cases, would be the
prevailing instrument that would allow for the development.
And we may be challenged -- may say, well, you can't do that
because you're inconsistent. You're supposed to direct the
development away from -- away from, you know, protected habitat.
So that's where the inconsistency comes in.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Has anyone challenged it to this
day?
Page 122
,.....-
October 26, 2004
MR. SCHMITT: No, not that I know of.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How long has this been this
way?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Two years.
MR. SCHMITT: June, 2002.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we want to do something
that there's a potential for problems down the line, not something that
we have any kind of track record as being negative or not working?
MR. SCHMITT: To answer your question, pretty much, it was --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, thank you. You did a
tremendous job. I can't tell you how much I appreciate you stepping
up to the mike.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, basically, we're back because this was at
your direction and the GMP amendment was at your direction. I
know we're turning over dead stones again here, but we brought this
back, and just to refresh so you understand where we've been. This is
kind of where we were. We -- 2002 we adopted the policy, in March
we talked to you about it. You passed this for transmittal in June, and
we're back today for adoption.
And we also, concurrent with this, have the stakeholder group
working, and our intent is to bring this entire program back in
February of'05.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I -- before we get to a vote, I
would like to apologize to Mr. Y ovanovich. Rich is a good lawyer. I
do value his opinion. I'm sorry my reply was a little flippant, but I
like to kid around with people I like. So I'm really sorry about that,
Rich.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all for you?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
Page 123
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm looking to the county attorney
in regards to the way that the language is presented here. How does
this benefit citizens or how does it benefit the county, the way that the
language is presently written?
MS. STUDENT: In the proposed -- you mean in the proposed
amendment or as it is before the amendment?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As it's right now before us today.
MS. STUDENT: As it's proposed, I think it benefits the county
by clearing up an internal inconsistency in the comprehensive plan
and also protects us, perhaps, from some type of lawsuit where
someone might wish to take us to court and have a court declare that
it's internally inconsistent.
That's one of the things that DCA's supposed to look for because
that is a requirement of the growth management law, and apparently in
reviewing this they missed that, but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So the way that the language states
now, this is beneficial not only for the county, but the citizens in
Collier County?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's the new language.
MS. STUDENT: I'm talking about --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The new language.
MS. STUDENT: -- the proposed language, I believe, would be
of benefit to the county inasmuch as it removes an internal
inconsistency from the compo plan and legally we are not supposed to
have internal inconsistencies in the plan.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I'd like to make a motion to
accept as staff has written and transmit to the Department of
Community Affairs.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala, a second by Commissioner Halas. I think we've
Page 124
October 26, 2004
talked this one --
MR. SCHMITT: Ma'am, if I could correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHMITT: We're not transmitting. We're adopting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm so sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Adopting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Adopting. Send it in for adoption.
Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My second remains.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if I could.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm -- my comfort level
has improved slightly, although, I've got to be honest with you, it still
exists. I just -- through this whole process, it only took a vote of three
-- three people to keep it moving forward, and now we're down to
crunch time. I just wished I could tell you I got that comfort level. I
don't.
I do support the local -- what we have put together for like the
gopher tortoise and the manatee, but when it comes to something --
I'm just nervous about it being a little open-ended. I'm kind of worried
what the repercussions would be, and I just --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We just found out from the county
attorney.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Could I say, it seems -- I guess what staff
is saying, is it -- it is open-ended as it is, and they were trying to make
it more -- what is the word I'm trying to use? Wait a minute. I wrote it
down.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the county attorney basically
told us it's benefited the county and the citizens, so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. They wanted to remove the
Page 125
. ^.~-"- "-' ,......"~""- .." '-
October 26, 2004
inconsistency --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- rather than have it be open-ended, as it
seems to be now. So I think that -- and, of course, then they're going
to come back again with the stakeholders' group and readdress it in
February and -- but right now, I guess our staff just needs to have a
clearer direction.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I understand. I guess the
question would be is, what kind of a burden does this put out there that
doesn't exist now? Is there any -- other than removing the potential of
a lawsuit between the growth management plan and this -- Mr.
Weigel, I'm addressing it to you.
MR. WEIGEL: Fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What do you think, sir?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't think it creates an additional
burden. It's really -- it's kind of housekeeping at this point in time, as
both Mr. Schmitt and Ms. Student have indicated, that there is an
inconsistency that's been a bit problematic internally, and it potentially
exposed us to some risk, whether it's from the property owner or from
the naturalist interest that we had a -- we had a provision, or
provisions, which didn't allow themselves for a consis -- I'll call it a
consistent application by their own verbiage, by their own language.
And this interim measure would not appear to me -- again,
Marjorie, and Mr. Schmitt -- it does not appear to me to change things
or tilt the scale to a different practice than what's been done at this
point in time, but it gives more assurance that the practice that has
been followed and would be followed with the adoption of this is less
subj ect to a potential challenge of whatever success, whoever may
take the county to task.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please bear with me. Just a
couple more questions, if I may.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
Page 126
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The concern is, is this thing
open-ended whereby all of a sudden new listed species come in that
we would be obligated even if the federal or state wildlife people do
not want to serve us with notices or don't want to be involved in it?
Are we obligated to do something at that point in time? Or is it up to
the commission to come up with something that would hand-follow
that on through? In other words, let's take the gopher tortoise for an
example.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm just saying -- I want Marjorie to be on guard.
I understand the question. I personally don't know that answer.
MS. STUDENT: I think I might defer to staff. But if there were
any changes in the listed species, it would include any additions or
deletions to the list.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So let me repeat what I
just heard and you tell me if it's correct, that right now the listed
species that the federal and the state has are covered, such as the eagle.
That's already taken care of. We don't have our own eagle policy, but
there's an eagle policy. We defer to them for this particular thing.
Until that point in time we come up with an eagle policy, the
state or the federal government are the only entities that can make that
determination; is that correct?
MS. STUDENT: Well, under this language we -- we would -- I
think based on your premise that we don't have an eagle policy, that
would be correct. But if we did have a policy that covered a specie
and we got technical assistance or some kind of recommendation from
the agency under the proposed language, then we would look at what
the agency said and we could compare it with our comprehensive plan
policy, and then where they're the same, that's what we would -- that's
what we would apply.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And going back again--
Page 127
October 26, 2004
and forgive me for repeating the question over just slightly different.
And I just want to make sure that I'm not doing any harm to anyone
that's out there if I vote in the affirmative on this.
Going back to an eagle, because I think that's one of the driving
forces that got us going in this direction again. Because we don't have
an eagle policy now -- and I'm repeating the whole thing over again
and trying to get it down to very simple language -- because we don't
have an eagle policy now, the eagle policy would be determined by
the state and the federal, beginning and end, correct?
MS. STUDENT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: However, gopher tortoise that
we do have a policy on, if the state and the federal allowed for a
taking and our local ordinance did not, then our local ordinance would
dominate over the state or federal; is that correct?
MS. STUDENT: Well, it says, the county shall, consistent with
applicable GMP policies, so there would -- consider and utilize
recommendations from the agency. So those recommendations would
have to be consistent with our policy.
Now, I believe in terms of the gopher tortoise -- and I have to talk
to Mr. Lorenz -- I think we do some things that go further than what
the fed does but aren't necessarily inconsistent with it. So in the case
of the gopher tortoise, I think ours would apply because it wouldn't
necessarily be inconsistent with what the fed or the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: -- state might do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So where we do have a county
policy, that county policy, if it goes in excess of what -- the state and
federal policy, that is the policy that will be followed?
MS. STUDENT: It has to be consistent. The state and fed has to
be consistent with ours, so, yes, I think you could say that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I mean, not consistent. I
mean, if we don't allow the taking of gopher tortoise, they have to be
Page 128
October 26, 2004
relocated or a preserve built on the property, then ours would be the
one that they would have to follow, right, if we change this?
MS. STUDENT: That's what I believe to be correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, someone tell me yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, not you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, you wanted an answer. Be
careful, because you may be a protected listed species.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm sorry. I know attorneys
have to make sure they cover every side of the story so they can
always go back.
MS. STUDENT: There's always, when you deal and attorneys
speak, there's always that situation that might crop up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And there's no way that,
out of the clear blue, somebody can introduce a species to this thing
that is not already existing, other than maybe the state or federal?
MR. SCHMITT: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: To make this clear, we are not going to add any
species unless the state or feds add that. The only -- the only
protection we have above and beyond is for the gopher tortoise, which
is part of our land development code.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And forgive me. I hate
to drag you through all this, and probably I'm totally out of line to ask
for this, but -- and I'm starting to feel very comfortable the other way,
but I would, at this point -- because we've taken this thing full circle,
we've had some good questions answered, I'd like to hear from one of
the other people from the other side if it's not too late.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead. If it will clear up --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I know it's dragging it out.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: This is a very important thing to us.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It is very important.
Page 129
October 26, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And so don't even apologize.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Yovanovich, who Mr.
Coyle highly recommends, would you please come up here and tell
me what's wrong with this line of thinking that I'm going with, other
than the fact that it scares the daylights out of you?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: For the record, Rich Y ovanovich. Well,
to be honest with you, I'm having a little trouble following the answer.
I think your question that you're asking is that if there are no
eagle management regulations in the compo plan today and a permit is
issued by the Army Corps of Engineers that would allow an incidental
take, the county will honor the incidental take permit. Is that your
question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That is correct. That--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And what I'm understanding is, the intent
of this language is to give the county the ability to ignore the permit
that's issued by the federal and state agencies, because that's what I
understand the intent of this language is, is to be able to ignore that,
just kind of utilize it.
And I obviously disagree with what the term utilize means,
because I think the word utilize means you'll actually implement it and
not just consider it. So the answer to your question is what I'm
hearing staff say they want to do is they want to put you in a position
that you can ignore the state permit, even though you don't have your
own eagle management plan.
MR. WEIGEL: I didn't hear that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is what I think that language is
intended to mean.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just asked that question two
different ways, and I got an answer that was different.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you're intending to -- that's what I
Page 130
--
_'4~"'~""··~·
October 26, 2004
suggested originally. If your intent is to follow state and reg -- the
state and federal agencies, say that's what your intent is, and in the
meantime we'll work on eagle management plans. And I think that's
what you're trying to say.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what I'm trying to get to
and they're telling me --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But that's not what that -- that's not what
that language says.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's what they're telling
me it says.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It does not say that. It gives them the
ability to say, yes, they'll follow it or, no, they won't.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, Richard.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now we're getting into association
of two different -- from lawyers.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Y ovanovich -- Mr. Y ovanovich is, in fact,
correct in basically what he said in regards to the application of the
rule. What I thought you asked was, would we add another listed
species just out of the clear blue. We would not. It--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that was one of the
questions, but I asked a lot of other ones.
MR. SCHMITT: But in regards to what he said -- and let's take
the eagle, for example, since that seems to be the issue at hand. What
this wording says is we shall, consistent with applicable GMP policies.
So we would take that permit, evaluate that permit, and would we --
is it consistent with our GMP policies?
And in another portion of the policy we do say we would direct
incompatible -- or development away from a listed species habitat, so
that's still a --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we already have an eagle
policy?
MR. SCHMITT: Well--
Page 131
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe got that. I mean, basically
that's already covered.
MR. LORENZ: We have -- we have an eagle policy that requires
that habitat management plans protect -- establish protective zones
around the eagle nest during certain activities and that these
requirements be consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
multispecies recovery plan.
When we get a technical assistance letter from a federal or state
agency and they make a recommendation, we will -- for an eagle, for
instance, we will then take those recommendations and compare it to
this language that we have in the plan, in addition to the overall
language that talks about directing incompatible land uses away from
listed species and their habitat.
That assessment will have to be done by staff on a case by case
basis based upon the technical recommendations and the policies that
we have currently in the plan. I couldn't tell you at the moment for a
particular situation how we would make that ruling, but we will have
to make that ruling for each and every case using this proposed
language.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So staff would make the
determination?
MR. LORENZ: We'd be making a determination of consistency,
not a determination of technical or scientific merit of the
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Man, I'll tell you. This is
getting more difficult by the minute, because I'm not quite getting the
clear, concise answers I need to be able to take that final vote, you
know. I mean -- let's go again at it one more time --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And then we've got--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- to make sure. And we will.
We'll take the vote, and I'm just telling you right now, I'm not -- I'm
becoming less comfortable again.
Page 132
October 26, 2004
It's one of those things, I very rarely am on the line on these
things. This one here, obviously there is some questions. This looks
innocent enough. I have no problems with us putting together an
eagle management plan, I have no problems with the gopher tortoise
plan, I have no problems with coming up with the cockatoo
woodpecker plan. All those are great. That's something the
commission decides on a case by case basis.
I am concerned about us giving staff a level of discretion over
and above what the commission is willing to do. And what you're
telling me sounds like that's what I would be doing.
MR. LORENZ: Well, as part of the staffs recommendations,
other examples, staff always makes some finding or determination or
recommendation of consistency. And as that -- that comes through the
planning commission, that comes through the Board of County
Commissioners as well. But staff would be making that determination
-- recommendation for consistency.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Recommendation's one thing.
MR. LORENZ: Right, recommendation for consistency.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But they'd still come to the
commission for the final call?
MR. LORENZ: For those -- for those projects that come to the
commission -- that come to the board on a routine basis, those would
come to the board for the board's final approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're looking for just language
change.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just briefly to clarify one issue.
One of the things that might be making this more difficult is that we're
trying to take into consideration a circumstance that doesn't apply
here.
The eagle in the Cocohatchee development. Now, would it be
your interpretation -- it is my interpretation, and I want to see if you
Page 133
October 26, 2004
agree with it -- that since that development has already been approved,
that any change we make with respect to this language will not have
an effect upon that development?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can't say yes to that question, because
as you know, we're going to come through the amendment process for
the eagle management plan, and that amendment will be filed shortly,
so -- and plus, you know, we're in the process now of having a site
development plan approved.
And there are -- there are other proj ects, not this proj ect, that
have submitted and are going through the review process now for
rezoning that now this language would apply to. If you were -- if you
were going to come up and say, it shall not apply to anybody who
submits a rezone application prior to X date, then maybe we can work
with that, because then we can get our completed applications in, we'd
go through the process, and we would know that you would honor the
old way of doing it, as if you had a state and federal permit that would
be honored, that might be something that could work, if you gave us
time to get in and -- you know, and could complete the rezone.
SDPs don't end -- doesn't end the story. If you have a PUD
approved today and you haven't submitted an SDP application, it
would apply to that SDP. So it needs to not apply to approved
planned unit developments or any PUD that has been submitted before
a certain date.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's what we're trying to do
to make it fair.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If that's what -- yeah, but again, we were
talking in the context of an SDP. And you need to -- we need to think
also about PUD or straight rezone applications that are in that could
get caught up in this language.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Could I throw in, but the saving grace
here is, it doesn't say you will. It says, consider and utilize. Yes, it
does. That's the words right there.
Page 134
_.,"~ .._-_.~..-
October 26, 2004
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. It says, "shall consider," and then
you have to say "shall utilize." The word utilize means more than just,
I'm going to read it and discard it. It means, I'm going to utilize the
information --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And consider it, yeah -- I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, I guess we need
some support from your side of the fence. What's this really mean?
We're trying to look at something in regards to protecting the citizens
and also protecting the county, and I thought we had that pretty well
cleared up in this language. Is that true or not?
MS. STUDENT: I believe it is true because we have an internal
inconsistency in the plan as it exists.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So this helps us get over that
inconsistency.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Until we get something else
drafted.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, the only other option, just to
refresh your memory again, we would go back to option one, which
we talked about in the workshop, back six, seven months ago, and this
is the one that was not approved. But this basically says, we defer
directly to the state and federal agencies.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, the thing that worries me
about that is say, for instance, now the feds say -- and because you
mentioned eagle, I'll say eagle. The feds say, you know, nationwide
we now have plenty of eagles.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Where it just so happens that here our
eagle population has waned to a point where we only have a few.
Well, if the federal law says one thing but we recognize in our own
environmental department that that isn't the case, then we can't -- we
can't -- we don't have the ability to consider our situation according to
Page 135
-"-~ "---,~-
October 26, 2004
the way it is. We're going to have to take the feds' advice, whether it's
the last eagle or not.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct, ma'am. They look at it
holistically based on --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: -- the population at large, not the specific bird,
not the specific creature.
And I know I'm turning up old dust here, but that was -- this is --
this goes back to the other way where we basically are saying,
regardless, they're the experts. If they issue the take, we recognize it,
and basically move on, and staff implements.
All we're trying to do is get guidance from the board -- and I
really hate to put this -- we take -- we take the written word and apply
it. We're not making decisions based on whether or not that species
will be impacted or not. All we're doing is taking the application,
looking at the habitat management plan that was applied, or submitted
with that application, and ruling whether it is consistent or inconsistent
with our growth management plan.
We then come in before the planning commission and the Board
of County Commissioners with our recommendation. Normally the
planning commission would vote, and then they would vote saying it's
consistent with the growth management plan so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right, but we should be able to -- we
should be able to consider that locally we know our situation much
better than the federal government, who isn't even around. I would
think that we would want to be able to make --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am, and that's --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- decisions for our own community.
MR. SCHMITT: And that's what we were coming back to you
with in February, were there any other programs that you wanted to
implement above and beyond the state and federal program dealing
with local issues. And that's what the stakeholders' group is actually
Page 136
October 26, 2004
doing. So I know we're in a circular argument here, but frankly we're
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One last thing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead. One last.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's go back to option one.
Isn't this something that could meet our needs and allow us to still
come up with, like eagle plans or any other plans, and fit it in there?
Won't that nestle one against the other?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, again, I'm somewhat confused, because
we're not coming up with the plan. We take the application of the
applicant and apply it. We're not proposing any new program here in
regards to protecting above and beyond what we currently protect.
That's in accordance with the endangered species act or in one
particular case that we deal with locally, and that's the gopher tortoise.
So all we're doing is -- in this instance we defer to the state and
federal agency. And we -- this option one says, they issue a take
permit, we look at it, we recognize that on a case by case basis it may
conflict with our GMP, but basically we honor it. This says we
deferred.
And I know we've been over this in the workshop. Number two
was we took the entire second sentence out, and that basically says,
we shall consider and utilize. And I think we -- we're struggling over
language, but the word consider and utilize does cause Mr.
Y ovanovich some concern. And I didn't know we were going to try
and rewrite this today, but if we wanted to --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But we have to consider more than just
Mr. Y ovanovich.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have to consider the whole county.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, yeah, for sure. There's no
Page 137
October 26, 2004
doubt about it. But I'm worried about other repercussions on the
whole thing. I know he represents a client.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I could kind of respond again to
Commissioner Coyle's suggestion about an effective date. And I think
that that will really work because believe me -- and you know I've got
a project that has some eagles involved that we're staying away from.
Now I don't believe there's going to be a rush between now and,
say, May 1st of people coming in with applications to get incidental
takes to wipe out the eagle population in Collier County. It's just not
going to happen. Nobody's interested in doing that. It's just not going
to happen.
So I think what Commissioner Coyle was leading to might be a
workable solution that if you have an app -- completed application in,
for a rezone and further on, prior to May 1, then the county will honor
the permits.
Otherwise, after May 1, you'll come up with your new language.
This way it give those of us who are in the process the certainty that
we're craving, and those who need to get into the process can get into
the process. It still gives everybody the flexibility to come up with
habitat management plans for whatever species -- let's get off the
eagle, but I think you'll have been protected. And I think that will
work for everybody.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we vote on this motion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd love to. We have a motion on the
floor. What?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was just going to say, are we
including that -- that clause in there about May 15th or --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: May 1st?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May 1st.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't know. Do you want to do that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who made the motion?
Page 138
October 26, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I made the motion to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's up to you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- as written. Ifwe include that in the
clause, Bill, or whomever could give me the answer, will that work or
will it not work, being that we're going to be discussing this again in
February, right?
MR. WEIGEL: While they're talking, I'll answer from here on
this side, and that is, will it work or not work, last question. I guess if
we put in a proviso with a, for instance, May 1 st date, if it's not
effective, that is applicable until that time, then the internal
inconsistency continues to be the policy until that time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right, there you go. Okay. My motion
rests -- stays as mentioned.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My second stays --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My second stays as it was.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: To submit for adoption.
MR. WEIGEL: The further statement I'll make -- I know you'll
pardon my interruption -- is that we know that the process of -- after
your adoption today involves a review and potential approval by
DCA, and even if they approve it, then there's a 21-day intervention or
hearing date, a motion for intervening time that's available after that,
and that's why Ms. Student said that there's probably minimally an
80-day period before whatever you adopt today, if everything goes
without a hitch, would become effective back here at the local level.
To answer some of the discussion of Mr. Yovanovich and Mr.
Coyle, and the board, it's interesting, if we do talk about an effective
date well into the future, if this board had adopted option number one
as well, which, in essence, defers entirely to the state and federal
determinations on these species, that, again, would have the same
result if you applied the theory of giving people time to come in -- or
to get their ducks in order before they applied, and that standard
Page 139
October 26, 2004
wouldn't be available either.
So I think what -- you'd be wrestling with a question of giving --
giving each variation here the same applicable time to come online, if
you were to differ from the motion that's on the floor right now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So it gives them almost three months?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, that's right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Or two? Okay.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm concerned about this time
frame. I'm concerned about something that is reasonable and fair, and
I'd feel a lot more comfortable if we put something in this motion that
would provide a time frame that would be considered acceptable for
grandfathering this.
I mean, it just simply isn't fair to people to -- to permit them to
spend hundreds of thousands of dollars doing something, then we
make a change and they've got to go back and redo it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I agree with that. I think that that's
an important part, but if -- if we put it off till May, as has been
suggested for whomever Rich is representing, meanwhile, we then
have to -- we haven't accomplished anything because staff still doesn't
have a workable document; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's vote on the motion.
MR. WEEKS: Madam Chair, may I make one, just quick point,
as you're discussing the possible effective date. I just wanted to
remind you, your transmittal hearing was approximately five months
ago, and we're talking about approximately 80 days beyond. So now
we're talking about approximately an eight-month time period that
applicants have had to get their ducks in a row. Just offer that for your
consideration.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. That's an important
consideration.
Page 140
October 26, 2004
All those in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That fails.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you have a new motion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about some new direction
on this item, because it does need to be cleaned up. And I feel that we
do protect listed species if they're on the rise or if they have stabilized
in their habitat.
If we have a particular species out there that is on the decline,
then we're not doing the job as set forth under the growth plan. The
direction should be for the stakeholders to take a look at the listed
species and tell us what is on the decline, tell us how, that we can
stabilize that species or have its population rise in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They're already charged with doing
that. They're--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, then we are--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're doing what we should do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have a couple hundred
dozen listed species.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, two.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two dozen listed species. I'm
sorry .
MR. MUDD: Animals.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Animals, critters, or whatever
you want to call them. Now, I know some that are on the rise. I don't
know any of them on the decline.
Page 141
w·,_·······,....._._.',··
1- _....~
..'.--
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We don't have any scientific
information either.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct, and if we have that
scientific information, then we can do good for the county and the
citizens --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do good for the county with the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- of Collier County.
If you don't mind, Commissioner Halas, I think the chairman
recognized me with the floor.
The -- then we're doing the county a good (sic). And if there's
some proj ects that we are doing out there that might get caught up and
-- because we're not protecting a listed -- certain listed species, that's
going to affect that project, so be it. That's a direction that I would
like to see the board go on listed -- this issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the -- your intent is exactly
what the stakeholders' group is doing. The problem with basing it on
a decline or a gain in population of the species is that if we have more
than we can expect the environment to accommodate, a decline is not
necessarily bad, so it shouldn't trigger some action on our part.
But what the stakeholders' committee has been charged to do is
to, number one, determine what level of population is reasonable for
Collier County and its environment for each of the protected species,
and then we try to manage to maintain the optimum level, not
necessarily to trigger a decision based upon declines or increases in
the species. So I think what you're after is certainly -- is certainly
correct, and I think the stakeholders' committee is actually doing that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And I think that's what
you're looking for. And that's how we ma -- that's how we manage.
We manage to the level of species maintenance that our environment
will support, reasonably support.
Page 142
~._~.-..-
_·,.____c..~.···_
.__..o.._._~.....".~O<_
October 26, 2004
And so I think we're getting there. We've been arguing a long
time about a relatively interim measure that's going to be in effect,
maybe, for --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- three or four months.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I could just follow up.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I heard from Bill Lorenz
is, he doesn't know what animal is on the decline.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- and I know they've been
meeting for quite a long time, so when are we going to get to the real
issue?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Hopefully February.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So may I have another motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we know the -- I think --
I don't know if we need a motion on this because this was an adoption
hearing. What we -- what I hope to see back in February is, what do
we need to protect and what don't we need to protect of the two dozen
listed species?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Then it dies.
With that, let's take a break. All take a few breaths of air.
(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. Thank you very much.
And we had a time certain for three o'clock.
Item #13A - Withdrawn
Page 143
October 26, 2004
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE
SHERIFF'S OFFICE 2004/2005 BUDGET REQUEST -
WIIlIDR AWN
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, we have a -- we have a request,
okay, from Sheriff Hunter that came in over lunchtime to the board
chair, that he would like to have item 13A withdrawn from today's
agenda, and that -- because the agenda's been set, I believe that will
take a board vote in order for that to happen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I make a motion to approve. Do I
hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All those in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have 4-1, Commissioner Halas
is opposed. Thank you.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2004-71: PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE 2003 1 ST
CYCLE OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS -
AD.OEIED W /CHANGRS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 8D. This
item to be heard immediately following item 8C, public hearing for
the 2003 first cycle of the growth management plan amendments.
Page 144
October 26, 2004
This is an adoption hearing. And, again, Mr. David Weeks from
comprehensive planning, community development's environmental
services, will present.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, again, for the record, David
Weeks. This is the balance of the amendments for this particular
cycle. There's a total of 10 petitions, four of which are private sector
petitions, and six of which are county-initiated amendments.
I specifically want to mention that we did receive the objections,
recommendations, and comments report, the ORC report, from the
Florida Department of Community Affairs, and they did not raise any
objections on any of these petitions. That's good news. What that
means is unless we make substantial changes to what was submitted,
they cannot find any of these amendments, once adopted, to be not in
compliance with state statute.
As I mentioned, there are four private sector petitions. And as
your protocol calls for, the petitioner will go first on the first petition.
It is petition CP-2002-2. It's a carry-over from a couple years ago.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Could I ask, do I close the public hearing
after each one or after the whole thing?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's a good question, and I'll work with
David on this. Are we looking to take a vote on each individual item?
They are distinct items to be --
MR. WEEKS: They're all adopted under one ordinance.
Routinely what you've done is taken a straw vote on each one, and
then take a final vote at the conclusion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So when do we close the public hearing
then?
MR. WEEKS: After -- I would say after the last petition has
been discussed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: But you're going to vote on each one individually
as they go along.
Page 145
October 26, 2004
MR. WEEKS: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: A straw vote on each one.
MR. WEEKS: Straw vote.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: All right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right.
MR. NINO: Good afternoon. My name is Ron Nino, for the
record. I'm with the firm of Vanasse and Daylor. I have with me
Reed Jarvi from our office, who is our transportation expert, and I
have the owner of the property, Mr. Keith Basik. Keith Basik and his
brother Jeff own Basik Development Company, and I represent them
in this petition.
Since our last meeting, of course, where you agreed to transmit
the petition to DCA by vote of 3-2, we have since been to the planning
commission. The planning commission, in their review of the
approval, recommendation to deal with the final hearing,
recommended 5-1 that this compo plan amendment be forwarded for
final approval to the DCA.
The Collier County Planning Commission, in so doing, realized
that -- that our commitment to acquire four TDRs was, in essence,
maintaining the integrity of the TDR program that basically says
development in receiving areas shall come as a result of a petitioner
acquiring development rights from sending areas. So they felt that we
had complied with the spirit and intent of the TDR program and,
therefore, they recommended approval.
Your staff, of course, has consistently supported this plan
amendment, and as David just said, there was no objections via the
o RC report.
As you know, the comprehensive plan amendment merely is a
statement that says this is a preferred use of the property that the
Page 146
October 26, 2004
commercial development, which is the -- which is the substance of our
amendment request, is an appropriate use of the property.
The staff, by virtue of their recommendation, we suggest to you,
says that they are satisfied as your professional staff, that commercial
use of this property is a compatible use and that the applicant has met
the warrant conditions that justify staff recommending approval of the
compo plan amendment and the decision implicit therein that
commercial development is an appropriate use of this land.
That is not to say that you are constrained. I need to emphasize
that when you deal with the zoning application, the PUD application --
that should you recommend approval -- will shortly follow, ties your
hands in addressing those considerations that you feel are necessary to
enhance the way this proj ect impacts that area.
You have all of the ability at your disposal to ensure that the
zoning action deals with those concerns that you have, irrespective of
the fact that the compo plan says commercial is an appropriate use of
this property.
So we're really not -- you really haven't given the store away, so
to speak, by recom -- by an approval of this compo plan amendment
which acknowledges the appropriateness of a commercial
development.
Now, there were two items that we asked the planning
commission to consider in their 5-1 vote. One, the compo plan
amendment as currently drafted would have limited the heights of
buildings to 20 stories (sic) for any buildings other than a motel. We
-- 20 feet. Thank you.
We had -- we had suggested to the planning commission that that
is an unreasonable height limitation, and if that limitation is there in
any event, it was one that we crafted when we submitted the
amendment document to the county. So it wasn't -- it wasn't staff that
encouraged us to have a height limitation of 20 feet.
The county planning commission agreed that that was a severe
Page 147
October 26, 2004
restriction and that we should enjoy the same height limitation that is
-- prevails throughout the county for most zoning districts, which is 35
feet.
We also asked the planning commission to not require that the
four TDRs be donated to the county, and they took no action in that
regard.
Since -- since our first meeting with this board and with the
planning commission, my client has taken under advisement the
message that we think we got from your first meeting, and that is that
if this property had been part of a 40-acre tract of land, which is the
minimum size requirement to participate in the TDR program, this
property, as a component of that 40 acres, would have required the
acquisition of eight TDRs.
We understand your concern and we understand that you want to
maintain the integrity and spirit of the TDR program, that it, in fact,
eats up all of the land in the sending areas and preserves them as
natural spaces.
We -- we have agreed, we have -- my client has indicated that in
view of that overriding concern that you have, that they are prepared
to acquire eight TDR credits, either land or credits, depending upon
whether credits are available and recorded.
We wish to have the ability to acquire land in areas that are
commensurate with eight TDR credits, and -- and that that action
would occur as a condition of any subsequent rezoning action, and the
TDR credits, of course, would be recorded in a manner consistent with
the requirements in your land development code.
So our position as I stand here before you today is that one, the
county planning commission, your staff, have said, this is a reasonable
use of land. It's good planning. And we understand that to participate
in that program we need to acquire eight TDRs or land equivalent to
eight TDRs and are prepared to do so; therefore, we ask that you
amend the language as is contained in your executive summary,
Page 148
October 26, 2004
particularly in terms of the last item, which says that four TDR credits
would be donated to the county and that that wording read that no
rezoning to -- no rezoning -- no rezone ordinance to implement this
subdistrict shall become effective until the petitioner acquires
sufficient land that equates with eight TDRs and records these credits
as required by the LDC.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Nino, we're changing then not
just the number of TDRs, but you're changing the wording which --
which requires that you acquire eight TDRs --
MR. NINO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- rather than just transferring four
-- or TD Rs to the county?
MR. NINO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. So there's more
than -- there's more of a change to that particular statement than just
the eight, the number eight, right?
MR. NINO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I believe when you came
before the board and were looking to get this rezoned, if my memory
serves me correctly, I believe that you made the promise that you
would buy the four TDRs, if my memory serves me correct; is that
right?
MR. NINO: That is correct, and that was ill-advised of me to
have done so.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's what we bought the
zoning in, in regards -- that the end result, when we made the
determination, that was -- that determination was based on the fact that
you were going to come forward and buy four TDRs, and that's what
Page 149
October 26, 2004
we --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Eight.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- based the -- based the -- well,
they were going to come up with the four TDRs. That's what we
based the zoning on, I believe.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Eight, wasn't it?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But now they're talking about. Did--
MR. NINO: I don't think that was the intent of the board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what I --
MR. NINO: I think the board were more concerned -- most of
the board were more concerned with maintaining the integrity of the
TDR program, meaning that we would utilize the TDR program.
There is --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you would buy four TDRs --
MR. NINO: There is no requirement in your TDR program, as
it's currently structured, that the TDRs that are acquired in the sending
-- in the receiv -- in the sending area to the receiving area are TDRs
that would be donated to the county.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, but you made -- you made
reference that you were going to buy the four TDRs--
MR. NINO: I--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- based on our ability to rezone the
property because you felt that you needed to make sure of the integrity
of trying to get this rezoned; am I correct on that?
MR. NINO: In the heat of debate and in the interest of trying to
acquire your approval to transmit, I was foolish enough to have made
that statement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm going to live by that.
That's what we based the zoning on.
MR. NINO: But appreciate that that is not the intent of the TDR
program. If you apply it to this applicant, to this client, I assume then
that you're required to apply it across the board --
Page 150
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, but you made -- you offered --
MR. NINO: -- and the TDR program would go away.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you made the offer, sir. You're
the one that offered that, I believe, in the discussion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have seven speakers; is that correct?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Most of them have down here CP-2002-2, which
is this subj ect.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Some of them don't, and I'll call them to see if this
is the issue they want to speak on.
Paul Rodinsky?
MR. WEEKS: Excuse me, Madam Chair. Do you want to hear
staff presentation?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, sure. Yes, I'm so sorry. Excuse me.
MR. HEATH: We agree with all other stipulations or provisions
that the staff has recommended.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to overlook
you.
MR. HEATH: That's okay.
For the record, I'm Glen Heath with your comprehensive
planning staff.
Mr. Nino did state correctly that the only recommendation made
by the planning commission was to change the height requirement to
35 feet instead of 20 for the -- basically the flea market buildings. So
all -- all of the buildings then in the subdistrict could go up to 35 feet.
I have a petition --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Tell me what that means again. All of the
buildings in the --
MR. HEATH: All of the buildings that they are allowed to
ultimately -- assuming that the subdistrict is adopted, all of the
Page 151
October 26,2004
buildings that they are allowed to construct within the subdistrict can
go as high as 35 feet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: There's nothing else in the area that's 35
feet, is there?
MR. HEATH: I'm not sure about that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The 35 feet, I wonder if that's from
zero ground to the very peak of the roof, or is this, again, some -- do
you state what 35 feet really is?
MR. HEATH: Generally, I believe -- and if there's anybody who
can correct me if I'm wrong -- it's from the FEMA flood height
requirement to the top -- the peak of the roof.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle? I'm sorry to interrupt you, but, Glenn--
would you mind waiting until he's finished or would you like to ask
something right now?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it has to do with the building
height.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Go ahead, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's very confusing to me because
the executive summary says that no building shall exceed a height of
20 feet with the exception of a motel or hotel, which may be 35 feet in
height.
MR. HEATH: Well, the planning commission recommendation
would now take that same passage, and it would read, no building
shall exceed a height of 35 feet, period.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe the 35 feet was given in
regards to architectural standards, am I correct on that? Is that what
was discussed at the planning commission meeting?
MR. HEATH: You agree with that?
MR. NINO: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No?
Page 152
October 26, 2004
MR. NINO: Based on the premise that -- based on the fact that
35 feet is the height limitation that's allowed for single-family zoning
districts, multi-family -- some multi-family zoning districts, some
commercial, it's the most restrictive height limitation in your land
development code, and the county planning commission agreed that,
yes, if it's good enough for all of those uses -- those zoning districts, it
ought to be good enough for this PUD.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead, Glenn. I'm sorry.
MR. HEATH: Okay. Are we okay on the height issue or--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not really.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry. I was just asking ifhe had
something else he wanted to say.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I don't see that in my
executive summary.
MR. HEATH: If you look at the executive summary -- on page 3
of the executive summary --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. I was looking at the
annex.
MR. HEATH: Okay. And there's an item F near the top of the
page there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we talking about in the
executive summary?
MR. HEATH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Page 3, you say?
MR. HEATH: Of the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I see where the CCPC has
recommended three stories.
MR. HEATH: No, that's up higher than that. That's another
amendment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You must have -- you mean page 4, F,
Page 153
October 26, 2004
access shall be limited to --
MR. HEATH: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, no. E, oh, yeah, no building shall
exceed a height of --
MR. HEATH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that it?
MR. HEATH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Twenty feet?
MR. HEATH: It says 20 feet right now, but -- what it says right
now -- if we ignore the planning commission recommendation for a
minute, what it would say right now is, no building shall exceed a
height of 20 feet with the exception of a motel/hotel, which may be 35
feet in height.
That's -- that's the transmitted version of the language. The
planning commission looked at that and recommended, no building
shall exceed a height of 35 feet, period.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did they just come off with this
recommendation or were they asked to look at that?
MR. HEATH: I believe that they were asked by the --
MR. NINO: They were.
MR. HEATH: -- petitioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do you want to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I've got a problem here. We
approved this project based upon certain representations when it came
before us. It then went to the CCPC and they changed it all. Now
we're supposed to approve what they decided it should be --
MR. HEATH: No, sir. That's their recommendation, but you're
under no obligation to approve that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why did it come to us and we
made certain decisions based upon the development, and then it went
to the CCPC and a different presentation was made to them, and they
came to different conclusions, and now it's back to us to accept their
Page 154
October 26,2004
recommendation? That's confusing.
MR. HEATH: In the plan amendment process both you and the
CCPC get it twice. You get it once at adoption, and -- I mean, I'm
sorry, once at transmittal, and you make a -- it ultimately -- ultimately
the Board of County Commissioners made a recommendation to
transmit this amendment, this proposed amendment, to DCA for the
state review process. Now it's coming back to you for adoption.
The same for the CCPC. They got another shot to look at it.
They decided to recommend this change, and now it's coming to you.
You are, I believe, under -- ask Ms. Student, they're under no
obligation to accept?
MS. STUDENT: No. They're under no -- excuse me.
For the record, there's no obligation for the board to, you know,
rubber stamp the planning commission if, you know, it finds reasons
not to. The planning commission is the local planning agency charged
with studying and looking at the compo plan and making
recommendations to the board, but the board's entirely free to come up
with its own representations based on what's presented.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is the adoption hearing.
MR. HEATH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is the first time we've seen
this?
MR. HEATH: This is the first time you've seen the planning
commission -- planning commission's recommendation because they
only made it in their adoption hearing. You've seen this amendment
prior to this, this -- at transmittal.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. We saw the original
amendment, and it was quite different than what it is right now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we have that obligation, go back
to what we originally -- am I under --
MR. HEATH: You can either decide to go with the planning
commission recommendation or go with your own recommendation.
Page 155
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Really, I -- you know, the Basiks
do a good job of development. I've seen what they've done in some
other places, but quite frankly, trying to deal with these kinds of
changes from what we were originally presented is a difficult thing for
me to do. I would almost have to have this thing re-presented to us
because it has changed so dramatically. It started out as a flea market.
Now we've got a mixed use development with 35-foot tall buildings.
MR. HEATH: Well, the original -- the original amendment, as
originally proposed by the petitioner, was to possib -- to create a
subdistrict -- the flea market, remember, has already been approved,
the flea market proper.
They wanted to create a subdistrict that would allow them both to
expand the flea market and have certain other uses, and that's the
amendment that was transmitted to DCA.
Now it's come back to you in the adoption hearing, and -- it came
back to the planning commission first and the planning commission's
looked at that again and it's made a new recommendation dealing with
the building heights. That's the only -- only thing that they actually
changed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the TDRs.
MR. HEATH: No, they did not -- the planning commission did
not take action on the TDRs. The petitioner would like you to
consider a change to the TDRs.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exact -- well, that's the other
change.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And subparagraph 2D, concerning
the 75,000 square foot total, whichever is lesser, that's all been
removed. The entire paragraph E has been removed. The number of
TD R credits has been changed, the building heights have been
changed. You know, this gets very, very confusing.
MR. NINO: But I understand that it's not unusual for a compo
Page 156
October 26, 2004
plan amendment to have some changes made to it between transmittal
and final approval. And with all respect (sic), Commissioner, I don't
believe that a change in height to the most restrictive height limitation
that you allow by code should be classified as a major modification.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It is when it generates more traffic, and
we only have a two-lane highway. And if this then means that they're
going to build motels or three stories of a flea market or whatever,
now we're generating a lot more traffic. I've been worried right from
the start about what's going to happen to that two-lane road that has no
plans for -- for widening for at least six years, if not 10.
And so, I think that 35 feet is just going to --
MR. NINO: With all respect (sic), Commissioner, heights of
buildings do not create more intensity or density.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You mean if you put --
MR. NINO: Floor area --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- up other offices and other buildings --
MR. NINO: The floor area is still 75,000 square feet. Whether
we have one story or three stories, we cannot exceed 75,000 square
feet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Glenn, proceed. I'm so sorry.
MR. HEATH: Okay. Well, looking at trying to understand what
Commissioner Coyle was referring to, when this language was
originally transmitted by you, staff had made some changes to the
language that was presented to us by the petitioner, and the language
that you transmitted was the language that had been tweaked by staff.
There are some differences in the language that was presented
originally and the language that was done by staff. The only change,
however, that's been made to the language that was transmitted is the
-- or the only proposed change from the standpoint of the planning
commission that was made to the language that was transmitted is the
35 feet versus 20 feet. Everything else would remain the same.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Anything more to tell us?
Page 157
October 26, 2004
MR. HEATH: I have a petition that I need to read into the record
from the property owners of Trinity Place, which is a subdivision that
adjoins the Basik property. It reads, from property owners of Trinity
Place, a Basiks rural fringe change for Trinity Place -- and I'm quoting
the petition as it reads -- once again, with signatures below on this
petition, the property owners are requesting the board to recognize and
protect us from the change of allowing Trinity Place, a dead-end
street, which can only indirectly access U.S. Scenic 41 highway to be
used as another outlet for Basik's flea market.
Basik's project should be using Basik road to access and exit the
parking lot he has now planned or the easement road that runs along
his westerly nine acres at the corner of U.S. 41 and Trinity Place
zoned agricultural.
We request his project not be granted the use as an exit/entrance
from Trinity Place but to use the Basik road which is in place on his
C-3/C-4 property to accommodate this flea market fringe change.
The fringe has changed for his nine acres originally zoned
agricultural on Trinity Place, and all of Trinity Place contiguous to
Basik projects should have been incorporated to be able to be included
in the fringe change. That did not happen.
This traffic change should not be to our detriment. We do not
want his traffic. We do not want to have traffic generated like the
Flamingo Flea Market nightmare.
And then it's signed by the landowners, and I'm going to give this
to the court reporter.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. HEATH: The only other comment that staff has is just to, I
guess, discuss what our interpretation was of the TDR issue from
transmittal, and that was that the landowner was going to buy four
TDR credits from somewhere in the rural fringe sending lands and
donate those to the county. And that was our interpretation of the
language that was given us by the board.
Page 158
October 26, 2004
And staff, prior to that, had not taken any stance on the TDR
issue. It was a -- it is not really related to the rural fringe amendments
in that it was a legislative action of the board.
And other than that, I don't have anything to add to that issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, did you have
anything to say?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have some concerns also in
the height, because if my memory serves me right, the only other thing
out there that is any height out there, I believe, is the Smith company,
and I think all the rest of the area is pretty much a low-profile area.
Am I correct in my assessment of that?
MR. HEATH: I believe that's so, is that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I believe that when this
originally was before the Board of Commissioners, when we were
going through this process the first time, that was one of the reasons
that we established the 20 feet was because of the compatibility in the
surrounding area, if my memory serves me correctly.
MR. HEATH: I believe, and I -- if, on my own memory, that the
20 feet was a number that was put in by the petitioner, and you didn't
disagree with it to that extent.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Shall we call the speakers?
MS. FILSON: Paul Rodinsky. He will be followed by Edward
Cassetty .
MR. RODINSKY: Commissioners, Madam Chairman. My
name is Paul Rodinsky. I live on 11231 Trinity Place.
And this proj ect, if you think this is confusing now, you should
look at it for the last 20 years. In the last, I think it was, 12 years,
there's been 11 changes to the plans for the trailer park and the other
parts of this particular piece of property.
We've never got any notices from the county or from the Basiks.
The county or the Basiks never took us under consideration. Weare a
rural fringe. We can't change our zoning. We can't have any more
Page 159
October 26, 2004
than one house on a five-acre tract. We're going to lose all our privacy
because Mr. Basik wants to use an easement in our backyards for an
interior road, which has been granted by the county years ago, and
now they want to do Trinity Place -- and put all the traffic out onto
Trinity Place, and I'm going to have traffic coming up the -- in the
back of our properties now, which we lose two sides of our privacy.
And Mr. Garcia and the neighbors want to know if we can get a
wall constructed like they granted us in 1983. They granted us a fence
with slats in it that was supposed to go in the center of the easements
and still give the residents access.
And then when I went back, kept on going to the meetings and
everything, it became irrelevant. Mr. Nino told me it was irrelevant
after two years, and they don't have to put up a fence.
I kept coming to meetings and coming to meetings. I went to Mr.
Nino's office on Horseshoe Drive in 2001, I think it was, and he
looked at me and asked me why I was coming down here. He says,
you're getting what you want; you're getting your eight-foot wall. I
says, well, I'd like to see it.
He took me in another room, he showed me the eight-foot wall,
he gave me a picture of the eight-foot wall that he took a picture of
and accused me of fraud in Mr. Mudd's office, that that wasn't a real
document I brought him into the office.
And in the meantime, all we want to do is -- we're not going to
ever be able to stop this man, his projects or anything in Collier
County. We know that that's going to happen there. All we want is
protection.
We want an eight-foot wall from the top of Trinity Place, down
Trinity Place, up the side of Mr. Garcia's property, and down the back
to block us from the trailer park and still give us access to this
easement, and that's what people on Trinity Place want.
I mean, we're not going to stop his project. There's no way. I
mean, we could stand up here and every neighbor could come down
Page 160
October 26, 2004
here and jump up and down. He's still going to get a flea market.
Now, he might not get access to Trinity Place if he gets the flea
market, so he turns around and says, well, I'm going to put a hotel in
there. I might put a hotel in the future. This thing has changed 20
times in 25 years, and what do we have there? We have four storage
buildings that happened to go in when Keith Basik took over the
project.
But other than that, behind this whole project is Larry Basik, the
same person who was back there 25 years ago digging holes, taking
dirt out of the property, and now they're just hauling crap back into the
property to try to build up the land again.
The residents of Trinity Place want a wall, want to be walled out,
we still want our access to our easement, and that's really all I can say
about the proj ect.
We've gone through a lot of noise and a lot of hell for the last 20
years. All I hear is loaders backing up and trucks backing up and
dredgers, and then we have people in the middle of the night, which
has stopped because of -- I mainly called Keith a couple times -- and
why is there tractors out there 11 o'clock at night?
This has been going on from the onset, and that's what set the
neighbors off on the street. But we need protection from this project,
that even if you grant this wall and tell him he has to put up this wall
before any construction starts, it will be 20 years before he ever
finishes this project, because it's already been 25 years now.
Thank you very much, and is there any questions?
(No response.)
MR. RODINSKY: Thank you.
MR. FILSON: The next speaker is Edward Cassetty. He will be
followed by Brad Cornell.
MR. CASSETTY: Yes. My name is Edward Cassetty. I live at
11275 Trinity Place, next door to Paul.
And my main interest is, like he said, on Highway 41, it's a
Page 161
October 26, 2004
two-lane road. And what I see, there's no proper turning lanes going
into this property, and if he uses -- I don't see any way that he could
use Trinity Place, a little IS-foot road there.
And if you do put turning lanes in, all you're doing is putting
another passing lane in that they're using on 41, because every turn
lane on 41, my God, all you have to do is go down through there and
you'll see people passing like crazy on these turn lanes. It's crazy.
I pray the Lord every day going down through there going back
and forth to town, what 41 is. And I don't know how many years it's
going to be before we get that thing four-laned.
You've got a six-lane highway going down to the intersection of
951, then it goes into a two-lane. Now we're going to get a Super
Wal-Mart there, right behind Circle K, so that's going to really give us
a little bit more congestion. I welcome the Super Wal-Mart, but I
don't know what we're going to get after that.
So when we get this flea market in we're going to get a little bit
more congestion in there, and that's going to be a weekend nightmare
there, so I don't know what's going to happen.
When we get the trailer park in back behind the flea market, I
don't know what's going to be behind us there, and my privacy's going
to be gone.
And I just -- I don't know what's going to develop back there.
And I -- we can get about four, five years, the rest of the palm trees
are grown, I get them sold, I may be moving out of this area. That's
just -- that's just what my future outlook is.
I don't want to leave Collier County, but it's not giving me much
choice. I'm a retired person, and I got a Winnebago and I can move.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Brad Cornell. Did you want
to speak on this issue, Brad, 2002-2?
MR. CORNELL: Sure.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
Page 162
-~_...
---..-.--..-
..,"""",--",...,-_.
October 26, 2004
MR. CORNELL: Brad Cornell with Collier County Audubon
Society, just briefly.
I don't want to speak on the merits or problems that this project
may present to you. I just wanted to raise the concern about the
integrity of the transfer of development rights program and the rural
fringe policies that we've recently adopted. And we are obviously
very concerned that these succeed. We have a private amendment
coming to you to help improve that program coming up on your
agenda in December.
But I just want to say that in listening to the presentation, the
eight TDR proposal that the petitioner has presented seems like a
reasonable compromise. But I'm not going to speak about the project
itself, because I'm afraid I don't know enough about it to saying
anything.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nicole Ryan. And I believe
the other speakers want to speak on the Golden Gate City commercial,
another section.
MS. RYAN: Good afternoon again, Commissioners. Nicole
Ryan here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
When this petition or amendment first came forward, it raised a
red flag for the Conservancy. We were concerned that the TDR
program is made up of many different parcels, and we didn't want to
see that program be chipped away one parcel at a time with people
coming before you to amend the boundaries.
Our concern has been what precedent will this set and will there
be a domino effect of someone else coming in during the next cycle.
But we did recognize that this parcel is rather unique and doesn't quite
fit into the TDR program.
When the proposal came forward that the petitioner would adhere
to the spirit of the program, so to speak, but still be allowed to be
amended out of the boundary, we agreed that that seemed like a pretty
Page 163
--~,--...._-,,^
October 26, 2004
good compromise.
Now it seems that the petitioner is coming forward and trying to
change the game rules after they got approval. This really gets into a
much larger issue which I believe needs to be discussed on its own but
certainly is applicable here.
Can a petitioner say what needs to be said to get approval and
then come back and try to amend the language because they feel they
can no longer do that or never intended to in the first place? It's
problematic.
If you look from the June 8th meeting where this was
transmitted, Mr. Nino said, let me say that the Basiks are agreeable to
purchase four TDRs and give them to the county for the county to do
with them as they please.
Now, I've heard some talk about the petitioner being willing to
acquire TDRs. I guess I need a definition of what does acquire mean?
Does acquire mean that the petitioner will go ahead and buy those
TD Rs, not turn them over to the county and then sell them later? I
don't know if that's what it is, but I heard acquire and not turn over to
the county.
It's very specific in the language that is up for adoption.
Approval of the subject GMP amendment is dependent upon the
petitioner providing four TDR credits to Collier County. If this is no
longer feasible then, perhaps, this should come back as an entirely
new petition.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No other speakers?
MS. FILSON: No. I believe the other ones are for the Golden
Gate commercial.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Then this will close the
public hearing.
Commissioner Henning?
MR. NINO: May I address something?
Page 164
October 26, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, not right now, please. Let's move on,
if you don't mind, and let's get Commissioner Henning up here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I heard the residents and
their concerns, and definitely, when it comes back for a rezone -- is
this a -- this will have to come back for a rezone, and we must separate
the residents from the commercial with buffering. And I heard a wall,
and I don't think that's unreasonable, but that should be done at the
rezone level.
The -- you know, to -- my thought is, what we want to do is try to
protect those sending areas. And instead of -- going from four to
eight, I think that's a greater protection myself. I know that wasn't
what was presented to begin with, but what's the objective here? I
think the objective here is to try to protect those sensitive lands out
there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I heard somebody mention
eight today and then four and then eight and then four.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's for four -- it's eight what is
being proposed today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, and then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One more time. When we met
the last time we discussed how many TDRs that they were offering to
do? Was it four or was it eight? Four.
And now the petitioner is suggesting that he do eight TDRs. And
what would be the negative aspect of that? I'm still trying to figure
that part out.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He says acquire eight TDRs, but he
doesn't say give them to the county.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh,oh.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the thing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's the little part that's missing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I see. Okay. It's a lot clearer
Page 165
October 26, 2004
now. So being a commodity, it's really not buying any -- it's just
buying them and holding them, not turning them over.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And then he could resell them
later.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. That's just what Nicole was
saYIng.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that correct?
MR. NINO: That's correct. That's what everybody else is going
to do. That's -- that is how the TDR program works. It was never
intended to be donations to the county. They were a commodity that
you would either sell to another developer or bring them to your own
development.
In other words, if we were working in the traditional mode here
and we were developing this as a residential parcel, we would be
acquiring -- in order to get the density from one unit per five acres up
to one unit per one acre, we would go out and buy 40 -- 20 acres -- 20
acres of land from the receiving -- from the sending area, and we'd be
taking them to our property to achieve the one unit per acre. That's
the way the TDR program works.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, you're saying
that anyone that enters into the TDR program purchases TDRs, after
they get the desired permits and everything else, they can take the
TD Rs they purchased and resell them again?
MR. NINO: No, no, no. They consume them on the property,
the sending area of the property.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They're not going to consume
them.
MR. NINO: That's right. And, therefore, they're a commodity.
If they're more units than you need, then they're a commodity. That's
the way the program is intended to work. I defer to staff, but I think
staff would agree that there was nothing in the program that says --
Page 166
--,_.,-,,,;._,"~,.
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, there isn't. There's nothing
we can require you to do as far as getting the TDRs. Although when it
comes to the end, it's going to take four commissioners here to pass
this.
MR. NINO: We will-- we will-- we will-- we have committed
to do what the TDR program is intended to do on a project that would
otherwise qualify.
Our project, in order to be developed, requires eight TDRs in the
-- if it were developed as a residential proj ect. We're agreeing to do
that. We're agreeing to acquire eight TDRs, buy 20 acres of land -- or
40 acres of land, whatever it is -- 40 acres of land in the sending area
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Uh-huh.
MR. NINO: -- put it into a perpetual -- record it as a perpetual
preserve as is required by the provisions of the land development
code, and that land can never be developed again. That is the intent of
the TDR program.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But tell me exactly one more
time. Let me make sure I understand. What you're saying is the eight
TDRs you have have a value that you can resell?
MR. NINO: Well, certainly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I understand.
MR. NINO: Either a value to resell, or if we were doing a
residential proj ect, we would be consuming those TD Rs putting
dwelling units on our property.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then the only other question I
got is the -- the wall that they're talking about. Is there any __
MR. NINO: With all respect (sic), Commissioners, the issue is
totally unrelated --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. NINO: -- to what we're doing. I mean, as Commissioner
Henning says, we -- comprehensive plan amendment really doesn't
Page 167
October 26, 2004
give you a heck of a lot other than the ability to come back and ask
you to rezone it, and at that stage, you can ask for those development
standards that will make sure that we create buffers or do whatever
you think is necessary to get a great harmony between our property
and any adjacent property.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've asked all the questions I
want to ask.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas.
MR. NINO: May I ask, would you allow Keith Basik, who is the
owner -- because there have been some offensive remarks made that I
think the owner is entitled to respond to.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Offensive remarks?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What offensive remarks?
MR. NINO: No, no, by speakers. Not by you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's -- we're not worried about --
I don't know if we're -- well --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know. We don't usually have people
continuing to come up. Please, would you make it quick.
MR. BASIK: I won't even -- my name's Keith Basik. I'm
president of Basik Development. I won't -- there was a couple
concerns that were brought over -- brought up by the local residents. I
won't address those.
But I think the intent was really, when we said from four to eight,
was to do what you-all wanted to do. We thought we were bettering
what we had.
Initially, we understood the intent of the program was to keep --
the whole idea of eight TDRs, we had recommended four at the time.
The idea that they went over to the county, from my perspective, I
thought, well, is that really fair? If I'm just another person buying the
-- buying TDRs, I have a right to that commodity.
So we thought it would be in the best interest of the program to __
instead of the four, to say we'll go ahead and buy the eight. And we
Page 168
October 26, 2004
adhere to the program. The program stays in continuity with what
you're trying to achieve, and we thought it was going to be the best
thing.
But for some reason, as we're discussing it, it sounds as though
we're trying to circumvent what we were doing before.
The intent was good, and we thought, in the spirit of the program,
instead of four, we'd do eight, just like we were -- it was brought up
before.
And so instead of the four going to the county, we looked at it
and said, okay, what is right for everyone? First of all, we're not in the
TDR program, we shouldn't be, because we less -- we're less than 40
acres.
So we're going above and beyond the call of duty and saying,
okay, what we'll do is we'll do this for you, the TDR program. Then
we said, okay, to really adhere to the program, we'll go ahead and
purchase the eight. But we shouldn't be -- we shouldn't be jeopardized
or we shouldn't be hurt any more than the next guy if he was to buy
the TDRs.
They could grab the TD Rs, and whatever they were to do with
them, as long as they follow your guidelines, that should be fine.
So our intent was to better the program, better what we stated,
and it seems like somewhere along the line, it's as though we're trying
to circumvent trying to not adhere to what we agreed to before.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Basik, we're going to move on, okay?
MR. BASIK: Okay. I wanted to get that out.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We don't usually have -- you know, once
we close the public hearing, we don't usually have people popping up.
And I know that you don't know that, but anyway. Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I would just like to make it
very clear on the record, when the gentleman that represented your
project in regards to what they were going to offer to get this piece of
Page 169
... ~ ~~.. ..._._..~...._.~_.,.,~-
October 26, 2004
property involved in building this flea market and -- was that you were
going to buy the TDRs, four TDRs were going to be turned over to the
county to jump start the TDR program. That was very specific.
And I believe it was already brought out in testimony by one of
the speakers, that in order to get his, they were willing -- the
gentleman that's representing you, said, I'm going to put four TDRs __
buy four TDRs and turn them over to the county.
MR. BASIK: One last item.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's what this based -- that's
what this whole subject is based on.
MR. BASIK: Sir, I don't have a problem with that. I really don't.
That is -- that is fine.
I thought -- I personally thought what we were presenting was
better than what it was, and maybe it's not. But I thought it was more
in continuity with what you were trying to achieve. But if that's the
route you want to go, so be it, we'll go that route. I just thought it
would be something that would more acceptable to the commissioners.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioners, anything else?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Anybody have a motion on this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I -- if I may.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not comfortable with the
whole thing. I'm not comfortable with the residents' complaints. I'm
not comfortable with the changes in the height. Can't make the TDRs
at issue because really they're not required to have TDRs.
I'm going to make a motion for denial.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor for
denial by Commissioner Coletta, and a second by Commissioner
Page 170
October 26, 2004
Halas.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a 4-1 vote on that.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to petition
CP-2003-1, the petition requesting amendment to the future land use
element and future land use map and map series to expand Vanderbilt
Beach and Collier Boulevard commercial subdistrict and to restrict
some uses in this expansion area to include 15.88 plus or minus acres
located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road and a quarter mile
west of County Road 951 in Section 34, Township 48 south, Range 26
east.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you don't mind, we've got
residents from Golden Gate, working people that -- if we can get
through that -- the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, I think would be a
simple thing, they can get back to work. But it's your call.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How many people do we have waiting
here from Golden Gate?
MS. FILSON: I have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Three speakers. How many people do we
have on this one?
MS. FILSON: None.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Rich, would you mind just waiting a little
Page 171
October 26, 2004
bit, and we'll take care of these people from Golden Gate?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're probably going to be here all day
long anyway, right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I also have a concern. I'm not sure
when we're going to get to it, but I just wanted to bring it to your
attention. We have an awful lot of people that are sitting out here for
the subject of Wiggins Pass also.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. I think the rest of these will go a
little bit easier, so we should --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I hope so.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- be able to move through it. Would you
-- I hate to interrupt this, but honoring Commissioner Henning's
request.
MR. MUDD: All right. This is petition CPSP-2003-1 0, and it's a
petition requesting phase II amendments to the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan.
Is that the one you want to talk about, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Text in Golden Gate Area Master Plan
future land use maps and map series primarily as a result of the
recommendation of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy
Committee to include changes to the Golden Gate area future land use,
and there's a listing one through eight. Go to B, changes to the Golden
Gate Area Master Plan text, and it's enumerated one through 10. Start
talking.
MR. REA TR: Good afternoon again, Commissioners. This is
Glenn Heath for comprehensive planning staff.
The only change that the planning commission recommended at
their adoption hearing was a -- sort of a general staff -- I guess a
Page 172
October 26, 2004
general recommendation that staff revise the -- make revisions to the
-- some of the language for clarity purposes provided that those --
those changes were not -- didn't affect any substantive changes.
Other than that, there was one change that the planning
commission included in their recommendations that was a, sort of a
last-minute item that was discovered by staff, and it deals with the
twentieth bullet under the -- it's shown on page 5 of the executive
summary at the bottom of the page.
Deals with the twentieth bullet under the neighborhood center's
subdistrict, and it's simply a clarification that when the bullet mentions
residential property, we then define residential property as property
zoned E estates and without an approved conditional use.
We were afraid that from a literal translation of residential
zoning, there is no residential zoning technically in the estates. It's all
estates zoning. But we knew that the intent of this was to deal with
estates zoning, so we've made that clarification.
The Collier County Planning Commission did not wish to hear --
or did not wish to consider changes that were proposed by the Golden
Gate Commercial Overlay Ad Hoc Committee regarding the
downtown center commercial subdistrict or the Collier Boulevard
commercial subdistrict.
We also, however, have contained the community's
recommendations in the staff report, which is -- which is also in your
packet.
There were, however, five substantive changes, that upon
reflection -- now, after the planning commission meeting, staff is
recommending to you -- and these begin on page 6 of the executive
summary about the middle of the page.
And I can go through them or we can -- I can simply try to
summarize them for you. The first one has to do with the Collier
Boulevard commercial subdistrict. The -- basically the original
subdistrict language allowed two stories. Staff realized that in
Page 173
October 26, 2004
interpreting what the -- some of the other language in the subdistrict
intended, that we are recommending three stories. It gives you some
compat -- it gives some flexibility concerning building height and
placing mixed use development within individual buildings.
The next change was to the downtown center commercial
subdistrict. Again, this is recommended by staff. This starts on the
bottom of page 6 and goes over to page 7. The transmitted text
requires commercial development fronting on Golden Gate Parkway
to place its parking on the lot across the alley to the rear.
Staff had a concern that there -- there could be some problems
between lot owners as to whether one lot owner would want to sell his
property for a parking lot or use his property for a parking lot for
adjacent development, or maybe he wants to use the property for some
sort of a development use himself, so there could be a conflict there.
So we -- we simply prohibited parking in the front of the property
and allowed parking in the rear for properties on Golden Gate
Parkway.
The next proposed -- I'm sorry . Yeah, the next -- that's for the
downtown center commercial.
The next proposed change by staff is a clarification. The current
-- the transmitted text requires uses, commercial and residential, to be
located within the first 30 feet of the property frontage. This is only
applicable to Golden Gate Parkway, we believe. We've just clarified
that to say that there's a zero foot front yard setback requirement along
Golden Gate Parkway.
And it's a very -- the language is similar, but this -- that we
believe this language is more correct.
The next staff proposed change has to do with uses permitted by
right in the C-l, C-2, and C-3 zoning districts. The language made no
provision for residential development. In looking at the intent of the
original Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Committee in
developing this subdistrict language, we believe it was their intent to
Page 174
October 26, 2004
allow residential as a use in a mixed use building.
So we didn't want to say there absolutely can't be residential. We
believe that in certain circumstances there could be residential, and we
even believe that there could be residential -- residential alone
buildings provided that certain qualifications are met.
The next change is -- has to do with -- again, with continual uses
in the C-l, C-2, and C-3 zoning districts. It wasn't clear whether the
existing -- the transmitting language would allow conditional uses
within the entire subdistrict under -- it wasn't clear whether the condi
-- the language that was transmitted would allow conditional uses as
allowed by the existing residential zone, and we believe from staff that
it was the intent of the restudy committee to allow those, so we've
made that change.
And next has to do with the transmitted text, prohibited uses are
those uses not permitted by right or by conditional use. Again, in the
C-l, C-2, and C-3 zoning districts, and then there was an additional
list of uses that were prohibited.
To clarify, most of the uses that are prohibited are already not
allowed in the C-l through C-3 zoning districts, so we've simply
eliminated some of that language. And we've -- we have eliminated
the language when it refers to uses that already are not allowed by
right in the C-l through C-3 zoning overlay. So we've just simply
clarified that we're not changing the list of uses in C-l through C-3.
And those are the only changes that are proposed by staff, and
the only change that was proposed by the planning commission was to
go through and make sure everything was clear and accurate.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It says here also that the CCPC
specifically did not wish to consider the changes proposed by the
Golden Gate Commercial Overlay Ad Hoc Committee to the
downtown center commercial subdistrict. I didn't know what that
really meant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Russell Tuff can explain it.
Page 175
October 26, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I guess one of our speakers will
explain that. Okay.
MR. HEATH: I have no more comments.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Glenn.
We have three speakers?
MS. FILSON : Yes, ma'am. Peter Lilienthal. He will be followed
by Don Peterson.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: While we're waiting for Peter to come up,
I was just handed a note. There's a pair of prescription glasses at the
receptionist's desk in the BCC office, in the county commission office,
with a pink frame, in case anybody's missing a pink frame pair of --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Those are mine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yours. Yeah, you'd look good in those
pink glasses.
It's at the reception desk. Thank you.
MR. LILIENTHAL: Well, they're not mine, but on a bad day I
could use them.
What I'm here to tell you about doesn't involve endangered
species or wetlands or anything difficult like that.
To use your own words, Commissioner Fiala, I'm here to talk
about a community making a decision for itself. And we, the
community of Golden Gate City, at a series of public meetings, stand
in overwhelming support of a downtown commercial subdistrict as
proposed in the master plan and by the overlay committee.
We're not okay -- now one of the things that wasn't mentioned by
staff, but we're not okay with a certain shrinkage of the borders on
some of those districts.
The master plan recommended a certain area, and the
subcommittee recommended the same area. County staff had actually
reduced some of that. We stand against that reduction.
And I believe the rationale for redrawing the lines is based on the
assumption that the area excluded by county staff is a nice, affordable
Page 176
October 26, 2004
neighborhood of single- family residences.
In any case, those areas identified consist of older homes, most of
them over 35 years old. Most of the properties are rentals -- they're not
owner-occupied -- and also some apartments. And they've
experienced skyrocketing water rates and insurance rates to the point
where your average home's costing a couple thousand -- you're talking
about a $70,000 home.
If it was leveled to the ground, it would cost the insurance
company $70,000 to replace it, and it's costing over $2,000 a year to
insure these residences.
Additionally, the water company is charging an average of $125
a month. Those two items alone, over $300 a month. It's no longer --
no longer affordable, and what's happened is it's created a tendency for
owners to rent them out as boarding houses or to double up families in
them, and, you know, renting out to multiple families.
So single-family residences, therefore, are in name only. And
what we have is an overcrowded condition with more crime and code
violations and overtaxed public services, such as code enforcement,
schools, roads, trash collection, and hospitals.
By -- now remember that these same people, you know, both
residents and property owners in a series of public meetings,
overwhelmingly supported the change to create a downtown
subdistrict.
It addresses needs in a blighted segment of the community, we
create local jobs, we create local shops and services and we reduce
traffic countywide by reducing the need to drive 10 miles for services
available locally. So this -- this looks like a win-win situation for
everybody.
I feel like I'm just missing one detail here. Let me just take a
look at these notes real quick, make sure I got the whole of it. Okay,
yeah.
The overall vision, all right, which, you know, you heard it in
Page 1 77
October 26, 2004
written language. Let me paint you a verbal picture.
What we're trying to do is create an old-fashioned downtown
feel, all right, with the no -- you know, no parking lots in front like a
strip mall, so that zero clearance parking's in the back, well, what that
says is you've got buildings fronting the sidewalk, the sidewalk
fronting the Parkway, the parking on the other side, in the back,
which, again, leads me to the bigger -- the bigger sizes, not the county
staff recommended size being entirely necessary to make it a
commercial success and to provide the proper parking and buffer
zones for the parking, of course, with the commercial success and the
buffer zones for the comfort level of the community.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think they even call that
pedestrian-friendly, encouraging people to walk, right?
MR. LILIENTHAL: Well, as you know, I also at one time was
an MPO pathways committee representative, so pedestrian-friendly is
one of the things that we have all discussed and talked about, exactly.
Thank you. Any questions?
(No response.)
MR. LILIENTHAL: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Don Peterson. He'll be
followed by Russell Tuff.
CHIEF PETERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank
you for hearing us this afternoon.
This February I'll be, 25-year anniversary living in Golden Gate
City, and as Peter identified, there was a committee put together to
address a lot of different issues in the community, and doing it in a
logical and proper fashion.
I was a member of the restud -- Golden Gate Master Plan
Restudy Committee, as well as a member of the current Commercial
Overlay Ad Hoc Committee, as we're termed.
One of the things that I want to share with you, that we were a
public process, we have been a public process, that we've had several
Page 178
October 26, 2004
meetings with the community that involved direct contact with
property owners as well as the neighboring property owners that are
affected in this process.
As Peter mentioned, buffers were an extreme issue when we've
had the community meetings, that it's important to them how those
projects are potentially buffered.
The Parkway has predominantly single-family, duplex, tri-plex
activity. The 40th Terrace, Collier Boulevard areas, we're attempting
to look at that because of the design coming down with the six -laning
of Collier Boulevard and the redevelopment of that whole area, that in
some cases, parcels may need to be put together to redevelop in a
better community acceptable fashion.
So we've reached out to the community about as intense, I think,
as any community has ever done out there to get input. I want to share
with you that one of the things we did get from the community was
that government was going to do what it wanted to do.
And as a committee, we tried to share with the community we
were not forcing anybody out in this project. We wanted to include
people in the project. Potentially there's developers out there that
could come in, give them the value that they're looking for today, and
still make a good community project out there.
As I said, no one -- no one is forced out. And with the glitch with
the planning commission, if there's some additional action, we would
ask to -- you do whatever we need to do to continue in our public
fashion and carry on as a committee.
It's unfortunate what occurred there, but we are trying to do that
in a very public fashion and include everybody and do redevelopment
that everybody that's okay with. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Russell Tuff.
MR. TUFF: Good afternoon, Commissioners, and thanks for the
opportunity to be here. And, yes, I spent three years with the Golden
Gate master plan, and so with Don, and it was with the estates also we
Page 1 79
October 26, 2004
were combined so that it got franticker and franticker as we got closer,
where all the estates issues were taking up all the agendas, and finally
I said, you know, we've got to do something for Golden Gate or we're
all going to be sitting here and we've got to go do it again.
So we made some basic designs at the time. And we were going
to have a committee that met afterward. And Mark Strain, who chairs
the planning commission, also was chairing the master plan.
And so when they came before the planning commission, I guess
he wasn't aware that we were the group that went off from there. And
so he said, well, I guess we didn't follow all the guidelines and all this
other good stuff. And so, anyway, you know, they didn't even hear
what we had to say.
And so I called Mark -- he's on vacation -- because I know Mark
well. And, geez, I'm not sure whether to use the professional version
or the real version. But I just said, geez, Mark, you need to get beat
up or what? And he said, what?
And I said, well, you know, what was supposed to happen after
the master plan met, and he said, well, we were going to have a
committee that goes on afterwards and finish the job.
And I said, well, that committee just met and they just went
before your group, but you didn't hear a word they said. And he said,
oh, no. Well, then he calls Schmitt, and Schmitt called up and said, I
think we can take care of it.
So we're all here today to say, hopefully we can salvage what --
there's been a lot of work, and that's what I mentioned to Mark. I said,
we did a better job at public input than the master plan did. We
mailed to everybody that owns property and everybody that's in there,
and we had the community meetings.
We had tables and rooms and people all over, and it was a really,
really neat thing. And so I'd hate for that to be shied upon or looked
bad upon because it really was a good community effort.
And one thing I -- the borders, is that going to be as -- what you
Page 180
October 26, 2004
recommended or what our -- the master plan? And I also wanted that
other border.
MR. HEATH: There was a staff adjustment to the borders at
transmittal. It was -- what you transmitted was a smaller area, if you
will, than what the overlay committee is recommending.
MR. TUFF: So I would like to make sure that we keep that as it
was. Because as Peter said, when you drive by and you look during
the day, it looks like a nice little neighborhood, and the people that
live next to it say, well, maybe we could have some changes there.
And so I would like to strongly recommend that that gets kept.
The other question I had, Glenn, when we were meeting is on the
parking on the C, it said -- was that saying that there is no residential
or was it exclusively? I know we were okay with the mixed use
residential in the downtown commercial area, but we weren't okay
with having exclusively residential with the property.
MR. HEATH: Looking at the way that the language is
constructed as it was transmitted and as we received it, it doesn't
appear that it actually does exclude residential.
It would require the residential to meet specific requirements that
are different from the residential that's in existence now. So it would
not be the same units. It would be different units, and they'd have to
be kind of melded into the overall mixed use subdistrict.
MR. TUFF: And so since that's not clear, I would like to see us
scratch that C, because I think there's a little difference of what we set
up at our last meeting and what ended up on that piece of paper. And
I guess I got -- any other questions on that?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, but it sounds exciting.
MR. TUFF: Yeah. It was really neat.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, it sure does.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't go away. So what we're
going back into is a two-block instead of one-block on the parkway --
Page 181
October 26, 2004
MR. TUFF: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- in certain areas?
MR. TUFF: Otherwise we'll end up -- on the Parkway we have
just that short little area now where they've developed, and you're
trapped. You can't do anything. We want to leave a big enough
foothold, and that also would allow for some parking with some
buffering on some areas, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then my concern would be
going from a traditional downtown to have things like big boxes,
Walgreen's, and something like that.
MR. TUFF: Now, in the land development code is where we
hopefully will kind of address that to make sure that it stays so it's not.
There's some things that were mentioned, but not -- I don't -- the land
development code is what we're still going to be working under.
We're not done yet. We're just --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then I just have to ask Mr.
Heath if that's the proper venue to make sure that that's the intent of a
MR. HEATH: Sorry, Commissioner. Could you repeat your
question, please?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, my concern is that we
don't create areas for big boxes and truly have a downtown feeling to
the subdistricts.
MR. HEATH: The requirement now would be to have --
particularly along Golden Gate Parkway, to have the business or the
mixed use building be located towards the front of the property
basically fronting on the sidewalk, and in the rear would be parking.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. HEATH: I don't know that two lots wide is really large
enough for a big box, although, conceivably, you could get something
in like a -- a drugstore or a small grocery store, but it would still have
to conform to the overall architectural requirements.
Page 182
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is it time to address that
now or at the land development code?
MR. HEATH: In the sense that the plan amendment creates an
overall set of conditions, you are basically providing guidance towards
the -- any future rezoning effort, so I think that it would be appropriate
-- if you wish to add some conditions or makes some changes to
conditions, it would be appropriate to do it now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Can we say no big
boxes?
MR. HEATH: Well, then we need to define what a big box is.
MR. TUFF: And not to get confused with the 951 area either.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, exactly.
MR. TUFF: There were lots more intensity--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is just a subdistrict.
MR. TUFF: Downtown areas. And then also they cut that
border back on Collier Boulevard, and I'd hate to see that get cut back
too. So those are the two concerns I had. That C that he'd mentioned,
what you said on the big box for that area, I believe we could still take
care of that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then don't go away.
MR. TUFF: Don't go away, okay.
MR. HEATH: It was just suggested to me by some of my fellow
staff members that the way around this would be to put some sort of a
square footage limitation for individual uses within the overlay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, we have some
LDC amendments that our architectural people -- architectural review
people are considering what is a big box and what is not. I don't know
if you've seen some of those --
MR. REA TH: I have not seen those. I've heard that they were
looking at it. I had not seen those specifically. I would have tp defer
to Mr. Weeks as to whether those could be inserted into this process.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How big is a Walgreen's? Fourteen, five?
Page 183
October 26, 2004
So if we do a -- 10,000?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Five thousand, I think.
MR. SCHMITT: Walgreen's -- again, for the record, Joe
Schmitt, administrator of community development/environmental
services. About 5,000, and we've been -- for Walgreen's, about 5,000
square feet. Look at the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Really?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Are you talking about Super Wal-Mart or
a Walgreen's?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Walgreen's.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. Because we've been looking at -- we've
been trying to -- it's a little bit less than 5,000. It depends on the
Walgreen's with the drugstore and the--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Liquor.
MR. SCHMITT: --liquor store. It's about 5,000 square foot,
about 4,500 square foot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The problem with trying
to eliminate that is you're not going to get a lot of businesses that you
want there. So maybe I just need to give that up and give some
thought for the land development code.
MR. SCHMITT: We've been struggling with this because 20,000
square feet -- actually when you look at Sports Authority or Toys "R"
Us, that's actually less than 20,000, so we've been debating back and
forth on this issue, what constitutes a big box.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, Glenn, can we put the
boundaries back to the way Russell stated it?
MR. HEATH: If -- Commissioner, if you, as the commission,
decide that the boundaries will go back to the way Russell stated, then
they'll go back to the way Russell stated.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then -- yeah, I appreciate
you're okay with that. I'm ready to close the public hearing whenever
the --
Page 184
October 26, 2004
MR. TUFF: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Madam Chair wishes to.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I wish to close the public hearing at this
time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to approve and
putting the boundaries back the way the stakeholder committee
recommends.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Did you want to address that part
about the distance from the street or is that already taken care of?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. That's really what we want,
Glenn. I believe it's putting the buildings towards the streets, and give
you that same thing as 5th Avenue, where you're going to have wide
sidewalks, and--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pedestrian-friendly downtown area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pedestrian-friendly.
MR. HEATH: In general, if I may, Glenn Heath with the
planning -- comprehensive planning. In general usage among planners
pedestrian- friendly type development would include the buildings up
close to the street with visible parking either limited or completely
moved to the back so that it doesn't -- it doesn't impair the pedestrian
-- the safe feeling that the pedestrian isn't competing with the traffic in
some way.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that what you want -- I think that's
what you want, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So did you want to incorporate
that into your motion, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's already in there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's part of the submittal for
Page 185
October 26, 2004
adoption.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. And I have a second from
Commissioner Coletta.
Any more discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So that passes, 4-0.
Okay. Now we go back to where we were.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. That brings us back to the number
two item, which is petition CP-2003-1, and that has to do with the
expanded Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard commercial subdistrict.
And Mr. Y ovanovich is the -- represents the petitioner in this
particular --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we're going to have to take a
break.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You want to take a break now?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you don't have any --
MR. MUDD: You don't have four people to take a vote.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We'll take a 10-minute break. We
were going to do it anyway, so might as well just do it a little early.
Thanks, Rich.
(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. we have four commissioners
Page 186
October 26, 2004
here. We're all set to go.
MR. MUDD: And, again, this is the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier
Boulevard commercial subdistrict, petitioner CP-2003-1, and it's the
second item under 8D.
And Mr. Rich Y ovanovich will represent the petitioner on this
particular item.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: For the record, Rich Y ovanovich,
representing the petitioner.
To be brief, this is the same information you had when you
transmitted this unanimously, except for one change. Previously we
could have a four-story building. The planning commission requested
when we came back at the last meeting that we reduce it back to three
stories, so there's a reduction in intensity that the planning commission
approved. They, again, unanimously recommended to you-all to
adopt this amendment.
Unless you have specific questions about it, I think your staff
report is complete and you've seen it before, and it has received
unanimous approval from the planning commissioner twice, and you
transmitted unanimously.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if we have to do ex
parte communication, but I talked to one of your neighbors in the
property, and they liked the proj ect.
Do I have to do ex parte?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I don't think you need to.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Marjorie's up here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney. This is legislative and not quasijudicial, so there's no
need to do ex parte nor swear people in.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
And we have no speakers?
Page 187
. -----
October 26, 2004
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I will close the public hearing. And--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Now, ma'am, that's with the -- that's with the
three-story limitation --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's right, that's right. As submitted to
us, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's part of my motion.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, that brings us to the third item, which is
petition CP-2003-2, and that's a petition requesting amendment to the
future land use element and future land use map and map series to
establish Livingston/Radio Road commercial infill subdistrict,
allowing commercial uses in the C-3 district with a maximum of
50,000 square feet for a plus or minus five-acre parcel located at the
northwest corner of Livingston and Radio Roads in Section 26,
Township 49 south, Range 25 east.
MR. DUANE: For the record, my name is Robert --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
Page 188
October 26, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor to approve
and a second -- by Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner
Henning.
At that I will close the public hearing. Did -- we didn't have any
speakers on this, right?
MS. FILSON: No. We don't have any more speakers on 8D.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Even you, Mr. Duane.
Okay. Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. DUANE: I have the next one, too.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great presentation.
MR. MUDD: That brings us to the -- well, you should ask them
for more.
The next item is number four, petition CPSP-2003-3, petition
requesting amendment to the future land use amendment and future
land use map and map series to establish Livingston and Veterans
Memorial Boulevard commercial infill subdistrict allowing
commercial unit -- uses in the C-1 district with a maximum of 50,000
square feet for a plus or minus 2. -- two and a quarter acre parcel
located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road north/south and
Livingston Road east/west in Section 13, Township 48 south, Range
25 east.
Mr. Duane?
Page 189
October 26, 2004
MR. DUANE: I have nothing to add. It's the same document
that you transmitted previously. And it's Robert Duane, for the record.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Did you want to say something,
Norm? Oh, okay.
Do we have any speakers on this subject?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Close the public hearing.
I have a motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, and a
second by -- no, who was -- who motioned to approve?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry -- by Commissioner Coyle,
and a second by Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Halas.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Down here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I better say that again. A motion to
approve by Commissioner Coyle and a Second by Commissioner
Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you've already done petition
Page 190
October 26, 2004
CPSP-2003-10. That had to do with Golden Gate Area Master Plan.
And that brings us to item number six, which is petition
CPSP-2003-11. A major portion of this petition all except wildlife
policies, which you covered under item 8C earlier. It's petition
requesting various glitch amendments consisting of technical
corrections, clarifications, and additional terminology to the future
land use element conservation and coastal management element,
capital improvement element, transportation element, and the Golden
Gate Area Master Plan element pertaining to the rural fringe area and
the rural/eastern lands stewardship area of the future land use element.
And Mr. David Weeks from comprehensive planning will
present.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do we have any speakers on this
item?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. The public hearing will be closed.
Commissioner Halas has motioned to approve, and
Commissioner Coyle has seconded that.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, David.
Page 191
October 26, 2004
MR. MUDD: The next item is petition CPSP-2003-12, and that's
a petition requesting amendments to the future land use element and
future land use map and map series, transportation element,
conservation and coastal management element, and capital
improvement element to include: One through five enumerated,
amend the transportation element and capital improvement element to
include review and conditional use petition, stewardship receiving
area petitions and future land use element amendment petitions for
impacts upon public facilities.
Number two, amend the density rating system in the land use
element to further explain how density is calculated; to further clarify
accessory dwelling -- dwellings not subject to the density rating
system; to identify when density may be allowed beyond that
permitted by the density rating system; and to further limit the
applicability of the conversion of commercial zoning density bonus.
Number three, amend the future land use element to delete the
requirement to have access upon Eatonwood Lane from the Livingston
Road/Eatonwood Lane commercial infill subdistrict.
Number four, add two maps to the future land use map series,
one depicting the Copeland urban area and one depicting the
Plantation Island urban area to show greater detail of these two areas.
And number five, other minor and incidental text changes.
And Mr. David Weeks, again, from comprehensive planning, will
present.
MR. WEEKS: I wasn't sure if you wanted to hear a presentation.
The listing in the executive summary that County Manager Mr. Mudd
has just read is the synopsis of the petition.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A question, if I may. Is this also
dealing with the high hazard area as far as density goes?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it is.
Page 192
October 26, 2004
MR. WEEKS: No, sir. The -- at your transmittal hearing, you
voted not to transmit that. I will tell you that staff erroneously
advertised for the planning commission that that item would be
considered, but it was not, and for your hearing today, it was not
advertised.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have no speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Close the public hearing.
Commissioner Halas -- it was Commissioner Halas, right, that
motioned to approve?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. And you said that the density
in the coastal high hazard area has not been addressed then in this?
MR. WEEKS: That is correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what was the reason?
MR. WEEKS: Because the board voted at transmittal hearing
not to endorse the change that staff had proposed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: You have your transmittal hearings, then, of
course, today is the adoption hearing. If you vote not to transmit, you
have, in effect, denied that petition. So that part of this petition is
gone. It cannot be considered today. That -- granted it was by a split
vote, but -- it was a 3-2 vote, and that's all it takes at transmittal.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do you still motion to approve,
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: With the second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 193
-.'----~.,----
October 26, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 5-0.
MR. MUDD: Number eight is CPSP-2003-13, petition
requesting amendments to the capital improvement element to update
the schedule of capital improvements table of costs and revenues, and
to add level of service standards for government buildings.
State your name for the record.
MR. SWEAT: For the record, Jay Sweat, comprehensive
planning. I really have nothing further to add in this regard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I make a motion to
approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'll second that motion. We have a
motion to approve by Commissioner Coletta, and a second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We close the public hearing.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: That was a 4-0.
Page 194
October 26, 2004
The next item is number nine. It's CPSP-2003-14. It's a petition
requesting amendments to the transportation element to revise the
functional classification of various county and/or state roads.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So move.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Move to approve?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do we have any speakers on this?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Close the public hearing. I have a motion
on the floor by Commissioner Henning to approve, and a second by
Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 4-0
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
Number 10, it's CPSP-2003-15. Petition requesting phase II
amendments of the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory
Committee to amend the future land use element, to implement the
community character plan by promoting pedestrian-oriented human
scale development in interconnection of the neighborhoods and
developments.
MR. SWEAT: For the record, again, Jay Sweat, planning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
Page 195
October 26, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. No public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Close the public hearing.
I have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning, second
by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 5-0.
MR. MUDD: 5-0.
The next one I would ask David Weeks to come back up to the
podium because he needs to kind of package what you have done on
individual events into one motion.
MR. WEEKS: That sums it up. We view what your actions have
been so far as a straw vote for each of those individual petitions. I
now ask that you would make a single vote on the entire cycle of
amendments.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have to ask, now when we have a single
vote, those that didn't get the straw vote aren't included; is that it?
Those that were changed, you've incorporated into this final vote?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, ma'am. For example, that one petition, that
very first one on this package you voted to deny, so that would be
reflected in your overall vote.
Page 196
October 26,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. I just wanted to make
sure that was on the record so we knew what we were voting on.
Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It might be out of line for me to
ask now, but when that -- the listed specie (sic) issue comes back, do
you think you might have it ready so I can review which animal is
truly on the decline? Can we get some empirical data on that from the
state or the feds?
MR. WEEKS: We'll attempt to. I know what Mr. Lorenz was
saying before is you're either on the lists or you're not. But possibly
the appropriate agencies are doing studies to consider adding --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fish and wildlife.
MR. WEEKS: -- an animal or could take one off. So I'll pass
that on to make that effort.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just in Collier County, not --
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now I have a motion to approve
by whom?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: By Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second, if you need one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Was there a second or is that
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He'll be the second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta is the
second.
MS. FILSON: I had Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pardon me?
MS. FILSON: I had you -- never mind.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, maybe I did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can be the second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I did, okay.
Page 197
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll be the third, okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. The third is Commissioner
Coletta.
Okay. Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. That passes 5-0. Thank you.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you.
Item #lOD
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $648,775 AND
THE AWARD OF A BID, HIDEAWAY BEACH
RENOURISHMENT, TO WEEKS MARINE, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2$R2,77S - A1œROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to -- brings us to
item 10D, which I believe will go rather quickly, and that is a
recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$648,775, project 90502, and approve the award of a bid, 04-3667,
Hideaway Beach renourishment, to Weeks Marine, bid 04-3667,
Hideaway Beach renourishment in the amount of $2,482,775.
And Mr. Ron Hovell is here to either present or to answer your
Page 198
October 26, 2004
questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas to approve.
Do I have any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
Thank you, Ron.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, there was one opposed. I'm sorry.
Commissioner Henning was opposed, excuse me.
MR. MUDD: The next item --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you want me to explain it,
Commissioner, it's -- I'm just opposed to -- it doesn't fit our policy.
And you didn't hear me speak loudly against it. I just state why I
voted against it.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, just for the record, this -- that
$2,400,000 will be -- will be refunded to the county. It's being paid by
the Hideaway Beach Area Association, so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm glad you put that on the record, yes. I
guess I knew that, but I don't know if everybody in the audience knew
it.
Yes, thank you.
Page 199
October 26, 2004
Item #10E
A BUDGET AMENDMENT AND TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE
MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF WIGGINS PASS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $750,000 AND AN
ENGINEERING SERVICES WORK ORDER FOR COASTAL
ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS WITH HUMISTON &
MOORE ENGINEERS FOR WIGGINS PASS DREDGING 2005, IN
MR. MUDD: The next item, ma'am, is number 10E. It's a
recommendation to, number one, approve a budget amendment and
tourist development category A grant application for the maintenance
dredging of Wiggins Pass for fiscal year 2005, project 90522 in the
amount of $750,000.
And, number two, approve the engineering services work order
under contract 01-3271, Fixed Term Professional Engineering
Services, for coastal zone management proj ects with Humiston &
Moore Engineers for Wiggins Pass dredging, 2005, project 90522, in
the amount of $13,500.
Mr. Rob Hovell, public utilities facilities, will present.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How many speakers do we have, Sue, if I
may ask?
MS. FILSON: Thirteen.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
approve --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- so we can get this moving
along.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I've got some real issues that I
want to address on this, so --
Page 200
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I remove my motion until you
address your concerns.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Ron?
MR. HOVELL: For the record, my name is Ron Hovell. I'm
your coastal projects manager, and I'll try and be brief. We do have
Ken Humiston from Humiston & Moore Engineers here as well with
some technical background on some of the options that I believe
Commissioner Halas would like to address.
Very briefly, the area that we're allowed to dredge is highlighted
in blue on your screen, and the area that we're proposing to place the
sand is in the permitted area. They call it a near-shore disposal area,
just off of Barefoot Beach.
This was brought about by a number of boaters being present at
the 8 September Coastal Advisory Committee meeting. At their
request, the county started taking a look at whether or not we should
be dredging Wiggins Pass this year.
They had provided a privately funded survey of the pass area
providing some survey information. We came up with an estimate
and presented it to the parks and rec. advisory board, to the Tourist
Development Council, and again to the Coastal Advisory Committee
on October 14th.
And although there's been some debate about the specifics of
exactly what we're going to do, I think the general idea is, we need to
do something this winter.
As far as a time line goes, we're here today both with a budget
and an engineering services proposal in order to try and accomplish
this project this winter. Normally we would get a budget first, and
then go get engineering services. But as can you see by this timeline,
we're pretty -- on a pretty tight track to get this work done before the
next turtle season starts. This shows we'd be completing by about the
end of March.
Page 201
October 26, 2004
The Wiggins Pass dredging limits, it's a channel width of about
250 feet. The permit allows for dredging as deep as 13 feet except for
the easternmost -- the near shore area 100 feet is limited to 8 1/2 feet.
Within that area, according to the survey done by the privately
funded study, there's about 65,000 cubic yards available to be dredged
from that area.
There's a number of environmental concerns that are listed in the
permit. You can see them here real quickly, but things like turtle
season, not removing any rock, manatees, turbidity, et cetera, are all of
concern, but they're all addressed in the permit, and I don't think that's
really the issue today.
And so the bottom line is, the main focus of all the public debate
has been, do we limit the dredging to something other than what the
permit allows to further protect Barefoot Beach? And if it's your
pleasure, I'll bring up Ken Humiston and ask him to go over some of
those options briefly and give you some thoughts on that.
MR. HUMISTON: Good afternoon. Ken Humiston, Humiston
& Moore Engineers.
I was asked just the other day by a reporter from Marco Island
why it is that Caxambus Pass fills back in with sand after it's dredged,
and my answer would be the same thing for Wiggins Pass and really
any other tidal inlet on the sandy coast of Florida or anywhere else,
the sand moves along our beaches in response to wave energy. When
it gets to inlets, it's intercepted by the tidal currents, where it's
redistributed and deposited on inlet shoals.
In this manner, the inlets actually trap sand from our beaches,
and they contribute to erosion of the adjacent beaches.
In fact, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has
recognized that up to 80 percent of the beach erosion in Florida is due
to inlets trapping sand. This is true of natural inlets. It's even more
true when inlets are maintained for navigation purposes, either by
dredging or some sort of structures to try to keep the sand out of the
Page 202
October 26, 2004
inl et.
Because of this situation, the State of Florida back in the early
1990s sponsored preparation of inlet management plans for inlets that
are improved for navigation purposes. And in 1995, one of those inlet
management plans was completed for Wiggins Pass.
The purpose of these inlet management plans is to identify and
try to quantify the impacts that are caused to beaches from the
navigation improvements at the inlet, and then to recommend ways to
mitigate those impacts.
The inlet management plan for Wiggins Pass made a
recommendation to deepen the western part of the channel, in other
words, the entrance channel, coming from the Gulf of Mexico from
the earlier maintained depth of 8 1/2 feet, increased it to 13 feet. It
also widened that channel somewhat.
So essentially what it did is dig a large hole out there that would
fill with sand as the inlet would shoal in. In other words, there would
be a deep area that would act as a deposition basin that could
accumulate sand for a longer period of time before it began to interfere
with navigation.
The purpose of this was to extend the time interval between when
dredging would be required. And of course, if that could be done, it
would reduce the overall long-term costs of maintaining the inlet for
navigation.
The purpose of the inlet management plan is to try to look at
benefits of navigation as well as the benefits of maintaining the beach
and reach some kind of a compromise between the two.
The monitoring that's been done since the depth increase was
completed back in 2000, almost five years ago, have indicated that
that increased depth, that increased width of the channel, has probably
contributed to some of the severe erosion that we've seen on the south
end of Barefoot Beach.
Because of that, our firm was asked to do -- complete a
Page 203
October 26, 2004
feasibility study, which was completed in April of this year, to look at
things that could be done to modify the inlet management plan to try
to more effectively mitigate the adverse effects of the inlet and the
dredging of the inlet. And I believe that members of the board have
been provided with a copy of that report.
I'm not going to prevent -- present all of the recommendations
that we made in that report. For one thing, there's very little time left
between now and when the dredging would have to be done.
The one thing that has been the subj ect of focus is this increase to
the 13- foot dredging depth, and that's what I want to spend a little bit
of time talking about. And I do mean a little bit of time. This won't
take very long.
This shows the outline of the dredging limits. The eastern part of
that is labeled station zero. The lines are pretty close together on this
drawing, but the first station to the west of that is 100, and that is
actually where -- the depth increase from 8 1/2 to 13 feet.
This is just a schematic. This area illustrates that area where
most of the shoaling occurs. One of the things we recommended in
the feasibility study was to do some more detailed -- go through some
more detail analytical procedures to identify more accurately where
the shoaling is occurring so that we could make some more precise
recommendations about how to modify the plan.
But what we do have is information from the monitoring studies
that show that the shoaling mostly occurs in the area shown in this
diagram. And at the bottom, this is, again, just a schematic, but it
illustrates the shape of the shoal that might have formed when the inlet
was being maintained to 8 1/2 feet.
The 1995 inlet management plan recommended increasing that
depth, which is illustrated here on the bottom. And what -- the effect
it has there is that with that deeper area, tidal currents can push a shoal
into that deeper area, so it becomes a deposition basin and may
forestall the need for dredging for a certain period of time.
Page 204
October 26, 2004
If we were to -- one of the things that we proposed is moving the
point of transition from the 8 1/2 foot depth to the 13-foot depth
further offshore. What that would do is potentially make the need for
dredging slightly more frequent, but it would also reduce the impacts
to the adjacent beaches. So we're trying to look for some type of a
compromise here. And illustrated here would be moving that point
200 feet offshore.
Again, this is just a schematic for illustration purposes. There are
some things that could be done to more accurately, from an
engineering standpoint, identify what would be the appropriate action.
But I think the information we have from the monitoring reports that
show where the shoaling occurs is pretty accurate.
This is the results of a primary modeling study that we did that
illustrates the tidal currents both flowing in and out of the inlet. And I
included this here, because if you go to the condition where the
maximum velocity occurs, which is on an ebb tide, the highest
velocities are represented by the red area there.
The shoaling would occur just to the west of that red area. The
green area represents a slightly lower current velocity where the
strength of the current is not strong enough to keep moving sand. And
this verifies what we see in the monitoring reports as far as the area
where sand accumulates.
And this just illustrates the outline of the dredging limits as it's
currently permitted. This is one of the reasons we did recommend in
the feasibility study some additional modeling, because it does appear
as if the actual access of the strongest currents that would keep the
inlet scoured out is not coincident with the limits of the dredging.
Just to summarize here, this illustration, again, along the bottom
shows the -- on the bottom right-hand side, shows where the transition
is from the 8 1/2 foot depth to the 13-foot depth under the currently
permitted project the way it was dredged in 2000, and two times since
then.
Page 205
October 26, 2004
In the middle illustrates what it would look like if we shifted that
transition point 100 feet. And on the left-hand side, we'd be shifting it
200 feet which, based on the information that we have without having
the advantage of doing any more sophisticated analysis, we feel that
the bottom left situation, shifting that transition to the greater depth by
200 feet further offshore, would be our recommendation at this point.
We've had almost five years since the deepening to the 13- foot
depth. There's been quite a bit of erosion then, but that -- since then,
but that erosion is partly readjustment to this greater depth.
I would anticipate that if we didn't change anything and
continued to dredge to 13 feet at station 100, that that erosion would
probably diminish over time.
That, in combination with shifting the transition of the greater
depth by 200 feet offshore, should help with the erosion situation at
Hideaway Beach. I'll be glad to answer any questions.
MR. MUDD: So, Ken --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You mean at Wiggins Pass or Hideaway
Beach?
MR. HUMISTON: Wiggins Pass, I'm sorry. Another project.
Just got a little confused.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, if I can ask one -- Ken, so your
recommendation here on the chart, are recommending the far left one
at the bottom?
MR. HUMISTON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. Anything further?
Ron?
MR. HOVELL: Just to summarize then -- if I can get the right
one up here. So the actions in front of you today are -- in the
executive summary are to approve a $750,000 grant application and
budget amendment to allow us to move forward with this project and
also to approve the $13,500 engineering services work order.
Just so you know though, that budget estimate was based on
Page 206
October 26, 2004
dredging to the full permitted depths. This slight modification that's
been recommended will make some amount of difference, but I don't
think it's enough to warrant trying to guesstimate what that number is
today, and just -- I would, therefore, recommend that you just move
forward with this number.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners, I'm going to ask
you --
MR. HOVELL: The only other --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- if you would hold your questions, write
them down, being that we have 13 speakers, and we give them --
anytime we have 10 speakers or over, we always limit them to three
minutes. We'll hear all of our speakers first in the essence of moving
forward, and then we'll come back for your questions. Okay.
MS. FILSON: Joe Moreland. He'll be followed by Ronald
Reuss.
MR. MORELAND: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Joe
Moreland, and I'm speaking in behalf of the Estuary Conservation
Association and also in behalf of a large number of boaters that are
using the Wiggins Pass estuary, estuary waters, on a daily basis, both
in and out of season.
We've been following this and working on this issue all summer
long up and down with the various committees that give you guidance
and counsel, and I'm optimistic that much of the message has been
consolidated and is represented by -- on many, many things,
represented by consensus.
And I'd just like to take those off, and then I have seven points,
and one is, I believe there is a -- excuse me -- a general consensus that
the Wiggins Pass estuary, for the purposes of public safety, is
dangerous, and corrective action is clearly needed.
And the issues, therefore, will focus around what is the corrective
action that is, under all circumstances, most appropriate at this time.
One issue there is to expedite whatever corrective action is taken
Page 207
October 26, 2004
in the form of dredging. Expediting it, would it be great -- more
greatly expedited if it were declared to be an emergency dredge, or if
it would just be authorization of the dredge as it is before you.
The difference in that may be diminimus or none at all. I think
the staff has made a very good case in claiming that it need not be
declared an emergency because they're handling the procurement
process, or they intend to handle it in such a way that it will be so
expedited by their good works that the times -- the difference between
an emergency declaration with one noncompetitive bid and multiple
bids in a competitive nature will come out very close to the same.
And I would point out there that the timelines would be included
in the bid package so that timing would be fixed for all who would
compete for it.
The second issue is the -- is the funding of it. The funding has
been very problematic for everybody. Nobody was responsible for it,
you know that, for requesting it. It has been authorized, if we can use
that word, but it didn't get into the budget. Nobody was responsible
for doing this within the county government, and it didn't get done,
and hence, remedial efforts by an awful lot of people now.
The issue of where does the money come from, well, that was
largely debated. There's minds of reasonable people who would still
argue where that money should come from. Perhaps not so much of a
heated argument as to where the money comes from today for what is
before you, but clearly where should that money come from in the
future.
Tourists dollars, we urge, be used. They've been offered and
made available.
MR. REUSS: Can I concede my time to Joe? I'm Ronald Reuss.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Certainly. Would you take him off the
list, please.
MS. FILSON: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And give Mr. Moreland
Page 208
October 26, 2004
another three minutes.
MR. MORELAND: Thank you, sir.
The other question which has just been addressed -- well, I won't
back off. The source of the funding for today, the purposes, we would
just urge your approval of what the staff and the committees have
recommended to you, and then I have another proposal further down
the line which we -- I would like to present to you.
And your approval of the county recommendations. The
question of depth, that's tersest way to place that is, if the problem is
danger, if the problem is public safety, the solution is a dredge to 8 1/2
foot level. That will answer everybody's desires with respect to public
safety, to navigation, and recreational use.
I would then cast whether it's more than 8 1/2 feet at any place
within the permitted dredge is a function of maintenance, not safety.
How many repetitions of the dredge or how much of a lesser dredge
would be required if we dredge a little deeper? That -- the minds of
reasonable people will and are continuing to disagree.
I think our recommendation would be to take the
recommendation of the expert. This is kind of like firing a mortar.
You've got to bracket it, then fire for -- before you can fire for effect.
We've bracketed it, we want to drop it out another 100 feet and hit it
again, and we think we're going to be a lot closer to the target. But
that is not an issue that stand -- should stand in the way of your
deliberations today or in getting this job done.
The following actions here, which are critical -- because solving
the problem today in no way addresses it unless we go further,
addresses solving the problem for the future; and, therefore, we
strongly urge that you commissioners consider assigning the
responsibility for the beaches and pass maintenance by whatever name
or title you want to call it or by any other function you want to call it,
but that it gets done and that it be assigned to a place within county
government under the supervision of the county manager, then
Page 209
October 26, 2004
reporting to you so that you get what you need in a timely fashion for
the budget cycles and the other things you must consider. We
strongly urge that that be done.
The other thing, which goes hand in hand with this issue of
danger, danger, danger; dredging the pass but not marking it correctly
solves part but not all of the problem.
The navigational aids are, in and of themselves, a hazard to
navigation, as they have been for quite a while now. They do not
represent safe channel.
We urge that you direct the appropriate staff to maintain -- to
place those markers where they belong, keep them there and maintain
them, and that all the other necessary navigational aids for the inland
-- more inland parts of that water, be similarly addressed because,
therein, we have great dependency on boaters and recreational use for
the tourists as well as our permanent residents.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Moreland. We appreciate
that.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is James Owens.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, if I could help just a little bit, okay,
because -- because the hour is getting late.
Pretty much, you've got a staff recommendation to go out to the
number three to 8 1/2 foot instead of going out to 13, you've got a staff
recommendation to approve the money, you've got a staff
recommendation to approve the money for Humiston & Moore, and
we will come forward with a -- at the TDC workshop in December,
we will add -- when you meet with the TDC board, we will add this
particular item as far as funding is current -- long-term funding to that
particular agenda so that you can discuss that in that resolve.
What I would -- what I would recommend, if there's any of those
speakers that want to talk you out of the staff recommendation, that
they come forward at this time. The first speaker and the second
speaker basically confirmed the staff recommendation, and I'll go back
Page 210
October 26, 2004
to staff and talk about the navigational aids to make sure -- to see if we
have any control over that or the Fish and Wildlife Service does.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, let me ask you. The staff
recommendation, did it include what Humiston --
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- 300 feet out, and then 13? Okay. So as
our county manager said, would you like to talk us out of that?
MR. OWENS: Mr. Mudd, thank you very much. That's exactly
what I was going to say.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Would you call the others?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ron Pennington.
MR. HOVELL: He's not here.
MS. FILSON: John Lawrence.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: If you agree, just waive.
MS. FILSON: John Lawrence?
MR. LAWRENCE: (Waived.)
MS. FILSON: Dick Lydon?
MR. LYDON: (Waived.)
MS. FILSON: Phillip Smith.
MR. SMITH: (Waived.)
MS. FILSON: Tim Rowe.
MR. ROWE: (Waived.)
MS. FILSON: Doug Fee. Mr. Fee will be followed by John
Findley.
MR. FEE: Good afternoon, or evening, Commissioners. Again,
for the record, my name is Doug Fee. I'm representing the board of
directors of North Bay Civic Association. North Bay Civic represents
approximately 25 different communities located in and around
Wiggins Pass.
Our board is made up of nine members who represent different
communities in the North Bay area. Our mission is preserving our
coastal Florida lifestyle.
Page 211
October 26, 2004
Very important to this lifestyle is Wiggins Pass inlet as well as
the whole estuary and watershed. The board of North Bay, of course,
has followed this with great interest. And I'm here to relay our
support for the application to dredge Wiggins Pass. There is a need to
dredge. The real issue is, of course, the specifications.
And just briefly, in 1996, you adopted -- the commission adopted
the Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan. We support the Wiggins
Pass Inlet Management Plan as it's written.
Adopt a three-foot draft boat as the planning and design boat
standard. Number two, develop and maintain interior and exterior
navigational channels for that -- for the three-foot draft boats.
Allowable overdredging in advanced maintenance depths should be
determined by monitoring shoaling rates balanced against
environmental impacts.
And number three, adequate but cautious navigation can be
provided by setting an operating channel depth of no less than minus
five feet mean low in the interior and minus eight in the exterior.
These depths may be the best compromise between optimum
navigation requirements, environmental concerns, and development
control.
The dredge depth should be an additional one foot to four feet to
account for shoaling, advanced maintenance, and dredge and
accuracy. Allowance for shoaling will limit the frequency of
maintenance dredging.
Having said that, the North Bay Civic, in looking at this issue,
today we want to put a cautious tone out there. We support dredging
to the 8 1/2 feet. I think going to 13 feet -- we've done some
experimenting. We've had three dredges so far. We're into our fourth.
The engineer is now saying, let's go ahead and move that 13-foot
depth out another 100 feet, possibly another 100 feet to 200 -- or 300
feet.
We want to take a cautious mode and try to convince you that
Page 212
October 26, 2004
less may be more. It may be more optimal to dredge at 8 1/2 and it
may hold its dredging longer. That's basically -- I will also point out,
very quickly, that your Coastal Advisory Council, there were seven
members who, last week or a couple weeks ago, met. Three of the
members on the board voted to only dredge to 8 1/2. Four of the
members voted to take the engineer's recommendation, so it was a
split vote, and that's my comment.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Findley. He will be
followed by William Pittman.
MR. FINDLEY: Thank you, Madam Chairman and
Commissioners. My name is John Findley, for the record. I'm a
certified marina manager. I'm the manager of Pelican Isle Marina.
I'm also a 28-year member of the United States power squad in
teaching safe boating education, and was chairman of the Safe Boating
Council in Lee County for four years.
One of the things Doug did speak of, they actually did a revote at
the CAC, and it was -- 5-2 was the actual vote in going with actually
extending it to 200 feet, is the way it was presented at the CAC
meeting.
And they did recommend going with the staffs recommendation
of extending that additional 100 feet of the current 100 feet out at 8
1/2.
At the current annualized shoaling rate of 3,000 cubic yards a
month, as in the monitoring report, if you only went to 8 1/2 feet
farther out and -- or all the way out, you would have to probably
dredge again in six months.
If you take 3,000 times eight, you'd be at 36,000 yards in a year's
time. And eight feet is the minimum required navigational safe depth
by the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard. That is--
eight feet is what you need for three-feet design craft criteria to meet
safe boating regulations.
Page 213
October 26, 2004
So going less than that or only going to that doesn't allow for any
annualized shoaling rates coming in.
And one other point, in your county's MPP, in your Manatee
Protection Plan, under marina citing criteria, it says, you need to allow
another two foot of clearance for manatee protection in the Collier
County MPP.
So that's something else you should take into consideration is the
safety of the manatees, and there are several visualized -- and I've seen
even up to herds -- I counted up to 15 myself visually in that area.
There also has been in the State of Florida 10 grounding deaths in
the last two years, and we are in serious grounding conditions right
now in Wiggins Pass. Two of those grounding deaths have been
neighboring Lee County, and none have been in Collier County, thank
goodness, and we want to keep it that way.
I thank you for your time.
MS. FILSON: William Pittman?
(No response.)
MS. FILSON: Jean Felkipsval.
(No response.)
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Joe Connolly.
MR. CONNOLLY: (Waived.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And he waives. Great. Thank you, Joe.
All right. N ow we have heard from all of our speakers, but I
don't have to close this public hearing.
I have Commissioner Halas waiting to ask a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've got a series of questions
that I'd like to ask both Ron Hovell and also Mr. Humiston/Moore
there -- representing Humiston/Moore.
We don't really have any good data in regards to make some -- in
making good engineering assumptions or engineering decisions; is that
correct?
MR. HUMISTON: The data that we do have is from the annual
Page 214
October 26, 2004
monitoring that's been done, which is what we used really to make our
recommendation based on where the highest rates of shoaling are.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. HUMISTON: In the feasibility study we did, we went
beyond that with some recommendations for some more technical
analysis to kind of refine our recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In the presentation that you put up
there, you basically said that in the direction that the channel was
dredged was probably not in the direction that it should have been
dredged, right? Mother Nature was telling you to go more in a
southerly plain than directly due west; is that true?
MR. HUMISTON: The modeling that we did was very
preliminary, but that is what it seems to indicate.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And you said that since
2000, we've already -- we've -- already did two other maintenance
dredgings at 13 feet; is that correct?
MR. HUMISTON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And what's happened here
is when we've taken that course of action, we ended up losing
probably about two acres of land roughly. And I remember this board
having to approve $4 million for an acre of land. So what we have
done is we spent $500,000 to lose $8 million worth of state land,
because this is basically state land. My concern is that definitely -- we
definitely have to dredge this.
When you look at the diagram, the presentation -- could you
bring that back up, the diagram showing you where the shoaling's
taking operation place there? And then I'm going to explain what I'm
going to arrive at here.
Can you give me an approximation of where the red marker is
that's located on the left side of the channel, I guess you'd say, as we're
going out from the pass? Approximately where the first red marker is
past the beach area.
Page 215
October 26, 2004
MR. HUMISTON: Actually I don't have the information. In
fact, someone who navigates in this inlet more frequently might be
able to tell you. Perhaps John Findley would know.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just make a motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The concern that I have is that I
periodically go out there also, I own a boat, and I find that we -- that
leaving the pass, the throat of the pass there, that we seem to have a
substantial depth of about eight feet, and then when we get about, I'm
going to guess, maybe 100 feet, 200 feet past the red mark, that's when
we start incurring serious shoaling; am I correct in my assumptions
there?
MR. HUMISTON: I think probably so, and that was why in this
last diagram --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. And I guess what I'm --
MR. HUMISTON: -- what we were trying to illustrate here is, if
you do have the deeper 13-foot area, you have the opportunity for the
tidal currents, particularly when you have a spring tide, the strongest
tides during a full moon or a new moon, those tides can knock the top
off of that shoal and push it into the deeper area so that it wouldn't
need to be dredged.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, my concern is, what I'm--
where I'm going with this is that staff recommended 200 feet, and I'm
recommending that I think we ought to be maybe even a little more
conservative before we go down to 13 feet, and that is to take it out an
additional 100 feet, but I want to -- I was trying to establish where the
100- foot line -- or where the zero line is in relationship and how old of
a pictorial is this in relationship to, how far has the beach receded back
from the east?
When was this picture taking -- taken?
MR. HUMISTON: I believe this is a January, '04, photograph.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So are we assuming that the
Page 216
October 26, 2004
-- where the beach is presently on both sides of the pass, this is fairly
close in relationship to where it is today?
MR. HUMISTON: I think this is probably fairly close, although
I do believe there has been some more recession up there on the
Barefoot Beach side.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Whoops. What I'm trying
to establish here is that we don't incur any more erosion in the
Barefoot Beach area, so I'm looking to say that maybe what we need
to do is extend the eight-foot dredging out farther into the Gulf prior to
dropping down to the 13 feet, hopefully, to retain the beach, the
southern portion of the beach there at Barefoot Beach so that the
erosion isn't at the rate we're experiencing now.
Do you think this is the manner in which we should go?
MR. HUMISTON: That would be certainly a more conservative
approach than the recommendation that we made of moving it out by
200 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you show that relationship on
the chart that you have there in regards to where your 00 line is in
relationship to where, if you took it out 300 feet, 100 yards before we
started dropping down, where would that be in relationship to where
the marker is today? You don't have that information; is that correct?
MR. HUMISTON: Let me see if I understand your question
correctly. Where the cursor is on the screen there --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the 00 line.
MR. HUMISTON: That's the 00 line.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we go out 300 feet or 100
yards.
MR. HUMISTON: Where I have the cursor now is where the
transition to the 13-foot depth was in the past.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct, and that's when we
seem to have a serious problem.
MR. HUMISTON: And for some reason my cursor disappeared.
Page 217
---
October 26, 2004
Wait, there it is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that's where we started the
13-foot dredge before?
MR. MUDD: And you're saying that you're going to keep it at
three to 8 1/2; is that correct?
MR. HUMISTON: What we had recommended is three, which is
where I have the cursor now. And the basis for that recommendation
is that that is about in the middle of the area where the most rapid
shoaling occurs.
And I'd like to add that it is a little bit difficult to figure where the
most -- where the shoaling is concentrated the most, because we have
some data from when the dredging was exclusively at the 8 1/2 foot
depth. When you dredge to 13 feet, the idea is to prolong the period
of time before you need dredging again, but that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand that.
MR. HUMISTON: -- that deeper area will accumulate sand at a
faster rate than it accumulated before at that same station. So that
makes it a little bit tricky to decide exactly where the transition is to
be.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What I'm trying to do is protect the
state-owned land of where we're having that severe erosion problem,
and I need to find a happy medium whereby we can address the issues
of the boating community, which I'm part of that, and what we're
doing as far as protection not only of the state land to the north, which
is Barefoot, but also the state park. And I believe we -- there's been
some problems with the erosion of that end of it also, isn't there, in the
past, with the 13 - foot dredging?
MR. HUMISTON: On the Barefoot Beach side?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Barefoot Beach and the state park.
MR. HUMISTON: The erosion has primarily been on the
Barefoot Beach side based on the monitoring.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, okay.
Page 218
October 26, 2004
MR. HUMISTON: But that is -- it may very well be just due to
the seasonal and annual variation in weather that we've had. We could
see a reversal of that trend.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The end result is that we
need to go out -- and I'm trying to establish where the 100-yard line
would be or the 300- foot line would be. Can you give me an
interpretation on this drawing of approximately where 300 feet would
be?
The recommendation that you had was 100 feet, staff said 200
feet, and I'm looking at possibly 300 feet. And I'm trying to make that
determination where that would be before we start the l3-foot drop.
MR. MUDD: He' talking about going out to four, marker four.
MR. HUMISTON: Right. Our recommendation was to move
that depth transition from station 100 to 300, and you're suggesting to
move it to 400.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, whatever that -- whatever
that represents, yes. Because what I'm trying to also find out is that
marker two or marker three of the approximate area of the
navigational aid, which is the red marker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's what the -- do you know where
that, Mr. Findley, the red marker over there?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In relationship to where this graph
is. Is it at marker -- it's about marker two, I would make a guess at, or
maybe marker three.
MR. FINDLEY: Well, marker four is actually right here, and
then two is approximately right here, and three was right up across
from it. So you're right in that area.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It seems to me like that marker was
out farther from the shoreline.
MR. FINDLEY: Your safe water mark is the next one out, which
is farther out. But it's not that far off the shoreline --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's the only marker that's
Page 219
October 26, 2004
presently out there on the left --
MR. FINDLEY: The safe water mark -- the red marker two, and
then you go to the safe water mark. That's the safe water mark, which
is Wiggins Pass mark, and it's considered a safe water mark that you
can pass on either side.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right, right. I'm talking about the
red marker presently that's the only one that's established right now
because we've lost --
MR. FINDLEY: That's approximately right about in there. The
safe water mark is about -- right about in here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think it's that -- I thought it
was out farther than that.
MR. FINDLEY: It's not too far off the shoreline.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where's the -- where is the safe
water mark, the Wiggins Pass marker in relationship to this graph?
Can Mr. -- the gentleman from the engineering company show me
that?
MR. HUMISTON: I would really defer to John Findley, because
he's much more familiar with the inlet than I am.
MR. FINDLEY: This shows it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Being an engineering firm out here,
I would think that we would -- on that graph, we would be able to
determine where that -- as you call it, the safe water mark or the
marker where I call is the Wiggins Pass marker indicating that that's
the opening to the pass there for boat traffic. And so I'm trying to get
a relationship of where that is in respect to the chart that we have up
there on the board.
MR. FINDLEY: This photo shows the safe watermark in it, so
you see it on this photo.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I see that. I know where it is out in
the water. What I'm trying to do is get the relationship of where it is
in regards to the engineering data of the drawing that's on there in
Page 220
October 26, 2004
regards to the marks that represent 0 --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You mean 300 feet out where it's --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where 00 is, where 300 feet is, and
where this is in relationship to that drawing.
MR. HUMISTON: We don't have that information on the
drawing. I would have to check and see if, when the survey was done,
if the surveyors did locate that marker. But I don't have that
information here with me today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. I would make a motion
that we need to dredge this, but it needs to be dredged to -- out to 300
feet, and then we have a slope that is -- it won't -- we won't incur any
more additional erosion down to a depth of 13 feet. And I'm not sure
the nautical terms for the slope rate that you would have to get down
to 1,300 (sic) feet from the 300-foot mark.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I want to make sure that we
understand what you're trying to tell us, okay, or about what you're
trying to motion.
From what I understand on the chart that you have in front of you
right there, if you look at the mouth, starting at marker 0 is where we
can start dredging, is that correct, by our permit?
MR. HUMISTON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
MR. MUDD: So you're saying you want to go out 300 feet from
the 0 mark to go to 8 1/2 foot?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. And that would be the
marker three or marker four?
MR. MUDD: No, that's 400 feet. Now, see, that's what I'm
trying to get to because --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's what I'm trying to get
in relationship, and then we should know where the -- where the
marker is marking Wiggins Pass in relationship to this -- to this chart.
So what you're telling me, County Manager, is that this 3 plus 00 is
Page 221
~---- --,--"-
October 26, 2004
300 feet; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: So if you're saying 400 -- that's why I'm asking the
question. If you're saying -- basically what you've been saying is you
want to go out to 400 feet. You don't want to go out to 300 feet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, he said 300.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I said 300 feet --
MR. MUDD: I understand what he said, but that's not what he's
been pointing to.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, because it's been -- and it
hasn't really been clear up until this point in time exactly what the four
stood for. Did that represent 400 feet? And then also the 00 line,
what does that establish? Is that established shoreline?
MR. MUDD: No, that establishes where your permit starts. You
can't dredge into that -- into that channel under the permit you're
talking about. You can start at 0 -- at 0 plus 00, and you can go out to
15 plus 00 in that little bottle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. In the past, have we gone --
at 00, have we started at 13 feet?
MR. HUMISTON: No. The permit doesn't allow that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What does the permit allow at the
present time?
MR. HUMISTON: The permit at the present time allows the 8
1/2 foot depth from 0 to station one, and then 13 feet beyond that to
the west.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if we take this out to station
three, or the 300 foot, and start moving out, the question I'm trying to
find an answer on here is, is this going to relieve the shoa -- the
problem of the erosion, or are we still going to incur erosion?
And I guess what we're looking for is, we're looking to spend
taxpayers' money at -- the best way possible, because obviously if we
Page 222
---
October 26,2004
go 8 1/2 feet all the way out, then we're going to run into a problem
and we're going to have to -- we're going to have to dredge this every
six months; is that what you said?
MR. HUMISTON: You would certainly have to dredge it more
frequently at the 8 1/2 foot depth all the way out.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because right now what we're
doing is we're dredging this almost every year, every 15 months at
least. Is this correct in my assumptions?
MR. MUDD: Pretty close.
MR. HUMISTON: I think that's pretty close, but I would like to
point out that the first maintenance dredging that was done after the
deepening of the channel in 2000, I believe it was dredged about a
year after that. That was in response to a shoal that formed during a
storm. It was considered an emergency condition.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's when we started also
incurring the problem where we were losing the shoreline from
Barefoot Beach; is that correct?
MR. HUMISTON: That's correct. But had it been possible to
leave things alone for a little while, the tidal currents probably would
have knocked that shoal down. In fact, it was down quite a bit by the
time the dredge was actually mobilized.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. So I really think that we
need to come to a determination of setting the limits in regards to
where we're going to start to increase the depth. And this is only for
capturing the sand, okay? We're still going to maintain a depth of
eight feet, or 8 1/2 feet, from station zero out to station three; is that
correct? And this is going to be done by TDC funds.
Now, are we -- when we go through this process, we're going to
end up going through a dredging process then that's going to take
place another 15 months from now, and now we have to determine
how we're going to take care of that issue; is that correct?
MR. HUMISTON: If it's dredged this winter, then I would
Page 223
--~>
---..---.
October 26, 2004
estimate that, you know, a survey a year later would be able to give us
an idea when the next dredging would need to be done.
Historically it's been dredged on an average of about two years,
although the intervals have been quite variable.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I think we've got a couple
of issues here. We've got a -- what we'll do is get this off the table,
and then I think we need to do -- is discuss what we're going to do or
direct staff in regards to how we're going to address this because we
can't come back every year and go through this process. I think there
has to be something that's formulated whereby every other year we
might use TDC funds, but I think there has to be another vehicle to
acquire funds for dredging, and I don't mean just for Wiggins Pass.
I'm talking about all the passes in Collier County so we can address
this issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, and I agree. I don't think we
ought to be discussing that second part now. I think we ought to ask
staff to go back and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And do a --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- come up with a --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Suggestions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- suggestion for us and address that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got some great suggestions for
them.
Let me make a motion that we go forward with the emergency
dredging paid for by TDC funds but that we extend that, not to 200
feet, but to 300 feet before we start to even think about taking it down
to 13 feet. I realize that we have to look at not only the boating
portion of this, but we also have to look at the conservation portion of
this and the environment around it. And that's where my motion
stands on that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second that motion.
We don't have anybody else to discuss with. So --
Page 224
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could ask a question.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What we're proposing here and
now, that's a stable answer to this problem for now, isn't it?
MR. MUDD: It's basically the staff recommendation, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Except with an extra 100 feet, right?
MR. MUDD: No, staff recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: It's the same -- it's the same thing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fine.
MR. MUDD: That's what I was trying to get at.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. But the staff recommendation
is 200 feet, isn't that --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, that's what I thought.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- correct? And I want to go an
additional 100 foot farther --
MR. MUDD: So you want to go out to marker number four?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Mark -- whatever that is
then.
MR. MUDD: So you're asking for 400 feet at 8 1/2?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. The recommendation from
staff is 200 feet, am I right? Are these -- each one of these --
MR. MUDD: Hundred feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- divisions -- 100 feet.
MR. MUDD: Hundred feet. And we're not just going to start at
one. We're basically starting at the point zero and we're going to start
dredging, and we're going to get the channel to 8 1/2 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: You're basically saying you want the 8 1/2 depth
for dredging out to 4 plus 00, 400 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then let's do that, yes.
Page 225
October 26, 2004
MR. MUDD: That's what I was trying to get at.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. REUSS: That's not my understanding.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You have to -- you have to get on a
speaker. I'm sorry.
MR. REUSS: I'm Ronald Reuss. I live at the Pelican Isle Yacht
Club. I look at the pass every day, morning and night. The south
shore's actually been excreting quite a bit of sand on the state beach
there, whereas, the river curving has cut away the sand on the north
shore. But we're -- in boating going in and out for the last five years,
right around that marker two is where it's shoaled almost every year. I
call it a sand bar. But that's where it's shoaling.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, my experience -- that's where
my -- where I was looking at my depth finder as I was going out a
number of times. The shoaling starts to begin well west of that
particular marker.
MR. REUSS: Just west of it, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I would say at least 100 feet,
and then it starts to shoal, and then it shoals up very rapidly, so that's
what I was trying to address. Because up until that point, we have at
least eight foot of water at that point in time.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, just so you know, just
brought to my -- brought to my attention, the CAC -- the CAC
recommended the middle diagram on your -- on your display, the
middle one at the bottom, okay? Since that period of time, staff has
come back with Humiston & Moore and recommended the additional
100 feet for 8 1/2, and that's the far left at the bottom.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Now, what I had in my -- in
here --
MR. MUDD: That's right, is the middle one, and it's different,
and that's why I asked Ken, what's his recommendation when he gave
his presentation and he said it was -- and I said, the left bottom, and he
Page 226
--..
October 26, 2004
said, absolutely. So it is different than what was in your executive
summary, and I apologize if there's any confusion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's where the -- that's why we
were sitting here trying to figure out -- and I was trying to figure out
what each of the markers were. That's what confused me.
MR. MUDD: And I just wanted to make sure you were adding
another 100. And I'm going, wait a minute, I don't think that's really
what you want. I thought you were doing the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The 300.
MR. OWENS: I'd like to have my time back then, because I
thought it was 200.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's going to be 300.
MR. MUDD: Let him --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Ifhe has -- ma'am, I'd ask him, if he gave his time
and it's something different than that, go ahead.
MR. OWENS: For the record, it's James Owens, and I thought it
was the 200 foot that CAC had recommended. I didn't realize it was
the 300. But if you're recommending 300, then I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've got to correct the
motion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now you have a motion on the
floor to go for --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did somebody second it?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, I seconded it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it, too.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we have a third. So you have a
motion on the floor to approve going to 300 feet --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
Page 227
'..-.--.....--."..-
October 26, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- as recommended by Ken Humiston and
-- at 8.5 feet, and then from there, going down to 13 feet out --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- is that correct? And paid for through
TDC funds --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and to move it forward expeditiously.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I second that motion.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: There's no one opposed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What I would like, if I could get
this from staff or from the engineer, is I'd like, if you have the time, to
give me that diagram along with where the markers should be so that
we'd have some clarification in the future with regards to addressing
this issue. And that way I think all of us will have a better
understanding of exactly what we're talking about in this waterway.
MR. HUMISTON: We'll do that. What I'll do, first of all, is
check and see if we have that in the survey data, because the surveyors
may have already located it. If they haven't, we'll get them to go out
there and do that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Now I'm going to move up to item number 13A because we have
Page 228
-""""--".._--0 _,_."~_,,__"'~,_
October 26, 2004
a few people in the audience to discuss that, and then we'll come back
and finish 10F, G, and H.
MR. MUDD: Are you talking 12A, ma'am?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Huh?
MR. MUDD: 12A?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, 13.
MR. MUDD: 13A is the item that was withdrawn from--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, it is 12A, excuse me.
MR. MUDD: 12A.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, thank you. It's getting late.
Item #12A
COUNTY ATTORNEY REPORT ON PUBLIC BEACH PATHWAY
ISSUES RAISED BY MR. JAMES F. CIOLINO BY PUBLIC
MR. MUDD: Okay. The next item is number 12A, which is a
county attorney report on public beach pathway issues raised by Mr.
James Ciolino by public petition on September 21 st, 2004.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
As you recall in September, two meetings ago, Mr. Ciolino came
to the board and made a presentation and had a request that the board
have staff, county attorney, respond to allegations of improper
closures and fencings many years ago of pathways that were
pedestrian beach access pathways on Marco Island.
I have provided an executive summary that details briefly the
responses. I've provided to you separately, and to Mr. Ciolino and to
the public out in the hallway, a copy of the blue book binder which
includes the more comprehensive county attorney opinion. Also
included in there, both for history and for a better view, kind of
anecdotal view, of the previous boards of years past decision-making
Page 229
--..
October 26, 2004
relating to Marco beach access ways, have been some representative
materials from our files.
If you'd like, I can just stop now and answer questions or I'll
continue and give a very brief synopsis of what we came up with.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have speakers on this subject?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am, we have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. David, yeah, just a brief synopsis.
MR. WEIGEL: Very good. Well, we're here in 2004, nearly
2005.
In 1992 and again in 1994, the county attorney office, and I as
one of the attorneys, one of three, did review for the board that existed
at that time, particularly, specifically regarding the potential -- and
allegations of prescriptive easements that should exist or come into
existence or did exist relating to beach pathways on Marco Island.
At that time, my research, the research of other attorneys in the
office, all came up with the same conclusion that we come up with 12
years later. At this point as well the city attorney from Marco Island
has come up with identical conclusions.
What we found was that in regard to prescriptive easements, or
the potential for prescriptive easements on Marco Island back in 1992,
was that several of the fundamental requisite factual requirements for
pedestrian access prescriptive easements did not exist, and it was the
ultimate opinion of the county attorney, and I, at that time, was chief
assistant, that, in fact, it was -- that we could not recommend the
Board of County Commissioners to go to court to try to prove
pedestrian prescriptive easements for several reasons.
One, of course, was that you have to show an actual access from
a public access point or roadway to the beach itself. Additionally, you
have to -- prescriptive easements are not -- are not favored under the
law and, therefore, it's a daunting process to go forward.
The Board of County Commissioners, additionally, in 1981, had
specifically approved the donation of the Tigertail Beach park,
Page 230
~~. ~v.. ......,
October 26, 2004
approximately 31 acres and 2,000 feet of beach front, as the individual
donor/landowner, conveyance for beach access down on Marco
Island.
At one time the Deltona Corporation was the unitary owner of
all, if not nearly all of the beachfront properties.
And it was in 1969 that they made the donation --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: David, I hate to stop you, but most of that
was in this book that you gave us, wasn't it?
MR. WEIGEL: Right. Well--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We were all able to --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- read all of that.
MR. WEIGEL: I thought this was, in part, edification for the
public, but I'm happy to finish at this point.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Additionally though, statute of limitations would
have run long ago. There is no opportunity -- and I could not advise
this board at this point to go after pedestrian accesses by prescriptive
easement.
And additional, three is -- no further issue would appear relating
to the conveyance that was made by Deltona to the county in 1969 and
ratified September 15th in 1981 as successfully achieving all and, in
fact, more than what was necessary under the ordinance for them to
convey.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, David.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry if I cut you short.
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, that's quite all right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, would you call our speakers, Sue?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. James Ciolini (sic).
Page 231
October 26, 2004
MR. WEIGEL: Ciolino.
MR. FILSON: He will be followed by Dr. Fay Biles.
MR. CIOLINO: Good evening. For the record, my name is Jim
Ciolino. I'm here to support my petition for beach access on Marco
Island.
I read your report. I'm sure we could all agree that what's in this
report has been argued to death for the past 25 years.
The one thing that hasn't been brought up is about county
ordinance 76-20, and that is that when this ordinance was sent to me
by Mr. Palmer over two years ago, he told me he found it in the active
file, that it was never vacated by a judge. And he called it an
illusionary promise, which is a promise that means nothing or a lie.
I would like to know, or I would like to find out if I can, to get
some information of why exactly this ordinance was never vacated by
a judge. If they've been arguing for the past 25 years that Tigertail
Beach was donated to take the place of county ordinance 76-20, which
consisted of 10 100- foot wide parking lots, then why is this ordinance
still active?
Is there any way I can get that information, somebody could send
it to my Post Office Box, 1963, on Marco Island, 34146?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I can respond even right now. We can
provide him more information from our file. But the fact is, the
ordinance continues to be in existence. It's a county-wide ordinance.
He's concerned specifically about Marco Island.
The Board of County Commissioners in 1981 specifically
addressed the application of this ordinance regarding beach access
points for the entirety of Marco Island. And so it's become a dead
letter from that standpoint onward. And that was what the newspaper
indicated, as you can see from the enclosure I had in the blue file here.
But additionally in 1992, and again in 1994, the county attorney
office opined the same. And we do so again today, another 12 years
Page 232
October 26, 2004
later.
The ordinance is still in effect. The ordinance has not -- is not
vacated. As you know, an ordinance is repealed, it's a law. It is a land
-- an interest in land use that may be vacated by this board. And in
our review of Marco Islands, I did not note any vacation, that is, a
removal from the -- from the property records of any easements or
deeds that existed in the interest of the county on behalf of the public
concerning beach accesses.
The ordinance itself is an ordinance and merely an ordinance,
and it is not a deed. It is not an easement itself. Never purported to
be.
MR. CIOLINO: But I sent this information to Mr. Jim Mudd.
Did he give you this information? Okay. You have this information?
Pertaining to the 11 20- foot wide pathways that the county wanted to
put on Marco Island in 1991?
It has also been brought to my attention that when I looked into
this for the past three years, is that this property known as Tigertail
Beach has been used as a tool to block pathways and parking lots on
Marco Island for over 25 years.
Now, it has also been brought to my attention that this beach and
park has been a liability to the county for over 10 years. I would like
to make a suggestion that by returning this piece of property to
Deltona Development Corporation, that not only could you convert
that piece of property from a liability into an asset because Deltona
would have to pay the property tax on it and they would have to
maintain that property, but you could get rid of this tool, you could
use -- you could go back and activate the county laws pertaining to
beach access, and put in these 11 20- foot wide pathways, and we
could put this thing to rest once and for all after 25 years.
Now, I contacted Mr. James T. Hailey of Deltona Development
Corporation. He is the attorney that represents them. I suggested to
him, had a conversation that I have evidence that the county violated
Page 233
---
October 26, 2004
the original agreement with Deltona. The original agreement was in
1969 when they originally donated Tigertail Beach to be a beach and a
park.
When the county accepted Tigertail Beach -- I'm sorry -- they
accepted county ordinance 76-20, or Tigertail Beach to take the place
of county ordinance 76-20, they violated your original agreement with
Deltona.
Deltona is willing to take this property back if you're willing to
turn it over to them voluntarily. But I suggested to Mr. Hailey that --
about my petition and that I would try and get the county, voluntarily,
on county level, to get this property back.
I'll be a couple more seconds.
If I cannot succeed to do this, Mr. Hailey is prepared to take this
to the Florida Supreme Court to get this property back to Deltona.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dr. Fay Biles.
DR. BILES: Fay Biles, Marco Island. Perhaps I can add a little
bit of a historical overview of beach access on Marco Island and why
it's always been a bone of contention.
We bought our first property in 1967 . We helped open up Marco
Island. We bought -- we built the first condos ever built, along with
18 couples from the Akron/Kent, Ohio area.
I want to tell you, I had many, many talks with the MackIe
Brothers and Deltona, because at that stage we weren't all sure that we
could invest in property, you know, and so forth.
One of the strong points in getting this property is that we were
all promised, promised, that all of us who bought property on Marco
Island would always have free access to the beach. It was the primary
sales pitch for all of us because that's what we wanted.
My husband, who's an attorney, tried to get the Seabreeze
residents to really establish a legal easement and file it, but they all
laughed at him and said, why should we do that? We were promised
Page 234
--
October 26,2004
we'd always have access, so they didn't want any part of it. Well, then
we moved down to the other end of the island and bought other
property .
Beach access has always been a bone of contention since land
was given to the civic association who charged for maintenance.
Last year they raised the rate to $75. This year they raised it to
$100. The sign down there says private. That has rubbed many
people in Marco Island the wrong way, and it has been difficult for
young couples with children paying high rent, paying for baby-sitters,
childcare, schools and preschools and so forth, and they can't afford
that $100.
In fact, I think, when Mr. Ciolino came out with this, I got so
many calls from young couples, because I know some of them, and
the word got around real fast that they could not afford to pay $100.
The civic association -- when the word got around the island that
the civic association that bought the second floor of the new bank, the
Marco Community Bank, many jumped to the conclusion that that
was why they had raised the rate to $100.
Now, whether that's true or not, I don't know. But it does raise a
lot of yours (sic) saying, again, that's too expensive. They can't go
there.
Tigertail is a wonderful natural environmental gem. We know
that. We love it and so forth. And it's a haven for birds, all kinds of
birds.
It is not what I would call a real desirable beach like the rest of
the crescent beach on Marco Island. It's muddy a lot of the time,
people cannot walk on it, they can't lie on it, so to speak. They have
to move up toward the crescent area.
So it's hard for people who live just a couple blocks away from
the beach and yet cannot get to it. They cannot walk onto it as many
other cities have done.
We're not worried about -- we're not worried about parking, we're
Page 235
--- ---",,---,",.--
October 26, 2004
not worried about rest rooms and so forth. It's like Naples. People in
Naples at the southern end down in Old Naples walk to the beach.
And so that's what people want to really do on Marco Island.
Now, I know the laws are there, but I think this is -- the bone of
contention's not going to stop with this, I'm sure.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners, do you have
anything to ask on this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think what was brought up
in the discussions by the two individuals that spoke on behalf of this
beach access, I think this really needs to be addressed to the Supreme
Court of Florida to make a determination and get it settled once and
for all.
I don't think only Marco Island. I think it's prevalent throughout
the State of Florida, and I know F AC is working to try to fight beach
access, but I think that's probably where it's ultimately going to end up
and -- to make sure that everybody's not deprived -- that everybody
has the right to go to the beaches and people aren't deprived of that --
that wonderful thing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I went and took a look myself,
and some of the condos that were there very early in time, you could
stand at the condo and you could look right at the beach, except you
couldn't walk to it because there was a fence that had been built up by
condos later on.
I could understand the frustration of the people and what -- but
whether the laws be right or wrong or in favor of the citizens or in
favor of whomever put them in place at the time, they are the law and
they're not illegal.
Everything that I read in here says to me -- as much as it would
be great for the people of Marco Island to be able to walk to the beach
Page 236
October 26, 2004
or ride their bike to the beach, the law says that right now, that's the
way it stands.
And it isn't -- it isn't what I think is right for the people of Marco,
but it is what it is. And I think, quite frankly, that we need to back
away from the Marco business and let them work it out.
I think Mr. Ciolino has a good idea. He might have to take it that
far in order to -- because there's a lot of people that are having
problems with beach access. So -- oh, I'm not talking into the
microphone, right? I'm sorry.
Mr. Ciolino, you might just have to take it to the Supreme Court
because I think you would be a hero to many, many people. I know --
I've gotten a lot of calls and a lot of emails from Marco Islanders who
live right there who can look at it and cannot get to the beach. Even
on Marco Island when they can look at the beach and they're kind of
living on the sand of the beach, but there's a gate there, they have to
get in their car and drive to another beach.
And as Fay Biles said -- and I know Tigertail is ours, but
sometimes it's really slimy. Somebody said, well, we'll take the beach
back. You should smell it. I mean, sometimes it's really bad.
So -- and it's a great place for the birds. It's a wonderful place.
But -- but, you know, if you don't feel like, you know, being there at
the times -- there's only 70 parking spaces at the other beach access,
that's a public beach access. That's it. If the parking spaces are all
filled, you can't get there.
So I think that there's nothing further we can do on this. I think
that our hands are rather tied because there's nothing illegal -- maybe
it's questionable, maybe it's not fair, but there's nothing illegal here.
Y .?
es, SIr.
MR. CIOLINO: Just a couple seconds. The reason that Tigertail
Beach is the way it is, because when they replenished the beach, they
were supposed to keep a channel in front of South Seas Towers IV
open. That channel was filled in. And because the water can't flush
Page 237
October 26,2004
through there anymore, that's why all that slime and everything builds
up, because the water is basically stagnant.
Now, I don't know if there is any way that you could redredge
that open again so that the water could go through there at the rise and
fall of the tide.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think Mother Nature kind of closes that
up for us when she feels like it and opens it back up when she feels
like it, and I think there's nothing we can do about that particular one.
MR. CIOLINO: And the other thing I found out, but as far as the
law goes, there are two standards of law pertaining to like the state
department and the courts, and then when I contacted the attorney
general's office and he -- the department of investigation, they told me,
he says that you might need absolute proof for the state department,
but you don't need absolute proof to prove your case in court.
If you have enough circumstantial evidence, we have enough
witnesses, we could prove this. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Ciolino.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. And my memory is that there was
desire of the county -- Board of County Commissioners to have that
dredged out so that there could be the flushing action, but there was an
inability to get the permitting at that time, and the environmental
interests locally here were not interested in us getting that permitting
either, and so there was quite a bit of dialogue, but an impossibility, to
achieve that desire so that there could be flushing and that the beach
would be -- would tend to be more of an active beach with less of the
problems of benthic growth, and other terms that I came to know that I
never knew before then.
Additionally, what we ultimately have been asked here, as we
were in 1992, was that the Board of County Commissioners, in fact,
initiate a lawsuit against a property owner or property owners so that a
court would declare that there was prescriptive easement over these
properties based upon a 20 -- over a 20-year -- more than 20-year
Page 238
October 26, 2004
period of continual adverse use to the interest of the underlying private
property owners.
And back in '92, again in '94, and again now, I would state that
what we thought we saw from the information provided by Mrs.
Marjorie Walker and others with petitions was --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: David, we really kind of have already
settled that.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm sorry. I know it's a long meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, I know, but it's getting late.
MR. WEIGEL: It's a private matter for them because to ask the
county to fund a lawsuit that's illustrated in the first place --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't think he asked that, yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: -- would not work.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't think he asked that, and he can see
that we certainly sympathize with the people on Marco, but our hands
are kind of tied, and --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and I wish him well.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Now we go to lOF.
Item #lOF
AUTHORIZING AN ADDITIONAL PERMANENT POSITION
FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SECTION WITHIN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION AND CONSULTING
SERVICES DESIGNED TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES IN THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AT A COST NOT
IO..F,XC~'f)69,100 - AEEROVED
MR. MUDD: 10F, and that's the former 16A4, and that basically
Page 239
October 26, 2004
reads, it's a recommendation to authorize an additional permit position
for the environmental review section within the environmental
services department, the community development and environmental
services division in consulting services designed to improve
efficiencies in the land development review process at a total cost not
to exceed $69,300.
And Commissioner Henning asked that this item be moved to the
regular agenda.
Mr. Joe Schmitt will present.
MR. SCHMITT: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record,
Joe Schmitt, community development/environmental services
administrator. Which would you prefer, just defer to questions, or do
you want me to run through the presentation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, looking at
comparing 2003 to 2004, and the permits --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- issued in Collier County has
dropped.
MR. SCHMITT: Not necessarily. You got that from the--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The information that is provided
to the South Florida Water -- South Florida Regional Planning
Council, you know, it's provided by the county.
MR. SCHMITT: They -- they get that data from -- they come in
and get that data. I do not -- I mean, but that's incorrect. Permits have
gone -- it depends on when you're asking.
I had 30,000 permitted activities last year compared to 28,000
building permitted type activities. Land use petitions are up from last
year, if you look at total land use petitions. I can pull those charts up.
I'm not prepared to discuss those, but I can -- I can get those charts
and that information.
Page 240
October 26, 2004
Now, in regards to land use petitions in particular, you're talking
about reviews. The large land use type petitions, I did about 700
major issues last year in regards to land use, land use petitions, and
land use activities. The year before they dropped, but this past year
the workload is up.
Now, the question then comes, well, why didn't we plan for this
at the beginning of the fiscal year? Well, quite frankly,
Commissioner, when we put our budget together in March of last year
-- or this past year in March is when we put the budget together for the
'05 budget, I was at close to not even making payroll. I was bringing
in about $5 and a half million.
And, in fact, my budgeted item -- my budget line was about 6.1
million. So I was concerned that I was not even going to be able to
pay for the staff that I had. So that -- that, frankly, is what kept me at
the level. I did not come back in for more staff because I was
concerned about meeting payroll.
But as -- at that time as well I came back in and asked for a fee
increase to support the increased costs to provide the services we're
providing to paying, call them customers that come in the front door
for land use petitions, review of site development plans or final plats
and plans.
This year, my -- at the end of this year my revenue is up, and up
considerably than from what it was in March, and I've actually rolled
over the year with $8.6 million, so I had a $3.6 million carry-forward.
lowed -- I have to pay back my fund 113, about $1.6 million,
because I borrowed money to meet payroll when I split the funds. To
make a long story short, I didn't really think I would have the money
at the -- when I began to start planning for this fiscal year.
The workload is there. I think the executive summary clearly
identified the workload is there. The only thing I could say is, if this
board sees fit that we should not bring the person onboard, all I can do
is deal with what I have and try and deal with the workload based on
Page 241
October 26, 2004
the staff that I have.
And the only one that is being hurt by this is, of course, the
petitioner or the applicant that's going through the review process.
Because, frankly, the environmental review section is involved in
reviews from land use petitions through the final plat and plan review,
all the way even through PUD compliance issues.
And they're one of the few staffs that require site visits, which is
a time-consuming and rather labor-intensive operation. And it comes
down to, do I -- should I have the staff necessary to provide the
services that the industry is looking for. And I guess that's, frankly,
the issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The information in our packet
didn't -- didn't show the workload. It just says, yeah, we're really
busy. But I'm just saying the information that I seeked out to try to
justify adding another position, was that in our packet? Because I --
somehow missed that. 16A.
MR. SCHMITT: These charts were in the packet. It showed the
increase in workload, and it described our objective of a 30-day
review. We're beyond that.
Our obj ective is trying to do -- at least 75 percent of review
should be completed in less than 30 days, no more than 10 percent
greater than 35, and no more than 3 percent greater than 40. That's our
target. Frankly, right now I'm in excess of 40 days and beyond just
because of the number of reviews in the queue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I do remember that
chart, but it doesn't say -- in my mind it doesn't justify it when I see
information that says that actually the workload is down.
I guess in my mind it's a productivity issue. You know what I'm
saying? It's a -- the workload going out the door, the finished,
completed work, is not the -- is not more intensive than the work
before.
MR. SCHMITT: I hear what you're saying, but I don't
Page 242
..--. ->-_.
October 26, 2004
understand really what you're meaning.
The environmental review staff also is involved in many
activities that come from this board directly that is not directly
involved with the review process of either plats or plans or land use
petitions.
And, you know, I could cite many examples of things that we've
dealt with over the past year, year and a half, in regards to
environmental issues, which that staff is involved in as well; and with
LDC amendments and with the rural fringe and rural lands overlay
stewardship district and the development of those LDC amendments,
it's a matter of -- I can only get so much done.
And that staff is working just as hard, if not harder, than they had
in the past. I did not provide -- if you have information,
Commissioner, that indicates from a downturn in -- at least in the land
use petitions or a downturn in permitted activities, I need to question
what that -- what that information is. I'd like to -- I would certainly
come back and validate and verify it, because they come in and get
that information from us. I don't provide it. I mean, that's public
information.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I may. Ifwe made a -- if we
made an error in not providing enough information for you in order to
-- in order to do that, our apologies for that, and we'll try to do a better
job.
The other thing I will ask Mr. Schmitt to do is take a look at that
particular section, okay, and make sure that everybody is in the time
periods that people have particular items, that it's pretty standard, and
it's moving through that particular -- between that particular section.
It's kind of a productivity study, and I'll have him take a look at that
particular issue, too.
What I do believe though, what Joe's got himself in that
particular section, is he's got himself about a 20-day backlog on each
one of the permits that are going through. I believe there's enough
Page 243
October 26, 2004
justification there for another FTE to get it moving so we can get up to
the standard that's been set for the DSAC as far as the permit reviews
are concerned. But we owe you that information on the productivity
study. We can do that for you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you're asking me to make a
decision today, and I just don't feel comfortable with the information I
got in what's been provided. And I'd be happy to give this to you and
maybe we can discuss it. But I would ask if, would you consider
delaying this action one more meeting?
MR. SCHMITT: I can do that, Commissioner, but I ask, frankly,
on what you're looking at -- and to understand from the environmental
review process, it encompasses land use petitions as well as site
development plans, site development plan reviews, and final plats, and
none of that is in there. Those kind of statistics are different permits.
When you're looking at permitted activities, you're looking at
land use petitions which you certainly -- there's certainly a record of,
but there are not records --
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, if we could, I'd like to continue this
item --
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- until the 16th and have Joe get with
Commissioner Henning to answer any questions he has to talk about
that particular data. That's not a -- that's not a problem.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas had a question, or
did you want to save it till the 16th?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I would just say that I
remember a few weeks ago we ran into a problem whereby
supposedly the deficiencies in your department were such that we
weren't getting work out the door quick enough, and when I read this,
and I read all the information that was given to me, it was pretty clear
that what we needed to do is make sure that we were customer-driven
and that we took care of the issue, and that's why I feel very
Page 244
October 26, 2004
comfortable where we are.
Because the end a result is, we want to make sure that the
customers are taken care of so that we don't get any bad reports in
regards to -- that we're not addressing their concerns or addressing the
issues that need to be addressed in regards to permitting and getting
people up and running.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that a motion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make a motion that -- for
approval of this person because of the fact that -- of the workload that
community development environmental services has.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, 4-1. Thank you.
Item #10G
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF
ADDITIONAL CUBICLE UNITS THAT ARE NEEDED FOR THE
NEW TRANSPORTATION SERVICES BUILDING IN THE
Page 245
,~,,-- A ~.,,_.
October 26, 2004
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is number -- is
number lOG, and that's old 16B3. And 16B3 was a recommendation
to authorize a budget amendment for the purchase of additional
cubicle units that are needed for the new transportation services
building in the amount of $61,476, and it was -- it was brought to the
regular agenda by Commissioner Coyle's request.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, I'm not going to belabor this
point. I don't want any discussion, I don't want any answers. I'm just
going to tell you why I pulled it, okay?
We asked for a very detailed and complete evaluation of the cost
of moving into two different buildings that we had a choice of moving
into, and one of the reasons that was given that the Arthrex building
was preferred over the others is that the first building was divided into
offices. It was difficult to get from one place to another, in some
cases, had to go outside, and that you wanted a more open floor plan.
And so now that we have made the decision to go to the Arthrex
building, we are -- we are being asked to spend more money now to
provide a more closed floor plan and to get more cubicles and install
them.
It's my feeling that these kinds of things should have been
revealed to the board at the time that we were making the decision as
to which building we pursued -- nor am I implying that the other
alternative would have been cheaper. I am merely saying that when
we asked for a complete cost analysis to move into this building, to
acquire to move into the building, that it should have been complete
and we shouldn't get hit with incremental costs after we've already
made the decision to move.
And I'm going to be watching this building very, very closely as
you move into it, and I'm going to keep a running total of the costs
associated with doing that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want some discussion on it.
Page 246
October 26,2004
This is 66,000?
MR. FEDER: It's 61,400, which is just under one percent of the
overall cost, but it does represent a change, as the commissioner
pointed out.
When we went to purchase the building, we did do the thorough
analysis. We were advised that we had a number of cubicles available
from Arthrex, from whom we purchased the building. Originally they
were going to leave them all in place, but as we went through the
process, they decided to pull them out, as we continued looking at
alternatives.
And then when we went to get those, as we had the consultant go
in, we found there were less of those cubicles than what had been told
to us were going to be available.
Additionally, we did make an error, and I'll note that for the
record, that we had not factored in the installation cost for the
cubicles. But, again, we're putting it back just exactly as the original
Arthrex structure was set up, and so that's what we're requesting of
you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the only reason I asked you
about the cost is last meeting we had a cost increase on remodeling a
building for the public works, and there wasn't much concern on the
board then. It was like $2 million or $3 million.
So I'll make a motion to approve this item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Question? Are you saying that
Arthrex violated the sales agreement by removing --
MR. FEDER: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- things they promised you that
they'd leave?
MR. FEDER: No. Originally when we were looking at the
building, as we started negotiations, we were going to purchase the
building with all of the cubicles in. As we prolonged our discussions
Page 247
October 26, 2004
and review of others, they decided they didn't know if we were going
to buy. They pulled the cubicles out and utilized.
They made an assessment of how many of the cubicles they
thought were available that we could then buy, which was not all of
them. Their estimate was 29. It turned out after we went through the
process, there were only 24, so we had another five that we had to
buy, that along with -- and as I noted, we had not put in the installation
cost -- together represent the 61,000 in modification to the overall
move into the building.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I just don't like constantly
moving projects and costs.
MR. FEDER: Neither do we, sir. We appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Henning to approve, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 5-0. Thank you.
Item #10H
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD A CONTRACT FOR BID TO
SOUTHWEST UTILITY SYSTEMS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$891,225 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 16-INCH RECLAIMED
Page 248
October 26, 2004
WATER SYSTEM INTERCONNECT FROM RADIO ROAD TO
D A VIS.BilllLFV A RD - A EE.R OVED
MR. MUDD: The next item is number 10H, Madam Chair, and
that's the old 16C2. And it reads, recommendation to award a contract
for bid number 04-3679 to Southwest Utilities Systems, Inc., in the
amount of$891,225 for the installation of a 16-inch reclaimed water
system interconnect from Radio Road to Davis Boulevard, proj ect
number 74035.
And this was moved to the regular agenda at Commissioner
Henning's request.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only concern I have on this
item is the experience on utility projects in the right-of-way when we
close up lanes for extended period of times (sic), and I just want to
know if we can constrain the contractor into doing one section at a
time, get out of the way of the motoring public, instead of
dillydallying around like they've done on the Santa Barbara proj ect.
MR. HUBER: Yes, sir. For the record, my name is Harry
Huber, senior project manager in the public utilities engineering
department.
Yes, in fact, our contract documents, in fact, the bid documents,
included a traffic control plan, and the permit from FDOT requires
that they participate in a preconstruction conference, and those are
requirements included in the contract documents.
And as the traffic control plan specifically says, that -- and we
will have lane closures, but it's only going to -- supposed to be the
active construction area. And so each night they'll have to remove the
barricades and then put them back the next morning. And I think we
have a pretty strong plan and contract documents to address that issue
in this particular contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How long is the construction
time period for the -- this section in the right-of-way of Davis
Page 249
October 26, 2004
Boulevard?
MR. HUBER: The total contract time is 120 days for substantial
completion. A portion of the contract is within the FPL easement
from Radio Road to Davis. That is over 50 percent of the distance, so
I'd say probably 60 days.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Huber, do you have any
leeway to tell the contractor we're -- you know, our peak season is
January, February, do you have any latitude to tell him, you know,
where to start and where to not?
MR. HUBER: We can certainly make a strong recommendation.
You know, that's a matter of method -- means and methods, but I
certain -- and, you know, the Florida Department of Transportation
might have the same recommendations themselves.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you'd satisfy my
concerns, you know, if you can do that. I would appreciate that.
I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #11
Page 250
October 26, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we go on to public comments.
MR. HUBER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Looks like our public comment person
left.
MS. FILSON: We do have one person under public comment,
but I don't believe I see Mr. Kenneth Thompson.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Thompson had to leave, but he left me the
particular issues. He was concerned that there was one -- one business
that was down there that had an invalid permit, and I'll get checked.
And then he was -- he was suspicious in the fact that the Tipsy
Seagull had the same color coordination as the handrails in the bridge
does, the new one that's out there in the CRA, and wanted to know if
somebody was buying the Tipsy Seagull, and I'll try to find -- you
know where the old Tipsy Seagull is?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. I do know it looks likes somebody's
leasing it, but I haven't been able to find out who yet. I've been asking
around, because Mr. Thompson stopped me someplace or another, or I
ran into him someplace or another, but I have no idea who's doing it,
but they've fixed it up kind of nice. They matched the bridge.
Thank you.
Okay. Then we go on to -- David, do you have any final
comments?
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Jim, do you have any final
comments?
Item #15
MR. MUDD: Yeah, Madam Chair, one thing we do need to talk
about. I mentioned last meeting that you had received a letter dated 6
Page 251
October 26, 2004
October, 2004. It's a request from the sheriff to -- pursuant to the
Florida 30.49(4). The board is required to give written notice of its
budget actions to the sheriff and identify in such notice to specific
items amended, modified, increased or reduced.
Please advise our office of all changes to the 2004/2005 budget
request.
Thank you in advance for your prompt response.
I mentioned to you at that meeting the last time that I would
come forward with a recommendation to the board as to what those--
those particular cuts should be.
And I -- and I have prepared a rather lengthy presentation if you
want to see it, but let's try to cut to the chase so I can show you that
we're pretty well in line with -- that you're pretty well in line with
other sheriffs' departments as far as -- as far as allocations are
concerned.
What your budget guidance was, was to try to limit the potential
-- you wanted to stay millage neutral, and you basically told in your
budget guidance that everybody's percentage of the ad valorem taxes
in the general fund would be the same as the previous year, and you
basically sent that out to the particular constitutional officers and to
the county manager's agency.
And then as the -- as the year progressed, the sheriffs budget was
outside of that guidance as far as that percentage was concerned.
Oh, I want to say in September he came forward to the Board of
County Commissioners with a request for $2.5 million in additional
moneys for 2004 to pay personnel expenses because his agency was at
100 percent full. I mean, he had no vacancies at the time and he was
very successful in the year in filling those vacancies.
The board chose at that time to defer that request until a budget
hearing, the second one, at which time it was decided by the board that
they would approve the $2.5 million in the 2004 budget addition but
they would also move $2.5 million out of the 2005 budget request for
Page 252
October 26, 2004
the sheriff.
That left our sheriff with $14.3 million in new money, okay, as
far as his budget is concerned.
And the reason I lay down Sarasota County, Palm Beach County,
Lee County, Charlotte County, and Martin County are those are the
particular counties that we benchmarked against and the sheriff
benchmarked against in his budget.
The -- you'll notice that Sarasota County basically has about
20,000 less unincorporated residents than we have in Collier County,
so the strength as far as unincorporated population is pretty much the
same.
Their budget this year is a $2.6 million increase over -- over what
they had. Palm Beach County had a $15 million increase in their
budget, and their unincorporated population is around 600,000, which
is almost double ours.
The Lee County addition is 13.6 million to their sheriffs budget.
They have an unincorporated population that's bigger than Collier
County's.
And then Charlotte and Martin have smaller unincorporated
populations, but I decided to put -- and go out and find out what their
budget increases were in their sheriffs department.
What I want to say, based on this chart and the information that's
provided, is that our sheriff, based on unincorporated population,
pretty much has the biggest cut of new money than any of the six
counties that we basically benchmark against in -- as we start to do our
budget process.
So I wanted to make sure that you had that information to make
-- you know, to give you an idea, are you in the ballpark or not, are
you way out of line, or what's going on out there with the rest of
Florida, and that kind of gives you an idea.
There are -- if you take a look at page 36 of the budget
submission from the sheriff, you'll notice that he does a comparison
Page 253
October 26, 2004
with those particular counties as far as costs for unincorporated -- for
the unincorporated population.
And I'll just bring it to your attention that in Lee County and in
Sarasota County, the cost per unincorporated -- the cost per
unincorporated population is around 307-, 308- in the process. It costs
Collier County about 4 -- anywhere from 403- to 412-, taking a look at
the cost per unincorporated population.
When you take a look at that, you say, well, there's some
counties out there that are doing -- and they're successful in the law
enforcement activities, they have a reduced crime rate, just like we
have in Collier County, thank goodness, and they seem to be doing it
for about a $100 difference per head count than what we're able to do.
Now, the Palm Beach County, they seem to be doing it $100
more expensive than we are. But if you take a look at their allocation
this year, only $15 million against the 600,000, that number's going to
be coming down next year in that benchmark.
So what's happening, based on the chart that I showed you
previously and this chart right here, is our metrics are going to look a
lot worse next year compared to everybody else than they did this
year.
So I'll let you know that. Now, if you take a look at the $100
difference between what we're -- what's basically budgeted against the
unincorporated population in Collier County versus Charlotte,
Sarasota, and Lee, and you take that $100 per unincorporated
population and you multiply it by a quarter of a million that's in the
Collier County number right there, you come up with a figure of $25
million.
There's $25 million worth of different operations going on with
the sheriffs' offices in those four counties in comparison to ours, or in
those three counties in comparison to ours. So when you talk about
areas where you can find savings or more efficiencies, this chart
would lend me to believe that there might be some out there that you
Page 254
October 26, 2004
can use.
Now, I want to make sure you also understand that this
benchmark in this metric wasn't just made up. This is the exact
benchmark and metric that the Board of Trustees in Tallahassee uses
when they took -- they take a look at sheriffs' appeals, okay, on certain
budget items in the process.
So I want to make sure that you know that that benchmark data
wasn't pulled out of the sky and it's sitting there. It's on page 76 of the
sheriffs 2005 budget submission.
Now, what I -- what I will say to you is, we're moving -- in my
annual appraisal I also told you who met the budget guidance and who
didn't meet the budget guidance, and I prepared that to (sic) you when
I gave you my assessment, and all that particular information is
provided.
What we basically have is, for all intents and purposes,
everybody pretty much made it. Now there's some departments and
there's been some -- there's been some letters that have been written
that are out there, and some cases have taken a personal tone that I
believe is a little bit out of character for this particular issue because
this is business. It doesn't have -- it doesn't have to take a personal
tone, and I wish that would stop.
It's taken such a personal tone that I've taken some letters and
passed them to my private attorney because I believe there's a veiled
threat in there, and I don't like it, okay, and I'm going to be darned if
my family is going to have a problem. And I don't think that will ever
happen, but I'm going to make darn sure.
What I will say to you is, your guidance as far as holding the pies
was a good one. Your proportion to what your budget was going to be
was a good one in the fact that it pretty much tells the agencies -- and
this was -- and this was basically the guidance.
You got an allocation, there's going to be new moneys that are
going to be there, you're setting what CO LA's going to look like for
Page 255
October 26, 2004
the employees, you're talking about CPI, those particular issues, and
you're basically trying to -- at the get-go, right out of the blocks,
you're basically setting out for all the agencies that you approve on a
budget that you want to basically hold it to be millage neutral.
When you take a look -- and there's been -- and there's been some
conversations about doubling and tripling of operational budgets --
and I want to make sure that you understand the unincorporated area
of Collier County. If you take a look at the BEBR and where we are,
that's what the unincorporated population of Collier County has done
from FY-'98 to FY-'05. It's gone from $184 to $290.
And, again, this is unincorporated area. It doesn't count in
municipalities that are something less than 50,000, together with all
three.
I want to also show you the county manager's operating budget
so that you know over the same period of time what that is. And why
am I doing this? Because this is the kind of information, if there is an
appeal to Tallahassee, that we're going to have to be able to show, and
I want to make sure that you understand it, so that when you're making
your decision for cut, if you're still -- if you still want to cut that
budget and you want me to reply with the chair's signature -- and that's
what I'm going to request at the end that you do -- that you know that
we -- we have information, and I don't believe we're out there just
blindly making cuts that are unrealistic, and I want to lay that case out
for you.
This is the county manager's operating budget. Yes, it's gone up
from $169 million in FY-'98 to $325 million in FY-'05.
County -- the Collier County capital improvement budget looks
like this. Yes, it has gone up from $182 million in FY -'98 to today's
FY -'05 at $399 million, and you can see it's kind of evening out here
in '04 and '05.
We had a '03 peak year because that was really a big catch-up
year where we were trying to get ahead of this power curve as we
Page 256
October 26, 2004
started to get any our capital projects.
This is the sheriffs budget, excluding BCC paid. He's gone from
$53 million in FY -'98 to $116 million in FY -'05, and that's what you
approved for him based on -- with the $2.5 million cut. This excludes
BCC paid, which today is around $2.4 million a year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What is BCC paid?
MR. MUDD: BCC paid? Ma'am, you pay for heating,
air-conditioning, lights --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maintenance.
MR. MUDD: -- you maintain the facilities that the sheriffs in.
That's BCC paid. You provide all the facilities for the sheriff, and for
all the constitutionals, for that matter.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So that's excluding those costs?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
Okay. A comparison in budget and population growth. Now,
some people will say this is not the be-all and the end-all, but I believe
it's an indicator, and it's one that you need to be aware of.
From 1998 to '05 -- and I call that the Fernandes, who I never
met, Olliff, Mudd period, okay, because those are the three county
managers that you had during that period of time.
The sheriffs budget was 120 percent. The county manager's
operating budget was 92 percent. The population increase over that
period of time was 58 percent.
I'd like to bring you to the FY-'Ol/'05 operating budget. Now,
that's Olliff/Mudd period of time, okay. Fernandes, who I don't know,
is now off the chart.
The sheriff had a 68 percent increase, county manager's
organization had a 37 percent increase, and the population increased
by 28 percent.
And then I'll bring you to the '03/'05 budgets, and that's the ones
that I had direct impact on because I was either in the process of
becoming your county manager, or I -- in two years, I was county
Page 257
~--- -~._,,-^..-
October 26, 2004
manager and still am, I hope.
The sheriff s increase --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let's discuss that issue for just
a minute.
MR. MUDD: Sir, the sheriff --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, wait a minute. I've got a
question for you.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't understand what the '05 is.
You've got FY -'98/'05. What does that mean?
MR. MUDD: Yeah, FY -'98 is the fiscal year and '05 is the 2005
fiscal year. So it goes through the budget that you basically have done
and approved for this year. So it spans a seven-year period of time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right.
MR. MUDD: From '03 to '05, the sheriffs budget has increased
by 27 percent. The county manager's organization has gone up by 14,
and so has your population by 14. It's not a be-all and an end-all, but
it is an indicator of what's going on as far as growth is concerned.
I have a full explanation of all the particular increases that was
mentioned in the EDC article that came out on Friday, and I can get
that down to the board so that you know that particular item.
I will also tell you that during our budget series that we talked to
you about, we also talked about how the county manager's agency
department and budgets compare with those particular counties that
everybody is taking a look at as far as a benchmark is concerned.
And if you were correctly, based on 1,000 person population in
the county manager's agency, we've got about 6. -- 6.5 supporting that
unincorporated population as compared to those other particular
counties.
What does that -- and that's not a bad number. Sometimes you
could be too lean, but we try to -- we try to hold those numbers down
the best that we can, because I will tell you, employee salaries are
Page 258
_~o.._._...._~"'._'__
October 26, 2004
something that has a tendency to be the gift that keeps on taking.
What does that mean for an adjusted budget per capital -- per
capita? It gives you the numbers that you see on those charts as
compared to the other counties. That has nothing to do with salary. It
has a little salaries in there, but it has a lot to do with the cost of
providing the service, may it be freshwater/sewer service, the
attendant at the parks, the library attendant being in that building
providing that service, and that's what we're talking about the cost to
provide that service on top of that salary.
What I will also tell you is I have a -- I have a rather -- there was
an NBC-2 investigation report on overtime overload that was -- that
was published and played on NBC-2 on 13 November, 2003, and it
basically had to do with the Collier County Sheriffs Department and
their increases in overtime over a three-year period of time.
At the time that this was done, there was some rather -- what's the
word I want to use? There was some -- there was some data on
overtime where there was some employees in the sheriffs department
that they were drawing some 76 -- in one case, $76,000 with overtime.
And they basically talked about how the overtime budget in the
sheriffs department had been over budgeted for FY-'Ol, '02, '03, and it
laid that out in excruciating detail about who was drawing rather large
triple digit salaries because of their overtime in the process.
And I would rather not play that right now for you, but if you
would like a copy, I will get it to you for the sake of time.
What I'd like to say to you is, here's the summary sheet on that
particular chart that was given. I would say the first -- the first bar
charts on '01, '02, and '03 are taken completely off that tape done by
the investigative reporter, Mr. Greenblatt ofNBC-2.
And I will tell you that the '04 overtime -- and this is the amount
over the budgeted amount in overtime in the sheriffs department. In
'04, he was $3.6 million over his budget in overtime. His budget was
some $4 million. And he is -- he is at $8.1 million per the report.
Page 259
"'_"'~''''_''''r''
October 26, 2004
I will tell you that the 11 -- or the 13 November, 2003,
investigative report that was aired on our TV station on NBC-2 seems
to have not changed a pattern during '04 in the sheriffs department.
He's $3.6 million over budget.
Now, the explanation in '01, '02, and '03 that was used on the
report was the fact that the large overtime amounts were because he
had problems filling vacancies.
In '04, he's 100 percent full and he doesn't have those vacancies,
and he has got -- he is over his overtime budget by an amount greater
than any three years prior.
I would -- I would say to you at this time, and if you want to -- if
you want to talk about comparisons, the Lee County sheriff in 2003
had an overtime budget of $1.7 million compared to the sheriffs
overtime budget of $7.2 million.
The Lee County sheriff spent $2.3 million on overtime last year.
Our sheriff has spent $8.1 million. That tape goes on with the Lee
County sheriff -- there was a comparison between the two. Now, the
Lee County sheriff seems to indicate that it probably is unsafe to have
deputies drawing that kind of overtime with the -- with the safety job
that they basically do for the population.
But, again, I will provide that tape to you so that you can -- so
that you can view that at your pleasure.
What I would say to you is there's still overtime being drawn by
non-deputy, rubber on the road types in the sheriffs department.
There's one in 70-, one 64-, one 50-, then it gets to be multiples. I will
tell you there are 94 people above the 20,000 each in overtime in that
particular agency. There was 76 in FY-'03, and it's grown to 94.
Commissioners, I would make a recommendation to you that we
answer the sheriffs letter that he requests where the particular cuts are
going to be. I would -- I would recommend that I draft a letter for the
chair's signature that basically says that it needs to come out of
personnel services and that it needs to pay special emphasis upon an
Page 260
October 26, 2004
overtime budget that seems to be a little bit out of control right now.
That's my recommendation to the board. If I can get direction,
I'll have that draft for you, ma'am, tomorrow morning for your
signature.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see a lot of nods, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one request, if I could. In
all fairness, all this information should be supplied to the sheriffs
department so they know why we're making our decisions.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. This is -- this is part of the record. I'll
make sure he gets a VCR tape so he has all that information.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe DVD.
MR. MUDD: Maybe, sir, if I can figure out how to do that.
Now, I also want to make sure that I put on the record that this in
no way, shape, or form, talks about the professionalism of his deputies
that he's got on the ground. He's got great folks out there. He's got --
he's got a great workforce. They're dedicated men and women, and
they're working it every day.
I believe there's -- we've got an issue with an overtime budget
that needs to have some sharper controls on it, and that's my
recommendation to the board that we pass on to him, and then we
satisfy the Florida statutes.
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I would recommend that you actually take a
motion and vote on this, if you would.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. May I have a motion, please, from
anybody?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. You move that we--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- write a letter including all of this
Page 261
October 26, 2004
back-up material?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, no, no. We're talking about
responding to the sheriff s request.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
MR. MUDD: All you have to do is, I'll draft a letter for the chair
-- for the chairperson to -- for your signature, excuse me, that basically
says that our specification for the cut of $2.5 million be taken from
personnel services with a strong emphasis on the overtime budget.
And from there, I think he has plenty of latitude to figure out what he
needs to do. And I believe that you have a very strong case in case
you get an appeal.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's your motion, Commissioner
Coyle --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- your second, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
MR. MUDD: That's all have, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And David, I hope I didn't hurt
your feelings when I cut you off before. Please -- please excuse. I
would never want to do that.
Page 262
-,----,.. ..-<-.-'''--,-.".'.-.........'
October 26, 2004
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, no, not at all. I got kind of engrossed for a
moment there, but --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, it's an important issue.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, any last-minute
words for us?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. On the issue in regards to
dredging, I really think that we need to direct staff into looking into
the feasibility of -- of what we need to do to respond to the dredging
problems not only in Wiggins Pass but all the passes that we have in
Collier County, and I think that maybe we need to look at user fees in
regards to that.
I also think that whoever -- whatever comes of this, we also need
to have a czar or someone that's responsible for the aids to navigation
in making sure that those are placed in the right spot. And as the
contour of the bottom of the -- whether it's a pass or whether it's a
river, that that needs to be addressed, and whether that responsibility
should remain with parks and rec., that I think that's something that
needs to be looked at also.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I only need about 10
minutes. What's so funny? No just kidding, of course. No, nothing to
add.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nothing to add?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I wouldn't dare.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I will. I want to wish
Commissioner Henning well on the upcoming election. And I guess
that's about it. I can't vote in your district, but I do wish you well.
Page 263
October 26, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And with that, the meeting is adjourned.
*****Commissioner Henning moved, and Commissioner Fiala
seconded and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted*****
Item #16A1
PROVIDE STAFF THE DIRECTION TO PREPARE A
COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE AND LISTED SPECIES
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PRESENTATION IN FEBRUARY
2005 RATHER THAN NOVEMBER 2004 BECAUSE OF DELAYS
Item #16A2
CONTRACT TO M. JEAN RAWSON P.A. REGARDING RFP 04-
3705 "LEGAL COUNSEL FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT AND
NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD" (TWO YEAR CONTRACT
WITH OPTION FOR TWO ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR
RENEWALS - ESTIMATED MAXIMUM ANNUAL CONTRACT
.AM.OllNI.-$J 5,000.00)
Item #16A3
CP-2004-08: PETITION CARNY-04-AR-6584: MR. ANTHONY C.
GNERRE, PRESIDENT, OF THE NAPLES ITALIAN AMERICAN
CLUB, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT THE ANNUAL
NAPLES IT ALlAN AMERICAN CLUB CARNIVAL ON
OCTOBER 28,29,30 AND 31, 2004, AT THE NAPLES ITALIAN
AMERICAN CLUB LOCATED AT 7035 AIRPORT ROAD NORTH
Page 264
October 26, 2004
Item #16A4 - MOVED TO ITEM #10F
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2004-329: ACKNOWLEDGING AN ERROR ON
THE RECORDED PLAT OF QUAIL WEST PHASE III, UNIT
FIVE, AND AUTHORIZING THE CLERK TO MAKE NOTATION
Item #16A6
AWARD RFP 04-3717 TO JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES,
INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,580.00, FOR CONSULTANT
SERVICES FOR A PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Item #16A7
ACCEPT ANCE OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON THE
ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE JOB CREATION INVESTMENT
PROGRAM AND THE ADVANCED BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM AND CHANGE
THE REQUIREMENT FOR QUARTERLY REPORT, TO AN
Item #16A8
CP-2004-09: PETITION CARNY-2004-AR-6640: REVEREND
JOSEPH SPINELLI, O.S.A., ST. ELIZABETH SETON CHURCH,
REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL FROM
Page 265
--..-.".......' 1M..
October 26, 2004
NOVEMBER 10, 11, 12, 13, AND 14,2004, ON THE CHURCH
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2760 52ND TERRACE SW, GOLDEN
GAIR.CI.Ty
Item #16Bl
ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM WAL-MART
STORES EAST, L.P. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIX-LANE
IMPROVEMENTS TO COLLIER BOULEVARD BETWEEN
DAVIS BOULEVARD AND U.S. 41 PROJECT NO. 60001
(ElSCA LIMP ACT.:_.$RR~,ROO )
Item #16B2
RESOLUTION 2004-330: ACQUISITION BY GIFT OR
PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN THE PROPOSED
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/ORSTORMWATERRETENTION AND
TREATMENT POND SITES, AS WELL AS PERPETUAL, NON-
EXCLUSIVE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY EASEMENTS, PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE SLOPE
EASEMENTS, AND TEMPORARY DRIVEWAY RESTORATION
EASEMENTS, AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENTS, WHICH WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS TO LOGAN BOULEVARD FROM
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD TO IMMOKALEE ROAD.
(PROJECT NO. 60166) ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT
$~,7óO,OOO.OO
Item #16B3 - MOVED TO ITEM #10G
Item #16B4
Page 266
-,~.' ~. .Plt _ ~,.'_. ",,<-
October 26, 2004
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR FUNDS FROM THE FEDERAL
TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$737,759.00, FOR THE PLANNING AND DESIGN OF THE
Item #16B5
A BUDGET AMENDMENT, FOR THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION STATE BLOCK GRANT FUNDS, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $329,989.00, TO ASSIST IN THE PROVISION
Item #16B6
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION TO ADVERTISE AND RECEIVE
BIDS FOR PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO
NEW MARKET ROAD AT CHARLOTTE STREET, ESTIMATED
EJSCA L1MP ACLl.S....$575,000 00
Item #16B7
A CHECK FROM JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $5,251.50, TO REIMBURSE THE COUNTY FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS INCURRED WITH PROCESSING
AVOIDABLE, VALUE-ADDED CHANGE ORDERS TO THE
GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD PROJECT NO. 60134, THAT WERE
Item #16B8
DELETE SECTION B.2.3. ITEMS (B) AND (D) AND ADD ITEM
(E) TO SECTION B.2.2 OF SCHEDULE B AND MODIFY
Page 267
October 26, 2004
SCHEDULE A, SECTION 5.0, ITEMS A AND C OF THE
STANDARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
AIM ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC. FOR
V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD PROJECT, FOR CONTRACT
ISSUED UNDER 04-3583 "CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING
AND INSPECTION (CEI) SERVICES FOR COUNTY ROAD
PROJECTS". (PROJECT NO. 63051) - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16B9
AUTHORIZE AND FUND THE ADDITION OF EXHIBIT #2 TO
HANSEN MASTER CONTRACT #03-3500 FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF
$257,255.00 - TO IMPLEMENT A SYSTEM TO MANAGE
ROADWAY ASSETS, WORK ORDERS AND PAVEMENT
INSPECTION AND TO PROMOTE INTERDIVISION
COORDINATION BY MAKING DATA ACCESSIBLE TO MORE
SIAEF
Item #16B10
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE
RECEIVED FROM HERITAGE BAY, FOR A SIDEWALK UNDER
PAYMENT IN LIEU OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF
$250,000 FOR THE IMMOKALEE GREENWAY FROM CR 951
IQ.J'WO MI.LES-RASLQECR 9~1
Item #16C 1
CONTRACT AMENDMENT, UNDER CONTRACT #02-3311,
"FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Page 268
October 26, 2004
SYSTEM SERVICES (GIS)" FOR COLLIER COUNTY, WITH
WILSONMILLER, INC., PROJECT 50014, IN THE AMOUNT OF
Item #16C2 - MOVED TO ITEM #10H
Item # 16C3
AWARD CONTRACT #04-3725, TO BETTER ROADS INC., IN
THE AMOUNT OF $235,945, TO RELOCATE THE ENTRANCE
ROAD TO THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY PROVIDING A NEW ACCESS FROM WILDFLOWER
WAY
Item #16C4
WAIVE THE FORMAL COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS TO
PARTICIPATE IN A QUALSERVE SELF ASSESSMENT AND
PEER REVIEW AS PART OF PROJECT #72531 AND APPROVE
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER
AND SEWER DISTRICT AND QUALSERVE IN AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $61,600.00 - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16C5
AMEND PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC. FOR THE SOUTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT, 8 MGD
REVERSE OSMOSIS EXPANSION (SCRWTP), CONTRACT 00-
3119, WORK ORDER#MP-FT-04-03, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$600,000, PROJECT 70054. - TO PROVIDE.ADDITIONAL
Page 269
October 26, 2004
PROJECT MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE SERVICES FOR THE
Item #16C6
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO WORK ORDER NO. UC-030 WITH
KYLE CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 4" FORCE MAIN
RELOCATION, CONTRACT NO. 04-3535, PROJECT 700201, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $61,200.00 - TO INCREASE THE SCOPE OF
WORK
Item #16C7
REJECT THE ONE BID RECEIVED FROM ZABATT FOR BID
#04-3647 AND RE-ADVERTISE FOR THE COUNTYWIDE
PURCHASE AND RENTAL OF GENERATORS - TO ENHANCE
RELIABILITY OF EXISTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE BY
EXPEDITING THE PROCUREMENT OF ELECTRIC
GENERATOR EQUIPMENT AS MAY BE NEEDED FOR
Item # 16C8
A PROJECT TO INTERCONNECT THE T AMIAMI AND
HAWTHORN WELLFIELDS WITH A PLANNING-LEVEL
ESTIMATED COST OF $1,560,000 AND TO 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
$750,000, PROJECT 710061 - TO INCREASE THE RELIABILITY
Page 270
October 26, 2004
Item #16C9
AWARD A WORK ORDER TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF
TAMIAMI WELL 33 UNDER THE ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CONTRACTING SERVICES, RFP
04-3535, BASED ON AN ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
NOT TO EXCEED $615,000, PROJECT 701581, GOLDEN GATE
WELL FIELD RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS - AS DETAILED
Item #16C10
WAIVE FORMAL COMPETITION AND AUTHORIZE THE
SINGLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF 46 TELEMETRY-EQUIPPED
LIFT STATION CONTROL PANELS FOR WASTEWATER
COLLECTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $204,478.00, PROJECT
73922 - TO ENSURE EFFECTIVE MONITORING OF FLOWS
AND EQUIPMENT AND BACKUP REMOTE CONTROL OF
Item #16D1
AGREEMENT WITH THE AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE
ADMINISTRATION FOR $2,100,000 FOR PARTICIPATION IN
THE UPPER PAYMENT LIMIT PROGRAM FOR SERVICES
PROVIDED ON BEHALF OF THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, AND DAVID
LAWRENCE CENTER TO GENERATE AN ADDITIONAL
$367,500 IN FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS ANNUALLY - TO
PROVIDE HUMAN SERVICES AT THE MOST EFFICIENT
Page 271
October 26, 2004
VALUE BY LEVERAGING FEDERAL FUNDS WITH EXISTING
B.IID.GEIEID ,OCA LEl..INJ)S
Item #16D2
RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$10,560 IN FY 04 AND SIGN THE BUDGET AMENDMENT TO
INCREASE HOME AND COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES
Item #16D3
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 TO
INCREASE THE OLDER AMERICAN'S ACT TITLE III-B
BUDGET AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND SENIOR
SOLUTIONS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA D/B/A AREA AGENCY
ON AGlliG
Item #16D4
AGREEMENT WITH THE AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE
ADMINISTRATION FOR $164,400 TO BE USED AS THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT MATCH FOR STATE AND FEDERAL
FUNDING TO OPERATE THE HORIZON'S PRIMARY CARE
CLINIC. - TO PROVIDE HUMAN SERVICES AT THE MOST
EFFICIENT VALUE BY LEVERAGING FEDERAL FUNDS WITH
Item #16D5
FY 05 AGREEMENT WITH THE DAVID LAWRENCE CENTER,
Page 272
October 26, 2004
INC., FOR $952,000. THESE FUNDS ARE UTILIZED TO
SUPPORT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Item #16E1
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
Item #16E2
CONTRACT AMENDMENT INVOLVING CONTRACT NO. 01-
3290 "FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES" (CPI INCREASE) - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16E3
RESOLUTION 2004-331: APPROVING THE CHANGE IN
STATUS OF THIRTEEN EMPLOYMENT CLASSIFICATIONS
FROM EXEMPT TO NON-EXEMPT UNDER THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) AND FOR THE EXECUTION OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASES - AS DETAILED
Item #16E4
RATIFY A RECOMMENDATION TO FILE SUIT FOR
RECOVERY OF REPAIR/REPLACEMENT COSTS INCURRED
BY THE COUNTY IN CONNECTION WITH PROPERTY
DAMAGE CAUSED BY A THIRD PARTY - AS DETAILED IN
Page 273
October 26, 2004
Item # 16E5
RESOLUTION 2004-332: APPROVING THE HURRICANE
CHARLEY WORKSITE AGREEMENT PROVIDING UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR FUNDS UNDER A
NATIONAL EMERGENCY GRANT TO COVER COSTS OF
TEMPORARY WORKERS USED TO CLEAN UP AFTER
HURRICANE CHARLEY-AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARy
Item #16E6
DECLARE CERTAIN COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY AS
SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZE A SALE OF THE SURPLUS
PROPERTY ON NOVEMBER 13, 2004 - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16E7
A SOLE-SOURCE PURCHASE FROM ESRI FOR ARCGIS
SERVER, GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS
SOFTWARE FOR WEB SERVICES, IN THE AMOUNT OF
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 2004-333: SUPPORTING A FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GRANT
CONTRIBUTING TO THE RENOURISHMENT OF MARCO
ISLAND SOUTH BEACH AND WITH SUBMISSION OF A
Page 274
October 26, 2004
GRANI..AEELJCA TION
Item #16F2 - WITHDRAWN
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL
AND RESCUE DISTRICT FOR SHARED USE OF FUTURE FIRE
STATION 22 AT A TOTAL COST TO THE COUNTY OF $469,530
- TO REDUCE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PURCHASING
LAND AND CONSTRUCTING EMS AND FIRE SAFETY
FACILITIES
Item #16F3
RESOLUTION 2004-334: SUPPORTING A FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GRANT
TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE RENOURISHMENT OF
V ANDERBIL T, PELICAN BAY, PARK SHORE AND NAPLES
BEACHES AND WITH SUBMISSION OF A GRANT
AEELICA TION
Item #16F4
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR FUND BOND REMISSION
PAYMENTS
Item #16Hl
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE NOVEMBER EPILEPSY
AWARENESS MONIH
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
Page 275
October 26, 2004
FOR ATTENDING THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
CELEBRATION OF THE RETURN OF COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS
TO THE NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, TO BE HELD AT THE
COMMERCIAL AIRLINES TERMINAL, ON OCTOBER 28, 2004
AS A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE, $5.00 TO BE PAID FROM
,
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING THE CHAMBER'S BUSINESS AFTER FIVE
FOR LIBERTY BANK, HELD AT 4949 TAMIAMI TRAIL N,
SUITE 107, ON OCTOBER 21,2004 AS A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ($5.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS'
IR A VELBllD.GET )
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY
RECEPTION FOR THE FLY NAPLES AIR SERVICE PROGRAM,
HELD AT THE COMMERCIAL TERMINAL, ON OCTOBER 20,
2004, AS A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ($18.00 TO BE PAID
,
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING THE UNITED ARTS COUNCIL "CELEBRATE
THE ARTS GALA DINNER", TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER
20,2004 AT THE NAPLES BEACH HOTEL, AS A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE, $95.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
Page 276
"' . !II""" ¡7 '. ","'on
October 26, 2004
EIAJ JA ' S LR A VEL.Bl.II1GET
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REEERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 277
<__.__.'_ ___"_'O",~~_
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
October 26, 2004
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for
the period:
1. Disbursements for May 29, 2004 through June 4, 2004
2. Disbursements for June 5, 2004 through June 11,2004
3. Disbursements for June 12,2004 through June 18,2004
4. Disbursements for June 19, 2004 through June 25, 2004
5. Disbursements for June 26, 2004 through July 2, 2004
6. Disbursements for July 3,2004 through July 9,2004
7. Disbursements for July 10, 2004 through July 16, 2004
8. Disbursements for July 17,2004 through July 23,2004
9. Disbursements for July 24,2004 through July 30, 2004
10. Disbursements for July 31, 2004 through August 6, 2004
11. Disbursements for August 7, 2004 through August 13,2004
12. Disbursements for August 14,2004 through August 20,2004
13. Disbursements for August 21. 2004, through August 27,2004
14. Disbursements for August 28,2004 through September 3, 2004
15. Disbursements for September 4, 2004 through September 10, 2004
16. Disbursements for September 11. 2004 through September 17,2004
17. Disbursements for September 18,2004 through September 24,2004.
18. Disbursements for September 25, 2004 through September 30, 2004.
H:Data/F ormat
,~._--
19. Disbursements for October L 2004 through October 8, 2004.
I3. Districts:
1. Cedar Hammock Community Development - Agenda and Minutes of May
10,2004; Proposed FY 2005 I3udget; Audit Report and Management
Letter.
2. Fiddler's Creek Community Development District -Agenda and Minutes
for April 28, 2004; District Map, and Description of Outstanding I3onds.
3. Fiddler's Creek Community Development District #2 - Agenda and
Minutes for June 23, 2004; Proposed I3udget for FY 2005; FY 2004
I3udget; Description of Outstanding I3onds; District Map and Registered
Officer and Agent
4. Collier Soil Water Conservation District - Proposed I3udget for FY 2004-
2005; District Map; Public Facilities Report; Description of Outstanding
I3onds; I30ard of Supervisors Schedule of Regular Meetings; and List of
Current I30ard Members.
5. Naples Heritage Community Development District - Meeting dates for FY
2005.
6. lmmokalee Fire Control District - Regular Schedule of Meetings, and
District Map.
7. East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District - Annual Financial Report;
Audit; Management Letter; 2004-05 I3udget; 2004-05 Meeting Schedule;
District Map; Registered Office and Agent; Five Year Plan.
8. Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District - Schedule of regular
Meetings for FY 2005; Proposed I3udget FY 2005; District Map;
Registered Office and Agent.
9. Mediterra South Community Development District - Agenda and Minutes
of Meeting for May 26,2004; Proposed I3udget for FY 05; Description of
Outstanding I3onds; Registered Office and Agent.
10. Heritage Greens Community Development District -Agenda and Minutes
of March 8, 2004 and Agenda and Minutes of May 10,2004; Registered
Office and Agent; September 30, 2004 I3udget; Audit Report; Proposed
I3udget for 2005; and Schedule of regular meetings for FY 2005.
H:Data/Format
11. North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District - Annual Financial Report
for FY 2004; Registered Office and Agent; Public Facilities Report; Audit
Report; Proposed Budget for 2005; Schedule of Meeting for FY
2005;Management Letter; Rebuttal to management letter; district map; and
district five year plan.
12. Port of the Islands Community District -Agenda and Minutes for May 21,
2004, June 25, 2004, and July 23,2004; Proposed budget for FY 2005;
General Fund Revenues for March 31, 2004.
13. Pelican Marsh Community Development District - Meeting Schedule for
FY 2005.
C. Minutes:
1. Pelican Bay Services - Agenda for October 7, 2004; Minutes of
September 1, 2004.
a) Budget Sub-Committee Minutes for September 15, 2004.
b) Clam Bay Sub-Committee - Agenda for October 6, 2004, Minutes
of August 4, 2004.
2. Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for October 19, 2004;
Minutes of September 21, 2004.
3. Collier County Library Advisory Board - Agenda for September 22,
2004; Minutes of September 14, 2004.
4. Development Services Advisory Board - Minutes for September 1, 2004.
5. Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for October 13,2004;
Minutes of September 8, 2004.
6. Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for October 7, 2004;
Minutes of August 19, 2004.
7. Collier County Emergency Medical Services Advisory Board - Minutes of
August 31, 2004.
8. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. - Agenda for October 13,
2004; Minutes of September 8, 2004.
9. Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. - Agenda for October 21, 2004.
10. Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Agenda for
October 20, 2004; Minutes of September 15, 2004.
H:DatalFormat
11. Lely Golf Estates Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for October 21,2004;
Minutes of September 16, 2004.
12. Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force - Minutes for February 25,2004,
and April 28, 2004.
13. Collier County Citizen Advisory Task Force - Agenda and Minutes for
June 10, 2004.
D. Other:
1) Guy L. Carlton, Collier County Tax Collector - Letter regarding county taxes
for the 2003 tax roll.
2) Letter from the Florida Department of Revenue to Guy L. Carlton regarding
the Final 2004-2005 Budget.
3) Guy L. Carlton, Collier County Tax Collector - Letter with attachment for
2004-2005 Budget Amendment.
H:Data/Format
October 26, 2004
Item #16Jl
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 FOR THE
PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1,2004 THROUGH OCTOBER 15, 2004.
THIS REPORT IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AND REVIEW
Item #16Kl
MAKING OF AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS,
ARMANDO A. LAMBERT AND ALGIS L. MADOS, FOR
PARCEL NO. 208 IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,000.00 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ARMANDO A.
LAMBERT, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-2132-CA. (IMMOKALEE ROAD
PROJECT NO. 60018)-AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARY
Item #16K2
AGREED ORDER AND PAYMENT OF EXPERT FEES FOR
PARCELS 179/179T IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. DR. FRANCISCO CORTINA, ET AL., CASE NO. 00-
0936-CA. (GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD PROJECT #63041) -
$7350.00 TO THE EARLE & PATCHEN TRUST ACCOUNT ON
Item #16K3
Page 278
October 26, 2004
WAIVE THE PURCHASING POLICY AS ALLOWED UNDER
SECTION VI.G. OF THE POLICY AND APPROVE A
RETENTION AGREEMENT WITH THE LAW FIRM OF GARVIN
& TRIPP, P.A., TO REPRESENT THE COUNTY IN COMPLEX
LITIGATION INCLUDING LAND USE MATTER AND FURTHER
APPROVE THE OPENING OF A PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE
FIRM TO DEFEND THE COUNTY'S INTERESTS IN THE CASE
OF CENTURY DEVELOPMENT, ET AL. V. JEB BUSH, ET AL. AS
WELL AS IN POTENTIALLY RELATED PURPORTED BERT
HARRIS ACT CLAIMS-AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARy
Item #16K4
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE RETENTION AGREEMENT WITH
THE LAW FIRM OF CARLTON, FIELDS, WARD, EMMANUEL
& SMITH, P.A., AND SPECIFICALLY RATIFY AND
AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE ORDER FOR SERVICES BY THE
FIRM IN THE CASE OF COLLIER COUNTY V. UNITED
ENGINEERING CORPORATION, INC., CASE NO. 04-3363-CA
AND RELATED MATTERS-AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARY
Item #16K5
SELECTION OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES,
INC. FOR RFP-04-3685 "COURT REPORTING SERVICE FOR
COLLIER COUNTy"
Item #16K6
SETTLEMENT IN THE KELLY V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO.
Page 279
,.----
October 26, 2004
02-4394-CA, PURSUANT TO WHICH THE COUNTY WOULD
PAY $18,000 AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE COUNTY
WOULD BE RELEASED. SETTLEMENT WAS ARRIVED AT
DURING SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND PRIOR TO
ARBITRATION-AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARy
Item # 1 7 A
ORDINANCE 2004-68: SE-04-AR-5430 AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING ORDINANCE 2000-79, THE HAMMOCK PARK
COMMERCE CENTRE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR DUE TO AN OMISSION
OF AN INTENDED REVISION TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
CONTAINED WITHIN THE PUD DOCUMENT AND TO
CORRECT THE PUD NAME WITHIN THE ORDINANCE LISTED
AS "HAMMOCK PARK OF COMMERCE", WHICH SHOULD BE
"HAMMOCK PARK COMMERCE CENTRE"; FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2004-69: SE-04-AR-5777 AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING ORDINANCE 04-15, THE TERAFINA PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S
ERROR RESULTING FROM THE UNINTENTIONAL OMISSION
OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP NUMBER 86165 IN THE
TITLE OF THE TRANSMITTAL COpy OF THE ADOPTED
ORDINANCE SENT TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
APPROXIMATEL Y ONE MILE NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD
Page 280
October 26, 2004
(CR 846) IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER CO~A
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2004-70: SE-04-AR-5776, AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING ORDINANCE 04-20, THE CALUSA ISLAND
VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO
CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR RESULTING FROM AN
INCORRECT OFFICIAL ZONING MAP NUMBER CONTAINED
IN THE TITLE OF THE TRANSMITTAL COpy OF THE
ADOPTED ORDINANCE THAT WAS SENT TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
SOUTH OF GOODLAND DRIVE AND EAST OF THE CALUSA
MARINA IN SECTIONS 18 & 19, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH,
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2004-335: PUDEX-2004-AR-6249 TAMIAMI
SOUTHWEST LLC, REPRESENTED BY CHRIS HAGAN, OF
JOHNSON ENGINEERING AND JEFF KANNENSOHN, OF
PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR, REQUESTING A
TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ZONING GRANTED BY ORDINANCE
NO. 99-37, PURSUANT TO LDC SECTION 2.7.3.4.6 (LDC
SECTION 10.02 13.D) FOR THE VINCENTIAN PUD. THE
PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 30.7 ACRES, IS LOCATED IN
THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF
SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD AND U.S. 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL), IN
SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
Page 281
October 26, 2004
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:51 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
DONNA
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
;\ :..~:~~:::.
~t~~œI~ ,Ü~.
i 'rtî~~i¡{ùte~.,~ptoved by the Board on ì1 ~ . .30, 7..00'f , as
presented· . . . .~/;7 , or as corrected
,
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC. BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM AND
TERRI LEWIS
Page 282